Oh-WUH!! I'm sorry, Jared... I just can't swallow this pill. Places like Thinklings and the BHT are making me reconsider the idea of individual election and take it much more seriously than I ever have done before (coming, as I do, from a background that takes free will for granted), but... but...

That post (and don't worry, I *have* read it all) just seems... so... well, the bit you quote:

"Remember that tsunami that killed all those unsuspecting people? God did that."

It just sounds GLEEFUL. I'm sure the author does grieve for the hundreds of thousands of people who went to Hell that day, but he... well... he DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT. And that scares me.

And while I respect and understand what he's trying to say with his statement that

"God has absolutely no respect for us. We are reputed as nothing before Him. Isaiah 40:12-17 teaches us that the nations are just a speck of dust on the scales, a drop of water in a bucket. He regards us as less than nothing, as meaningless. Isaiah 40:21-26 calls us grasshoppers..."

and I appreciate his clarification in the following paragraph, it doesn't seem to tally, for me, with, for instance (and this might be a poor example, cos it's just off the top of my head), how angry and broken-hearted Jesus is over the rebellious children of Israel, e.g. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often have I longed to gather you..."

Well it seems a bad example, but I think what I mean is if God's attitude to us is like an ant farmer to his product, then how come Jesus, the very imprint of the divine nature, is so profoundly angered and hurt by our disobedience? D'you know what I mean?

It's just... RRRRRRRR!!! I read his article, and it sounds like he's saying (and this is by no means what I hear many Calvinists saying, just what I hear this guy saying) - it's like he's saying, "It's almost blasphemy to be anything less than completely happy about 400,000 people going to Hell in a tsunami." I'm sorry but that's what he sounds like.

I'm sure I'm reacting wrongly somewhere. Just please tell me where...

EN, I totally understand what you're saying. But I'll let Robert answer your question(s), and I encourage you to reprint your comment here there (if you haven't already).

For my part, I will say this:
I do think it's possible to overstate the idea that "God has no respect for us." But I don't see any glee in the statement that "God did the tsunami." The alternative seems to me that natural occurences like that take place without God's permission or control, and I just can't swallow that pill. And at the same time, the Bible does show us examples of God killing people, not always "guilty," as we think of guilty, people either.

Ok, first off, i haven't read the article, and understand i should before commenting, and i will read the article when i have more time, as i am at work at the moment. with that said, isn't there a difference between "God did the tsunami", and "God allowed the tsunami"? I don't believe God 'caused' or 'did' it, since our God is one of life, but rather yet God ALLOWED it from some greater reason that we don't always see right now. In this case, i know these countries, especially Sri Lanka, are more open to the gospel than ever before. Maybe that is why GOd ALLOWED it to happen; what Satan meant for evil, God turns to good.

If we are really insignificant to God, then that wholly legitimises our indifference to one another. God thinks I'm a worthless piece of dust, and so I think you are too. We are to love because God loved us first, and this is our mandate for loving one another, and this is also what God practises in Christ.

I suspect, though cannot yet prove, that when people write articles like this and talk about 'sovereignty', they are actually describing aloofness and God's being arbitrary, rather than seeing sovereignty as God upholding the world.

Well, I won't speak for Robert, but when I speak of God's sovereignty I don't mean to imply a loveless, arbitrary God. Of course, God's free will can sometimes seem arbitrary to us, especially since God does a horrible job of telling us exactly why He does everything. ;-)

I believe in an actively sovereign God and a loving God, because I believe the Bible teaches both that God is sovereign (and holy!) and that God is love. Any discrepancy discerned between the two concepts I trust is not inherent to an actual incompatibility in the concepts, but rather the result of my confusion and presumptions.

It just sounds GLEEFUL.

Well, I didn't type it gleefully. If we're going to come to grips with God's sovereignty, we have to acknowledge that God caused that tsunami.

I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:6-7)

God is not apologetic about this and we cannot be, either. God did it. I don't know why, and I certainly take have joy or glee because of it. But as Job said, "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10).

if God's attitude to us is like an ant farmer to his product, then how come Jesus, the very imprint of the divine nature, is so profoundly angered and hurt by our disobedience?

I thought that it would be clearer when I wrote: "Now remember, this is the God who died for us! When the Bible says He regards us as meaningless, the best way to understand this is that He does not regard our strength, will, etc. We cannot stand up to Him. He is a loving Father to the elect, but we are nothing before our Father and our King."

When Isaiah and Daniel describe God's attitude towards us of regarding us as nothing, less than nothing, a speck of dust, a drop of water - it does not mean He does not care, deeply, for us. But He still does not regard us, our will, our strength, our rights, as some mighty and inviolable force that He must reckon with, and rule without offending us or violating our wills and rights.

isn't there a difference between "God did the tsunami", and "God allowed the tsunami"?

Yes. God caused the tsunami. In Him we live and move and have our being, right? So if He isn't absolutely in control, then who or what is?

what Satan meant for evil, God turns to good.

Later posts will show that God, not Satan, is the primary cause. E.g., God used Satan to tempt David to punish Israel. God acts, not reacts.

God thinks I'm a worthless piece of dust, and so I think you are too.

Amazingly enough, God loves this worthless piece of dust! Despite my lowliness.

I believe in an actively sovereign God and a loving God

Because God is undivided, we can't separate out aspects of Him. It's not like He's one part holy and one part justice and ten parts love. He just is.

You can't consider God's sovereignty apart from His holiness and mercy. They are not independent forces, but attributes of Him. I'm not so much trying to teach sovereignty as an abstract idea, but rather the God who is sovereign. The same God who died for us.

Because God is undivided, we can't separate out aspects of Him. It's not like He's one part holy and one part justice and ten parts love. He just is.

Robert, I agree. I hope you don't assume from my comment that I don't.
I was just trying to demonstrate precisely that I think seeing a division between the attributes of God is bringing our presumptions to the theological task.

One great little book that speaks to these issues is D.A. Carson's The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. In it he talks about how we can't speak of God's attributes or actions -- particularly as he appears to "love" some but "hate" others -- as if they are "hermetically sealed" off from each other.

If, without the regenerating work of the holy spirit, none of us are inclined to seek God, then on what basis, do you think the elect were chosen for salvation? If it is not based upon anything we do, then what is the basis of election? Why would God create someone knowing that he would never enable that person to choose him? In other words, what makes one person, who God enabled to believe and be saved, better than another guy, who just happened to be unlucky enough not to be elect? I know the answer will be, based on the sovereign will of God. But, I think we would all agree that God doesn't do anything arbitrarily. So, what is the basis of his decision?

Aristotelian aesthetics posing as biblical argument ;)

Hey, all truth is God's truth, eh?
;-)

I am having a hard time understanding why people would rather have God personally murder 1000's of innocent men, women, and children rather than have a God that merely allows the random acts of nature to occur?

Exactly what is so comforting about a God who indiscriminately slaughters millions every day? I take comfort in the fact that when a tsunami kills innocent people, the only one to blame is plate tectonics.

Exactly why would you worship this bloodthirsty God? Out of fear? Thousands of Christians are murdered or killed everyday, so that can't be it.

Of course, this is the same God that created certain people who were eternally predestined for eternal torment with no hope of salvation, right? This God that massacres the living on earth also massacres the souls of whoever he wants for any reason he wants, right?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Obviously I'm framing this idea in more extreme terms, but please explain to me where I have misrepresented 5-point Calvinism. You have a sovereign God who punishes people before they are born for choices they never freely made and then causes tsunamis and Holocausts and plagues and SIDs and drunk drivers to kill millions and then sends the ones to Hell that he didn't pick prior to their birth. Wow, sounds like a loving and just God, doesn't it? But, you say, we are totally depraved, so we deserve it! Well, if God created us that way, then it's still his fault, isn't it!

When people blame mayhem and torture on God, it offends me. God is not the author of evil. God is not the artist of misery. God did not create man in order that he might torture and kill them. He created us to have relationship with him. He created us to love us.

Sorry if this sounds aggressive, but sometimes I just can't take it when people misrepresent God based on some weak prooftexts they heard from John Piper. All throughout the Bible we see God asking people to make choices and dealing with them based on what they choose. The Bible asks us to Choose. The Bible makes the case and then says "Now what will you do?". To take away our free choice is to take away whole reason for the Bible, the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice, the whole basis for morality and Christianity. To take away random acts of cruelty, be it by man or nature, is to reduce God into Jack the Ripper.

Phil, there are so many mischaracterizations, presumptions, and misunderstandings in your comment, it's hard to know where to begin.
But then you write this -- I just can't take it when people misrepresent God based on some weak prooftexts they heard from John Piper. -- and I know not to bother beginning at all.

If that's what you think we are doing, and if your preceding rant is how you think we feel and believe, I know it would be fruitless to try relieving you of these stereotypes and strawmen.

Hey Robert, thanks for responding to my whinge! Was going to post a comment on your own blog, as per Jared's advice in comment no. 2, only, y'know how it is, I had to get to the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy for 7.30 and I didn't have time.

I do appreciate the qualification you made in the paragraph after the one I quoted, and I'm grateful you made it. And I appreciate that if one's to have any kind of doctrine of the sovereignty of God that hangs together, one's going to have to get used to the fact that he could have stopped the tsunami, but he didn't, so he MUST have wanted it to happen, or at least been satisfied that it was right.

But even with that qualifying paragraph, I feel like there's a tendency in your post to say "we are worthless", rather than "our self-proclaimed rights are worthless", and I think that's a conflation we need to be careful of making. No indeed, before God we can't quote the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the UN Charter, Arminius, Voltaire, Roger Forster or anyone; with that I agree. But...

It's late and I'm tired, and this dissertation I'm supposed to be doing ain't gonna proof-read itself, so forgive me if this sounds harsh or like a ridiculously broad brush, but, like you say, we worship a God of judgement AND love AND sovereignty all wrapped up into one blindingly holy whole, and the emphasis that a lot of your article really does seem (*seem*, I know!) to put on the idea that *we* are negligible - that doesn't seem Biblical. God doesn't kill us because we're unimportant and He has a right to be capricious. He didn't do the tsunami for his health, or just to show he could.

Because we ARE

BOTHER BOTHER BOTHER!! Pressed post by mistake. Am clearly very daft.

Sorry... As I was saying:

Because we ARE, in fact, important. I'm sorry but we are. That's the thing I take issue with. And I think that's Biblical, not humanistic. That's why our sin is so offensive to God. That's why the prophets delivered messages of God's white-hot anger against the people's rebellion: because it MATTERED, because we were originally designed to matter, because our rebellion isn't just a minor itch to powerful God, it's a BIG insult, because He ordained that we should matter when he made us!

I'm sorry to shout, Robert. And everyone, I'm sorry to shout. That's all I wanted to say, anyway. I'm probably not saying it very well. I'm off to go and get a cup of tea.

So long, and thanks for all the fish =o)

English Nathan, can I just say that I love you, brother? You are my favorite "new" regular.

Just thought I'd tell you that.

Awww shucks!!! Well - I'm an unemployed dude with broadband and a dissertation, so you'll be seeing some more of me!

And I'm deciding I'm bored with being "English". I picked it up cos there was another Nathan who posted on the BHT, but then we all got kicked out cos some guys started throwing chairs around; you know how it is. It wuzz'n me.

You're my favouri.... actually no. Macy is my favourite
Thinkling. Sorry.

ENOUGH. To work.

And it's YELLOW.

Hmmm. In that case, Phil A.'s my new favorite, even though he thinks I get my theology from someplace other than the Bible and that I'm happy when God kills people. At least he (probably) knows the Gatorade is green!

Green I tells ya!

Well, he's not on record as having stated a position as yet. If free-willers are yellow (my theory, as one, albeit an open-minded one) then he should be on my side.

There seem to be three rubbing points here: responsibility, purpose/intent, and "goodness"

1) Responsibility: The difference between "God caused..." vs. "God allowed..." (the tsunami, 9/11, whatever) is whether or not God is *actively* responsible or *passively* response for what happens. We must ask, "Does the Scripture say, 'God causes...' or 'God allows...' whatever to happen?" Also, look at the word "response+able". If God was able to respond (e.g., stop the murderer, prevent the disease, etc.), whether actively or passively, we must accept that God is responsible so long as we accept that He was able to response (act). The only other options are divine impotence ("God couldn't stop it") or divine irresponsibility ("God could stop it, but won't because let's man and random forces of nature run the show").

2) Purpose/Intent: Are God's acts random and without purpose (just for the sake of expressing sovereignty), or are they with specific intent or purpose?

3) Corollary to this, is such a purpose "good" (morally speaking)?

Romans 8:28 (ya'll know it):
"And we know that for those who love God all things
work together for good [text note], for those who are
called according to his purpose."

(text note: Some manuscripts "God works all things together for good", or "God works in all things for the good")

Whether your translation reads, "God causes," "God works" or whatever, the passage is grammatically clear that God is the subject (the one acting) and the events of this world ("all things") is being acted upon by the actor.

Exactly what is so comforting about a God who indiscriminately slaughters millions every day?

Phil, to ask that question in that way (using the word "indiscriminately") demonstrates common misunderstanding of the traditional view of Sovereignty. The Biblical model of God's involvement in the events of this world is that He works according to His plan for the good of His people --- or, as Romans 28:8 states, "...for those who love God... who are called according to his purpose." That is not "indiscriminate", random or capricious at all. Rather, He is just taking care of those that are His, and to the rest He has no obligation as they are not reconciled to Him in Christ, and thus are not His children.

"Exactly why would you worship this bloodthirsty God? Out of fear? Thousands of Christians are murdered or killed everyday, so that can't be it."

The problem here relates to the third issue: Toward what "good" end is God causing "all things" to work together, for those that are His? Herein I see a lot of "I don't believe it because I don't want to!" rejection of a position. This effectively sets up an emotional litmus test by which we get a "comfortable" image of God, then read the Bible according to those presuppositions about who He is according to who we want Him to be -- or more typically, who we don't want Him to be. Since you brought up Christians who are "murdered or killed everyday", you could be referring to martyrdom or just common street violence, etc. The hardest question to answer (impossible on this side of the grave in many cases) is the "What good was meant to come of this?" question, asked by grieving families, victims, and entire countries. The problem here is that we are expecting an answer that *we* judge to be "good" -- as in morally good or otherwise beneficial to us in the immediate -- to explain God's actions. The presumptuousness is evident. The questions should not be, "How is this [difficult event] good for me?" but rather, "How is this [difficult event] good for God's purposes and serve to glorify Him?" We should thank Him when we lets us see the answer to that question, which can take a lifetime some times. We should also not discount that God could be using difficult events to chastize His children (another non-warm-fuzzy concept rejected by the "God has to be nice to me at all times" crowd).

But in the more usual event that we cannot see how certain events work for good, then we are left with either denying His sovereignty (false doctrine of divine irresponsibility), denying his goodness (false doctrine of divine indifference), or simply trusting that we cannot know or judge every move of His but trust that His ways and actions have purpose in His plan. On the Holy Spirit, which supplies us with the peace that surpasses all understanding, can keep us from the formers and to walk strong in the latter.

"There seem to be three rubbing points here: responsibility, purpose/intent, and "goodness" " Actually - if you caught the gatorade moments - there are four points - the fourth being "Green-ness". But anyway.

Is it not possible that the answer is somewhere in between? (about God and the tsunami I mean - not the green-ness of that stuff) I don't think we always know why something bad happens - I mean - who caused it. Yes we know that God is ultimately in control... but how do we always know which bad things were Satan, which were God's discipline, or which were just cause we live in a fallen world? Example - several Decembers ago I went down hard with pneumonia. Someone from my church emailed me and said I must be under attack by Satan. My response was "Huh! I thought it was just germs." In retrospect, I think it was neither. I believe it was discipline for a little sin problem I was having. (And dogged if I didn't get the same spanking this past December for the SAME sin. Doh! Slow learner!) We see times in the Bible when God sent the suffering, other times when the suffering "just happened", and times when it was evil people doing evil things. (Stephen's stoning comes to mind and Jezebel's antics) I don't know if God would have bothered to tell us that He "works all things to the good" if He were actively doing everything in the first place. What working to the good would be necessary? Of course - ultimately - since He is in control... it doesn't really matter whether He pushed the tsunami or just watched it go. It is an uncomfortable reality that God does allow massive amounts of human suffering. BUT when considered in light of eternity - our suffering here is only a blink. Whether I understand or not (and I'd lean towards NOT), I'm with Peter "Where else am I going to go Lord? You have the words of life.";"0

I know someone will say something about my traditional Christian thinking or they will believe I am mixed up. However many and plenty of Bible scholars and theologians agree with this simple mind. But here goes anyway. Why is it so hard to believe that all-powerful means that God chooses to control everything that happens? Everything is ultimately under his control but that does not mean He chooses to control every thing. Scripture indicates that He allows Satan to do evil and He allows people to make choices. He could stop then at any point and He sometimes has a greater good for not stopping them but I truly believe there is plenty of scriptural arguments for God allowing things to happen without causing them.

Phil in CA

For myself, a nonCalvinisticUnArminian, or, as I like to put it, a "huge fan of the soveriegnty of God or, as many would say, "shallow and confused" :-) - you have stated the case very well. I dig what you just wrote and wanted to tell ya

BlestWithSons - your last line . . . fabulous!

I meant to say that why is it hard to believe that even though God is all powerful He could choose not to control every single event or individual.

Darrel, it's not that hard, really.

What I think we all need to get past, folks on both sides, is the idea that the other side is willfully choosing some sort of deficient view of God. I know it just seems so obvious to some of you that the God of Calvinism is a heartless tyrant and that Calvinism is a loveless, prooftexted doctrine. But you know what? It seems obvious to me that the God of Arminianism is a cosmic pushover, a providential pansy kowtowing to the sovereignty of man.

Do you object to that? Then you get a sense of my frustration at comments like Phil A.'s.

The assumption that our "opponent" desires anything but a biblical view is not a polite one. Most Calvinists, myself included, are not so much interested in what feels good or what sounds right or easy (or hard), but in what is true. I go on good faith that my Arminian brethren desire the same.

Polemic and presumptions cannot replace explication of Scripture and sound reasoning. So instead of asking why is it so hard to believe God respects our free will, why not present a Bible verse or passage that you believe demonstrates God respecting man's free will.

I think God allows us to make choices, but would not allow someone to do something that would thwart his ultimate plan. There are some events that are predetermined to happen. They cannot be altered. For example, Jesus' death and the salvation it brought could not have been derailed by anyone. God ordained it to happen the way it did. However, I do not believe God forces anyone to serve him, even indirectly. While the bible says that no one can come to him unless the holy spirit draws him, I do think that it can be resisted. Why else does God say, speaking of Israel, "How long will I continue to hold out my hands to a disobedient and obstinant people?" Based on the Calvinist doctrine of election, this statement makes no sense. Why would God continue to strive with disobedient and obstinant people? If they were elect, they would believe and if not, why would he continue to worry about them? But either way, he would clearly not have to continue to concern himself with their disobedience, unless he truly "desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

I also agree with the previous poster concerning the sovereignty of God vs. free will. I don't think that it in any way undermines God's sovereignty to allow human beings to have free will. On the contrary, refusing to allow him that right, undermines his sovereignty.

I agree that human beings are not able to seek God on their own, that is why the bible says the holy spirit must first draw us to God. Therefore, I am not insinuating that we are doing anything to actively save ourselves. We just merely respond to the call or decide to ignore it. Apart from God's active intervention in our lives, we could not come to him. That much I agree with. But I can't go as far as to say that I believe that his call is irresistable. There are too many examples in the bible of people disobeying and refusing to do what God wanted them to do. They resisted his will. Surely God does not like sin, but yet we sin. Does allowing sin somehow undermine his sovereignty? Of course not. God could refuse to allow sin. He could make all people worship him. He could do a lot of things that he doesn't choose to do. Having the power and authority to do something does not make one required to exercise that authority.

Bill,
Re my last line... yeah - it's one of my life verses. A little less impressive in that capacity than Jer 29:11 or The Great Commission or...but it's mine nonetheless. Sometimes I think all you can do is tie a knot at the end of your rope and hang on! But then - scripture does say that we have an anchor beyond the veil - does it not?

How does God's sovereignty work with the life of Jesus. Was everything Jesus did predestined or was it a free human act?

Must not the humanity of Jesus should be the method by which we understand God's sovereighnty in human affairs?

But, I think we would all agree that God doesn't do anything arbitrarily. So, what is the basis of his decision?

Romans 9

15..."I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory...

Is Jesus case the same as ours?
Or am I being either naive or heretical for asking the question?

Jesus did everything that he, the Father, and the Spirit had decided he would do in eternity past (if eternity past is a legitimate concept). So his actions on earth, as a real man, were entirely free and entirely predestined- they were what he had always planned to do, always known he would do, and what he wanted to do at the moment in which he did them.
Is this then the same as us? I don't see an exact identity-Jesus is the God-man, and we are distinct from God in a way that he is not.
But God has still decided what we will do without destroying the fact that we purpose it. You could still say of us that our acts are wholly free and wholly predestined, without contradicting yourself according to the rules of classical logic. Do you reckon, Richard?

Why else does God say, speaking of Israel, "How long will I continue to hold out my hands to a disobedient and obstinant people?" Based on the Calvinist doctrine of election, this statement makes no sense. Why would God continue to strive with disobedient and obstinant people?

You could also ask whether or not God hardens the heart of some, and then sends a prophet that God knows will be disregarded, so that He can judge and punish the people. The answer is "yes"

God tells us in the Bible that he knows ahead of time that His Word will be refused, and in fact, God will harden the hearts so that they will refuse. See Exo. 4:

21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Here, God tells Moses right up front that because of God's work in Pharaoh, Pharaoh would refuse to let the people go.

In Exo 5, the Israelites were in more trouble than ever before!

In chapter 7, God again..well, I'll let God say it:

2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it."

We don't know why or how God chooses - but the Bible does say that He does things in order to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy.

How does God's sovereignty work with the life of Jesus. Was everything Jesus did predestined or was it a free human act?

If an event was prophecied, is it predestined?

How much of Jesus' life was lived in order to fulfill prophecy? (I'll give you 4 to get you started...)

Matt 1:22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:

Matt 2:17 And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Matt 2:23 So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Matt 4:14to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:

Phil A. said;

"I am having a hard time understanding why people would rather have God personally murder 1000's of innocent men, women, and children rather than have a God that merely allows the random acts of nature to occur?"

Is this not one and the same thing. His implication is either that, God has no control over His creation or, that God sets things into motion as the divine force and then allows the chips to fall, IOW; Deism.

As far as Jesus fulfilling prophecies;
Luke 24: On the Road to Emmaus
25And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken! 26Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and ALL the Prophets, he interpreted to them in ALL the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

I really believe scripture allows for a middle ground in this area. Theologians tend to go to one of two extremes. That is why I don't like to label people Calvinist or Arminian (Eeven though I realize that is just a logical way of explaining our point of scriptural views) because we I just want to be a Christian with a certain view of scripture.
Read Exodud 32 and it seems God allows Moses to change his mind. God is sovereign and certainly does not have to change his mind but the Bible seems to say he did and is full of examples of this. Abraham, Elijah and Hezekiah just to name a few. James i talkinng about healing both physically and spiritially says prayer is powerful and effective. (James 5:16) I really feel scripture stands between the two extremes of robots or puppets and those who compromise say God has a progessive will and can predict the future but does not determine it. One thing for sure is we must take each verse we study of God's Word in context with the rest of scripture.
I do agree that their certain things that are God's will and will not be changed but there are other things which he allows free will.

By the way I have often heard people make the claim that God does not hear the prayers of non-Christians. Doesn't that contradict the scriptural thought that we cannot come to Him without the Holy Spirit working in our lives? I think God hears the prayers of anyone he chooses.

When the subject of "predestination" came up when I was a teenager, it gave me a headache.

If we believe in a God that is outside of time, that knows everything that was, that is and that is to come, then He knows the choices that we will make. If God already knows these things, then they must be. If they must be, they are pre-ordained. If they are pre-ordained, then how can I choose any differently?

Unless I am an "open-theist" (I am not) then I must believe that my future is already ordained. If my future is already ordained, how can my will be truly free, since the choices that I make are already decided?

Now, I am content to rest in the assurance that Somebody way smarter than I am is in control of my future.

God is sovereign and certainly does not have to change his mind but the Bible seems to say he did

I do not deny the free will of God.

prayer is powerful and effective

Yes, of course. God has ordained that effects shall not occur without causes. And he has granted us the incredible privilege of acting as causes to some of his foreordained effects.

I really feel scripture stands between the two extremes of robots or puppets

Right. But I don't think anyone here is arguing that we are either robots or puppets. That is a wrongminded stereotype of the respective views.

Look, Calvinists don't deny the reality of the will, the presence of human choice. They only deny its relative freedom, particularly as it pertains to salvation. Dead bodies can't resurrect themselves.

I have no idea, really, what your comment #36 is about. I don't understand it, really. I believe God can hear everything. But even if He couldn't, I don't see how that would contradict the Spirit acting in people's lives.
But I don't really get what you're saying there, anyway.

Ellen has quoted several passages/verses. Any take on those by anybody?
These convos always seem to boil down to scripture vs. emotional appeals. That was the inner struggle I dealt with when "converting" to Calvinism. I first submitted to what I believe is biblically true before I came to like it. I still don't understand it all, but I love God for who He is, not just for what He does, and I am ever amazed at his amazing grace.

Can we see, perhaps, a Scripture reference to free will after the Fall? Not just someone making a decision (since, again, Calvinists don't deny people make choices). But an actual reference to how humans are able to choose.

They are there, but I don't believe they support Arminianism.

Now, I am content to rest in the assurance that Somebody way smarter than I am is in control of my future.

Yes!

This is sort of what I was trying to convey in my recent post on my "emotional acceptance" of Calvinism. I outlined the questions I asked myself related to why I was so upset about God being in control of me, etc.
I recall it made people angry, which sort of illustrates the inner struggle I went through back then, as well.

I don't see now what's so upsetting about believing in a very big, in-control God. Well, I do -- it's unsettling, because to believe God is in control is to believe we are not, and that can be an unsettling and confusing thing. We like God "safe" and gentlemanly.

But Aslan is not a tame lion. ;-)

I am saying there are many (None here that I see) do support the view of puppets. I have read writings by them but would have to look again to give you the authors. SO no it is not necessarily a wrong stereotype of some people. I was simply stating there are two extremes to this issue and many of us are in the middle.
Even those of us who believe highly in free will don't deny that without Christ making it possible and working in our lives salvation would not be possible.
As for comment #36 it is just a question unrelated to this topic. I just wondered other opinion. When I was a youth pastor I had a mother tell her daughter (Who prayed daily) that until she accepted Jesus God would not hear her prayers anyway.

By the way I have often heard people make the claim that God does not hear the prayers of non-Christians. Doesn't that contradict the scriptural thought that we cannot come to Him without the Holy Spirit working in our lives? I think God hears the prayers of anyone he chooses.

If I am understanding your question right, it doesn't contradict it at all - it confirms it.

The Holy Spirit works in our lives so that we believe (Philippians 1:29), we believe and then God hears us.

When I was a youth pastor I had a mother tell her daughter (Who prayed daily) that until she accepted Jesus God would not hear her prayers anyway.

Why bother praying to a God that you don't believe in? In James, it says (my paraphrase) that if you don't ask in faith, you won't receive anything from the Lord. If you don't have faith, you cannot be a believer.

have faith --> believer --> God gives

no faith --> not a believer --> For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord (James 1:7)

I understand the why bother question but this was a young girl who believed but was not mature enough to accept him as Lord and Savior.
Another example would be someone who has never accepted Christ or given their life to him, yet when they are going to have surgery they pray to God for it to go well. That kind of thing.

I guess I still don't understand why this is a problem. Even demons believe - and shudder.

If this mother uses Scripture to tell her daughter that God answers the prayers of those who have faith - why is this a problem?

And Scripture would seem to tell us that the unbeliever who is going into surgery - his or her prayers will not be answered (although the prayers of the believers around may be)

Its not really a problem just a question.

Jared, re #8, yes, you and I are in agreement. Didn't mean to sound like I was arguing.

Nathan,
if one's to have any kind of doctrine of the sovereignty of God that hangs together, one's going to have to get used to the fact that he could have stopped the tsunami, but he didn't, so he MUST have wanted it to happen

It's even stronger than that. God invented plate tectonics. He defined the physical laws and constants of the universe. And - assuming His omniscience extends to the future - as He was laying this out, He knew the tsunami would come. It came because of the universe He created, and the physical laws He established. He was not surprised by the tsunami. He was responsible for it.

the emphasis that a lot of your article really does seem (*seem*, I know!) to put on the idea that *we* are negligible - that doesn't seem Biblical.

The Bible says that God counts us as "less than nothing". We are lowly, we are nothing. But God loves us anyway, to His glory! That's the whole point of Psalm 8. Man is nothing. God has exalted us because He loves us. (And wrt Psalm 8, man is only "exalted" with respect to the rest of creation, not with respect to God.)

That's why our sin is so offensive to God. That's why the prophets delivered messages of God's white-hot anger against the people's rebellion: because it MATTERED, because we were originally designed to matter, because our rebellion isn't just a minor itch to powerful God, it's a BIG insult, because He ordained that we should matter when he made us!

Actually, I think it is our lowliness that makes our rebellion so offensive.

We don't have any rights before God. The elect graciously have standing - in Christ - as children, but the non-elect don't even have that (except for common grace). Apart from the grace of God, we've got nothing at all. We don't have rights. The best of us as still bought with a price; the worst of us are rebels. We are made from DIRT!

Blestwithsons, Yes we know that God is ultimately in control... but how do we always know which bad things were Satan, which were God's discipline, or which were just cause we live in a fallen world?

But in all of these cases, God is responsible. Satan is not free - he is bound by God. He's a roaring lion, but he is on a leash. Not to mention, God created the devil, full well knowing what Satan would do.

Some things happen according to the natural laws of this universe. But remember that God created those laws! He cursed the universe. It was still all His doing. And understanding that He knows all of time in miniscule detail, we know that as He established the rules for this fallen world, He had absolute knowledge of what would happen as a natural, direct result of His decisions then.

Ellen, good stuff. Pharaoh is the subject of my next post.

Chris, good point about Deism. When it comes to "bad" things, we tend to revert to Deists. We never do that when good things happen, though.

(referring back somewhat to a comment of Ellen's)

I personally don't believe that predestination is equivalent to preordination. (is that last one a word?!) The analogy I always liked is that if I have a football game on videotape - the game is already played, the Panthers have won - I can already know the outcome being outside of time so to speak. But the players still played, still made their choices, scored their goals, and still got tackled with beauty and precision (I love a good tackle!). My "foreknowledge" of the outcome did not affect their play. Simplistic - I'll grant you. But I found it helpful. Just cause God knows what I'm gonna do doesn't mean He made me do it.

No one's arguing that God completely violates our will. Here's a rather Thomistic way of saying it: God is the primary cause of all things; in other words, He ordains everything to happen, and it happens because of His ordaining it. However, He also ordains the means, not just the ends--our choices, natural processes, etc. The football analogy falls apart because God knows not just the outcome, but the way they got to that outcome.

How does that sack my football analogy? I may know how the Panthers got to their glorious victory (ah sweet fantasy) but I still didn't make them choose their plays.

Looking again... God is the primary cause of all things - therefore he ordains all things. Hmmm. I'm just not sure I agree with that. Although I will agree that God knew the Fall would happen and yet made men anyway - I'm still not sure you could say He caused the Fall to happen. But then - this is the crux of the whole free willed/not free willed argument isn't it? Aren't you glad He's bigger than these arguments and that someday we get to go to Heaven and understand stuff fully?!!! I know I am!

Blestwithsons, amen!

This is why I normally try to narrow the free-will discussion to the specific topic of salvation. Opening it up wider than that can be interesting, but it's rarely fruitful, and it typically strays to speculation, on both sides, beyond the hedge the Bible provides on the subject.

Scripture mostly speaks of free-will and predestination in the context of salvation. And that breaks it down to two main notions -- monergism or synergism. In my mind, either God is the author and finisher of my faith, the one who raised me from the dead by the power of his grace alone, or he merely made my faith possible and relied on me to see that salvation was good or beneficial of my own aptitude and accord.
Either God does all the saving or only part of it.
That's really the best place to start in such convos.

One thing is clear (as mud, likely, but clear nonetheless mostly because I say it is! BACK OFF!!!... okay, better now.)

It is clear that, if nothing else, God knew the end before He ever began the beginning. He knew what every particle of matter was going to do, He knew every human decision, and He knew His own actions and responses that would lead to the end that He knew before He started.

That being the case, and Him being God and all, the one thing that we can truly know is that He thinks the end to come is worth it. We have ample reason to believe He is good and loving. His own Word says He doesn't want anyone to perish, yet His word says they will. That pretty much settles, in my mind anyway, the choice issue. If He chose for us, none of us would perish. Some of us will perish, therefore we must choose for ourselves. Even if, in some sense, He has to enable us to chose before we chose. (whew!)

And yes, he knew we'd choose it and He made us anyway knowing that it would lead to our destruction. That's tough to accept. The only conclusion I can come to is that for what He's up to, nothing else would do.

He loves us so much that He takes our suffering on Himself! That says to me that to achieve the end He desires, the suffering is necessary. Limiting God's omnipotence? Not at all.

Logically, in order to pick up the rock that's too heavy for Him to lift, He has to make the rock so that He can lift it. No way around that in any universe that makes sense.

Glad I could settle that for everybody.

(NOT!)

PS And leave my Panthers out of it! Super Bowl Xtra Large, baby! Whoooooooo!

I see several scrambled "choses" that should be "chooses" in my last comment.

no help for it now!

yeah well...talking about the Panthers got you all hot and bothered and that messed up your typing you GIT!

That's "mangy git" to you.

I thought it was uberGit!

The football analogy falls apart because when we're watching a pre-recorded tape it's already been done. When God is watching a yet-to-be-recorded event, He is seeing what we have yet to do.

Crumbs.

See I'm not a Calvinist (or Arminian) because I can't justify belief in double predestination (and don't quote Romans 9 at me either, I don't think that passage is 'about' predestination v free will etc) either theologically or scripturally.

That means I don't accept limited atonement either, which probably means I'm a universalist. Oh well.

I also can't help but get the feeling that a lot of you heavy predestination types are actually Deists without realising it.

Robert: okay, if you feel like this is a red herring, please feel free to ignore it, but I think the question below might help us to define our terms a bit:

If we're worthless (and there is *a sense* in which I do agree, but only in terms of our importance *by comparison* with God's, maybe), were we still worthless before the Fall?

don't quote Romans 9 at me either, I don't think that passage is 'about' predestination v free will etc) either theologically or scripturally

Um, you do know that the word "predestine" appears in the context of Romans 9, right? (Rom. 8:30) So it's there.
And if we can't quote Scripture, I'm not sure how we can present or defend our position.

I also don't see how believing God is living and active and present at at work in His creation equates to Deism.

I also think that it's hard to discuss controversial issues with folks who are dismissive and flippant about my perspective.

Ellen in MI
The football analogy falls apart because when we're watching a pre-recorded tape it's already been done. When God is watching a yet-to-be-recorded event, He is seeing what we have yet to do.
Well except from God's Omni presence it technically could have arleady happened.

Exactly - I don't think we can really wrap our minds around the concept of being "outside of time" anymore than we can grasp eternity. (that's about the same thing actually)

I am sorry, I just can't accept that God would create anyone and give them absolutely no chance to be saved and then judge them for it. Where is fairness and justice there? That would be like making a law against breathing. What makes Jared, or myself or Ellen deserving of God's grace and mercy and someone else destined for eternal damnation without any choice in the matter? I do not believe that.

To comment on what Ellen said about God hardening Pharoah's heart, I think that happens AFTER a repeated and persistent unbelief and/or disobedience. I do think that there can come a point where God decides he isn't going to continue to strive with a person. The bible even speaks of God giving people over to shameful lusts. When you continue in sin and you know the truth, I believe that there comes a time when God steps aside so to speak and allows you to experience the consequesnce of your decisions. When the bible speaks of the hardening of Israel, it wasn't until after they had continually refused to obey Him and they openly denied the diety of Christ.

As for the verse about God holding out his hands to a disobedient and obstinant people, note the key phrase, he says he is holding out his hands. Do you think he would do that to someone or a group of people he had predestined to enternal damnation?

It is not that I don't see how someone could interpret scripture from a Calvinist perspective on these issues. Clearly, there are scriptures that could be interpreted to support this position. I still struggle with Romans 9 on occassion. But, I think you have to look at the whole bible and not just a few scriptures. There are many many passages that directly speak about people making choices and having the ability to believe or reject what they have heard. And there are many passages that speak about God being patient because he desires that none should perish and that all should come to repentance, that he so loved the world, etc.. This brings me to another point, which is: The bible clearly states that he wishes none to perish, and we know he wishes for us not to sin, yet people do perish and go to hell, and people certainly sin. Therefore, we are left with 2 alternatives. 1) God cannot accomplish what he wills or 2) Although God wills for us to behave in a certain way that is pleasing and acceptable to him, he allows us to make a choice in the matter. This noes not diminish his sovereignty at all. He could, if he chose, make us all little puppets that would do everything he said on command. He has the right to do that if he wants to. But, he also has the right to allow us to make decisions for ourselves. I don't understand why Calvinists, who are so big on the sovereinty issue are unwilling to concede that God has every right to allow human beings to choose if that is what pleases him.

"I also think that it's hard to discuss controversial issues with folks who are dismissive and flippant about my perspective."

It goes both ways though. I doubt either side is going to have a sudden revelation about the other's perspective and change their mind, unless they are already on the fence. When someone who disagrees with the Calvinist perspective, those who don't immediately dismiss whatever that person has just said and begins to explain why they are misguided or wrong, and vice versa.

If we're worthless (and there is *a sense* in which I do agree, but only in terms of our importance *by comparison* with God's, maybe), were we still worthless before the Fall?

Our insignificance compared to God is always posed in comparison to God's majesty (Isaiah 40, Psalm 8). It's always in terms of God's existence as God, His identity of the Creator, and ours as the creation. He made us out of dirt. I don't think our insignificance is a function of the Fall, but rather of the nature and majesty of God.

Here's one way of looking at it: We know that God creates us, and we know that God chooses when we die. We know that God created the universe and will bring it to an end as He sees fit. If we are OK with those - He made me and will end me - then what's the big deal if He also ordained everything else? If He can kill me, I don't really mind if He is also in control of the rest of my days. Since He made me without my permission, and will kill me without my permission, then I don't suppose my permission (or, free will) is that terribly important.

The verses I've been referring to in Isaiah are preceded by

Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. ... He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.

and followed by

Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

God's sovereignty ought to be comforting to us. It is because He is sovereign that He can announce "comfort ye, my people". It is because He is the shepherd and I am just a lowly, dumb sheep that He can gather this lamb in His arms.

Jared: beyond the hedge the Bible provides on the subject

Don't you find I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure to provide quite a "hedge"?

What makes Jared, or myself or Ellen deserving of God's grace and mercy and someone else destined for eternal damnation without any choice in the matter? I do not believe that.

I don't believe that either. There is nothing that makes me or you or Ellen or anybody else deserving of God's grace and mercy and someone else not deserving. That is exactly the point of Calvinism. All of us deserve punishment and eternal damnation. It is only by God's grace alone, according to His choice, that some receive the gift of faith.
The initial point of TULIP is that salvation cannot be earned.

However, according to your view, there was something about me and you and Ellen and others that made us deserving of salvation while others were not -- our wisdom. Or our choice. Whatever it is.
But the free-will view assumes that the reason some get saved and others don't is because some exercise their choice. Not only do I not see the Bible discussing the nature of choice this way, it makes salvation contingent upon us, and not God.

I think that happens AFTER a repeated and persistent unbelief and/or disobedience. I do think that there can come a point where God decides he isn't going to continue to strive with a person.

So you're okay with God violating someone's will so long as they are a really bad person?
But all of us had the hearts of Pharaoh before God freed them. That you acknowlege God violates someone's will at all does not bolster your general position.

The bible even speaks of God giving people over to shameful lusts.

So what happened to their free will? Where did it go? What gives God the right to prevent them from using it to choose Him?

I think you have to look at the whole bible and not just a few scriptures.

I have. We do. The entire counsel of Scripture teaches God's sovereignty.
I could list a whole bunch of Scriptures here. But nobody is really dealing with the ones that have already been presented. If I go through the trouble of printing a bunch of stuff, how do I know someone will actually respond to it?

There are many many passages that directly speak about people making choices and having the ability to believe or reject what they have heard.

Right. As I said before, no Calvinist denies the presence of the will or the reality of choice. You can always find a verse that shows somebody choosing something.
But find a verse or passage that clearly teaches sinners have a will free to choose God before God chooses it first. Just one will do.

And there are many passages that speak about God being patient because he desires that none should perish and that all should come to repentance, that he so loved the world, etc..

Please cite the Scriptures and we'll deal with them. Seriously.
For the moment, I'll mention that the "none" God wants to perish, in context, most likely and naturally means "none of you," speaking to believers. This verse is actually a great testament to God's faithfulness and sovereignty -- none of his elect shall perish. He is patient with them, desiring that all of them live until they repent.

John 3:16 is another great text that doesn't really say what so many free-willers want to say. All it says is that whoever believes will be saved. It doesn't say anything about how those who believe come to believe or the equal opportunity of all men to believe. It just says what it says -- whoever believes will be saved. The real issue here is How do some come to believe?

The bible clearly states that he wishes none to perish, and we know he wishes for us not to sin, yet people do perish and go to hell, and people certainly sin. Therefore, we are left with 2 alternatives. 1) God cannot accomplish what he wills or 2) Although God wills for us to behave in a certain way that is pleasing and acceptable to him, he allows us to make a choice in the matter.

#2 comes closest to the truth, I think, but there's a third option, and that is that you may be reading those verse incorrectly.

But, he also has the right to allow us to make decisions for ourselves. I don't understand why Calvinists, who are so big on the sovereinty issue are unwilling to concede that God has every right to allow human beings to choose if that is what pleases him.

Gina, this just demonstrates to me that you're not really hearing what we're saying. Nobody is saying God doesn't have the right to do whatever he wants. Certainly God could set the world up to run any way he wants to! I'm not unwilling to concede that God has every right to allow human beings to choose. I'm just unwilling to admit that that's what the Bible teaches he does.
Why is it so hard to understand that Calvinists don't believe this way primarily because it makes them happy (or because they like being different or being controversial or hacking people off), but that we believe this way because this is what we see the Bible teaching?

So stop accusing us of just being hardheaded. Quote an actual Scripture reference (not a recollected paraphrase) with citation, and one of us will respond to your implied interpretation of it. Or, better yet, respond to any of the Scriptures Ellen quoted.
If you want Scriptures "from all over the Bible," I will gladly post those too, so long as they don't go ignored.

I doubt either side is going to have a sudden revelation about the other's perspective and change their mind, unless they are already on the fence.

Well, I used to be a staunch Arminian, with the same objections and proof-texts as you guys. I was not on the fence; I was firmly in the free-will yard. But, hey, it happened to me. Not in a "sudden revelation," of course. But through studying the Bible and through discussing it with folks on both sides of the issue. So people do change their minds sometimes. I'm one of them.

When someone who disagrees with the Calvinist perspective, those who don't immediately dismiss whatever that person has just said and begins to explain why they are misguided or wrong, and vice versa.

Right. That's called debate. Someone gives a perspective, and someone else provides a counterpoint or a disagreement. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that.
What I was referencing in my "dismissive and flippant" remark is the idea that this Calvinism business is just so ridiculous and obviously wrong that you/they can't understand how people can believe it. I won't do that to you -- and if I do, tell me so I may apologize -- because I was once there. If the Calvinists who talked with me in those days treated me dismissively or flippantly, I might not be one today.

I know that Calvinists have a reputation for being arrogant or cold-hearted intellectuals. I hope I don't come across that way! But I was blessed to know, in the formative stages of my decision, pleasant and encouraging and respectful Calvinists. And I choose to mostly associate with those kind of Calvinists today.
But since becoming a Calvinist I've been called a heretic and a moron and an idiot by Arminians. I know enough to know they don't represent all free-willers, but one thing I wish Arminians would realize is that Calvinism is not new. In fact, the doctrines of grace (TULIP) was actually the default position of Protestantism from the beginning. If anything, it is free-willers who have changed the default position. It is free-willers who have strayed off the range. That doesn't automatically mean they're wrong. But it does mean they should stop acting like Calvinism is some newfangled heresy (we get it from John Piper?) and it's such a confounding tragedy that some believers actually buy into it.

Sorry for the rant. It's just a sore spot with me, and I think it detracts from discussion when people would rather ask me "How can you believe _______?!" instead of "What do you make of [insert Scripture reference]?";"0

Don't you find . . . provide quite a "hedge"?

Sure. I just think that oftentimes trying to wrap our finite minds around concepts related to the infinite, even when those concepts are taught in Scripture, can get more philosophical than biblical. Even on some things the Bible clearly teaches, it doesn't clearly explain.

what Ellen said about God hardening Pharoah's heart, I think that happens AFTER a repeated and persistent unbelief and/or disobedience

But God announced His plan to harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses had even met with Pharaoh a single time! (Exodus 4:21)

I just can't accept that God would create anyone and give them absolutely no chance to be saved and then judge them for it. Where is fairness and justice there?

You have to accept that. Lots of people have lived and died without even hearing the gospel. God made those people and chose where they would live, full well knowing that no missionary would ever speak to them. My understanding of the scripture at least gives some purpose to that.

There are many many passages that directly speak about people making choices and having the ability to believe or reject what they have heard.

We do make choices. Nobody has suggested otherwise. And we are very capable of rejecting God. But aside from His grace, we are utterly incapable of accepting Him.

The bible clearly states that he wishes none to perish ... yet people do perish and go to hell ... Therefore, we are left with 2 alternatives.

There is a third, Biblical alternative. God does want all to repent. But He wants something else, too, and He desires that more than He desires universal salvation. It seems you would suggest God values our "free will" more than He values His desire to see us all repent. I contend that God desires His own glory more than He desires universal salvation.

unwilling to concede that God has every right to allow human beings to choose if that is what pleases him.

God could choose to do anything He saw fit. The question is, did He?

I also can't help but get the feeling that a lot of you heavy predestination types are actually Deists without realising it.

Deism: (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority.

After all the Scripture that has been presented here, you would accuse of a disbelief is scripture?

I think that happens AFTER a repeated and persistent unbelief and/or disobedience.

Your Biblical basis? Romans tells us that God will harden whom He will harden and really doesn't have to explain why, except that He tells us that it's all to His glory.

I don't understand why Calvinists, who are so big on the sovereinty issue are unwilling to concede that God has every right to allow human beings to choose if that is what pleases him.

You haven't seen us deny that He could, we just believe that when the Bible uses the term "elect" and "chosen", that's what it mean.

I may know how the Panthers got to their glorious victory (ah sweet fantasy) but I still didn't make them choose their plays.

True - but if you were God - would you?

But, I think you have to look at the whole bible and not just a few scriptures.

Go back and "keep score" of how many passages have been presented from both perspectives.

But since becoming a Calvinist I've been called a heretic and a moron and an idiot by Arminians.

I've been called a "liar and a daughter of the liar" and told that I'd be responsible for all those I'd take to hell along with me.

It took over a year for me to come to grips with the gradual fact that I had accepted reformed theology, after a lifetime of Arminianism.

The predestination petal was the hardest for me, but after a year of looking and digging and talking and more digging and studying - I still don't like it, but I accept it.

I've been called a "liar and a daughter of the liar"

Yeesh.

Somewhere along the way -- I'd hate to say in the upsurge of anti-intellectualism following the rise of Fundamentalism in the early 1900s -- Arminianism became the default and Calvinism the heresy (even though it was the Pelagians who strayed from tradition back in the day). There is a fairly recent return of many in the Church to Reformation thinking, and it is being met in many circles with fierce resistance and animosity.

Of course it doesn't help that the typical "Cage Phase" of the new Calvinist is too frequently true.

Jimmy Swaggart says Calvinism is a lie from the pit of hell. If that don't give some free-willers pause, I don't know what should. ;-)

That's why I like my nice, comfortable place right here on the fence. (even though I am a huge fan of the sovereignty of God)

JUST FYI:

Last year, the Jollyblogger did an excellent series of posts explaining and outlining the five points of Calvinism in simple language and with the aim of encouraging understanding.
If anyone's interested in a neat little blogospheric primer on TULIP, you can access the index to all the posts here:
http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/01/the_five_points.html

So often these discussions break down not due to real disagreement but due to misunderstanding what Calvinism actually teaches (eg. We are unwilling to concede God has the right to do whatever he wants., or We don't believe in human choice.) Jollyblogger's posts are a good resource addressing that concern.

: jared gets a running start, arms out to SHOVE :

[Bill adopts a white-knuckled death grip on the fencepost, and gets out a can of mace]

[blestwithsons who is sitting on the fence beside Bill grabs a handful of fence with one hand and Bill's shirt with the other]

Again, the "anti-intellectualism" comment just reiterates my point. You are dismissive about my perspective also when you mention things like fundamentalism, and Jimmy Swaggart in response to my statements. I am not a fundamentalist. And, I am not particularly fond of how Jimmy Swaggart has conducted himself. I realize you were not directing those labels at me personally. But, I feel you use them in an attempt to belittle those who don't see it your way.

In regard to Pharoah, In each of the first 5 plagues, the bible says that the pharaoh hardened his own heart. It was not until the 6th plague that God confirmed this act of the will as he promised Moses he would do.

The same is true in regard to Israel.It was not until they were disobedient too many times to count that the bible actually talks about the hardening of their hearts because of their persistent unbelief.

I am not merely relying on emotionalism to prove my point. I really do believe that when the entire bible is taken into consideration, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that we do in fact have the ability to choose to believe or not to believe.

[Alan pulls Jared aside and reminds him we believe that God made Bill to be a fence-sitter, so we ought not to interfere with God's plan; Jared reminds Alan that God also placed the desire in our hearts to knock Bill on his keister; Jared and Alan proceed to bumrush Bill]
[Jared and Alan leave Blestwithsons alone; after all, she is a lady]

In regard to Pharoah, In each of the first 5 plagues, the bible says that the pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Not quite.

Here it is from biblegateway.com

ex 7:13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.

This does not say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, it says that his heart became hard just as the Lord had said. What had the Lord said? That He would harden Pharaoh's heart.

v.22 , and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

it is only in the 3rd and 5th plagues that it says that Pharaoh hardened his heart - who caused that? God said that He did.

there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that we do in fact have the ability to choose to believe or not to believe.

We've given quite a few passages that give direct evidence of the doctrine of election. So there is a great deal of direct evidence that says that God gives us faith - it is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God, lest any man should boast.

Yeah Alan - and her husband is a big scary Marine. (hee hee hee)

[Bill is temporarily knocked from his perch, having his shirt ripped from him due to the iron grip of Blestwithsons. Modesty being what it is, Bill curls up in a fetal position whilst commencing his wild-eyed search for an escape route. Meanwhile, traumatized by the awful sights and sounds, and threatened by the flushed, near-fanatical countenances of Jared and Alan, Blestwithsons does an amazing screaming tightrope run along the top of the fenceline and makes it to safety.

Jared and Alan begin kicking Bill's prone form, screaming in unison TooooLIP! ToooooLIP! TooooLIP! TOOOLIP! to the deafening strains of the Ride of the Valkyries

Oh the humanity!]

Well Ellen, argue with the many misters from a variety of denominations that contributed to the Zondervan NIV study bible. That is where I got my info about Pharaoh. I looked it up after reading your comments earlier. That doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. I am just saying, its not something I just thought up off the top of my head.

I did not say that we had the ability to seek God, independent of the working of the holy spirit. In fact, I recall stating the exact opposite. No one can come unless the holy spirit draws him/her. The bible is clear about that. What I said was that I believe that a person can resist the call. I think that a person can resist the truth long enough to the point that their conscience can be seared and their hearts become hard. In regard to the pharoah, i believe that God knew this was a person he could use to accomplish his purpose. God knows us each even better than we know ourselves. He knows exactly how we will react in any situation.

I need to start checking my spelling before I post. HA My apologies.

Gina, I don't think Jared was even remotely attempting to attack you or lump you in with Swaggart. He was just making a few observations about the place of Reformed theology in American evangelical culture.

Obviously you're not going to be convinced on this anytime soon. But let me give you a few things to think about (not challenges for you to answer, although you certainly may if you like-- I'm just suggesting, chew on this a little bit).

1. What does it mean for faith to be a gift (Eph 2)? Can this gift be refused? If it is refused, on what basis (unbelief?)? On what basis is it accepted?

2. Is it right for any of us to decide that we will not worship/believe in a God who does X (Let X be your choice of predestine some to salvation and pass over others to damnation, provide for tsunamis which kill people, create mosquitoes and malaria, or allow anyone to go to hell)? Shouldn't interpreting the Bible be our only concern, and not preconceived ideas of what God is like?

3. If Paul isn't saying what we Calvinists say he's saying in Romans 9, what's all the fuss about (i.e., his objecting interlocutor)?

4. What does it mean for a will to be free? Is it independent of any causal influence? If that's it, then isn't that just random, and not really free? Doesn't free will have more to do with acting based upon our desires? And if so, doesn't a slave to sin always choose sin, until the will changes? And how does that will change until his master first changes?

5. Why is the notion of a free will (that is, one outside of God's decree) so essential? If it is that essential, why is it okay that we lack free will in heaven and hell?

6. What does it mean that the king's heart is like a river in the hand of the Lord, and he turns it whereever he wants?

7. Bruises, background music, and fetal positions aside, did Jared and Alan finallly get Bill off the fence?

None of us deserve it but the ground is level atthe foot of the cross. All can be saved through Christ if they choose to accept.

Jared,

I agree that it would be best to discuss specific scripture instead of simply referring to the "many" or paraphrasing. So, I will sit down tonight and write down the ones that I believe support my position. I am open to discussing them. Believe it or not, I am willing to change my views if someone can convince me that my perspective is wrong. I have read "Chosen By God" and a few other books on the subject of predestination and I have talked to many pastors about the subject. I attend a Presbyterian church. My pastor is a 5 point Calvinist. I have tried to approach the subject with an open mind, but I have yet to be persuaded. Perhaps my responses here do not indicate that. But, I have struggled with this issue over many months. I don't want to believe what feels comfortable to me. I want to believe what I think the bible teaches. I think that you sincerely want to do the same. We just happen to disagree on exactly what that is.

Again, the "anti-intellectualism" comment just reiterates my point. You are dismissive about my perspective . . . I feel you use them in an attempt to belittle those who don't see it your way.

I hate that that's how you read those comments, particularly as they really had nothing to do with you. I was speaking to Ellen about our mutual experiences as Calvinists in the evangelical landscape.

I have been trying to respond to your points specifically with actual arguments. If that's dismissive of you, I have no idea what else to do!
I can't help your feelings, but I'm not trying to belittle you. If responding to your points is belittling, I apologize. Again, the Swaggart and all that stuff is not about belittling Arminians -- it's about lamenting the people who treat me like a heretic. I don't think that's you.

I really appreciate your last comment (#84) and look forward to the fruit it may produce.
---

Thank you, Alan, btw.

Well Ellen, argue with the many misters from a variety of denominations that contributed to the Zondervan NIV study bible.

I guess if I had to argue with somebody, I'd rather it be a human being, rather than the written Word of God.

I posted the verses right out of the NIV - no commentary, no human trying to make them say what they don't say.

If the Bible says that Pharaoh's heart was hardened (after God said that He would harden it) and a human says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart...

In regard to the pharoah, i believe that God knew this was a person he could use to accomplish his purpose.

No, God prepared Pharoah for that very purpose:

Ex. 9:16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

Raising a pharaoh up for "that very purpose" is different than using one who was already there.

I wrestled with this issue for months (a lot of months).

There used to be a condensed version on line, but I can't find it now - the full book is available, "Easy Chairs Hard Words" by Douglas Wilson

None of us deserve it but the ground is level atthe foot of the cross. All can be saved through Christ if they choose to accept.

Darrel, that's a pithy saying and a nice sentiment. But where is that in the Bible?
I don't deny those who "choose to accept" will be saved. But where is it taught that everyone has the ability to choose to accept?

My Bible says that those whom God has foreknown he has predestined to believe.
My view of the cross is that Jesus accomplished atonement upon it. He didn't make it possible or potential, contingent upon man's will. He made it actual, he achieved salvation in the very act, accomplishing and in accordance with God's will.

If Jesus died just to make salvation potential, doesn't make his sacrifice a potential failure?

[face afire from Bill's macing, Jared shrieks in his blindness, "My face! My face! My beautiful, glorious face! Surely this Billum is a vessel prepared for destruction!" and before he can regain sight, Blestwithson's husband is pummeling him about the torso. "Oh, merciful heavens," Jared shouts, "I am being tortured all the day long for my righteousness! Even though they slay me, I will trust You! . . . .
. . . not like these apostate Arminian scum!
. . . Ouch!"]

And now for something completely different...

My ward (most of time affectionately known as the "kid who lives on my couch") has/had a tendancy to note things as being "random".

My reply is "nothing is random - we belong to a sovereign God who is in control of the universe".

My son (18) has his struggles, but he told this kid - "I used to think that all the bad things that happened were random - like my dad dying. But now I know that God makes everything happen for a reason." And he went on to tell all of the things that couldn't have happened if his dad had still been alive.

Then - he told this kid, "you thought that fight with your mom was random and a bad thing. but if that hadn't happened, you wouldn't be here with us, and you wouldn't be a Christian right now."

Nothing is random...My God really is in control...

Wait a minute! One minute I'm burly enough to rip Bill's shirt off with my iron grip -and the next minute I'm running down the fence screaming "EEeek! I saw Calvinists!" Forget debating Free Will and Predestination - let's deal with this contradiction first! Besides - blestwithsons is too busy shielding her maidenly eyes from Bill's manly chest in order to preserve her purity before God and her husband to have the time or inclination to run screaming!

Oh - and said husband heloed in from Iraq and ziplined down before commencing the pummeling. (oh he's gonna love reading this from over there!)

89 comments - that's why they have discussion forums :P


1. Jared - yes Romans 8:30 talks about predestination. What I meant was that Romans is not an abstract theological treatise on things like 'law', 'grace', 'justification', or 'predestination' and so on. The overarching issue for Paul in Romans 9-11 is not double predestination, but he is discussing the role of Israel in the salvation process. Israel, and ultimately Israel's representative Messiah, is the vessel which bears God's wrath. The Jews are hardened so that salvation will go to the Gentiles, and this is the way in which all Israel (the people of the messiah, not ethnic Israel) will be saved. I wrote a post on it a while back but Blogger is down so I can't give you the link.

What I was objecting to was the way in which this passage is used as 'proof' that God has chosen to save some people and to darn others since before eternity, which is not what I believe Paul is saying.

2. Ellen - I mentioned Deism because Deism teaches that there is a God who made the world and predestined everything in it and is now just letting it run like some kind of clockwork toy, which is a kind of fatalism I thought was surfacing in some of the posts on here. A Deistic God is not the God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Also, just quoting a selection of scripture without any explanation or exegesis doesn't prove anything. You can make the Bible say anything you want that way, though I don't believe that's what you were trying to do.

Idea for a future discussion:

"The development of Arminianism as an alternative to Calvinism is the result of a method aimed at reminding humans of their responsibility rather than emphasising sound theology. Discuss."

*Dons helmet and retreats to bunker*

"Why proof texting is a bad way to build doctrine, or Universalism in 6 easy steps" (Don't try this at church folks)

1. "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."
(2 Pet 3:9)

2. "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Col 1:19-20)

3. "...to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ." (Eph 1:10)

4. "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Rom 11:32)

5. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Cor 15:22)

And finally...

6. Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11)

And remember that confessing Jesus is as Lord can only be done by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3) and that to do so is a saving act (Rom 10:9), thus everyone will finally be saved. QED


Hardly a watertight argument for dogmatic universalism, but I'm being facetious and trying to show that simply reeling off proof-texts is no way to build a biblical argument.

As a serious thought though, if we were to make Col 1:19-20 our starting point and assume that God has already reconciled everything with himself through Christ and that we are now to proclaim this Good News to the world and call them to recognise God's saving lordship, how would we do things differently?

Alan,

To comment on your first point:

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast."

I take this to mean that we did not deserve to be saved. Romans 2:3-5 says, "We were by nature objects of wrath. But, because of his great love for us, God who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ, even when we were dead in our transgressions." Salvation is the gift I believe that Paul is speaking of in Ephesians 2:8, not faith specifically. It is a gift that we did not earn. God chose to save us because he loved us even when we were unlovable. That gift is obtained through faith in Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sin. See also Romans 3:21-25 This brings me to the question, where does that faith that is required come from? I think this is the point of your question. It too is a gift from God. I am not in any way denying, as I have pointed out many times, that we are unable to save ourselves. Hmm. I feel that I have backed myself into a corner because, in trying to formulate an answer, and attempting to anticipate your response, I feel left with no logical answer that does not undermine my position. For, if I say, "Yes, faith is a gift and it is given to all" , then you will surely say, "then why don't all believe?" And if I say you can come to God first and then receive faith, you will say, "so you do think you can save yourself." HA Ok, someone please give me scripture that talks about how a person comes to have this faith that is necessary for salvation. I was reading about the measure of faith in Romans Ch. 12 but that is talking about believers. But, didn't they have to have faith before they could believe?

Sven, I think simply citing prooftexts in a forum like this is fine and dandy, not only because it saves space, but also because for the most part the commenter's interpretation is implied and understood.
For instance, if Gina were to post John 3:16, I would assume I know what she means to "say" by posting it, and I wouldn't object to her simply posting that in place of a "real" argument. The argument would proceed from there, as I explain how I read it and propose how she is mis-reading it and then how she responds to that. No biggie.
---

yes Romans 8:30 talks about predestination. What I meant was that Romans is not an abstract theological treatise on things like 'law', 'grace', 'justification', or 'predestination' and so on.

Yes, but what you said was: I don't think that passage is 'about' predestination v free will etc) either theologically or scripturally
Since the context contains the word "predestine," I took issue with your saying the passage isn't about predestination/free-will "scripturally."

The overarching issue for Paul in Romans 9-11 is not double predestination, but he is discussing the role of Israel in the salvation process. Israel, and ultimately Israel's representative Messiah, is the vessel which bears God's wrath. The Jews are hardened so that salvation will go to the Gentiles, and this is the way in which all Israel (the people of the messiah, not ethnic Israel) will be saved. I wrote a post on it a while back but Blogger is down so I can't give you the link.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of N.T. Wright, too. ;-)
But I think I can read the text that way without precluding the emphases on individual salvation the Reformers saw there, as well. In other words, I don't think those two alternatives are mutually exclusive (even though most Wright fans and Reformation-minded folks tend to disagree).
For my further views see my essay here: http://thinklings.org/jaredwilson/letting_god_be_god.html

I have no doubt that Paul emphasizes the distinction between spiritual Israel and ethnic Israel. But I also believe the text speaks to "individual salvation.";"0

Yeh actually I think I already linked that post to your blog somewhere. My motto is 'Wright is Right' - generally speaking ;-)

I object to proof-texting generally speaking even in forums like this because it rarely clarifies anything and if you're not careful you end up with bible verse tennis which only ends up with two battered and bruised competitors and no one any the wiser.

Not convinced on the individual salvation part in Romans, I think that's a modern idea rather than a biblical one though the jury is still out for me, though I don't see how a good exegesis of Romans would arrive at the conclusion that it is permissible to read the text as Paul's thesis on individual salvation and how some unfortunate souls have been chosen by God to be damned for all eternity since before the world was made.

Now, to go to bed or to stay up in the hope I become the 100th person to comment on this post? The agony of choice...

Having re-read that comment, it's clear that I'm babbling. Bed wins.

Night all.

”So you're okay with God violating someone's will so long as they are a really bad person? ... What happened to their free will? Where did it go? What gives God the right to prevent them from using it to choose Him?”

How does it violate someone's will to allow them to continue in their sin and disobedience? If you are drowning and I offer you help and you refuse, despite numerous attempts on my part to help you, and finally I decide, "Fine, he doesn't want help. Let him drown if that is what he really wants," I have done nothing more than allow you to suffer the consequences of your choices.

Not convinced on the individual salvation part in Romans, I think that's a modern idea rather than a biblical one though the jury is still out for me,

Isaac, Esau, Sarah, Abraham, Pharaoh, Moses were all individuals,

The term used in verse 21, "vessel", is used for common household containers, but when applied to people, refers to individuals, not groups.

How does it violate someone's will to allow them to continue in their sin and disobedience?

"gave them over to" indicates an positive act, that they no longer have any choice in the matter.

Ellen wrote: "gave them over to" indicates an positive act, that they no longer have any choice in the matter.

Right.
Gina, the way you seemed to posit that Scriptural scenario was that there is a point at which God, after much striving, finally and actively hardens someone's heart. I was just confused as to why you were implying God denying them choice at one point but not earlier -- if free choice is so important, that is.

And Ellen wins the 100-Comment-Club Award!

Just a head's up:
I've got a lot going on tomorrow (Wed.), and our A/C is out as well, so I have to keep the phone line open to hear from the repair folks (yes, we're on dial-up). So if you leave a remark or Scripture reference you'd like me to address, please don't think I'm ignoring you. I will get back into the thread as soon as I am able.

When he gave them over to shameful lusts and a depraved mind, it was an act of judgment against sin as a result of their disobedience. It says in Romans 1:28 "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind." Verse 21 says that, "While they knew God, they neither glorified him as God or gave thanks to him." Chapter 1 also states: "What may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." To me this clearly indicates they had a choice.

To me this clearly indicates they had a choice.

You seem to be presenting this differently than you did before.
This is what you wrote earlier:

To comment on what Ellen said about God hardening Pharoah's heart, I think that happens AFTER a repeated and persistent unbelief and/or disobedience. I do think that there can come a point where God decides he isn't going to continue to strive with a person. The bible even speaks of God giving people over to shameful lusts. When you continue in sin and you know the truth, I believe that there comes a time when God steps aside so to speak

In that earlier comment, you appeared to concede that God does harden someone's heart, but only after he's "strived" with them for a certain period of time. Then he just gives them over to their lusts. This seemed to me that you were saying there is a point where God hardens folks -- ie. they don't have the choice to repent anymore, but are given over to the irrevocable slavery of their sin.

Now you're saying God hardening them means they have choice. I'm confused.

You won't find me quibbling with verses that show people choose sin. We all chose sin.

What I see in your approach here is man in the driver's seat. God is constantly throwing up road signs warning him to change directions but at some point he just stops throwing up signs and, even though man is still driving, he goes off the cliff as a consequence of his choice to resist.

In my scenario, man is asleep at the wheel, and God jumps in, pushes him out of the way to take over, and that is when the driver wakes up to discover he was headed over a cliff and would have gone over if God hadn't rescued him. Only sometimes God lets the drivers go without waking them.
I don't know why he does that.

Or, to use your drowning man illustration, which is a popular choice -- I don't think the idea that God throws out a life preserver but we have to choose to take hold is really that accurate. In my mind, we are drowning and God reaches out and scoops us out of the water with his hand.

Of course, the Bible uses neither the driver nor the drowner to illustrate our plight before salvation. It uses the illustration of the dead man.
But that's rarely used in these conversations because it's hard to explain how a dead man can choose to resurrect himself. ;-)

Let me try this one more time. I do apologize if this gets posted 3 times. I think I am having computer problems here.

Anyway, I was hoping to get your perspective on this passage Jared. (Sorry about the A/C by the way)

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often have I longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!";"0

Jared,
"that's a pithy saying and a nice sentiment. But where is that in the Bible?"

I actually have quite a few biblical scriptures to back this up. I am going to bed now but I will post them later.

Sven:

What makes you think that a corporate view of election crowds out an individual view? What makes up the bride of Christ if not individuals? The theme of the passage may or may not be individual election, but that's apart from the question of whether it illuminates the issue of individual election.

Gina gives us the famous passage from Matthew. On your account, Sven, it would be illegitimate to incorporate this into a theology of individual free will, because the subject of the passage is Jerusalem.

Some commentators do take that approach. I disagree with that for the same reason I'd disagree with letting a corporate view of election in Romans obscure the import for individual election.

Gina, the Matthew passage shows us that the people of Jerusalem were depraved, and not willing to commune with God. The question really centers around God. If he does predestine us, what sense does it make to say he was willing and they were not? The way I understand things is that God interacts with the world in two ways. One is the immanent relation with creation. That is the way in which God governs and sustains the cosmos. It is the way in which we live and move and have our being in him. This is the way the Spirit works within us to bring us to him. This is largely invisible to us. We make choices, but this is within the providence and decree of God. The other way is his transcendent relation with creation. That is, he transcends the patterns we call the ordinary working of the cosmos, and interacts with us directly (giving us commands, so forth). There is a twofold sense to the decree of God. God tells us that he does not desire the death of the wicked, nor that he wants us to sin. However, it is not quite accurate to say that he just fails to stop us. The other side of his decree is that he ordains everything that comes to pass, and his providence is at work in all events that occur, including sin. This operation of his providence is distinct from his the expression of his moral will, that he demands all to repent.

Now, you might say that this creates a strange view of God. Why does his decree not match up with his moral will? Well, our only decent answer is that it is for his own glory. And of course, no view but universalism gets you out of this problem. On your account, God's decree (that some be left to their free will and perish forever) is still at variance with his desire that all be saved. You might say that free will makes that okay. But why? Why would you be so concerned that God make things comport with libertarian free will? And if libertarian free will is so important (especially on most accounts, where it is essential to our integrity as worshippers of God, where our service of God is counted illegitimate if predestined), why does it vanish after we die?

This is especially interesting given that you say God knows us so well he knows exactly what we will do. On that account, why, if both free will and ensuring that all go to heaven is so important, why doesn't God only make a universe and ordain events (which you agree that he can and does do-- you say above that God knows exactly what we will do in any given circumstance) in such a way that he knows will bring us to exercise faith in him?

On Ephesians 2, I don't think it gets you out of the problem to say that the gift is salvation. One, I don't think it makes sense of the language. We are saved by grace "through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast." The "this" that is the gift refers to faith. It's the grammatical referent from what I read and have been told. Saying the gift is salvation only (as opposed to being gifted with faith unto salvation, let's say) doesn't make sense out of the rest of the verse. If you provide the faith, then you've got a reason to boast. But leave that aside and back up to the beginning of Ch.2. We were dead. We-- passive voice-- were made alive. We followed the desires of our sin nature. God took the action. That's the prelude to 2:8-9. Then we're told that GOd made us, made our future good works for us to walk in them. The hole passage is about what God does to ensure our salvation, not about what we bring to the table.

Gina-- a question. Do you believe in original sin? Of course you do. But you think it's okay for God to allow them to "continue in sin and disobedience." But isn't that what all of us do from the moment we're conceived, if you buy into original sin? Unless you're an actual Pelagian, you don't think that we start out from some neutral point, then commit to a pattern of sin. On the Calvinist account, what God does is consistent with that original sin nature.

Ellen re: comment 99


Yes God saved individuals, but so that they would be the means through which he would save everyone else. That's what election is. Initially God starts with just one man, Abraham, and saves him - but so that through Abraham salvation will come to all the nations. To talk about 'individual salvation' is at very best an incomplete description, because it is always part of a wider corporate scheme of salvation involving the whole of creation.

When Paul is writing in Romans 9-11 he is not addressing the issue of 'how I get saved', he is tackling the question of how Israel fits in to God's plan of salvation for the world now that they have rejected the Gospel. Israel bears God's wrath and are thus hardened - but this is the means by which God's salvation will go to the Gentiles. The salvation of the Gentiles will arouse some Jews to jealousy and so cause them to be saved.

Of course this involves individuals, but they are always part of a corporate collective, whether stubborn Israel (note allusion to Jeremiah in 9:21) or part of God's people.
'Individual salvation' is a modern individualistic idea like having a 'personal Lord and Saviour'. Salvation is always corporate and involves being part of a people.

It is also highly inappropriate to say that because Israel had been 'prepared for destruction' that God has predestined some people to be damned for all eternity since before he made the world. Israel's rejection is not fixed forever, and that although Israel are pursuing a destructive course of rejection, they have not stumbled so as to fall beyond recovery and indeed Paul anticipates that those 'prepared for destruction' will be grafted into God again by turning to him in faith(11:11-24). God's hardening of Israel is the means by which Jew AND Gentile will be saved together.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often have I longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

I have about 2 minutes here...

but - read the whole chapter and get the context. Who is Christ talking to? Not the people, He's talking to the religious leaders (see, it's in the your children).

There is no mention in this verse as to whether or not the children eventually come to Christ, but this chapter is aimed at the leaders who were leading the people the wrong way...the brood of vipers, the blind guides.

This is not a salvation verse, this is a leadership verse. And, of course! we know that even this was part of the plan to bring salvation to the entire world, not just the Jews.

I am at work, but I will respond to your comments when I get home.

Answering Alan from comment 82:

"Bruises, background music, and fetal positions aside, did Jared and Alan finallly get Bill off the fence?"

Though Jared slay me, yet will I fence-sit.

[Bill resumes his frantic grip on the fence-post, freely choosing to be a huge fan of God's sovereignty]

My brain hurts.

Ellen,

If you look at Matthew 23, It begins by saying, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples..." So, yes he was speaking to the people. He does talk about the religious leaders and teachers as you mentioned. However, in the end of the chapter he is clearly expressing his despair over the unbelief and disobedience of the people. The object of his comment, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" indicates that he is speaking collectively of the Jews. When he says "how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks from under her wings, but you were not willing..." it portrays Jesus in a compassionate light, clearly longing for the Jews to accept truth. Whe he speaks of gathering them together like a hen gathers chicks under her wings, this indicates he wanted to protect them from judgment and wrath that he refers to in verse 35. But, sadly as he says they "were not willing.";"0

The words "your children" refers to the subject of the sentence, Jerusalem.

*refer

Alan,

As much as I really hate to say this. I think you may be right about the Ephesians verse after looking at the grammar of the sentence. But that doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. Where does it say in the bible that the gift of faith is given to some and withheld from others? I am not trying to argue that it doesn't say that somewhere. I just am not aware of a particular verse that indicates that.

"This is especially interesting given that you say God knows us so well he knows exactly what we will do. On that account, why, if both free will and ensuring that all go to heaven is so important, why doesn't God only make a universe and ordain events (which you agree that he can and does do-- you say above that God knows exactly what we will do in any given circumstance) in such a way that he knows will bring us to exercise faith in him?"

I don't know. That is a good question. I often wonder that if he knew man would fall, why did he create them? Or at the very least, why didn't he create them differently? That starts getting into questions that, while interesting, are futile. The fact is he doesn't tell us that. So, unless he decides to reveal it to us when we get to heaven, we will never know. I have always wondered where man ever got the notion to want to do something sinful. If they were created in the image and likeness of God, and they were sinless, then were did they get a desire to sin? Some would say that they were tempted by Satan and that is why. Well, thats fine too, but what caused Satan to want to fall? The only answer that seems to make any sense to me is that somehow sin and judgment fits into God's plan. Otherwise there would be another force out there equal to or greater than God that is at work.

Gina:

The point is, that if you accept the notion that God is capable of having aligned the events in our lives such that we all would freely choose him, and he failed to do so, then you have the same moral objection in your system that would pertain to the Reformed system. That's still apart from the question of exegesis, but it does mean that the "that's not fair" argument no longer is in play.


As to the gift of faith argument, I think that's what Ephesians 2 and Romans are all about. It's also a little tough to understand what exactly would satisfy you here. I'm sure you've read the whole Bible. And you know that unbelief is sin, and that it's the opposite of faith. If faith is given to a person, then he is justified. If he does not have faith, then he is in unbelief. I don't know how you can understand all this other than thinking that some are given faith and others are not. If you think all are given faith, then why would they still have its opposite quality, unbelief? And how would they not be saved if we are justified by faith?

I've already gone over Ephesians. So let's take up Romans. Paul mentions faith multiple times in chapter one, sometimes in passing, and of course in recounting the nature of the gospel and that the righteous shall live by faith. He then demonstrates the sinfulness of Jews and Gentiles alike, noting that inward circumcision is key, despite the benefits given to the Jews. This inward circumcision is basically faith.

He notes (3:3) that some may not have faith. This does not nullify God's faithfulness. Worth noting is that Paul's interlocutor asks if God is unjust for bringing his wrath on those who lack faith (3:5).

He then declares the righteousness of Christ which comes by faith (3:21-31). In Romans 4, he moves to Abraham. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. This was not something earned, but a gift (4:4-5). Now, there's obviously lots of good stuff between there and Ch.9, but I'll skip ahead. Paul is upset about the apostasy of Israel. He is concerned that this reflects poorly on God. So he outlines that the promise is not to the physical seed, but to the children of the promise. The children of the promise are determined by election, not of works. On some he has mercy, others he hardens. So from the flow of his argument, we understand that (1) justification is by faith (2) Abraham had faith, and was therefore justified (3) this faith was a gift (4) that Abraham's offspring persist in unbelief, lacking faith, and are therefore condemned is a scandal (5) this is explained by God's showing mercy on whom he wills.

Paul then moves to explain how this scandal works to the benefit of the Gentiles and the eventual glory of God in the salvation of Jews once provoked to jealousy. Salvation was available to all Israel, he says in ch.10. Salvation comes by faith. Faith comes by hearing the word preached. Israel heard this message (10:18). So the question is asked (Ch.11): did God reject his people? No. He preserved a remnant unto himself, chosen by grace; that was his people. He then warns of apostasy, and notes that Israel fell by unbelief, and that his audience could share the same fate. So in ch.12 he asks them to serve God, acting and thinking in accordance with the faith God has given them (v3).

So the notion of faith as a gift of God, given to some and not others is part and parcel of Paul's argument in Romans.

Why would he warn them against falling away if it is impossible for the elect do so?

Because they might not really be the elect - you don't find out who really is until judgement day :P

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem" indicates that he is speaking collectively of the Jews.

So your're saying that after an entire "sermon" about the religious leaders, ending with crying out about the seat of Jewish government (sort of like if we cried out Washington, Washington), he's suddenly talking about the entirety of the Jews.

The only answer that seems to make any sense to me is that somehow sin and judgment fits into God's plan.

You can accept that sin and judgment somehow fits into God's plan, but not that He gets to pick?

I feel that I have backed myself into a corner because, in trying to formulate an answer, and attempting to anticipate your response, I feel left with no logical answer that does not undermine my position.

that's what I used to think - 2 1/2 years ago...

Where does it say in the bible that the gift of faith is given to some and withheld from others?

God chose. That's a positive action. If I go to the store and choose some apples, what of the ones I don't choose?

Eph 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

And He only chooses some:

John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

2 Thess.2:13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you[a] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Ok, someone please give me scripture that talks about how a person comes to have this faith that is necessary for salvation.

Phill 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Acts 15:8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

Sven:

Yes God saved individuals, but so that they would be the means through which he would save everyone else.

Everyone? Not thanks, I'm not a universalist.

It is also highly inappropriate to say that because Israel had been 'prepared for destruction' that God has predestined some people to be damned for all eternity since before he made the world.

He chose some to be saved...

Israel's rejection is not fixed forever

If you believe in a God who holds the future, then He already knows. I don't need to know.

If you believe that God is waiting with the rest of us to find out what Israel is going to do, well, I'm not an open theist, either.

What a reassuring sentiment. Well I guess there goes our "confidence of the day of judgment." (1 John 4:17)

I still say it makes no sense to warn someone agaist falling away if their eternal fate is already a done deal. According to your reasoning, just because they remained faithful doesn't guarantee anything. Why would it matter if they did or didn't fall away? Their fate is already sealed.

What do you make of 2 Peter 3:17 which says: "Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.";"0

Ellen,

Matthew 23 clearly says that he was speaking to the crowds and his disciples. He warns them in v. 3 not to do what the teacher of the law and the Pharisees do, because they do not practice what they preach. Then he goes on to condemn their actions. He warns in v. 35 that judgment will be upon them for the things they have done. Then he expresses his desire to shield "Jerusalem" from this judgment. He longs to protect them "like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings." But, he says that they "were not willing.";"0

Gina, since you didn't cite a specific verse for "falling away", I'm guessing that you're referring to Gal 5:4.

I'm not sure that this "falling away from grace" is talking about salvation. Paul says "you have fallen from grace, yet he continues to call them brothers. I think that we have all, at one point or another fallen into a state where we still would have said that we were Christians, yet were not in a state where we were truly feeling the grace of God.

In 2 Peter 3:17, which you just cited, the Greek word used for "secure position" is actually one word: sterigmos, meaning steadfastness. It is not declaring their position of salvation, but rather warning them to stand firm and not waver (and how many of us have not done that?

I was commenting on Alan's reference to Romans 11:20 below:

"So the question is asked (Ch.11): did God reject his people? No. He preserved a remnant unto himself, chosen by grace; that was his people. He then warns of apostasy, and notes that Israel fell by unbelief, and that his audience could share the same fate. So in ch.12 he asks them to serve God, acting and thinking in accordance with the faith God has given them (v3).";"0

Matthew 23 clearly says that he was speaking to the crowds and his disciples.

So, when He says, woe to you teachers and Pharasees - He was not talking to teachers and Pharasees?

Don't forget - the Books of the Bible were written as a whole - the chapters and verses are an English creation. If you begin reading from the last place that Christ was placed at a scene, He was being questioned by Pharasees. We don't know if He was in the same place when He turned His attention to the crowd, and then back to the Pharasees, but we do know that He addressed the teachers and Pharasees, the snakes, brood of vipers and blind guides directly.

In Romans 11, v. 1-2 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew

Even in Verse 5, So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace - the Greek word used for "chosen" is used in other translations as "elect" - ekloge.

in v. 7, we see the word election again, and the answer to your previous request for a verse where it says that faith (or I'd add salvation) is withheld from some:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."

It would seem that Paul was speaking to a group of people, not individuals, based on his repeated use of "you Gentiles".

He also indicates that there is a set number of Gentiles that will come to Christ.

v 25. Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Even if, at some point in the conversation he walked away from the crowd and addressed the Pharisees alone, what difference does that make? He is still clear about the fact that there is judgment coming for their deeds. Who do you think that he is referring to when he says "your children"? And what does it mean when he says that they "were not willing" ?

It seems like you are wanting to argue about who was standing where when he was talking. But what I want to know is what did he mean when he made the statement about his desire and their unwillingness.

I would make the same point that Robert made:

There is a third, Biblical alternative. God does want all to repent. But He wants something else, too, and He desires that more than He desires universal salvation. It seems you would suggest God values our "free will" more than He values His desire to see us all repent. I contend that God desires His own glory more than He desires universal salvation.

In order for the plan of salvation to be carried to the world, the Jews had to reject Christ, and Christ laid that directly at the feet of the pharasees.

Personally, I don't think that God was caught by surprise by any of this.

Why did they not obtain it? Because, "the pursued it [salvation] not by faith, but as if it were works." Romans 9:32 However, it says that they did not fall beyond recovery (Rom. 11:11) "If they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in , for God is able to graft them in again." (v. 23)

Who do you think that he is referring to when he says "your children"? And what does it mean when he says that they "were not willing" ?

that's easy, if you think He was talking to the pharasees. "your children" are the ones that they had spiritual charge over. And it doesn't say that they were not willing. It says that you were not willing - if He was talking to the pharasees, that is a direct accusation that the pharasees were actively standing in the way of the people that they were leading.

See verse 13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.";"0

*they oops

Why would he call the Pharisees Jerusalem?

post 130 - Gina, who is the "they" in chapter 9? And we're right back to "who caused it?"

Even this stumbling of Israel was caused by God - read on...

31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,

In chapter 11, Paul is talking about Israel and the Gentiles (looking at the context of the entire passage)

The Pharasees had previously led the children of Israel astray, but now, through Christ, they are free to be re-grafted into the tree as children of the New Covenant, not as children of the Law.

Why would he call the Pharisees Jerusalem?

That/they were the seat of the government. When he refers to Rome, he doesn't mean the people, he means the government.

Strong's 2nd definition of "Jerusalem": "the Jerusalem that now is", with its present religious institutions, i.e. the Mosaic system, so designated from its primary external location.

In Christ's day, the present religious institutions would have been the Pharasees.

34O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! ESV

34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her wings, and ye would not! RSV

34"(A)O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, (B)just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! NASB

34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me. NLT


All these translations indicate that when he said Jerusalem, he was talking about the place and not the government

OMG. I think I see your point.

And I have no idea what an RSV is. I think I pulled that out of my @$#$

And I have no idea what an RSV is. I think I pulled that out of my @$#$

Revised Standard Version. ;-)

Oh, so that really is a translation? I thought I was losing it. I pasted the verse and then I didn't see it on the list and I was like, hmm they will think I am inventing bibles. HA

Oh yes, it's a real version, but one that has problems (at least the Old Testament) with some conservative folks.

Personally, I like the NASB

I like the NIV and the NASB

Well, as much as we have beat that one verse to death. I think that, if anything, it has caused me to look at more than one translation in order to figure out the generally accepted meaning. For example, the NIV uses the term "secure position" in 2 Peter 3: 17 whereas other translations use "steadfastness." That makes a huge difference.

I think that, if anything, it has caused me to look at more than one translation in order to figure out the generally accepted meaning.

I like www.blueletterbible.com

you search for the verse and click on the (I think) blue C and it will give you the original language.

I agree that using other translations really helps, and I find that the NIV tends to "water down" things more than some of the others.

[Bill, commenting from the fence]

I'm starting to really love the ESV (English Standard Version).

Wow, thinks Ellen. That is a great resource.

Bill, can I join you on the fence? HA

*thanks

Tom Smail on Calvinism, Arminianism and Universali
There’s an awfully long discussion going on over at the Thinklings Weblog over the issue of God’s sovereignty, although as with so many debates of this nature it eventually comes down to a confrontation between Calvinists and Arminians ov...

Ellen re: comment 121

I'm not denying that God has chosen some people to be saved. What I am saying that people are elected to become the means through which God brings his salvation to the rest of the world e.g. as with Abraham. Abraham was chosen so that all the nations of the world might be blessed. Israel was chosen, but so that God's salvation might be made known to the Gentiles too, which of course it was.

How do you reconcile texts that speak of election with texts that speak of God's desire to save all men and indeed to reconcile the whole creation with himself? Election is a means to achieving this end, but will not necessarily be the end condition of creation.

I don't buy the Calvinist arguments you've put forward so far, I mean if you want to say that John 17:9 = limited atonement for the elect, then why not say that 1 Tim 4:10 and 1 John 2:2 teach universal atonement?

Granted there are plenty of proof texts that support people's positions, but there are also plenty of counter-proof texts that continually force us to reconsider our theological opinions, and a good biblical theology will be aware of this and try and reflect the whole biblical narrative.

If it's of interest, I've written a post outlining some views on the major positions on the subject:

http://worldofsven.blogspot.com/2005/05/tom-smail-on-calvinism-arminianism-and.html

you're welcome!

Sven,
Great comments

I mean if you want to say that John 17:9 = limited atonement for the elect, then why not say that 1 Tim 4:10 and 1 John 2:2 teach universal atonement?

(I get the feeling that you're not particularly open, but here goes...)

These verses don't speak to election, but to limited atonement.

1 Tim 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

all - in Greek, pas.
pas -
1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all
things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

It is very widely accepted that "pas" often means "all kinds" - as in "the love of money is the root of all evil"

paraphrased, the verse could read "saviour of all kinds of men - (superlative of very) of believers."

1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Propitiation (the means of appeasing God's wrath). As with "pas", the Greek word for 'world' doesn't always translate in the best way. If this verse is really talking about entirety of mankind, then we are back to universalism, which is un-Biblical. One of the definitions of "world" (kosmos). "Kosmos" can also mean the arrangment of the sun, moon and stars (which Christ did not die for) or the physical earth. It can also mean
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

So, this verse is likely speaking of the two different groups of believers: Jews and non-Jews. John may be saying that Christ is not only a propitiation for our sins (Jewish believers) but for the elect found also throughout the whole world.

paraphrased, the verse could read "saviour of all kinds of men - (superlative of very) of believers."

Possible, but unlikely I'd wager.

Additionally, to support the 'pas' meaning 'all kinds of men' rather than all men (e.g. God doesn't actually want to save all men, he only wants to save all kinds of men etc) requires a great deal of exegetical imagination.

Again with 1 John 2:2 you're reading a doctrine of limited election into the texts. The Greek runs as follows:

...autos hilasmos estin peri ton harmartion emon ou peri toun hemetron de monon alla kai perin olou tou kosmou.

The adjective perin (very) is heavily emphatic, and emphasises the scope of Christ's sacrifice as not just being for the world but for the whole world. Yes 'kosmou' has multiple meanings, but nowhere as far as I can tell (or find in the relevant literature) does it refer to 'believers only'. The verses you've listed as support for this interpretation only lend themselves to that interpretation if one holds it as a presupposition, though I would venture to say that to read 'world' as 'the elect' in the verses you've listed would require a great deal of exegetical creativity.

In fact kosmos is never used in the NT, secular Greek, or Greek translations of the OT to denote the elect or the people that belong to God. Its OT usage refers to the created order (which incidentally is under the power of sin and death, and also requires liberation cf. Rom 8), wheras NT usage of kosmos refers mostly to the created universe (e.g. Acts 17:24 or John 1:3), the place of human existence (e.g. Matt 4:8) or it can speak of humanity in general (e.g John 3:19), and almost always it is in hostility to God.

John especially uses kosmos to denote not the gathered place of God's elect, but actually to denote the opposite. Even in the very same chapter as 1 John 2:2, John warns his church not to love the world (2:15) because it is passing away (2:17) and is under the control of the evil one (5:19). This being the case, there is not really any reason to suppose that the 'our sins' refers to elect Jews and that 'the whole world' refers to elect Gentiles, or even elect Gentiles out in the world, as the highly emphatic Greek ('the whole world') is set in contrast to the 'us' with whom John is associating himself.

It is impermissible to translate the Greek so that it reads that Christ's sacrifice was only for the sins in John's group and the elect out there in the whole world. The atonement is quite simply for 'our sins' and also the sins of the whole kosmos - not just some particular people out there in the kosmos. Probably the best rendering of kosmos here is as the created order opposed to God, which is in keeping with John's usage in the rest of the letter, and also in his Gospel where Jesus bears the sins of the kosmos (1:29) and he is hailed as the saviour of the kosmos (4:42).

Given that in the remainder of the letter, John never refers to 'the world' in the sense that you've suggested (and I would argue that nowhere else in the NT does kosmos permit the translation that you've given it.

It's not surprising that you hold universal atonement (not the same thing as a dogmatic universalism) as unbiblical if you re-interpret all the verses which point to a universal atonement so that they say the opposite! Of course everyone has theological prejudices that we bring to the scriptures, but we must constantly be prepared to change our doctrine when it comes into conflict with scripture. This is why I for one quite simply cannot subscribe to a doctrine of limited atonement when the scriptures indicate otherwise.

There are also severe theological and pastoral difficulties with the doctrine, some of which I outlined in my post on the subject here.

http://worldofsven.blogspot.com/2005/05/tom-smail-on-calvinism-arminianism-and.html

I would also add an extra 'test' to the 'biblical' one (being as it is rather open to misapplication) and add the 'Jesus test' too. If Jesus is God and reveals the Father completely, we can look at both his words and actions to understand what God is like. Likewise with Jesus I see no reason to assume from his practice that he believed that atonement was only for a few (e.g Mark 14:24) or that God had only chosen some to be finally saved.



regards

Sven

Likewise with Jesus I see no reason to assume from his practice that he believed that atonement was only for a few (e.g Mark 14:24) or that God had only chosen some to be finally saved.

What about John 6? What about "many are called, few are chosen"?
What about in the high priestly prayer when Jesus says he prays not for everyone, but for those whom God has given him?

I also find it odd that you'd argue earlier for a corporate reading of Romans 8-9, an emphasis on spiritual Israel as opposed to national/ethnic Israel, and then here dismiss that sort of reading of the "all" passages. I mean, if we're going to read them literally, they look universalistic to me. And I know you're not a universalist.

Not all of them say "God wants all to be saved." Some say "I will draw all men to myself" or "salvation for the whole world." Unless one is a universalist, you have to interpret those some way other than literally, and taking the "all kinds of people"/"all nations"/"others outside the Jewish sphere" seems biblically warranted to me.

Of course everyone has theological prejudices that we bring to the scriptures, but we must constantly be prepared to change our doctrine when it comes into conflict with scripture.

Prepared to change doctrine?

I was born into a Wesleyan/Arminian family and stayed in Wesleyan/Arminian churches for 43 years. That's a lifetime of doctrine to change, and it took me a couple of years to come to grips with what Scripture truly says about election, but once I did, I had to repent to God for spending years trying to prove Him wrong.

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:18-19)

How do you explain this? Please don't tell me that you think the first time he said all he meant it and the second time he only meant some and the first many was really all but the second many was really only many. SIGH!

Of course there are shades of a doctrine of election in John 6 and John 17:9, but election is to responsibility and mission, not a private soteriological privilege, and by no means warrants the belief that in the end event this will remain the case.

In any case, the theology of Jesus' high priestly office is the idea behind John's argument in 1 John 2:1-2. He speaks to the Father in our defence, but in his capacity as the atoning sacrifice not only for 'our' sins but for the sins of the whole world as I discussed above.

I also think it requires a certain leap in logic to deduce from John 17:9 that because at that time Jesus was praying for his disciples, he never ever prays for the rest of the world, and indeed has no particular desire to. John already assumes the whole-worldly scope of Jesus' work in 1:26, 3:16 and 4:42, and the very disciples he prays for are the very ones Jesus sends to proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation, which is not really consistent with a view that God only wants to save some when set in the context of the rest of the narrative. I would argue that it is consistent with the idea that election and calling is a missional and reconciliatory responsibility to reach to others. If you like, just as this was the purpose in God's election of Israel, so now it is the continuing purpose of those in Christ.

Whether one is a universalist or not, it is not helpful to read biblical texts literallt when you agree with them and then reinterpret the ones that you disagree with. What I mean is, it's hermeneutically irresponsible to come to a passage that seems to teach universal atonement and then say "well obviously it must mean something else, because universal atonement is wrong", or equally "well limited atonement is correct, so all the verses which indicate otherwise must say something else." Both examples are bad cases of eisgesis.

Of course everyone comes to the scriptures with their own theological slant, and I am no exception. I currently see no reason to dismiss universal atonementa priori, or likewise to go through the biblical texts and come to the conclusion that limited atonement and/or double predestination is theologically and biblically sound.

I'm not a dogmatic universalist, but neither am I ever likely to become a strict 5-pointer, as I don't see that either are sufficiently defensible positions. I'd rather have a few question marks than subscribe to a theory I cannot really justify as being biblically authentic, and that's currently where I'm up to.

I'd rule out a dogmatic 'everyone and everything will definitely be saved in the ends regardless', but I believe the work of Christ and the Spirit certainly creates the possibility of all being saved, if not the certainty that this will be so. If that sounds like open theism, it isn't, it's just that I still have some thinking to do.

In fact from what I can tell, Calvinism stands or falls on limited atonement, because if there is no limited atonement then the only other possible outcome is universalism where all have been atoned for.

"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." (2 Thess 2:10-12)

This is the point I was making when I was referring to God allowing someone to suffer the consequences of their sin. (somewhere around comment 104) This verse doesn't say they perish because God didn't elect them or because God didn't give them the faith necessary to come to repentance. It says they "refusused to love truth". How can someone refuse to do something they aren't capable of doing? The word refusal suggests that they had the ablility, but for whatever reason, chose not to act upon it. A cripple doesn't refuse to walk. They don't walk because they can't. There is a big difference.

Ellen,

Yes I would be prepared to change doctrine, and indeed I have done many, many times and I expect to change and develop more in the future. I used to be such a strong Arminian that I think I was actually a pelagian.

Now I am much stronger on the ideas of God's sovereignty and election, but I'm still far from being a Calvinist and I don't think I could ever be (and let's face it, Arminianism and Calvinism are hardly the only two options one may choose from and still call oneself a Christian). Of course I have believed wrong things in the past and I probably believe some wrong things now, as do we all. Neither do I believe that any one human being will ever come up with a systematic theology (even a biblically-based one) that sets out perfectly what Christian doctrine is without being subject to change or revision. Calvin did not achieve this, and neither did Augustine, Anselm, Wesley, Barth or anyone else, and neither to a believe that one particular person, or group of people, are able to completely and objectively assimilate everything the Bible teaches and tell us what it 'really means.'

The gift of teaching is given by the Holy Spirit, and it is the same Spirit that binds us together in fellowship with one another. Learning the truth is to a private practice but a corporate activity where we can all contribute, feed back from one another, learn from others, and give and receive correction where necessary. Which is of course the value of forums such as this.

Great quote found on Jollyblogger:

In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer tells the story of how Spurgeon once responded to a question of how he reconciles divine sovereignty and human freedom. Spurgeon replied, "I never try to reconcile friends." [emphasis mine]

Holy smokes, less than a week and already on the 'Most Commented' list! I glanced at this earlier with the thought of commenting, but decided to pass. Jared and I have been down this road together before. :-)

Sorry to interrupt, carry on.

I don't remember ever seeing or hearing of an instance that "God" did offer evidence of control. The prevalance of Tornado alley that goes across the USA's Bible belt alone. Its often said God is love (for whatever that means)but I never see evidence to this effect. My late wife,a devout Catholic, prayed for death in the final moments of her suffering but the God she prayed to allowed her to live mute in te most terrible of pain for weeks after with terminal cancer. Again I see no evidence of control or even basic mercy. I myself have been an athiest since the age of 5 years old, because even at this tender age, I could see no evidence of control or design. It just never seemed right to me.

Ivan

I cannot imagine going through what you've gone through with your wife, although someday we all will walk some portion of that path ourselves.

I do pray that someday God will show His love to youu in a way that you can see. He is real, and He is love, though I know I can't prove that to you.

Thanks for stopping by the Thinklings and you're welcome back at any time :-)

bill

Ivan,

I too pray that God will reveal his love to you in time. I agree with Bill. And he's right, we can't "prove" that to anyone. The holy spirit must work in your heart and make him known to you. Just know that you are not alone in your struggles to find truth. We have all, at one time or another, struggled to figure out the purpose and meaning behind our suffering. I think that the fact that you made your way to this site shows that you are seeking. That is a good thing.

You know when you say you must find God with your heart, Do you ever wonder yourself if there is an alternative truth? For example, Should you not seek the God that created the God that the bible talks about? How can you know if who your praying to is the top entity? Could there be more truth out there than this one historical document documents?

Gina, You said "when God reveals his love" to me. My late wife was a very commited Christian and a very good woman. It would take way to much space to discribe just how good she was. Once a driver cut her off at some lights.. Tanya would have loved to have displayed her annoyance by giving "the finger" but being Tanya she didn't know how. Could you beleive someone would have the innocence in this day and age to not know that? She was indeed a remarkable woman who worshipped her God. This God gave her lung cancer. She never smoked in her life. Her death was remarkable in its pain and its suffering. Morphine would not stop her screaming. And she screamed and screamed and screamed. Horror movie stuff but all so real. I could make out her praying over and over for release from that pain. It took months to arrive. Tanya knew her God. I would like you to show me evidence of that God's "love" .
If this is the diety that you pray to ? To what end? God's son was crucified on a cross and I tell you, he had nothing on what my wife suffered through at the end.

Wow, Ivan. You make some pretty inflamatory statements. I will attempt to address them.

First of all, God was not created. He has always been. Psalms 90:2 says, "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." So, no I do not wonder whether I am praying to the "top entity." I believe, through faith, that the God of the bible is the creator of "all that is seen and unseen." (The Nicene Creed) I can't prove that He exists. I can only testify to my personal experience of faith in Him. While I concede that there is some truth in other religions, I agree with C.S. Lewis who said, "If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are wrong all through...But of course, being a Christian does mean that thinking where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic- there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer to being right than others." (Mere Christianity) I do not believe that there are alternative truths, ie. moral relativism. Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life." (John 14:6)

I did not say "when God reveals his love" to you. I said, I pray that God will reveal his love to you in time, and I was agreeing with Bill who said "He is real, and He is love, though I know I can't prove that to you." That which we believe by faith can't be proven, otherwise it would not be faith. However, when God chooses to reveal himself to us, through the working of the holy spirit, we do feel the inner peace that only He can give. It is a thing that has to be experienced.

I am very sorry to hear about the suffering your wife endured. My father has cancer and I know firsthand how difficult it can be to watch someone suffer. God never promised us that we would never suffer in this life. Just look at the great men of the bible if you want evidence of that. They suffered greatly because of their faith. However, as a Christian we can find comfort in knowing that this life is not all there is. We have a hope that one day we will be with our creator in heaven. I know that may be of little consolation to you. I am not sure what I can say to you. I am no expert on human suffering. I will not lie and pretend that I understand why God allows (or causes, depending on who you ask) some things to happen. But, I trust that He is in control and that all things happen for a reason.

You say, "God's son was crucified on a cross and I tell you, he had nothing on what my wife suffered through at the end."

Have you seen The Passion of the Christ? He wasn't merely "crucified on a cross." The bible says that he was led "like a lamb to the slaughter...despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering." He was beaten, tortured, and carried upon his flesh the "punishment that brought us peace." (Isaiah 53:5) To take nothing away from what your wife went through, I would say it is blasphemous to minimize what Jesus (voluntarily) did for a world of sinful, undeserving people.

I will be praying for you.

I knew it was only a matter of time before "hollywood style reality " would overtake "Medieval artists reality" on what people would perceive as the truth. Mel Gibson is a Catholic (and interstingly went to school with a business partner of mine) But he has no idea obviously about the facts pertaining to universal truth as do we.
One of the really interesting things (to me) about this site is so many people with such authentic beleifs in the scriptures and even very close brands of the same. Coca cola as to Pepsi. Yet even with such attention and study to the details of The Holy Bible you pretty much can't even come to agreement about the "meaning" of much of it. The debate is the evidence.
I cannot beleive that "the creator" put forward such a "dogs breakfast" for use by us as an instruction manual and we can't agree on the wording after 2000 years. Ikea instruction sheets could be seen as being clearer.
Any God worth his salt, would have, could have,should have made the "Holy instructions" capable of blind observation without argument. It just doesn't seem right to me.

Ivan, I'm not sure why you are here other than to let us know you are angry.
I'm very sorry for your loss; I'm sure your wife was a beautiful, sweet, courageous woman. I won't pretend to know how you feel, although I know it would practically destroy me if I lost my wife. And I don't have any magic words that will both explain why God allowed your wife to suffer and clarify all the mysteries of life to you.

I will say two things, however:

Does not believing in God make your wife's passing easier to accept? Does it hurt any less?

I don't think there will be any convincing you, but the easy answer to why God didn't make everything obvious is because it requires faith to trust and please him. No, the Bible's not as easy to figure out as an Ikea instruction manual. And, yes, many of us here and elsewhere are debating. But nearly every single one of us agrees on the core truths of Scripture -- that we are saved through our faith by God's grace given in His crucified Son. That part is fairly easy to figure out.

But understanding it still doesn't make believing it easier.

There seem to be two options for a man of your situation. Believe death and suffering are cruel realities of a world made randomly and governed by chance and the impersonal laws of nature, in which case death and suffering are still cruel. Or believe death and suffering are cruel realities of a world fallen from the perfect world created by a God who still governs and loves, in which case death and suffering are still cruel, but there is still a hope for better things and there is One who will comfort.

I choose the latter. It won't make the death and suffering easier for me. But I take comfort and healing in knowing that He has suffered and died too (and suffered and died because of me), and I take hope in knowing that having risen from the dead, Jesus promises a better life without those cruelties on the other side.

Blessings.

Thanks Jared. I think my veiw on the existence of a deity has little to do with pain suffered by my loss. It seems connected on the surface but its really not. I just think people mislead themselves. What am I doing here? complete accident. But I find the writing interesting. So I stayed and read a little.
As for the choices put forth, undoubtedly and sincerely I choose the former. It does not make my life uneasy or scary, in fact I find strength in the fact I am free of self delusion.
I find it intensely interesting to read thoughts of others that are very, very intelligent. And to see how that dynamic works of you selling yourselves on the illogical. I guess this is how cults have always formed.
cheers
Ivan.

Well, Ivan, I want you to know that you are welcome to hang around. Throw a steak on the grill and sit a spell :-) It's a great chance for you to witness the forming of a cult! The Nexus of the Cultic Universe?



Just kidding. But, seriously, we like visitors, regardless of their affinity to our beliefs, (as long as they stay civil, which I'm sure you will)

cheers,

bill

By the way, I never meant to imply that "The Passion" was the final authority. I just referred to it because its a rather vivid example of what Christ went through. However, as far as I can tell it is consistent with scripture as well as what is historically known about Roman floggings adn crucifixions. They were so severe that often the victims didn't live through it. There may have been a few extra-biblical scenes in there, but nothing that I saw that was in direct contradiction to the bible.

Ok, I am at work and I was typing fast. I meant to say and instead of adn and I also meant that the floggings were so severe that people did not often live through them.

I just got a phone call here at work that my dad's is very ill and is being taken to the hospital. He got some bad test results yesterday. It looks like his cancer has spread and the prognosis is not good. Please keep us in your prayers! His name is Larry. Thank you everyone!

Will do, Gina. Please keep us posted.
Blessings on your family.

Hang in there Gina - let us know what happens.

We'll be praying

Thanks. I just left the hospital. They have him on morphine now. His pain seems to be getting under control. However, I just got some unpleasant news. His doctor told him that he had 6-12 months in March. So, we assumed that was beginning then. But today he said, no. It was 6-12 beginning when he was first diagnosed in September. That puts him in month 9 already. I am trying not to freak out. To answer the question of this post, I believe my God is really in control, no matter what happens.

My mom, however, goes to a word of faith type church and she had me so upset this evening that I wanted to scream. She actually had the nerve to tell me that I needed to get to the hospital and "do something!" I said, "What exactly do you want me to do?" Then she started telling me that if I didn't stand in faith and speak positive confessions of healing for my dad that it would be my fault if he died, or his for not having enough faith. This blows my mind. Why would someone say such a thing? How does that make the sick person feel to hear that? I started to say, "You seem to be the one with all the faith, so why don't you go 'do something'?";"0

Oh my God, Gina, that is terrible.
And then what is essentially spiritual abuse heaped on for good measure. We'll be praying for you.

Your mother, though, is hurting and frightened too. I know what she said hurts and is unfair and is just wrong, but if you can, try not to hold what she says in this terrible time against her. People will grasp at all sorts of control when they are afraid and upset.

Thanks Bill. I will most certainly be civil. I suspect the gulf between my thinking and your more typical Christian thinking could be visualised by the grand canyon. I firmly beleive that people are afraid to analyse the framework of those beliefs. Its why everything is answered in what is frankly "marketing statements" that are in themselves meaningless. God is love. Jesus is life. Jesus-The way. etc etc. But having said that, I am really and genuinely interested in thoughts. We are all products of our experiences and mine will be as unique as your own. But having been brought surrounded by Christ followers I have been amazed at how tragically they have been let down in life and how deserted they feel by God. I can give you wonderful intances of this but I expect they will bore the troops. Thank you for the welcome.

Ivan.

I am very sorry for your fathers illness Gina. I can tell you when things like this happen, people lose their sanity.Its stress thats off the scale and people feel quite desperate.

Ivan

Gina,

Wow - I'm so sorry to hear that.

I'm proud of you. I will pray that God rains His peace down on you during this exceptionally difficult time.

Gina, I echo Jared's words above. Just be patient with your mom. Perhaps there will be a chance to gently correct her in the future. As far as your Dad goes...best thing you can "do" is be there. This is good for him and good for you. (Usually, everyone is different.) Let me encourage you to say to him everything you want to now. Regrets can make grief more difficult.

Thank you for all your prayers and thoughtful comments. I know that my mom means well, I just think her theology is misguided. However, she isn't really the kind of person that you can talk to. She believes what she believes and there is no changing her mind. Today she called and quoted me Psalms 91:16 which talks about God satisfying the believer with a long life as evididence that it is not God's will that we die at a young age. She said if the promises of the bible aren't true then God would be a liar. I don't really know how to respond to her logic. I asked her why some believers die at a young age if this is true, and she says that they either didn't have "enough" faith to believe God for healing or she makes up some other ridiculous answer that in effect undermines her original premise that God is "obligated" to honor the "promises" of divine health and healing UNLESS he has a REALLY good reason not to. But that puts God back in control and she clearly already thinks he isn't in control if we have the power to speak things into existance through positive confession.

I just don't know where to begin with her. Sigh!

Can I ask the thinklings some other questions? It is a bit off topic and I hope its allowed. The questions pertain to the "after life". Do you guys ever think about it? and if you do how do you see it in your head? By this, DO you see yourself as individual ? For instance, when you have passed on, could you converse with your family making the assumption everyone in it makes it to heaven? Do you see yourself comunicating? Why I ask this, is its occured to me from time to time how long "eternity" could be to anything that had consciousness. If you had the ability to say.. talk, then after the first thousand years things would get a little strained. I have heard people say they "bask" in Gods glory or magnificence etc.. but I think after you discussed why God allows evil to happen, you pretty much have all the big stuff. What do you people imagine happens? Have you thought about issues like this?

Ivan

Ivan, yes it is allowed. And we've always been rather liberal with our topic threads. (That's part of the fun.) But being a bit anal, plus since you ask such good questions, I hope it's OK with you if I dedicate an entire post to this subject. So look at our front page. Coming soon... :)

Thanks Shrode.

Ivan

Hey Ivan, I wrote it on May 26 - here's the permalink-
http://thinklings.org/index.php?p=2110&more=1&c=1

Tell me what you think... over there. :)

Gina, stay strong and firm. I've been "out", but I'm praying.

Ivan, my life, by most standards, has had some real trials, some are public, some only a couple of people know about.

I married young (to a good actor - I thought I was getting a Christian) - we didn't expect to struggle with infertility, and we didn't expect to lose the first 5 babies I got pregnant with. We didn't expect our son to be born 2 months early. Through those times, I clung to my belief that everything would work together for good. The one miscarriage that still stings is Elena - I lost her at nearly 5 months. But if I had carried her, the rest of my life would have played out very differently and I believe that God knew what He was doing.

My husband passed away - it will be 4 years tomorrow. Before that, in the space of 18 months, he was diagnosed with cancer, my father-in-law unexpectedly passed away in his sleep, my mother-in-law had a recurrance of breast cancer and passed away after a brief, but very painful struggle, my dad had 5-way by-pass surgery and my husband's cancer returned and he passed away.

We have a kid living with us right now - some pretty bad things have happened in his life - my son was able to verbalize that he used to think bad things happened at random - but now he knows that everything happens for a reason and he named off a couple of things that have happened that would not have, had his dad been alive.

I (personally) feel (as a believer) more comfort in knowing there's a purpose, than if it all happened "just because"

There is hope in the cross...

Thanks Ellen. I am sorry to hear about all that you have been through in the last few years. Life can be quite overwhelming sometimes. The man my mother had been dating for 8 years died of a sudden heart attack last July. Just a little over a month later is when we found out that my dad has cancer. Before all of this happened, I was not a Christian. Around this time I met a guy who talked to me about being a Christian. If I told you where I met him, you would KNOW that God had to have a hand in it. I was sooooo not seeking. I was not even remotely interested in the idea. But I think that God was using all these circumstances together to draw me. As I began to get to know this guy better I saw something in him that I really wanted to have. Its hard to explain, but he had this sense of peace about him, no matter what was going on in his life. As my dad's condition became more grave and we thought we were going to lose him in the fall, I began to realize that without God, I could never have the strength to face the challenges that were before me. Now, I am not saying that God gave my dad cancer to get me to put my faith in him. But, I do believe that he does work all things together for good. Even though my life has not been a breeze lately, I don't regret for one moment the decision I made to follow Christ. It is the best thing that ever happened to me. So, yes, God does see the big picture and we have to trust him even when we don't understand why some things happen. For me, it is much more comforting to believe that there is a plan and that God is in control of it, rather than to think that everything is random and nothing means anything.

Gina and Ellen

This may sounds strange, but it's the first thought that popped in my head when I read both your comments. It is simply this:

You are both beautiful.

I can't imagine what you have both gone through. Your strength gives me hope that when I go through the same kinds of things in my life that I will stay strong in the Lord. Thank you for sharing all this with us.

Bill,

How nice. You made my day.

Gina

ditto

;-)

I wanted to thank everyone for their prayers for my dad during his illness. He passed away on Tuesday at around 130am. He was such a courageous and strong person. I will always admire that about him.

Please keep me and my family in your prayers during this difficult time.

Gina, so sorry I haven't responded to this sooner.
Please accept our condolences.
I'll be praying for you and your family.

Thanks Jared.

Thinklings, is your God in "total" control of the universe? or does he simply have "some" contol? Do you see him able to work outside our laws of physics? Why do you suppose evil happens? Do you beleive in the existence of Satan? Is God stronger than Satan? Does God know you down to the number of hairs on your body?

Ivan,
Thanks for coming back! I welcome and hope others will take a shot at your excellent questions. My words are not necessarily the best. Someone else will be able to do it better...

is your God in "total" control of the universe?
Yes.

or does he simply have "some" control?
No. Nothing happens that is not under his authority.


Do you see him able to work outside our laws of physics?
He can choose to work within HIS laws of physics that he created. Or he can choose to supercede them in rare occasions, as an exception. This is like a parent who lets their child stay up past their bedtime once. Did that parent "work outside his rules"? That's not an description. No, the parent temporarily superceded those rules with a higher authority, his own, since he's the one who made the rules in the first place. He didn't go outside the rules or break them. Similarly, God having made the laws of physics, has both the power and the authority to supercede his own laws with a declaration. And that shouldn't be considered "breaking" or "going outside."

Why do you suppose evil happens?
Not sure. Job asks the same question. I know it's not God's fault. I know that Adam was responsible for choosing to rebel (which was evil, and led to more evil). I know that Satan was also responsible for choosing to rebel which was evil and led to more evil.

Do you beleive in the existence of Satan?
Yes. Only because it is what the Bible teaches. It is my authority and source for all matters spiritual. Physicists can tell me about physics, since they see and understand what I don't. Historians tell me about history since they see and understand what I don't. And God, the ultimate Spirit tells me about all things in the spiritual realm because he sees and understands what I don't. (Don't take that to mean that God isn't also my authority over other things. What I'm trying to explain is why I believe the Bible when it says there is an adversary/enemy/devil/satan.

Is God stronger than Satan?
Yes

Does God know you down to the number of hairs on your body?
Yes. The Bible says so... but I think you knew that. :)

I sense some follow-up questions... :)

Enjoyed reading all your posts. OSAS (form of Calvinism) is a man made doctrine without consistant scriptural support. It's a Baptist thing and is not taught in the Bible. Please read the Parable of the sower (the shallow heart)Heb6:4-6, Heb 10:26-29, 2Peter 2:20-22, and many many more scriptures that teach one can lose their salvation *IF* they continue in willful sin and choose not to obey, Gal,chapter 5. If you want to read a comprehensive study on OSAS go to Dan Corner's site
evangelical outreach. If you can't find it just email me and I will send it to you...Del

Del, thanks for commenting.

I don't have time to provide a full rebuttal, but I assure you the passages you have cited are not news to the millions of Christians who believe in perseverance of the saints (or the awkward alterna-label "once saved always saved"). We are familiar with them and do not find the implied free-will interpretations of them convincing.

I also respectfully suggest you brush up on your historical theology. Perseverance of the saints is not a Baptist invention; formally, it dates back at least to the Reformation, although plenty of us see it in some of the church fathers. And of course in the Bible itself.

If you'd like some "comprehensive studies" demonstrating the Scriptural foundation for OSAS, just leave another comment, and I'd be glad to post a link or two.

Thanks again for stopping by!

I read with interest many of these discussions and keep hearing over and over "No one can come unless the holy spirit draws him/her. The bible is clear about that" (Gina post #80, etc)

Actually, the bible doesn't say that at all ... it's
a misquote of Jesus' words ... now if people can't keep straight who's doing the "draw"ing, how can they
understand any of the other sovereignty issues supposedly being addressed here.

It's the Father God who does the drawing to Jesus.



The quote from Jesus is "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him...." Jn. 6:44.

That just may be the thinnest hair ever split on this site.

Yes, Jesus said "the Father."
Most of us believe the Spirit and the Father are both God, so the point -- which you conveniently avoided -- remains the same: man cannot come to Jesus unless God draws him.

Unless you think the Spirit is sovereign but the Father is not, or the Father is sovereign but the Spirit is not, or the Spirit is not part of the Godhead, or . . . I'm sorry, what was your point again?

God can sovereignly decide to give men sovereign control of their own lives, and being that God knolwedge is infinite and unchanging, His laws are absolute where men either experience blessing or consequence in line with them, and that He can use providence and miraculous intervention, this shows He has control OVER all things (directly and indirectly in regards to free will) without having to be in control OF all things/directly. If God causes all acts, or causes all desires which determine actions according to a hard determinist or soft determinist stance, God in any way you put it is the source of evil...call it the author of Evil or cause of evil..theyre the same thing. They come from him directly because He causes the actions of all.

Theres a way to reconcile free will and human foreknowledge, in that men can freely act in time, while Gods KNOWLEDGE of their future free actions is unchangable. Since knowledge causes no action, but is aware of actions, it in no way follows that mens acts are determined BECAUSE he KNOWS about their acts with certainty.

In other words theres no contradiction in saying that God unchangably knows the future free actions of men. While their act is detemined according to Gods knowledge, its free according to their causing of their own act. So its free and determined simultaneously/AT THE SAME TIME, but is NOT free and determined in the same sense.

It can be demonstrated that both arminianism and calvinism are contradictory, and that an alternate view to those two are reducible to what is self evident, undeniable, and in accord with general revelation and scripture without problematic consequences.

Either John 6:43-46 says that God drawing men means that those who are drawn do infact come to Jesus (in a calvinistic deterministic sense where men are unable to repsond to God for salvation and need a new nature inorder to believe) or else no one can come to God APART (away from) from Gods pull. It is the latter that is true, not the former.

The context says that EVERYONE is taught by God..as a summarization of old testament prophetic verses. Those who listen and learn from the Father come to Jesus. So God does draw everyone meaningfully, via the "truelight that gives light to every man(john 1:9).. BUT the condition is that THEY listen and learn from the Father who is teaching them and drawing them,.As the scripture says, it is by faith SO THAT it might be by grace...not the other way around and faith is their own possesion, as teh word "your" faith, and "their" faith is described as a precondition for THEM to get saved.


Its saying that the KIND or TYPE of people that listen and learn from the Father come to Jesus. These are the "KINDS of worshippers the Father seeks" (John 4:23). The Bible speaks mostely in terms of categories of people, classes, kinds or types..nations for individuals to identify or align themselves with. You see , the sheep, teh goats, the believers, the non believers, the church, the bride, the elect lady, or teh usual "He who is like" a little child/humble etc..which speaks of a kind or type of person..a general characteristic of a way of life. Hes intending His messge for inividuals, but its promised only to a certain kind or type of person, and when an individual identifies with that kind of person, then they become part of that class and recieve the promises he speaks about. He gives the design or plan, individuals must align themselves with it or not.



The point of the passage was that Jesus was saying that those who continually grumble and complain about what Jesus aid, were not allowing themselves to repond to Gods/Jesus teaching for them, thus were not allowing themselves to respond to his drawing of them, and was asking that they cease doing that are start listening and learning from teh Father for only the kinds or types of people who respond to teh drawing /light He gives all men could come to Christ. Its commonsense..unless one allows oneself to be pulled instead of rejecting it, will they be able to come to teh Father. Jesus actually told them to stop grumbling in verse 43. He also promises to them that IF tTHEY would stop it and respond to His loving draw, that He would in fact raise them up on teh last day. (vs 45). He then required that THEY (those He was speaking to whom he already knew who was going to reject him (vs64) and these were his disciples already (vs 61). He goes on to explain in verse 65 as to why he said that no one could come to Him unless teh father has enabled him was because ONLY the kinds or types of people that stop grumbling, being offended, and do infact respond positively to Jesus message and teh light they do have can come to the Father. They werent allowing the Father to enable them to come to Jesus because they instead wished to occuply their time looking for temporal bread, instant gratification, as opposed to seeking truth, their creator, the source of love and their life.

The Bible in Ephesians 1 doesnt say that "God chose ME before the creation of the world"..nor does it say "He chose CHRISTIANS before the creation of the world"..rather it says "He chose US, IN HIM/IN CHRIST, before the creation of the world"...in that He eternally chooses christians in christ. Thats where election occurs, and according to that passage an individual isnt in christ before teh creation of teh world, rather the individual recieves christs election because the person becomes "included in christ, WHEN (they) heard the word of truth"(vs 13).

He chooses a kind or type of people in christ, we respond to the drawing of God as individuals, and then recieve the election of Christ, His perfection, righteousness, sonship, and all blessings that are found in Christ. We werent chosen and then put in christ, we are in christ and therefore are elect because of that identification.

I was going to say there, but missed making my point was that


"He then required that THEY (those He was speaking to whom he already knew who was going to reject him (vs64) and these were his disciples already (vs 61) were to eat his flesh and drink his blood and JEsus would rise them up". He asked that they would either enact a capacity they DID have to respond OR ELSE to enact a capacity they DIDNT have to respond to his request and drawing love.

If one assumes that Jesus was asking that they should enact a capacity they did have, thats not calvinism, thats something OTHER than calvinism...which I can specifically clarify in another post if someone would like.

If one assumes that Jesus was asking that they should enact a capacity they DIDNT have, then one would be implying that Jesus was asking them to enact a capacity that didnt exist. But to do this Jesus would be asking people something like "move this non existent table or else youll go to hell"...Since God cannot do what is impossible by definition/contradictory/irrational or stupid, and no one can do what is impossible by definition, it would be irrational for Jesus to ask the unregenerate he was talking to who were his disciples (as was Judas) to move or enact something that doesnt exist. If that was so Jesus would be describing something that doesnt exist in a way as IF IT DID exist..Jesus would also be telling them the wrong thing. Jesus is all knowing, is perfect, and isnt irrational. therefore it must be false to assume that Jesus is telling people to enact a capacity to choose to respond to Him, when they infact have no abillity to respond and therefor ecannot enact a capacity to respond to jesuss love and teaching light.


Since Calvinism generally believes that man cannot respond to God (in faith which is what Jesus here was calling them to do), and it would require that Jesus would be asking men to move or enact a capacity they dont have/that doesnt exist, it would imply that Jesus is irration, stupid, or doesnt know any better..(asking men to move something that doesnty exist..confusing nothing as if it was something to be able to be moved. Only an existent thing can be moved, and JEsus knows better). But since Jesus is God, and God is all-knowing and perfect, He cannot do this. Therefore Calvinism in this foundational premise is false/wrong.

De,

Good point. I was so eager to get y'all's thoughts that I completely forgot about connecting this with a prior post.

Jared, I really like your 2 cents. Very helpful.

Not only do I believe in God but I believe he is not the dealer of harm or a kid with an ant farm. The Nation smiting God of the Jews was a product of ticked of jews who had indured several thousand years of nations giving them sh*t. I think that if you really study the bible you start to hear about this really nice God that loves and shows everyone mercy. I not convinced that God ever smited a nation. I believe that God allows poeple to go through sh*t becuase it is deserved or nessecary for growth. And once you begin to study human history you begin to notice that humans are nothing but greedy a$$ war mungers and don't even deserve to exsist. I believe that God and the devil work the in the same principles of karma. If you do bad sh#t then you open yourself up for bad sh#t to happen to you. Also think about a volcano, they are so incredably distructive but from that destruction comes countless good things.

Yes. Always. Forever.
He's outside Time. We're in it.
He sees the whole enchilada. We can't possibly.
Read the book of Job and shut your mouth when speaking of the Almighty. We know precious little and that by grace.

I can't quite agree with david in 206.
Karma is in fact quite foreign to christianity.

God is in control totally. He is also totally victorious without any failure or change in his plan. The point is the man already deserves bad stuff for his sin is against an infinitely holy and just God. It is common grace and God's love for his glory (in his plan of redemption and in Christ) that mankind doesn't receive it now. This simply says that God is kind because there needs to be a people to save in the first place.

I am sure that the evils of this world in no way compare to those of hell. God, in fact, restrains people from potential evil. By Civil order (Government) and by limiting opportunity for committing sin.

I want to say a few things. For one in that verse where it talks about God "Creating evil" and all other old testiment passages about God causing "evil", is always in light of judgement on nations, "Evil" is often translated calamity. And He pretty much always gives good reason way He was chastening or judging a nation. It is like spanking a child. God sometimes uses nature to chasten people, hoping they may return to Him, without this context though it could be seen as evil. The various times in the bible show He did it in that intense, but does not show He controls and causes all events of nature, we error by taking one or two exaples and saying God always does things this way. That is to put God in a box. I think that animals and nature can be controlled fully by God, and we see this though out scripture, but Humans God put in them the "Image of God" and created them to be "Rulers" and has given them choices, He gives us the choice wether we will be ruled by Him, or like adem and eve, choose to be independant and thus be controlled by satan and sin.
Next, soveriegnty in the dictionary does not mean total control! If we think sovereignty means total control we are erroring BIG TIME. While God could be in total control, He has for a time, by his own soveriengn choice, decided to give humans a truly free will. Because for a time He longs for people to freely come to Him, and to respond to His pursuing them.
i think all the problems in the world are because of people rebelling against His rule, and because God for a time has decided not to enforce His rule, the messed up world continues to grow worse and worse. You know the bible says "we ALL once were CONTROLLED by the prince of the power of the air[Satan]" Eph2, think about that, when we rebel against His control we are then controlled by the demonic realm. for God resist the proud and knows them from afar off, the bible says, Our rebellion removes us from the total control of God, and makes us vulnrable to satan and the evils of the world. Yet, God does still bring good about, and evil what Satan means for evil, God can turn around and use it to advance His kindgom, He is always up to good.
If God was in total control of every thought, emotion, moment as calvinist teach, then there would be no devil, no evil, no sin because the bible clearly shows God hate all evil and sin, and hates the work of the devil, but there would also be no creatures who freely loved God by choice. God knew the only way He could have what He desired was to make genuinely free creatures. Yeah, it was a risk, but He saw it worth it. Some of us may not think so.
One day He will enforce His rule and it will the the annilalation of the human race and the earth and heavens will melt with fervent heat. We have this short time on earth to submit to His rule, before the time He enforce it.
I do think though, God can do and does things independantly of man, (Like the saving of Paul) But this is not the norm. God could just zap everyone, but this would not bring Him the most glory. It is clear God's government is driven by relationship, not Power. I have a paper on this called "My response to calvinism" on my website www.forevergrasping.com if you are interested.
Blessings

I wondered if I might be able to ask something on this forum. I don't know if it directly "relates" but I wanted to ask anyway. When Christains refer to Jesus and sometimes God dying for our sins, How is this so? I know the traditional biblical story as taught in Sunday School etc but I have never understood it properly. What I think I know is, Jesus was crucified by the Roman authority at the time and I speculate it had all to do with the political times of the day. But the fact the Roman army did this, I presume with a great deal of force, I can't work out how it the act absolves sin or offers asbsolution to the populace at large 2000 or so years later. Supposing it does, (for the sake of discussion) then why are we "judged" a second time (when we die) if Jesus has already died for the sins yet to be committed by mankind. We should be off the hook right? I have been a lifetime athiest largely because almost nothing in the holy book makes any kind of sense to me and unlike many thinking Christains, I have never been capable of compartmentalising the faith seperate to my rational thinking. If you could spell it out for the slow learner I would really be grateful. Feel free to email me directly.

best regards
Ray

Ray,
You are not forgotten, friend. I noticed your comment here and intend to reply. I just can't right now. I plan on posting a response here tomorrow...

Btw, I'm the thinkling known as "Shrode" up on the left sidebar.

But just to whet your appetite, let me say that I've never been cabable of compartmentalising my faith separate from my rational thinking either. :)

You ask some really excellent, and foundational questions, so I'll give it my best shot tomorrow.

Thanks Philip I appreciate that. That comment, was from an interview with a Government figure here who is considered a bit interllectual. Someone onced asked him how he seperated his knowledge of science from putting God to the test.. he answered that he compartmentilised it differently.

Ray,
That's interesting. Who is that figure? Oh and if he feels that science puts God to the test, then he has either a poor view of God, or a poor understanding of that Scripture...OR he's just the victim of a clever reporter. :)

Oh, and don't worry, my response to your original query is still forthcoming...

Ray wrote:
I wondered if I might be able to ask something on this forum.

Of course, Ray. And I’ll do my best to respond. So the following is the long awaited reply. :)

You asked:

“When Christians refer to Jesus and sometimes God dying for our sins, How is this so? I know the traditional biblical story as taught in Sunday School etc but I have never understood it properly. What I think I know is, Jesus was crucified by the Roman authority at the time and I speculate it had all to do with the political times of the day. But the fact the Roman army did this; I presume with a great deal of force, I can’t work out how it the act absolves sin or offers absolution to the populace at large 2000 or so years later. Supposing it does, (for the sake of discussion) then why are we “judged” a second time (when we die) if Jesus has already died for the sins yet to be committed by mankind. We should be off the hook right?

I wonder if you were taught the biblical story in order? I think in many ways that church Sunday schools have failed because they failed to teach the “Big Story”. Telling a bible story here, and a bible story there, may work great to teach moralistic lessons, but it doesn’t show how all those stories fit together chronologically and thematically into God’s big plan.

The Old Testament is the story of God teaching a small group of people (and through them, all of humanity) foundational truths to prepare them for Jesus. So I need to start at the beginning.

Lesson 1
God is holy and righteous judge of the universe. As such, he would not be good if he allowed sin to go unpunished. The purpose of Moses and the 10 commandments was to teach us that there is a standard of righteousness AND that we all fall short. We rebel. The purpose of the sacrificial system was to teach that it was possible for God to be a just judge who punishes sin AND to allow the guilty to live at the same time. This is by substitution. The sacrificial animal served as a substitute, dying in the place of the person. That goat would be punished in a sense, so that the person could be forgiven.

Ray, can you understand how a police officer or judge would not be good if he/she allowed the guilty to go unpunished? Can you imagine a judge saying to a murderer, “I know you. You are my neighbor’s kid. I even love you. Don’t worry about your murder. Go free.” Or the murderer saying, “I’m a good guy. I used to mow your lawn and walk your grandmother across the street. My good deeds outweigh my bad deeds, so you should overlook this one crime and let me go free.” No. Any judge who does not punish the guilty is not a good judge. (Likewise, I'm glad God punishes sin. It would disgust me beyond feelings to know that child abusers, terrorists and the like might never have to pay for their crimes.)

God must punish sin! Can you see that? (I realize you don’t believe in God, but you seem to be asking how our beliefs are internally consistent, so I’m trying to show you how Jesus’ death makes sense, which seems to be your question here.)

Lesson 2
Human beings are sinners. God is perfect and righteous. And we aren’t. Most of us have broken most of the 10 commandments. And even only 1 sin, is enough to qualify as deserving punishment. (We can explore any of these concepts in depth in the future, if you like, but right now, I’m just trying to give you a thumbnail sketch. Feel free to pick apart, question, challenge or ask for clarification on any point that I make.)

So we all deserve to be punished. Hell is the only just punishment for our crimes. (We can explore this concept in depth later if you like. But to be brief, let me just say here that a rebel against God wouldn’t want to be in heaven. Heaven is not some kind of eternal paradise as movies paint it. It is the total presence of God. To someone who hates God, heaven would be hell…)

Lesson 3
God, who is brilliant, thought of a way (he planned it in advance actually) to punish sin AND free his creatures from sin’s consequences. He could satisfy both his role as Judge and his role as a merciful Father. Love and Justice could both be satisfied if someone else would be punished in the place of those he loved. Who could do that? No human being is qualified, since they are all sinners. A sinner would be paying for his own crimes. The answer was to do it himself. So the only sinless human being was born…Jesus. He was born to die. He was born to be the ultimate and final sacrificial lamb. (I’m assuming you know your OT stories, to fully understand this….)

Lesson 4
A Gift that is rejected isn’t yours. Just like if you bought me a present, and I said “no”, it wouldn’t be mine. Forgiveness that was purchased by Christ’s death on the cross isn’t applied to all humans because they don’t all want it. One must accept the gift of mercy in order for it to be applied to that person.

So Ray, you ask, But the fact the Roman army did this; I presume with a great deal of force, I can’t work out how it the act absolves sin or offers absolution to the populace at large 2000 or so years later. Supposing it does, (for the sake of discussion) then why are we “judged” a second time (when we die) if Jesus has already died for the sins yet to be committed by mankind. We should be off the hook right?

The Roman army may have carried out the execution, but the Bible teaches that it was God’s plan that they do so. It was not accidental. God intended that it absolve the sin of all those who accept the gift of mercy that Jesus purchased by his death. As supreme Judge, God has the right to do this.

So if someone rejects this gift of mercy, that someone is not off the hook. They are only judged one time, not twice. They are judged for their own sins. By choosing not to accept Jesus' sacrifice, his payment for sins does not apply to them. But as long as someone is alive, it’s not too late to accept that gift.

Ray also wrote:
I have been a lifetime atheist largely because almost nothing in the holy book makes any kind of sense to me and unlike many thinking Christians, I have never been capable of compartmentalizing the faith separate to my rational thinking. If you could spell it out for the slow learner I would really be grateful.

How did I do? I expect that if you really want to understand this, so that it makes sense as you say, that there will be further questions and maybe even challenges to what I said above. Feel Free! I’m happy to continue the dialogue. I by no means expect my answer here to be the last word!

And as I said before, I can’t compartmentalize my faith from my rational thinking either. Those who think that seperating faith from reason is necessary to be a Christian are wrong. In fact the Bible tells us to love God with our “minds”. You don’t have to check your brains at the door to be a Christian.

If what I believe is true, then I (nor God, nor any Christian) should be afraid of tough questions. If what I believe is true, then all honest inquiry and exploration will lead to God anyway. If what I believe is true, then even the study of science will lead to God because he is the creator of all that science studies…

So what do you think Ray?

(I really hope this comment wasn’t too long! ;)

Hey Philip,

The guy was a Labor politician here by the names of Barry Jones. He had a quite brilliant mind and I think he was a strong Catholic. But I am totally sure on that part.

Philip,
Thanks very much for such a detailed reply. I may have to read it a few times to digest fully. Its my daughters 21st birthday today, and I have to go and do a few things so I might have to reply in a day or so. The lesson 1. I don't think I understand at all. The other bits I "think" I follow you but I keep getting these sub questions coming with each line. I might have to print out and makes some notes. But thank you for the detail in your reply.
I think the bible may be wrong. By this,We know some bits..actually a whole lot of bits probably are not the "word of God" more the word of man. As Christains if you thought it all correct, we would still be stoning people and sacreficing animals etc. The human race "cherry picks" the bits they believe are the authentic word. When you overveiw the story, for a God who is "brilliant" or monomentally brilliant, The plan and the message to me seem woefully inadequate and hackneyed. It seems to me a plan conceptuliased by a human not one of a brilliant God. When you look at our times, some 2000 years later a veritable "blink in the eye" we have enormous disagreement in what the holy book means. yes there a few common bits everyone kind of agrees on, but how many differing versions do we have on the one branch of the one group? let alone all the other seperate groups. Its the fact that Gods message falls so dismally short of longevity and that its couched in stone age concepts that puzzles me. It doesn't read or sound like a work of a diety to me. I would also like to ask, you mentioned that only God's son could die as a sacrefice because all others were sinfull. (please ignore my spelling mistakes I am just attrocious and my keyboard keeps not registering certain letters) Damned microsoft! I don't understand this. I am sure many people may be without sin. Could not a human baby be sacreficed? It would be free of any sin? I liked your last 4 lines. Very optimistic!

I will comment a bit further in a day or so. Thanks Philip.

Lesson 1

It just doesn't make sense Philip. For starters, I don't think sin is rebellion. Lots of sin is in fact
very human and natural. And I don't mean the egregious ones such as murder. We sin for the
most part because of the very qualities God would have designed into us, to then apportion
blame as if we were simple children for these very same qualities is just crazy.
You explained the "sacrificial system well but it to makes even less sense to me. You
quote: can I imagine a judge letting a kid off on murder because he was a neighbour..
that is.. "any judge that does not punish the guilty isn't a good judge" But your sacrificial system
has your God as the ultimate God, punishing his son by murder, instead of punishing the
sinner him or herself. Imean wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to "punish" the individual
at the time of the sin rather than murdering the son in order to "forgive" the sin only to give
some kind of eternal punishment later on? You try and show how Jesus' death makes sense
and the explanation sounds non sensical to the point of sounding insane. Do you see
what I am getting at or am I as stupid as think?

Lesson 2

Human beings are sinners? God is perfect and righteous. Lets explore that ? How has a baby sinned? How is a still born baby judged? If breaking even one sin is punishable by eternal damnation in hells fires how is that a perfect and righteous punishment? You say we all deserve to be punished? Why is that so? Why design a sinful human being in order to tempt,sway and then punish. How is this righteous? How is it even fair? How is it just? How is it an act of a loving father? Heaven is not some kind of eternal paradise as the movies paint it..? How about how the church paints it? Or Billy Graham paints it? Or Oral Roberts paints it? How do you know what heaven or hell is? Philip, I ask this without sarcasm or irritation. I have just heard the concepts of this change a whole lot just in my 48 odd years. They change yet I haven't seen an updated bible being released.

Lesson 4

God who is brilliant..found a way to punish and let off the hook his creatures for sin he programmed the human body to commit. Philip this just doesn't make sense. What have I missed? Love and justice could both be realised if someone else copped the torturing and death? Philip you have to make this clearer for me. It doesn't compute in my head. Again, going back to the beginning, God is brilliant, but this is the plan? Jesus born to die? This is the best God could come up with? a sacrificial lamb?

Lesson 5

I will have to re-read this about 20 times. Its still not sinking in. Did I confess to you I am pretty thick about these matters? Thank you once again for such a detailed and thought provoking reply Philip.

Hey Ray!

I had to google "barry jones" to figure out where "here" is.

Have you lived in Australia all your life?

I've always wanted to visit there, really. :)

More later...I just had a quick second before I have to go fix lunch for my kiddos. (Ages 5, 3 and 1)

Just read the wikipedia article on Barry Jones. Interesting. Apparently he owns the largest autograph collection in Australia, and rose to fame as a quiz show champion in 1960.

That article led to one on Ronald Ryan which I found fascination. (He was the last man executed in Australia. His hanging led to the abolishment of the death penalty in Australia 20 years later.) Fascinating stuff... Sorry for the Rabbit chase...I love rabbits... :)

Hi there Philip. You have a young family! In my opinion your living some of the best days of your life. You will find this out as the children get older. Your still in the magic years. I always respected Barry Jones.We used to have this quiz show my late father loved called BP Pick a box. Hosted by am American called Bob Dyer. Hugely popular here in the 60's. Barry had this encylopedic recall of almost any question and he would win over and over. He is very good friends with a famous Athiest over called Phillip Adams. Phillip has interveiwed him on his show "late night live" which has this way of covering things religious from time to time. The quote I mentioned was one I had picked up from this program. Another guy I respect hugely is a Scientist by the name of Paul Davies. He was often on the show and Paul is somewhat religious and the discussions they have are just so darn interesting. Its podcast from time time if ever you wish to listen in.

Philip,
We don't do captial punishment in Australia anymore. In fact, our 3 last mass murderers are in a "never to be released" prison. If you get a chance look up Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant. A quick religious question..Out of the 10 comandments, the most equivical has to be "though shall not kill" This one out of anything purporting to come from God sounds really like it did. Why is it, that America a strongly Christian country, more so than any other, the polls consistantly that the public wants the Government to follow Gods values as written, still thinks killing people is ok? Particulary in the case of war. I say war.. because you have the eye for an eye argument I guess with capital punishment but war must be different do you have any social comments on this?

Hey Philip,

Yes I have lived here all my life. I have travelled to the USA a couple of times. You would probably really love it if you visited. I heard Australia discribed as like the USA in the 50,s. Its a very friendly place The climate is hot in summer but generally the weather is quite beautiful

You would probably really love it if you visited. Its a very friendly place The climate is hot in summer but generally the weather is quite beautiful

Yeah, I probably would love it. Hot? Hah. I live in south Texas. I'm probably used to it. (It's been 100 degrees here for a good part of the summer. It's only just now cooling down.) It's not hotter than that, is it? :)

A quick religious question..Out of the 10 comandments, the most equivical has to be “though shall not kill” This one out of anything purporting to come from God sounds really like it did. Why is it, that America a strongly Christian country, more so than any other, the polls consistantly that the public wants the Government to follow Gods values as written, still thinks killing people is ok?

Well, first of all, never believe polls. ;-) As is the case in Australia, I'm sure, opinions here are quite diverse on every subject.

So, I don't think one could say that the American public monolithically believes "killing is OK". In fact, I'm pretty sure that 99% of us are against it.

Also the American public is quite varied as to its view of how much religious values should influence gov't policies. To oversimplify things, half of us think religion should stay out of politics, and the other half thinks politics should stay out of religion. :)

As far as "thou shall not kill" goes, a better way to translate that is "thou shall not murder." You should know that within Christian circles, we disagree and debate this issue. Many of us would say that the death penalty and all war is murder. We call that view "Christian pacifism". Whereas, I personally don't hold that view, I certainly understand it, and am sympathetic to it. I wouldn't want you to think that belief in a Christian God necissitates agreeing with all wars and capital punishment.

Particulary in the case of war. I say war.. because you have the eye for an eye argument I guess with capital punishment but war must be different do you have any social comments on this?

As I said, my view is not necessarily the same as all Christians. But many Christians do share my view (and others disagree, which is fine.)

Capital punishment - Our argument is that murder is one of the worst offenses there is. And that sometimes, if the punishment is to fit the crime, which most agree is justice, then death itself is the only fit punishment. According to that view, the state carrying out the death penalty, when due process has been followed is not murder, and therefore does not violate the sixth commandment. (do not murder)(And there are some Biblical grounds to support this view as well, though some disagree)

As for war, there are some Christians (and many in our country, both non-christians and christians alike) who oppose all war. Just check out the World council of churches website, where there is heavy american participation.

However, more of us are probably better described as selective pacifists. You'd have a hard time finding any Christian that actually likes war, or who is for it all the time. Such a person would be labeled by us as "outside what is acceptable".

Rather a selective pacifist, which is what I think is a more Biblical view, and which is what I would call myself, is someone who abhors war as a great evil. And who recognizes that Jesus taught us to be peacemakers. Peace should be pursued at all costs. The Bible is clear about this. But some of us would say, that sometimes, as awful as it is, the only way to secure peace is by force. But even then, we would say that war is only justified if the goal is peace, and that the war is ended as soon as possible. And that every effort is to avoid harm to civilians.

Just so you know, Christians (including some thinklings) are divided as to whether we should have gone to war in Iraq.

I'm not saying you did, but to characterize a Bible-believing christian as "pro-war" wouldn't be accurate.

Ray, I hope I answered this "quick" question OK. We could spend 100 more comments discussing it probably, but I'm anxious to get on to some of the other big issues you raised earlier...

(The above was intended to be a quick reply, I'm not sure I succeeded. :)

In Sydney, through summer we get many days over the century. In some parts of my state New South Wales it gets over 40C your cooking steaks on the pavement in those temps. But mostly.. Winter,Springs and fall are just beautiful. But right now its beginning to heat up again. I have recently taken up cycling and today it nearly was the death of me. Going to have to only go night riding this next few months I guess.

But Philip. Isn't God really,really clear on this? Its thou shall not "Kill" The wording was specific.. I have always thought this particular command was a bloody sensible one. And if you link it to turning the other cheek, you pretty much have his command on both counts don't you? How do you position yourself? The figures I mentioned were recent polls taken generally on faith done I think earlier this year. I think, the sampling was quite large and results fairly consistant right the way through. Philip I don't at all see the people of your faith being pro war at all. I was trying to get my head around a Christian "peoples" who in the majority seem to support the Iraq war. I don't see this war as the pursuit of peace at all. But lets not bog ourselves down with the politics of this, I just wondered how many American soldiers, lots would be children of faith, How they "justify" the killing of Gods children. By this, not just people who may or may not be terrorists, but the guys that push the buttons etc that have the innocent fall of civilians, said to be hundreds of thousands at the moment though your Government isn't counting, apparently. Its just hard to invest faith in what I see as movable goal posts. If this makes sense?

Ray,

You're asking some great questions. Philip is doing a great job answering them as well - so I don't mean to butt in here.

One thing to keep in mind, though, in addition to all Phil said (and said very well), is that in the law laid down in the Old Testament we have both the "You shall not murder" command and instructions regarding capital punishment. God appears to be making a distinction between the actions we as individuals take and the actions that a Government can take. So, for instance, we are forbidden from revenge, murder, and other things that might constitute our own private little war, whereas there appears to be justification for governments to engage in war and capital punishment.

Of course, in a world that lived the way Jesus wants it to live neither would be necessary or possible.

And - not to get bogged down in this debate - Phil is correct that we could easily do 100 comments on that. Perhaps we should move on to the other questions but come back to these? What are your thoughts?

One other issue. You asked "Why design a sinful human being in order to tempt,sway and then punish. How is this righteous? How is it even fair?"

Great question. One thing that the Bible teaches clearly, and at the very beginning (first few chapters of Genesis) is that God created everything good, including mankind. And we are made in his image. One aspect of the image of God is the ability to make moral choices, and the Bible teaches that men, on their own, chose to disobey God. And thus everyone, not just people old enough to consciously sin, has what is called a "sin nature". Even little babies.

There is only one who has ever lived and not sinned, and that is Jesus. And that's why he is the only one worthy to pay for our sins.

That's a lot to absorb, I know. But please continue discussing this with us with an open mind.

Nice talking with you

bill

Ray, if you use "blueletterbible.org", you can search for "kill" - the Hebrew word in "Thou shalt not kill" is ratsach {raw-tsakh'}: to murder, slay, kill

When Joseph's brothers were planning to kill him, the word used was nakah {naw-kaw'} to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill.

On the other hand, when talking about capital punishement, the term the Bible uses is "put to death"; Exd 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. The word used is muwth {mooth}; to die, kill, have one executed. The word is also used to describe a natural death.

In times of war, I read in 2 Samuel that "he smote him that he died"...there are two words used together: nakah and muwth.

From the different words used, the "kill" in the Ten Commandments is not the same intent as in capital punishment or in war. Does that help (at least with the intent part of it?)

Hey there Ellen,
You have the same name as my late mother!! (I love that name) THat was a bit of an education thank you. I still kind of think that its "semantics" in a sense. I have had the feeling that a Christain God might not have been playing with words. I "sense" that he meant to cover all bases not just the convenient ones. I have to get a bible and have to look into this myself. I had a bible but darned if I can't find it when I need it.

Hey De and Philip and Ellen, I want to thank you for your patience with me. I am finding this discussion facinating. Its always been hard to find people willing to discuss openly issues of religion without getting bogged down in emotion and frustration. Its possible we might be worlds apart in thinking, but discussing it here with people that know their stuff is very satisfying. I wanted to just mention that I am a self employed salesman of sorts and I get a lot of work to do through the week. If you find I haven't asked a question on something or missed a posting its just I havn't gotten back to it yet so please forgive my tardiness. I also wanted to ask, is this forum the right one for me? I certainly didn't want to hog something designed for other topic discussion. Is it or would it be better to privately email? Let me know if this is the case. Thank you.

Hey there Bill,

I think I kind of disagree with you here. You say, one aspect of us being made in Gods image is that we can make moral choices and the "tendency" is to disobey God. I say, the tendency is being totally unable to understand what a God would particulary want in the first place. You know as well as I do, that disagreement amongst the worlds population that are "religious" and I mean this in the broadest possible sense, can't agree on anything, maybe with the exception of the ressurection, and I want to talk about that seperately a little later, on what a large chunk of Lifes instruction manual "The Holy Bible" actually means. I don't think men on there own "choose" to disobey at all. Now Bill, you have got to be toying with me here.. "Sin Nature" what the dickens is sin nature? You mean Babys behaving according to natural human law as "constructed" by your God? How can a Baby disobey a God for goodness sake! Bill, How do we know Jesus didn't sin? I mean even a little one? I know the bible probably doesn't go out of its way to point one out, but well... he was a baby once.. Couldn't he have committed one of the baby sins? Also what about cases of severe mental issues, by this I mean babies born basically without higher brain function. We have a ward at the Lidcombe Mental hospital that has some tragic cases. Are they sinning also? How would we know?

Also Ellen,
When we were talking about the "Thou Shalt not kill" comandment earlier, If you were Gods secretary, and he asked you to type that comandment in your own words according to your understanding of that command and covering all bases from homicide (straight out murder) fighting in a war , accidental death etc, How would you word it? I'm very serious I think the 4 words arn't clear enough and I would like to hear your view.

Best regards

Ray (turning 49 tomorrow!!)

Happy Birthday Ray!

This is as good a forum as any - so let's keep the discussion going (I'm hoping Philip rejoins us soon)

I'm at work so can't think much - will try to reply when I can.

Thou Shalt Not Murder vs. Thou Shalt Not Kill is not a game of semantics. If all killing was prohibited by the 6th Commandment, then God Himself would have caused the Israelites to violate it. God initiated and commanded the Death Penalty. God commanded the Israelites to go to war and sluaughter their enemies. So, if we start with the premises that the Bible is true, and that God cannot violate His own laws (which does not include the "Laws of Nature"), then it is obvious that the 6th Commandment does not condemn the Death Penalty or killings that occur in war.

One could make the argument that the New Testament does away with the validity of both the Death Penalty and War, but the anti-Death Penalty and anti-War arguments cannot be upheld on the pillars of the Ten Commandments.

Ray ;-)

If you were Gods secretary, and he asked you...

I think that first off, if Moses were God's secretary, God would be speaking in Hebrew, not English. If I were an accurate transcribist, I'd use the word He used.

The second point is that a secretary didn't write the tablets, they were inscribed by God. Since there was more than one word for "kill", I am going to believe that He used the word He wanted to use.

;-)

Hey Ray! How was your birthday?

This is just a quick note to let you know I haven't forgotten about you. I look forward to discussing things with you. And I will make every effort to respond to everything you've said.

But...my whole family is sick today, so as the only one who is well, well, you know what I'll be doing!

Hopefully, I'll be back tomorrow. ;-)

Hi there Philip,

The birthday went well, I guess I have the real biggy next year, but I am "late 40's" for 12 more months. I might then have to resort to having anniveries of 49. Hey whats wrong with the family? We had a spate of really virilent "rhino virus" about 4 weeks back and am still fighting it now. It sucks to be sick.

Thats ok De. I'm a bit the same, I have to right up orders with computer coding and stuff. And it gets hard to respond all the time through the week. It can make the conversation and thinking a bit disjointed unfortunately

Hi there Calvinator,

What did you mean with God not violating the laws of nature? Do you see the Bible as "all true" ? I think I follow you on this. I always "felt" as opposed to "know" I guess, that that particular comandment was the one that made lots of sense. Your saying it has the "get out clause" of God demanding that people die. It sort of doesn't sound right to me, and lots of the problem I have with traditional religion is this big deep feeling it doesn't sound right. Just another question, I see Religion in todays world as a business, and I see the message of God as a kind of earthly advertising. One of the messages that has sunken in over the decades is the God is love, message. If your saying God has basically been doing a whole lot of "smite ing and slaying " How do you rationalise the God is Love message? I am not equating Him to Hitler, but we are talking some rather nasty business are we not?

Hey Ellen,

I understand. But go with me, please just for second? pretend God is multilingual and your getting the instructions in English. Imagine you have to pass this onto Moses and God said "Hey Ellen, when you do this don't be stingy on the words this has got to be clear to people for thousands of years. So.. Thou shalt not... and I want better wording than "kill" here. By the by... Ellen what ever happened to the tablets? Are there theorys amongst Christian scholars?

Philip totally of the subject, you know you said you lived in Texas and its very hot? How are you guys doing for water? Have your dam levels dropped? We are facing a major crisis here and have towns completely out of water and the City of Perth may be the worlds first major city to run completely out of water. Are you guys experiencing the same there or is it just us?

Hey Ellen,

I understand. But go with me, please just for second? pretend God is multilingual

God is multilingual.

and your getting the instructions in English. Imagine you have to pass this onto Moses and God said “Hey Ellen, when you do this don’t be stingy on the words this has got to be clear to people for thousands of years. So.. Thou shalt not… and I want better wording than “kill” here.

I choose to believe that God is pretty eloquent. God inspired Moses, not me.

I've given definitions of Hebrew words and there are different words, just like we have different words for "kill", "murder", "manslaughter".

God used what He used and if I make the Bible say something that it does not say, then I can make it say anything I want it to.

By the by… Ellen what ever happened to the tablets? Are there theorys amongst Christian scholars?

I believe that they are in the ark of the covenant - and the Bible doesn't say what happened to it.

The Bible does seem to say that it will turn up. Revelation 11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.

If the Bible doesn't say, it can be fun to speculate, and there are a lot of speculations out there.

Google "where is the ark of the covenant"

What did you mean with God not violating the laws of nature?

Actually, I implied that He can, and I believe He has. Miracles are examples of the Laws of Nature not being followed. When Jesus turned the water into wine, that was in violation of the laws of nature. When "the sun stood still in the sky" for Joshua, that was a miracle and violated the laws of nature. If God were bound by the Laws of Nature, miracles would be impossible, and the earth would have been destroyed by its own inertia when God instantly slowed its rotation to enable the sun to remain stationary in the sky. (BTW, the miracle does not require the earth's rotation to completely stop, just that its rotation match the speed of its revolution around the sun, much as the moon has a distinct light side and dark side).

Mary's getting pregnant without ever having had sex is a miracle that violates the laws of nature, yet it is foundational, nay fundamental to Christian theology and faith.

These are but a few examples that show that God is simply not bound by the laws of nature.

Your saying it has the “get out clause” of God demanding that people die.

No, you are the one calling it a "get out clause." I'm saying it doesn't mean what you claim it does. In fact, it doesn't even say what you claim it does. The word in the Hebrew text translates best to "Murder" not "Kill." This has already been pointed out, but you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge it.

One of the messages that has sunken in over the decades is the God is love, message. If your saying God has basically been doing a whole lot of “smite ing and slaying ” How do you rationalise the God is Love message? I am not equating Him to Hitler, but we are talking some rather nasty business are we not?

By saying you're not equating to Hitler, you are at least comparing the two. And no, we are not talking about "some rather nasty business." God is, at the same time, a God of Love and a God of Vengeance ("Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"). He is a God of Mercy and a God of Justice. We sometimes have trouble understanding that for at least two very big reasons: 1) the effect of sin stains not just our souls, but everything about us—our bodies, our minds, our everything—so that our inability to fully understand God's nature is the byproduct of sin & 2) We are applying human words, which are the only ones we have, to a non-human God.

For me, the best example of people trying to force human terms onto God lies with folks who condemn God as being fundamentally "unfair." Nowhere does God claim to be "fair." He states that He is "Just" and "Good." Now, I happen to believe that God is also perfectly "fair" as well. When it appears He is not, it is because we are imposing our human understanding and feeling about what "fairness" is as opposed to God's perfect standard.

All of that, however, is tangential to the original question regarding the 6th Commandment. If you acknowledge that God instituted the Death Penalty as part of His law for Israel, then how can you claim that the 6th Commandment forbids the Death Penalty?

Hey Ellen,

Thank you for the link. I havn't lookedinto the 2 you gave me but I will. Just lack of time this week. How do you know God is multilingual? is this a guess or is there a passage in the bible mentioning this? I was interested in your personal interpretation of the Thou shall not Kill comandment. I just wanted it spelled out in more than four words. You know what I mean don't you?

Hi there The Calvinator,
I find people that believe in miracles especially interesting.
You believe all the miracle stories of the Holy Bible literally?
You believe that the laws of physics bend to the will of God?
I have read in the past a wonderful book by a guy called
Michael Shermer. And it was titled "why people believe
in weird things" One of the things he mentioned was its not
the belief in the supernatural that's fascinating, but why people
such as himself (and people like me) believe what we
seem to think is true. I am going to have to ask you
a few things and I hope you will be patient with me so
that I can best understand your logic. Its a bit late here
almost 11 PM so it may have to wait for the weekend.

I understand the role of Mary's pregnancy. I just don't think
this particular story was needed to make Jesus an
important figure. We had this rather interesting
documentary on Jesus' life a few months back.
A lot of my Christian friends disliked it as it took
some of the "supernatural" out of the Jesus story.
But you know of all the things I have read and
seen I believe this program my have come closest
to what I think may have been the truth.
I think Jesus was more a simple political figure
way more human than son of God.
Still extremely important and worthy figure
of adoration, but I have doubts (obviously) about
the myth that surrounds him.

Murder not Kill? I acknowledge your interpretation
just kind of weighing up against other Christians
views. Philip said something about there was
a few different views on this law. I mean amongst
the broad church of Christian believers.
I am new at this so bear with me, I may need to
be told a few times.

Your response to the God of love, thing
really makes no sense. But can I reply to
that bit tomorrow.. it may go on a bit
sorry.

God fair and just? Boy.. we are going to have
to talk my friend. I have examples piling
on top of other examples. God is anything
but just and Fair? Your playing with my mind
on this one. I will expand when I can in the morning.
Thank you very much for your patience in replying
to me. I just Have to buy a bible tomorrow!

Ray.

Hey The Calvinator,

Before I hop into bed, a simple and childish question, but I need to ask it. Why does your thinking stop at God? By this, What do you see as the creating force of God? Or rather imagine? Christian neighbours of mind (they moved,go figure!) said they saw God as a perfect being living in the blackness of space that created the universe. Now, leaving aside the cosmology ignorance, do you see the eternal God as floating around and one day creating humans out of being bored? What created the creator? you ever thing about this? I just want to be sure that the God we are talking about has the correct seniority if you get my drift?

If "fear is the opposite of faith" I think some one should really talk to Bono.

The Calvinator,
Could you elaborate on the statement about sin "staining us" ? I don't quite understand. Could you use an example of a sin and the effects? Where did you hear this? is it Biblical? I also don't get your statement that our inability to understand God and his nature is somehow because of sin. Isn't it just because we are simply human? and a God would be like some interdimentional super being? The Universe is over 14 billion years old. If we encountered aliens with civilizations of a billion years, probably the same thing would apply. And that wouldn't have a thing to do with sin would it? I think you sell us short Mr Calvinator.
Human words to a non human God.. but a apparently a very "human like " God. One who has our weaknesses, wants revenge,vengence,is warlike, gets jealous, makes mistakes, wants animal sarefices, punishes unjustly etc etc. Personally I think that it isn't a langauge issue at all.

The Calvinator,
Have you always been a Christian as in from a young age or were you born again (as they say) ? Do you think if we discovered God didn't exist that there was no afterlife, would the thought of death worry you? Does it worry you now? I have a big interest in the pyschology of Christians. I don't know if I told you, in my work I call on people that could be seen as the top IQ's in the country. There very,very smart people. Interestingly, collectively I have noted that there is anything up to 3 or more different Gods that these people believe in. I find that amazing. And these are the intelligent ones! So I am on a quest also to find out which God is more likely yo be the real one. Since the dawn of man we have worshipped thousand and thousands of seperate Gods, all have fallen century after century. In the modern world of today, we are probably down to 15 or so. Interesting to see who comes out on top in 200 years. Athiests in Australia at least a huge growing group. Some 16% of us now are and it climbs massively each year this last couple of years measuring the biggest increase ever. I wonder what the world will look like in 200 to 300 years in terms of religion.

you said: All of that, however, is tangential to the original question regarding the 6th Commandment. If you acknowledge that God instituted the Death Penalty as part of His law for Israel, then how can you claim that the 6th Commandment forbids the Death Penalty?

I don't know that I am "claiming" anything. I was trying to understand a really simple comandment. I mean you could say that these were comands for us and not for God him or her self. Maybe its just ok for him to order deaths and sacrefices and stuff just not us?? I don't know. I was just working out how a really strong Christian country like your good selves, manages to wage war on other tribes also the children of God (you'd think) and be hunky dory with the Thou shall not kill idea. It just didn't seem right but I didn't want this to become political just a simple religious discussion. Also, what do you mean Gods "perfect standard"? arn't concepts of fairness and just really unambigious ? When we see an act of unfairness here on earth is because the squaring up is done in heaven ? What about the new Christian thinking that contradicts this saying that the rewards are here on Earth if you are a loyal and faithful following. You know the guys that rationalise Christian millionaires who want the money and also an entry pass to heaven. (excellent article on this in Time magazine) I want to know in order to understand 2 people.
Person 1 : "Chopper" Read. Chopper murdered several people and was a standover man and criminal identity here. Was released from prison. Now is a millionaire a few times over, has a beautiful wife, he is an "A" lister celebrity. And God given health complete with six pack stomach. He lives the good life now I can tell you.
Person 2. One Mark Mellick. Loyal Christian and believer in God. Not unlike you guys. God strikes him down with illness, and boy does he make this guy suffer. Marks a good guy, wise warm and gentle. God takes him out in the driveway of his home in front of his 10 year old boy. It was one ugly death, and one ugly lot of drawn out suffering. He prayed till the end.
How does this equate with justice and mercy? What about fairness? If God allows stories like this to unfold what "message" should we arrive at from veiwing this? His son a bit older now, arrived at this conclusion, he has been an athiest for some 5 years now. Again Calvinator,Philip, I can't see the majesty of Gods master plan in any of the life I observe?

Ray,

You are certainly asking a lot of questions! Slow down, my friend.

Also - and I'm just asking, so please, please don't be offended. I am assuming that you are arguing with us in good faith, meaning that you are trying to understand us as we are trying to understand you. I'm working off that assumption but I'm just asking. Please reassure me (sometimes we get people here posing as honest seekers who really are just trying to drag us into arguments).

I'm going to assume that's not the case here :-)

You said something earlier that I highly encourage - please get a Bible. I'd recommend you read the book of John in the New Testament. It would be awesome for you to read that and then perhaps we could work off of the questions you arrive at there?

Every question you're asking has a Biblical answer (such as why non-Christian people sometimes have great lives and Christian people sometimes suffer greatly).

There's lots to talk about. Let me know what you think of my suggestion

Dear De,
Sorry bout that! I was carried away. I am trying to ask the questions in good faith. Its interesting that you mention your trying to understand me. For my part, I'm not in need of seeking the spiritual Richard Gere style, I would like to understand the gulf better between my thinking and your thinking. Its a gulf that might not be able to be bridged, guess I have to wait and see. I recognise and indeed respect the amount and quality of your knowledge on matters spritual and beleive it or not I am getting educated. I am trying not to appear flippant and disrespectful yet I think I could be failing. I'm not overly emotional with the topic so don't read anything like that into my thoughts. I don't think what I need to know is going to be found in the Bible simply because it just doesn't cover all the bases. Though, I'm happy to re-investigate. Some of my stuff will appear childish and maybe it is, but I can't help that I think it. I said to you right at the beginning, I am not your sharpest tool in the shed, and MANY sharper minds believe in the faith. My default therefore, is I have missed something. And I am trying to pick this up knowing that Christian views, vary somewhat as does concepts of the God figure. The Church, has advertising. And that adveriting gets regurgitated so often that many (and I don't include you guys here) people forget what the slogans mean and switch off the thinking. I am a member of Athiest and Skeptical societies but I read very widely on a lot of stuff. I hope you see me as genuine.

Thanks Ray

I appreciate it! And, yes, I see you as genuine.

As we discuss this, besides the Bible, another few books I'd recommend (and these are all quick reads) are C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and his other work that really talks to what you're asking: The Problem of Pain.

You could read either one in a couple of days. Both directly deal with many of the questions you're asking.

I'll address one question: you asked about the "new Christian teaching" that teaches you can (and will!) have it all here on earth and in heaven too. This is often called the Prosperity Gospel and it is not Biblical. The Bible teaches, pretty clearly, that really everything we have is from God - some people are blessed with a lot, some not so much. God sends rain on the Godly and the unGodly. The book of Job in the Bible describes a rich Godly man who lost everything, and yet remained faithful, even though he never knew why.

Jesus Himself lived in what we would describe as abject poverty. He had "nowhere to lay His head". In the early church, there were people like Barnabas, who were rich but sold much of what they had and used it to build the church. Paul, who wrote many of the books in the New Testament, was a member of the prominent sect of the Pharisees before he was converted to Christianity. He then became a missionary and made a living as a tent-maker. He talks about the ups and downs of his life in Philippians 4:11-13

"11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me."

I could name a thousand others. There is a famous Christian woman named Joni Erickson Tada - in 1967 as a teenager she broke her neck in a swimming accident and became a quadraplegic. Yet she continues to this day to be faithful to God and has built a worldwise ministry to evangelize and disciple people with disabilities.

In other words, for the Christian the circumstances of our lives can change, good and bad, but God remains strong, and He promises a day in His word when ever tear will be wiped away.

We live in a broken and fallen world, cursed because of the sin of man. People sometimes wonder if God cares, if He is "fair" (by the way, I'm so glad He isn't!), if He cares about our broken world.

Well, I know He does, because He Himself came here 2,000 years ago in the person of Jesus, to live among us (you may have heard the term "Emmanuel" at Christmas? It means "God with us"), to teach us, to live a perfect life, and finally to die on the cross, in payment for all our sins. That's how serious sin is.

But it didn't end there. Really, the central fact of Christianity, and the thing it all hinges upon, is what happened on the third day after the Crucifiction. Jesus rose from the dead, was seen by many, and ascended to Heaven, victorious over death and having opened the way for us to live forever with Him, pure and sinless just like He is. And the Bible says that we must only believe in this. We're saved by God grace, through faith in what Jesus did. Not by anything we do.

And, as Jesus said, our "treasures are in heaven". So anyone teaching that God guarantees treasures here on earth is very mistaken.

Hope that makes some sense. What do you think?

De, I hope you and the rest in this thread won't mind the suggestions of a recent interloper.

I think those of us who love Lewis sometimes forget that many readers today find his non-fiction tough going. Ray, you might really enjoy Mere Christianity or Problem of Pain, which are excellent books. But if you find them hard to follow or to stick with, I would suggest a few other titles to choose from which are written in language a little more accessible to early 21st-century readers:

"Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense" by N.T. Wright

"Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths," by Alister McGrath (or virtually anything else by McGrath that piques your interest)

"Why Believe? Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God" by C. Stephen Evans

These and any number of other similar books do a great job of discusing the questions you raise. If your aim is really to understand where Christian teaching is coming from on those topics, I would encourage you to (a) continue in dialogue here, and (b) also investigate some of these or the writings of Lewis or similar works. Even if you end up disagreeing with or rejecting the Christian vision, you want (I would think) to make sure that it is the real thing that you are rejecting, not just a caricature or surface understanding. Best wishes.

De,

Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by many? I had thought it was only the deciples, and at least one of them Thomas pretty much didn't beleive it? (I need to look this up) By the way, why are you glad he is not fair? And don't you think God has to accept a ton of responsibility for the sin he apparently "designed in us" in the first place? I think you turn a very blind eye to your God. I want to reply in detail in the morning. Just got back from dinner out and its way after 12 and I'm old!

De,
Could I reccomend a book to you also, you might find intersting. GOD The interview. Author Terry Lane. If you can read the second edition.

"Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by many? I had thought it was only the deciples, and at least one of them Thomas pretty much didn’t beleive it? (I need to look this up)"

The Bible states that he was seen by the 12 disciples as well as others (including, at one point, reportedly more than 500 people). Thomas didn't believe until he saw Jesus. He was missing the first time around. When he finally saw Jesus risen, he called him "My Lord and my God".

Thomas sometimes gets a bum rap.

"By the way, why are you glad he is not fair?"

Because if I got what I deserved, I'd be dead.

Also - "fair" would have us living in the middle ages and dying, toothless, when we're 35. I could go on :-)

"And don’t you think God has to accept a ton of responsibility for the sin he apparently “designed in us” in the first place?"

The problem of evil is one theologians have been debating for centuries. But the Bible teaches God created us "good" and that we chose to sin. He created us with the capacity to choose. A question for you: are you glad you have that capacity? Otherwise, we'd just be robots, loving God because we had no choice.

Because God is good, he gave you the ability to choose good. But, because our ancestors chose evil, we are all tainted - in our natural state, we can't choose God or good.

Now, if God left us in this state, perhaps we might feel the right to point out his injustice. But He didn't - He came to earth as Jesus, lived a perfect life, and died for us. I know, there's a lot there and perhaps it makes no sense to you. But that's what we believe.

That act of God is an act of such love, such sacrifice, and it was something we didn't deserve, so - no, I can't fault God for anything. I'm amazed He loves me.

"I think you turn a very blind eye to your God."

Well, I think you turn a very blind eye to my God too :-)

Have a good night, Ray. We'll talk more later. Hope dinner was good.

Because if I got what I deserved, I’d be dead.

Also - “fair” would have us living in the middle ages and dying, toothless, when we’re 35. I could go on :-)

What did you do De? And isn't the reason we are not dying toothless at 35 more because of science?

De,
The problem of evil is one theologians have been debating for centuries. But the Bible teaches God created us “good” and that we chose to sin. He created us with the capacity to choose. A question for you: are you glad you have that capacity? Otherwise, we’d just be robots, loving God because we had no choice.

De : This isn't what The Calvinator has been teaching me. I was taught by him, that God has designed into us the capacity to sin. hence, we are really bad. Now I disagree with this, I don't think we know that every single person on Earth sins. There would be sinless people I am sure. (I can think of one straight off) Am I glad I have that capacity? Its really hard to say. You would have to be able to experience both sides. Sin is pleasurable, and maybe life might be duller? The thing I don't get is God. Why not create us a little more robot like? We dissappoint the big guy, why not make us he desires in the first place? The fact is as I see it, he designs an imperfect creature, makes sure we have instinctual functions, then everytime our weak little minds wanders.. WHAMMO!! your in hell. De, The one reason I would love for a God to exist, is the opportunity to give it a blast when I kick the bucket. Trouble is, I expect the reality will be such that niether you nor I will even be aware of the fact of who was right and who was wrong. Guess we have to wait and see.

De, I'm not sure I actually do turn a blind eye. I am not prepared to accept that there is one "single" explanation. I find it hard to accept the Bible as ultimate evidence when much of its authorship is unknown and the facts it speaks of cannot be verified . It doesn't "speak to me" as the work of a God that it does you. You would have heard of the Anthropic principal? For many, they see this as evidence of a God. Yet for me and a bunch of people like me, we say your not looking at it enough. Theres other more mundane explanations. I don't have a value system that entwines me with God and I have nothing to lose by examining and looking for what might be plausable alternatives.

hey Ellen,

Hows that tablet comming along.. Moses is tapping his foot waiting..

I was thinking we might need to go with :

Thou shall not murder another human being. Thou can murder another human being if I so commandeth. Thou shall not commit euthenasia for it is a sin as is suicide. Thou can murder in cases of war and can murder a murderer.

Hows that Ellen? covered all bases? Can I pass it on to Moses now?

This isn’t what The Calvinator has been teaching me. I was taught by him, that God has designed into us the capacity to sin. hence, we are really bad.

I never said "God has designed into us the capacity to sin." I never said anything remotely close to that. Ray, I know that you and I approach things from perhaps polar opposites, but if you are going to misrepresent what I'm saying, then there's little to no value in continuing.

I don’t think we know that every single person on Earth sins. There would be sinless people I am sure.

Yes, we do kow that every single person other than Christ on earth has sinned. The Bible says "All have sinned."

he one reason I would love for a God to exist, is the opportunity to give it a blast when I kick the bucket.

I've heard similar to this before. The "If there turns out to be a God, then I'm sure gonna give him/her/it a piece of my mind when I get the chance" idea would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

When you face the almighty God, you will not be able to "give it a blast." For at that point, you will have a full understanding of what and who God is. You will be in awe, and if you have not been redeemed to Him prior to that, you will spend eternity separated from Him and will regret it for the rest of time.

Thou shall not murder another human being. Thou can murder another human being if I so commandeth. Thou shall not commit euthenasia for it is a sin as is suicide. Thou can murder in cases of war and can murder a murderer.

Hows that Ellen? covered all bases? Can I pass it on to Moses now?

Your post here has shown me that you are not genuinely interested in learning our perspective. In light of this, I will not repsond to your posts any more. You may have the last word.

I realize that this is not really a debate because there can be no debate against a closed system such as Christianity. Without the help of the Holy Spirit, the things of God will always seem foolish, so this should come as no surprise to any of us that have tried to engage you in this discussion.

Not trying to misrepresent you Calvinator. Really tring to understand you. This is genuinely hear you saying. Yes I know the bible says "all have sinned" but the Biblical document written by man thousands of years ago, couldn't possibally know the path or life of "every man" I put it you Calvinator, your beleiving the advertising not exploring all possibities of life. Do you see? No your wrong about the aew thing Calvinator. The last thing I will feel is "Awe" I am going to feel great anger. That is if the Christian "reality" is correct, and I have serious concerns that it will be. Calvinator, you could well be right. I am sorry the remark about "thou shall not kill" seemed so flippant. But I do wish to understand a very controversial subject and no one is actually answering a question no one. Maybe there are no answers to them but you could at least say that.. withdrawing is the behavour of a "cult" and you certainly don't belong to a cult.. do you?

Calvinator,
a little story in way of explanation.. There was this tribe in Africa, I think part of the Masi (forgive spelling) that believed that the dead walked amongst them and it bothered them greatly. This is a true story, We had this Australian Doctor, also an athiest that could have been a "saint" in another age that went to these countries and gave back to these people sight. Many of them were afflicted with an illness. Actually he did more than this, he trained people over there to be doctors and set up factories to make lenses etc.. real humanitarian and worthy of respect. Anyway, he sat down with these people who believed in ghosts and through an interpreter explained how eyes "work" . Eventually these simple people reached the conclusion that invisibility equals being blind! That is, If light passes through you, then it passes through your retinia and voila! you by definition have to be blind. What the upshot was, they lost their "beleif" in ghosts walking amongst them. To this very day. I'm a bit like this, when I see the bigger picture that is understanding (a little) the frontiers of cosmology etc, its harder to lend beleif to what amounts to stone age thinking. Now I understand your a very intelligent man, I can read this in your bio, I want to understand how you fall on one side and me on the other. Its not so much as finding answers directly in scripture, but I want to know why you settle for a God and look no further. I also want to know exactly your beleifs if I can.. where they stop and start, do they take biblical stuff literally or not.. etc. I wanted to also pepper a few questions but so far few have been answered though I know Philip and his family have been unwell. (I hope he is alright) And most of all I want to be honest with you. When I say it doesn't make sense I really mean it doesn't. I don't have "God in my heart" or even a spritual dimention as far as I am aware. I guess thats why I find talking to people that do a little fascinating. Its like meeting an alien if you get my drift? Once again, I am sorry if I offended you.

Hows that tablet comming along.. Moses is tapping his foot waiting..

My policy is: I stop reading at the first sarcasm.

Dang! And I wasn't even being sarcastic..

Guys,

Maybe I will leave you be. I guess the gulf of understanding is a bit to great. I wasn't typing in sarcasm at all, just interested in getting a reply to a question asked a few times. Its interesting, how little you replied to, maybe you guys have a little bit of insecurity with regards to your position I dunno. I do know the answers to lifes big questions are not going to be found in the Bible. But some things in life are just to scary to really comptemplate arn't they?

Thanks for your words.

Hey Ray,
Haven't been able to keep up. Sorry.

Yes, my whole families been ill. My wife's pregnant and My oldest son was just diagnosed with a chronic illness this week and I've had a pretty rough week in other ways as well.

I intend to keep trying though. How about you?

When I do come back to discuss things, I'm not sure where to begin though. There seems to be about a zillion branches to this discussion and I don't know which one to grab.

As for your comment to Ellen, maybe a smiley face would have helped. :) Without the smiley it appeared sarcastic, even to me. :) Text can be deceiving, because we can't see body language or hear tone of voice... :)

I was glad this week that we had continued our discussion here, rather than email, because I would have dropped the ball this week, and others were able to jump in and keep the discussion going.

But if you do ever decide to try via email I'm game. I just have to warn you, the discussion will go even slower than it did here. I'll probably only be able to reply to you 4 days a week. And since our time zones are quite different, it appears we are seldom awake at the same time...so it'll only be once a day. :) I'm gonna have to look that up. :)

"Its interesting, how little you replied to, maybe you guys have a little bit of insecurity with regards to your position I dunno"

Ray? Have you been reading? I think we did our best to answer the questions, in great detail, that you brought up. For instance, a number of people tried to explain to you the difference between "You shall not murder" and "You shall not kill" - and all to no avail.

I do hope you keep asking questions, and keep searching. You're welcome here. But it does get frustrating - I don't think there's anything any of us could have said that wouldn't have resulted in the same "well, you guys don't have any answers, do ya? You must be really insecure in your faith" response. That's why I asked you earlier if you were discussing with us in good faith. If your purpose here is to just try to tweak us, then that's not in good faith.

In other words, I think you're not really talking to us, you're talking to the stereotypes of Christians that you have already established in your head.

Its interesting, how little you replied to,

No, it's interesting how little you listened to.

If I wrote, "do not murder", and you kept saying, "why did you write, "do not kill?" I'd start to wonder how much you had upstairs.

For instance:
the Spanish word for "kill" is "mate"
The Spanish word for "murder" is "asesinato"
The Spanish word for "execute" is "asesinato"

If I said, "no asesine" and you kept asking, "por qué le hace dice "no mata" I'd start to wonder if you were really listening.

We have several words for stopping the heart beat of another human being AND THEY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. So does Spanish. So did the Hebrews.

Just because you don't want to "get" the answer doesn't mean your question hasn't been answered.

We can also play speculation games all day long and well into next year. The answer is still: God said what He said.

If you don't believe it, you can speculate on what Moses "might" have written or what I "might" have written.

But that's not the answer, is it.

I do know the answers to lifes big questions are not going to be found in the Bible.

Where will I spend eternity?

What must I do to be saved?

How do I love my neighbor?

Sorry, I mistyped: The Spanish word for "execute" is "ejecute"

Hey Ray, I'm lazy...so what time was it your time when you posted comment 266?

And when it lists the date and time, does it list our time our yours for you?

Its not so much as finding answers directly in scripture, but I want to know why you settle for a God and look no further.

Because the fingerprint of God is all over the place.

I have a book, "Show Me God; What the Message from Space is Telling Us about God" by Fred Heeren.

In this book, Stephen Hawking explains how God relates to his no-boundary proposal of spacetime (and the anthropic principals)

John Mather (COBE satellite chief scientist) shows how science is still at a loss to explain how the universe could come out of nothing in any natural way.

Alan Guth (father of the "big bang" theory) speaks of the "fine-tuning" of the universe.

George Smoot tells how his discovery of cosmit ripples with NASA's COBE satellite points not just to a haphazard big bang, but to a "finely orchestrated" creation event.

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson describe how their Nobel prize-winning discobery let them away from their belief in an eternal universe to believing that the universe was created.

Robert Jasrow (astronomer" said, "For the scientist who has lived his life by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting their for centuries."

Ray said, Its like meeting an alien if you get my drift?

I get your drift.

It's entirely reasonable. We're not of this world - our attention and goal is elsewhere.

John 15:19
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Hey there Philip,
I'm dreadfully sorry to hear about the illness with your son. I am fighting a bit of a virus also, had to see the doc today. I can't remember what the time was when I last typed that message but it was pretty late and I was very tired. I suggested email, only in that, I didn't want to tie up people from the forum. Lots of the questions I ask are more than a little weird and answers may not be able to be given. Philip, how far along is your wife in her pregnacy? are you expecting soon?

In other words, I think you’re not really talking to us, you’re talking to the stereotypes of Christians that you have already established in your head.

possibally.. I apologise if I offended.

Boy Ellen,

Your certainly a font of almost uptodate information. Guth wasn't the "father " of the Big bang Theory. That was a guy called Hoyle and I think expanded on by Hubble the chap the telescope is named after. Guth, a very bright fellow indeed has postulated a concept of repulsive gravity as a cause of the initial singularity I think this was in the early 80.s ? Guth is certainly an atheist. (for what thats worth) I've read Hawkings books. All of them. I have an extensive library of this kind of stuff. Hawking is another atheist malheureusement ! I don't know Smoots religious leanings, but his work is mainly with background microwave radiation. A kimd of relic of the big bang not relic of a supernatural being, if you get my distinction?
Geeze, Penzias and Wilson thought it was pidgeons at first.It was Robert Dicke from Princeton that put it all together. Penzias and Wilson got the nobel prize, but they again picked up evidence of the singularity not the God. Huge difference Ellen.

"John Mather (COBE satellite chief scientist) shows how science is still at a loss to explain how the universe could come out of nothing in any natural way."
I think we need to get Mather together with people like Vilenkin, who have a very good idea of how the universe came out of nothing. Hint here Ellen.. It doesn't revolve around supernatural Gods. The Science may never be able to be "testable" it simply may be impossible for beings like us, but the theory still stands well on its own two feet, no pillars of salt or angels, I understand that current thinking, on cosomolgy puts several ideas forward. None include need for a God. Ellen, there is no "fingerprint" of God/Gods. There is a fingerprint of natural law, a finger print of the way things behave in our part of the universe. This isn't "evidence" of Gods?
You have read this stuff right?

Ellen, please for the love of life... Can you give me your definition of Thou shall not kill? that is, you the person.

Can I give you some situations?

soldier killing an enemy
soldier causing collateal damage?
you killing me
giving a really big morphine shot to Aunt Edna in pain last stages of life
car accident
God ordering you to kill me

How does Thou shall not kill apply?

I'm ok if I'm the soldier and the enemy is the heathen
you know crusades.. you know what I am getting at, can you spell it out for me?

Philip going to go for a lot more ; ) I think I need them

Ellen,
If you were to visit my Country one day, I could take you to the State of Victoria, to a really nice place called Kew. Here we could find the Kew Psychiatric hospital not unlike many in your own country. I wonder whether you could see "Gods Fingerprint" on a ward of Hydrocephalic children? These are children born with grotesque heads far to large for their tiny muscles to move. The nurses do an exceptional job helping eliminate bed sores by turning them over constantly. Its easy to see his work on the esthetic but what of the nasty? I see randomness. Total randomness.

Looking for "God" in Science Ellen, is a lost cause. Its just not revealed this way. But, the thing you said thats interesting, is the fingerprint idea. You see God everywhere I don't see anything anywhere. You see creation, I see an event of nature not properly identified. I see randomness you see a plan. A guy wrote this letter a few weeks ago in a magazine called New Scientist. I chucked it out, but this guy said that if we looked at any group of anything we see random deaths to random things. Aminals frequently die of cancer, so do dogs. Cats get a version of a desease not unlike Aids, so do people. Yet we don't think God crafts each death for a divine plan yet when it comes to humans we do. I think your mistaken, I think that you look at life as one long ladder with humans on the top rung as the leader.Its possible, You may not understand evolutionary pathways of man and all thats gone before us have you read much in this area recently? (Dawkins does some excellent work.). We are a "branchway" thats destined to die the moment our physical envoiroment changes and it will change, its inevitable.

Hi Ray, and welcome back.

I'll leave the physics and cosmology to someone else :-)

Regarding the suffering that you (and we) see on this earth. You may see randomness. Were Jesus in that Hydrocephalic ward he would see precious ones made in God's image that need love and healing. We live in a fallen, cursed creation. But God has redeemed it and will restore it one day.

I'm not Ellen, but I'll respond to your Thou shalt not kill question (and not to be a broken record, but in every modern translation of the Bible you will find it written "You shall not murder")

soldier killing an enemy - War is horrible. But there is a Christian concept of a "just war" (this was developed by Augustine, I believe). World War II comes to mind.

soldier causing collateal damage? - To be avoided at all reasonable costs. See the answer to the first question.

you killing me - This would be murder and is a breaking of the commandment.

giving a really big morphine shot to Aunt Edna in pain last stages of life - In general, many Christians are against euthanasia. Especially because there can be abuses (what if Aunt Edna really isn't in the last stages of life but she does have a nice fat will?). Etc. Big topic.

Car accident - I'm assuming here you mean an accidental killing of another human being? Depends on the circumstances - if I was drunk when I plowed into you it's different than if we both hit an icy patch on the road. But accidents aren't murder. Doesn't mean there aren't consequences, though.

God ordering you to kill me - I don't believe God does this. Not that some deranged people don't think so and act on it, but that's insanity, not God.

You know crusades.. - They happened centuries ago. The Catholic church has apologized for them.

Hope this helps. Others can probably answer better than I.

Ray:
you said, Ellen,
If you were to visit my Country one day, I could take you to the State of Victoria, to a really nice place called Kew...

I work on a campus with kids like that every day. Yes, I do see the hand of God - and so do many of the parents of these kids. I also work with accident victims, birth accident victims, Down Syndrome kids and more.

you killing me and Bill answered, "This would be murder and is a breaking of the commandment."

Depends on the reason. Self defense? Defense of those I love?

Car accident covered in the Bible.

In fact, if you look, all of them are.

I'm not sure at all that you see these kind of children every day. I think you see mildly retarded children. You don't get angry at your God all the same?

Ray - you don't have a clue where I work, so any judgement you make about that is extrememly uninformed.
Again, you don't have the slightest suggestion of a clue.

If you think the kids at "LDC" are "mildly retarded", I'd suggest that you are "mildly uninformed"

I get angry. I get angry with sinners who hurt others. I get angry at this fallen world.

Yes. Sometimes I'm angry with God - but I know that God has a purpose in all things and causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him.

I saw the hand of God in my husband's cancer and in his death.

I saw the hand of God in my infertility and my miscarriages.

Ray, a question for you.

Are you mad at God?

Ellen, I didn't mean to be so presumptious about your work. When you mentioned "work with " I took it to mean you were maybe something like a special education teacher. My mistake. How did you view God with the death of your husband? You said you saw the hand in it? Did God intervene in your eyes?

DE asked am I mad at God?

No I don't think so. I don't beleive in a God or creator in order for anger to exist. But when I die, if I find out that the Christian God was in fact to exist, I would be very angry yes. Not for the fact of eternal damnation in hell, but for the sorry ass way the big guy went about telling us all about the "plan" Now that really will make me very annoyed.

De, where is car accident covered in the bible?

Is Euthenasia for the right reasons a sin? (to relieve suffering)

Is self defense covered in the good book?

Ray: I do work in a special education department of a public school - the majority of the students are labeled "SXI" The description of that school is: The SXI students at this center generally function at a level of severe or profound cognitive impairment. In addition, these students are challenged with multiple disabilities such as hearing, visual, or physical impairments. Management of their health and medical needs is an important aspect of effective programming. These students are dependent for their basic needs such as dressing, eating, and toileting.

My current job: Moderate Cognitive Impairment, Severe Cognitive Impairment, Severe Multiple Impairment, Mild Cognitve Impairment, Physical or Other Health Impairment, and Autism.

Ray asked, How did you view God with the death of your husband?

God sees things that we don't. At my husband's funeral no less than three people told me how their life was affected positively by watching us during that time.

You said you saw the hand in it? Did God intervene in your eyes?

Yes. Not only in my eyes, but in the eyes of those few people who know the entire story. What I didn't know then, but I do know now - only makes me more sure of God's direct intervention.

De, where is car accident covered in the bible?

I was the one who mentioned it - but in terms of accidents in general.

Deut 19, "If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally (...) he may flee to one of these cities and live (...) though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past.

Accidental death is not worthy of the death penalty.

On the other hand: "But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies (...) the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die."

Premeditated murder is distinguished from accidental death.

Ray asked, Is Euthenasia for the right reasons a sin? (to relieve suffering)

That's a can of worms. Saul comes to mind. He was wounded on the battle field and asked for a "coup de grace". David (who had a temper) killed the man who delivered the fatal blow - not because the killing itself was wrong, but because the man killed was king.

Ray asked, Is self defense covered in the good book?

Exodus 22:2-3. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

(if the intruder is killed immediately, there is no guilt - if the owner of the house waits until sunrise, there is guilt)

(Note: we are NOT under the Mosaic Law - but the Law teaches us the character of God)

"But when I die, if I find out that the Christian God was in fact to exist, I would be very angry yes. Not for the fact of eternal damnation in hell, but for the sorry ass way the big guy went about telling us all about the “plan” Now that really will make me very annoyed."

Ray,

Well, I certainly hope you don't have to face what you are describing as an unbeliever. But I think when you see how God did explain the plan, by actually coming, incarnate, to earth in the person of Jesus, you'll realize that he explained it very, very well.

Bill, I don't know how you can say that. It was a balls up. a Shambles. One of the worst unfoldings of a plan in human history. It was singulary the dopiest thing I have ever heard of. God so loved us, he created a son to kill in order to "save" us ?? Then the proxy is a kinda proxy because the god designed sin part is still in us. This has to have been designed by a committee.

Ellen are there things not adequately explained in the bible or do you see it covering every possible even... say a blood trnasfusion and the 7 day adventis?

Well, Ray, the Bible definitely speaks to this conversation we're having. :-)

It does not surprise me (or offend me) that you find the incarnation and atonement foolish. 1 Corinthians 1:18 puts it this way:

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

There's a lot in your description of the incarnation that I'd like to speak to, but I'm tired :-) - perhaps tomorrow morning.

Good night, or g'day I guess down under :-)

My current job: Moderate Cognitive Impairment, Severe Cognitive Impairment, Severe Multiple Impairment, Mild Cognitve Impairment, Physical or Other Health Impairment, and Autism. Thats interesting Ellen but its certainly not dealing with hydrocephalic children and seeing the grace of God in people that inhumnaly disabled. I say this with the greatest of respect to you. Its impossible to look at some things and discern a work of God. Somethings a clearly his mistakes.

God sees things we don't ? or another alternate way of looking at this, is there is no work of God to see as there is no God. We just need the honesty to admit it don't we?
Several people may come forward with differeent views, similar thing happened to me and I found the ability to love and treasure life, I tell those that I love them that I do now and not wait until its my turn on the deathbed..did that several times this week.
But I never saw the work of a God anywhere in any of that.
So, Ellen God regulary "intervenes" to torture the good and reward the bad? Wonder why that is so?
I rescued a little green parrot on Monday. Saw it hiding behind my shed. It was a baby and a little undernourished. I got it back on its wings and on its way.. work of God? Think he intervened? What about all the possible outcomes for that bird, known by the lord? Ellen have you ever heard of the theory of the multiverse? all possible outcomes played out infinitely? just wondering.

Then you just don't see...as De said, this conversation was predicted also.

The word of the cross is "folly" simply put, it makes no sense. impregnate a woman so we have a son of God? How about doing it generationally so we have a consistant message?

Bon Nuit!

How is the conversation predicted? I can't see whats not there Ellen. Nothings there honestly.

You've moved from "I'm really interested" to openly oppositional...

"another alternate way of looking at this, is there is no work of God to see as there is no God. We just need the honesty to admit it don’t we?"

Ray,

This is what's referred to in philosophy as a petitio principii:

"a fallacy in reasoning resulting from the assumption of that which in the beginning was set forth to be proved; begging the question."

Ray,

I have a question. I see your claim that there is no scientific evidence of a god, or of the supernatural. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If the Christian God existed, what empirical scientific evidence of His existence would an atheist expect to see, that is in fact absent?

In short, isn't that a red herring? Isn't it similar to a person reading all of Shakespeare's plays and complaining that he didn't find Shakespeare in any of them?

When a NY Times survey indicates that 40% of scientists in the US believe in a personal God to whom they pray, it strikes me as somewhat odd to suggest or imply that theistic beliefs are only for those with inferior minds, those who are stuck in a stone age understanding of science and/or those unfamiliar with the available research. The quality of mind and level of intelligence is pretty similar on both sides of the debate between atheistic scientists and philosophers, and Christian scientists and philosophers. To be fair, you have to deal with the best representatives of the "other" side, not set up straw men or compare your best to their worst.

I think we have to distinguish a respect for the findings of science from the worldview of scientism - which is not held by all scientists and which is really as much of a belief system as the religious worldview.

Scientism:
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Ellen its not mutually exclusive. I am oppositional to you I guess but also very interested.
Karl, I think your right. I guess I didn't mean theists generally. I think Christians specifically are stuck in the stone age. Not the religion in terms of the bigger picture. I'd like to see evidence of an empirical nature, not a 2000 year collection of myth and stories. I don't know of the survey you speak, but regardless it doesn't make for evidence as such. regardless of how many or "who" beleive. Its why I posted originally on this subject. MANY people smarter than me are Christians I would like to find out why?
It may not be the only path to the truth, but for my needs view its been a reliable and trustworthy way of finding truth. will comment later. Up early tired as..

Has anyone read a book called "The Rise and Fall of Soul and self"? by Martin and Barresi.

While its a bit quiet, lets ask some questions: Is the "loving" God in control ? some situational reflections. All the situations mentioned are not made up all 100% true.

1. Suffer the little children. Sophie is a bright young child of 5 years of age. She attends a preschool, not being old enough for "real" school. One bright sunny day, a car comes carreering through her preschool soaking her in burning petroleum. I presume the loving God ordaines that Sophie loses all her arm, her ears fingers and toes all incinerated off. She looks the quintesional burns victem. Now, the loving God not through with her just yet, has another car plow into her burned little body smashing most of the bones and seeing that she cannot really walk now. What do you suppose the loving God had planned for her? Her religious parents thank the loving God for sparing her life yet if she were my child and I beleived in deities I would just be plain angry. Was God in control do you think?

2. God would have to be in control of precipitation wouldn't you think? Why would the loving God cause a country wide drought dispite many God fearing folk praying for the blessed rain. We have 5 suicides a week now from God fearing farmers who at their wits end, having exausted all avenues including prayer.Any ideas as to the loving Gods plan? anyone? Is God in control of this phenonema and why would he cause such suffering and pain? Philip? Ellen? anyone?
3.
Young Richard is a budding pianist with a future..well almost.. he has talents in composing and playing piano that would make the great composers jealous. God gave him a brain tumour at 28. Surgeons, trained scientists and mostly athiests corrected Gods mistake by removing said tumour. God gave him another one, and another and yet another. His eye is being forced out og the boney orbit and dusfiguring this young Christain , not to mention the daily morphine he has to take. He won't live another 2 months. Was the loving God in control and why do you think he did that?

4. Tanya is 44. A lifetime Catholic, she attends mass, prayers regulary and is a fully commited Christain. Well I say "fully" because the loving God gave her a lethal dose of lung cancer. This spread throughout her body over one Christmas season. The morphine in Tamya's case couldn't race ahead of the pain dispite the oncology teams best efforts. She went into a kind of fugue state lasting for 2 and a half weeks praying for an end to her suffering. It didn't come until she rejected her Christainty on her death bed. Was the loving God in control? What do you think was the big plan with Tanya?

in your own time thinklings.. even you Calvinator!

Ray, here are my answers to each of your questions for each scenario:

1) Was God in control do you think?
Yes.

2) Any ideas as to the loving Gods plan?
I'm not generally privy to God's specific plans for people, including myself.

Is God in control of this phenonema and why would he cause such suffering and pain?
Yes, he's in control of the weather, good and bad.
I don't know why he allows suffering and pain, except to mention that a) the Bible says pain and suffering came into the world as a result of the Fall (the free will choice to sin), and b) C.S. Lewis said pain is God's megaphone.
I know that in my own life, my pain and suffering usually is a call to conform more closely to Christ, who endured much pain and suffering in his death.

3) Was the loving God in control and why do you think he did that?
Yes, he was in control. I don't know why he did that.

4) Was the loving God in control?
Yes.

What do you think was the big plan with Tanya?
I don't know.

Hi Ray, it's nice to hear from you again.

Is the mocking and condescending tone of your questions really necessary? I'm going to assume it's not on purpose.

These are all good questions, big questions, questions everyone has asked. My guess is everyone commenting on this blog could think of a few scenarios just like these.

I don't have an answer that will satisfy you, of that I am quite sure. But a few things to keep in mind:

a) God does not promise us that death and trouble will go away if we believe in him. We'll all die someday, some of us in very painful ways. This is the world we live in. It is not the world as it will always be, and it is not the world as it was originally created. The Bible's quite clear who is to blame for death. And it's not God. It's our sin (big topic there).

b) None of us see the big picture.

c) You are focusing exclusively on the tragedies of life. What of the blessings? Does God get credit for those from you as he gets the derision for things you think are unfair or unjust? Who gets credit for the grace he has shown you? For the good things in your life?

d) For every scenario you've mentioned, another could be brought to the fore of an equally tragic situation in which the sufferer and those around him/her gained strength and peace from God, and looked for the ultimate healing if not a temporal healing in this life. So, following this line of argument, we'll just be trading scenarios all day long.

e) My grandmother lost her little brother when he was just 20 in a terrible accident, her son when he was 29 (in another terrible accident), and lost her husband when he was just fifty after he suffered horribly with sickness for decades. And she never once balled up her fist and shook it at God, not in all the years I knew her. She understood, and had a much bigger view of God than your view of the petty deity who brings misfortune on us. She understood grace, and was a picture of grace to all who knew her. She died in her sleep a few years ago, at the age of 90.

But, as I said, there probably isn't any line of argument we could pursue that will convince you of God's love. Not that I don't want to keep talking with you about it.

Jared et al,

Could not another more sensible answer be thus:

There isn't a God. These random acts of crapulance happen simply because bad stuff happens. It happens to ducks, it happens to various animals that become roadkill it happens to little teeny tiny ants you walk on going to work. It happens to spiders and fish in the sea. It happens billions of times a day because life is always followed by a death. It astounds me how nieve the God fearing are and how your unable to spot the randomness of life.

Sure, that's an entirely "sensible" answer. Good luck with that.

It astounds me how nieve the God fearing are and how your unable to spot the randomness of life.

I assume you mean "naive," but what astounds me is why you would even bother coming here and ask us these questions with such insincerity. Ray, what difference does it make? If it's all just the randomness of life and there's no God and no afterlife and all that, what is it you are hoping to accomplish by asking these questions of us?
To convince us that we should go ahead and assume lives of hopelessness and despair, because people suffer for no reason? If that's the case, someone else is being naive, eh?

Look, your questions are disingenuous. That's why I didn't answer when you first popped in. Because I could tell by your "tone," your sarcasm, and your snide retorts you're not here to really understand a Christian theist's point of view on human suffering and death, but rather to "frustrate" us or tweek us or some such thing.
In doing so, you have shown zero respect and zero understanding for people unlike you. Others have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond in good faith. Didn't matter.

So all you've proven is that someone who thinks life is meaningless and random enjoys treating people who think it is not in a very poor fashion. I actually think that speaks volumes about worldview.

Dear De,
You know I am trying to ask this in a realistic tone. I'm sorry if it comes across as insincere or mocking. You have to try and beleive me I'm being genuine and in good faith. And I wish to put to you, in good faith that the bible answers NONE of the big questions. For me thats a big topic. You guys cite it as "evidence" and it just simply can't be considered that on any level. We have to look a little experimentially on what we imagine a Gods reason would be rather than find it in written form. After I reply to your questions I will tell you why I hold this view I think ita a valid view/observation and I would like to comment on this if I may a little later.
I have not only been reading the bible but some scholarly works on the bibles origins and I am a bit better informed now.

Question A. What do you mean not the world it will always be? Of course its always going to be random. And God may not promise us a pain free life, but why the hell does he need to make it torturous? seriously why? The popular answer is "God works in a mysterious way" and "how can we know the mind of a God" But I put to you Bill, that equally, an answer of "no God exists" is a very valid and I don't know how else to put it other than "its the only sane answer". You are probably a very nice and moral person correct? Would you have orgainsed life on Earth in this fashion if you were the loving God? seriously, would you? and your just a bloke!
B. None of us see the big picture. Bill, can it be there is "no picture" of any kind? Could these just be random deaths? What picture can you imagine that made a devout woman an athiest on her death bed? What picture can you see that reveals no God to someone like me?
C. Well lets have a look at my life for a moment and count its blessings. A father who went blind before he could see me. A father who dies from a God given desease when I was 12. A mother I find dead on the floor one morning a year later. A wife who dies early of cancer. periods of homelessness, sexual abuse by a catholic father, The blessings: I think I'm smart dispite the spelling. I started a company with own saved capital and sweat worth some money now. a child. reasonable health. Being that "procreation" is the live driving force and can't be considered an "act" of God so much as an act of living cells, and that if God had his I'd be dead by now I would say my little athiestic self got me this far. But lets look at bigger things... Rain... about as spasmodic as drought. Drought winning here right now. No I say that there wouldn't be too many things we could say were "blessings" anymore than the bad things we attribute to randomness. Do you have an example of a blessing yourself?
D. Now your just being optimistic. gained strength? Thats an illusion de. Know one gains strength from real tragedy. Your confusing "will for life" the common function of all the living with "benefit from on high" its illusionary.
e. I understand about your grandmother. She didn't get angry, maybe because she was afraid to or maybe she just didn't let on. I mean thats her personality maybe? But her suffering maybe could be just attribitable to randomness or a world without any kind of God figure.
De, Talking about God's love is a good discussion. Its one of the central tenents the modern church is built on. I just have some difficulty, in seeing that love on any reasonable level. I gave some examples of situations and simply asked where the love is? I just don't see it myself is all.

Hi Ray,

Thanks for writing back.

Not sure where we're going to get in this conversation, as I think we're just talking past eachother ;-) - but I'll give it a shot.

"You guys cite it as “evidence” and it just simply can’t be considered that on any level."

This is, again, a petittio principii, or stating as fact something which has yet to be proven. This is your opinion, not necessarily the truth.

"What do you mean not the world it will always be? Of course its always going to be random."

Again, stating something as fact that you haven't backed up with any evidence. How do you know the world will always be as it is? God has promised us a new heaven and a new earth someday.

"Would you have orgainsed life on Earth in this fashion if you were the loving God? seriously, would you? and your just a bloke!"

You should be very, very thankful that I'm not God ;-)

"A father who went blind before he could see me. A father who dies from a God given desease when I was 12. A mother I find dead on the floor one morning a year later. A wife who dies early of cancer. periods of homelessness, sexual abuse by a catholic father"

Ray, you've had some very hard things happen to you. I am not going to try and give you a pat answer as to why they happened. They represent, I'm sure, a great deal of pain in your life and for that you have only my compassion.

"Do you have an example of a blessing yourself?"

Space doesn't allow me to list all the ways I've been blessed. I'm not kidding about that either ;-) - God has been very, very gracious to me. I'll start right off the bat with my wonderful best friend and wife, and my four kids who have all been blessed with good health and who all love God. I can't think of anything else I could ask for.

I also know that it could all fall apart tomorrow - we could get sick, we could get killed, an economic collapse or flood or a thousand other misfortunes could occur. That won't change the fact that I've been blessed beyond what I could have asked for.

A universe with no God brings up a lot of questions of its own (and none that I think can be satisfied with just a cavalier reference to the anthropic principle). Where did you come from? Why are you here and - more importantly - why do you care why you're here? Where do you get your sense of right and wrong? Are you just, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, a cloud of atoms that we are mistaking for a person? Is free-will an illusion or, at best, a by product of quantum mechanics? How did you evolve to be the amazing creature you are in only 4 billion years? How did the first cell evolve? By chance? etc. etc. etc.

Many questions.

This is, again, a petittio principii, or stating as fact something which has yet to be proven. This is your opinion, not necessarily the truth.

I am not any kind of expert. But I did some research into people that were expert in the feild. (I will expand a little tonight if I can) I'm so late for work right now! But the opinion of those that study the Bibles beginnings, were in fact saying its unreliable as any kind of Godly evidence. Give me the day and I will show you examples?

God may have promised this in the previous unstanstiated work. But all evidence so far... all 4 billion years of it. Show no "evidence" of change. In fact, all current evidence states the world will be unihabital for any humans of any kind within about 400 years. Thats change of course, but probably not what you were meaning. "I'll cite evidence tonight if you like?
I would LOVE for you to be God!! what would you do.. you think.. "punish me" for airing my mind? Punish me for doubting as the deciple Thomas? Punish me for using my "God" given intelligence? Tell me what you would do ? ; )
The last paragraph is been answered over and over and over by science. We know what we are and we know there is no reason. Your mistakingly looking at the world in a non anthroplogic way. Your think we are "intelligent beings" sitting atop a cosmic ladder. Its nothing even remotely of this ilk. People who look at this world in this fashion can't understand the true nature of the scientidic thinking on this subject. I see this over and over again.
We are a simple cloud of atoms yes. We have an ability to be self aware, which makes us aware of mortality and the need to "create Gods" all human inventions. Chimps, interestingly sin and are self aware. The 5% genetic difference isn't a "soul" Man will not live forever, and as said earlier our civilization can't last another 500 years. A new dominant species will emerge, possibally in the insect world, we are not "destined to be" anymore than a cockroach is. We just happen to have obtained certain survival skills that worked over a span of about 10,000 years. They won't last 11,000.
But nothing I am saying here is of my own invention. Its publisged in refereed science journals and I WILL be showing you the evidence. I just have to shoot through right now having slept in !!
see you in my tonight.
Jared you couldn't me more wrong about me if you tried!! I am not winding you up, I am asking if its possible for you to see the world differently and for me is it possible I missed something in my thinking. Your comments about me are offensive. And what your reading as sarcasm etc is what you "think" my tone is. you know NOTHING about me really so give me a break hey? I'm on a quest of understanding.
Also you 100% wrong about being bleak and meaningless.
A Godless world is choc full of meaning and morality.
I practise my kindness and my charity and my frindship and empathy on people right here and now. I don't do it to get the good seats in heavan or through fear of a God. I do it because its the right thing to do for me. My world isn't devoid of meaning, and yours wouldn't be either with or without a God.
so give me a break and stop with the steriotypical amoral atheists talk ok? Lets discuss, I mean if your faith is the ultimate truth and its secure and your got Gods backing, I'm darn sure God won't mind you examining it a bit for a bit on the board now would he? I lose respect for the calvinators of this world who lack the courage to really look inwards and examine the things behind the self hype of beleif systems. I do this regulary myself, hey who would really want to be in hell? as all of you suggested to me I am reading the texts and doing my part all I need you to do is give me your opinions.
I will try to use a smiling happy face : ) each time to show I am sincere and not tragic sarcastic individual. But I want real answers from you guys, the ones brave enough to answer that is : )

Ray, you're driving me crazy :-)

Lets discuss, I mean if your faith is the ultimate truth and its secure and your got Gods backing, I’m darn sure God won’t mind you examining it a bit for a bit on the board now would he? I lose respect for the calvinators of this world who lack the courage to really look inwards and examine the things behind the self hype of beleif systems.

WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING!!!

Calvinator doesn't lack courage. Neither do I. At least not about this topic. You are assuming our fundamental disagreement with you is a lack of courage.

This is a common atheist stereotype (to reuse a phrase you used) about Christians - that we are deluded, and fearful, and that a few minutes of "making us face the facts of reality" will crumble our pathetic faith like a house of cards.

When I was coming to the faith I used to purposefully go to the Library at college and pull out books that said Christianity wasn't true. I read what they said to challenge my faith. I don't want to believe something that's not true any more than you do.

"But I want real answers from you guys, the ones brave enough to answer that is : )"

Well, we have been answering you. We just haven't been giving you the answers you want. It has nothing to do with "being brave".

"all I need you to do is give me your opinions."

We've also been doing that. You just don't like our opinions. But it's all subjective

You: Look at our tragic, random world, doesn't it make you feel certain that there is no God?

Us: no.

You: Well, you guys are either idiots or cowards.

That's as far as this conversation has gotten.

De: Thanks for backing me up. I have been very tempted to violate my pledge not to respond to Ray. Responding is, however, a fool's errand. He may think less of me for it, but I couldn't care less.

Despite Ray's repeated protestatoins to the contrary, Jared is right abot what he is doing and not doing. He is not trying to understand. He is trying to get someone, anyone here to give up his or her faith. I think the evidence it ample and clear. I encourage everyone just to let it go.

Dear Calvinator,

You couldn't be more wrong about me. I actually have followed I think it was your idea, and purchased a Bible and am busy areading! I don't wish to "convert" you and you and I know that, that would be impossible. I'm as keen to view the world through your eyes and I hoped you might be brave enough to view my world through more critical eyes. An examination of any faith based religion is scary. I mean it is for me who wants to upset there prevailing paradigm? But I see things differently and I have for me "hard questions" I was hoping you wouldn't resort to "shunning" style behavour and actually examine the faith and issues of God with me. Its very disapointing that your convictions are such.

Look De,

YOU ARE CERTAINLY NOT IDIOTS. can I be any more clearer? YOU ARE CERTAINLY NOT COWARDS is that clear?
But your NOT answering my questions in fact your subtly evasive. But lets put this behind us ? start fresh. Would you mind if I asked some more questions and we drop the animosity?

Bill, Could you please start the ball rolling and answer that question about I ought to be thankful your not God? Why sir? what would you as God be doing? (in regards to my good self) : )

Why the Holy Bible is meaningless to me so far.

Give me some latitude here I'm a newbe with this.

Judasim,Christianty,Islam developed in the same region with the same overlapping beleifs. Right?
All 3 were trying to write scripture that integrated Pagan philosophy of the previous era basically comming out of Greece. Right? The theorys that were "developed" primitive world views of science and religion. (jump in anywhere you disagree people)
The Tanakh, is the basic scripture of the jews and includes the Torah ? The Torah was supposedly inspired by Moses under "divine" inspiration. It accounts for how the world was "created" ; ) and it lays down all your basic laws such as the ten comandments. NOTE TO SELF: remember to ask Ellen again about a new definition of the "Thou Shalt not kill" comandment. She still hasn't answered that question. : ) Anyways, The new Jewish philospers were intent on explaining the basic world and there is 2 stories.
FIRST ISSUE: in a Universe that has over a trillion Galaxies each with trillions of suns each with orbiting planets, (actually so many they don't use trillion they use the word googalplex) The bible says, he created the heavens then goes into all the detail about the Earth. Dontcha think this a little strange? A universe with a googalplex of stars gets a line, but the Earth gets the detail? Does it not sound to you as it does to me that a stone age tribesman is making this up? more on this later. : )
Now in most of the Hebrew bible, prior to the book of Daniel there is an assuption that bodily death is the end. "immortality" isn't an option. Though oddly there is 2 exceptions Wisdom and Ezekiel. But when we get to Daniel.. whoa ! ressurection becomes introduced.. Could someone just be making this all up as they go along? I wonder..
Jesus the son of a God, shows up in about 4 BCE. having been baptised by John. Now jesus was your typical (at the time) apocalyptic prophet with the "end is Nigh" and Repent the end is comming kinda guy. There was a lot of this back then. Now by the time Jesus started preaching he had a distilled and refined message Historians Havn't a bloody clue as to what that message was. But most agree that its thought he was promoting social equality that put a premium on compassion to replace the jewish system of the day that stressed holiness and purity.
The scarcity and ambiguity of evidence of these accounts are almost breathtakingly Non existant.
Almost all historians and much of the modern church agree that most events of the new testament to be fictious. Did you guys know this? Basically no one actually beleives that any of it is an historical account of Jesus at all. Now we get to the synoptic problem, of in which order it was all written. Now I find this interesting nearly all of it was arrived at 150 years after his death. Probaly not one single page was written by anyone who even knew anyone who saw Jesus. How can rely on that as a rule book?
You see in 3 Gospels Jesus talks in epigrams a kind of proverb, say Mark 4:25 yet we get to John and we get these long absurd discourses... say.. like John6:47-51 and again in say John 15:1-4 I think they may have done this to "sell" Christianty to the Hellenistic world but thats just a guess of mine.
and this gets to the crux.. John who claimed to be there wasn't. He is trying to sell his idea of Jesus and not the actual Jesus if you get my distinction?
You have deciple "Paul" who only wrote decades after the death of Jesus and so oddly doesn't say a word about Jesus before he died. I wonder why not?
Now my guess and its just a guess, The deciples of primitive Christianty were just embarressed that their spiritual leader died the death of a common criminal. I think the whole ressurection myth is an attempt to overcome this short comming. Its interesting that even the top brass of the Catholic heirachry regard the whole central tenent as a fable. This is actually documented I think by the previous Pope? anyway, The Bible as a collection of documents wasn't even mass produced (by block type) till the middle century so its no biggy that its confusing,inacurate,violent,and just plain old wrong. I think your worshipping from the work of simple man not the work of a grandious being.

She still hasn’t answered that question.

It's been said that "three's a charm". You've proven that incorrect/false/askew, since that's at least how many times I've addressed/answered/responded to your question/bait/protest. (You notice that each of the words I've used in each set have subtle but real differences.

This is why I'm done with your games. Because you've made it clear it's a game.

Could someone just be making this all up as they go along? I wonder..

Again...this is where I quit reading - at the first sarcasm.

Ray, you don't wonder at all. You've clearly stated that.

Ray,

I'm heading out so my first response will be quick. I hope to write more later.

"But your NOT answering my questions in fact your subtly evasive. But lets put this behind us ? start fresh. Would you mind if I asked some more questions and we drop the animosity?"

Well, yes, I've answered nearly every question you've asked. Ray, I have not been evasive. I certainly haven't been trying to be. What do you want me to do? The answers I've given haven't satisfied you, I realize that. But they are my answers. They are what I believe. I can't make up something I don't believe just to not appear "evasive".

I have no animosity toward you. But you keep accusing me of being evasive, being fearful, not answering your questions, etc. It makes it hard to discuss.

"Bill, Could you please start the ball rolling and answer that question about I ought to be thankful your not God? Why sir? what would you as God be doing? (in regards to my good self) : )"

Well, I have no idea. But didn't you ever see "Bruce Almighty"? :-)

Now, to just a few of your detailed questions. I'll try to get to others as I can. Now, if the answers below don't satisfy you, I don't know what to tell you. But if I was trying to "be evasive" I just wouldn't answer. Make sense?

"Judasim,Christianty,Islam developed in the same region with the same overlapping beleifs. Right?"

Wrong. Judaism was around long before Christianity or Islam. Christianity is Messianic Judaism, meaning it's what Judaism became after Jesus, the Messiah predicted in the OT, came. Those who are if the Jewish faith today are those who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. We share a common old testament (same scriptures) and worship the same God, though.

Islam was an offshoot of a mix of Christianity, paganism, etc in the fifth or sixth century AD (I don't recall the details). It is a different religion but it developed well after Christianity was established.

"All 3 were trying to write scripture that integrated Pagan philosophy of the previous era basically comming out of Greece. Right?"

Well, no. Judaism is way older than the Hellenistic greek culture. I can't speak for islam. Christianity has been accused of having incorporated Greek ideas, but that's mainly because in Christ a relationship with God was opened to both Jews and Gentiles (greeks, pagans, people from australia, basically everyone who wasn't already a jew).

"emember to ask Ellen again about a new definition of the “Thou Shalt not kill” comandment. She still hasn’t answered that question"

Well, yes she did. About seven times. You just didn't like or didn't understand her answer. Please go back and read her responses, and give her some respect as she did, in good faith, try to answer you.

I gotta go - will try one more and perhaps the others later (I'm not being evasive. I have to go to work)

"You have deciple “Paul” who only wrote decades after the death of Jesus and so oddly doesn’t say a word about Jesus before he died. I wonder why not?"

Because you've been lied to. Read Romans, Collosians, really any Pauline epistle in that Bible you bought. All Paul talks about is Jesus. He even said he was to only "preach Christ, and Him crucified".

"Basically no one actually beleives that any of it is an historical account of Jesus at all. Now we get to the synoptic problem, of in which order it was all written. Now I find this interesting nearly all of it was arrived at 150 years after his death. Probaly not one single page was written by anyone who even knew anyone who saw Jesus. How can rely on that as a rule book?"

Well, this is an incorrect view, although I know some scholars believe this. Many others don't.

There is strong internal and external evidence that the gospels and the epistles were all written between AD 50 and AD 100. By people who had been there. There's much more to talk about here (this is a big subject) but your premise that nearly everyone disbelieves that the gospels and epistles were written in the lifetime of people who knew and saw Jesus is not true. A whole bunch of people (many scholars included) disagree with you.

"The deciples of primitive Christianty were just embarressed that their spiritual leader died the death of a common criminal. I think the whole ressurection myth is an attempt to overcome this short comming. Its interesting that even the top brass of the Catholic heirachry regard the whole central tenent as a fable. This is actually documented I think by the previous Pope?"

They weren't "just embarassed". They believed in Jesus so much that they were willing to die for that faith. Now, are you willing to die for something you know is not true?

The evidence of early Christian willingness to be martyred is plentiful. Why would these people die for the Lord they say had risen if they knew in their hearts that he hadn't? There were "messiahs" showing up in Israel all the time around Jesus' day. How come for all the others, when they were killed, their disciples just faded away, but for Jesus they turned the world upside down, so that a mere 300 years later the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as it's religion?

"Its interesting that even the top brass of the Catholic heirachry regard the whole central tenent as a fable. This is actually documented I think by the previous Pope?"

Site the source ;-). If the previous Pope said anything about not believing in Jesus or the Resurrection, I'll eat my computer keyboard. :-)

Seriously, check your sources. Where did you get this stuff?

Have a good day. Now I'm late! ;-)

Hey Ellen,

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, actually just mildly playful. I forgot to use the smily face.
Can I ask it another way?

Is Euthenasia a sin? Do you personally see it as sin? And I mean someone on deaths door with no hope of recovery, is giving them a lethal dose of morphine a sin? I am pretty sure it mightened be covered biblically, and someone was it Phil ? said it was a can of worms. Amongst Christains in your neck of the woods what do they think and is it very unaminious ?

Is it your belief that God takes sides during a war on Earth? Did he take a side, say in WW2 ?
We have lots of monuments here that claim that, and I was sure I heard your President claiming something similar? Its not against the commandments was it?

Hey there Bill,
Thank you for your reply. I know I'm work. But just do it as you can or want to.
You know you said I was wrong on the first part? I looked up the references and I understand its from Martin and Barrasis work. I will quote if you don't mind?
Christianity emerged from Judaism and adopted the Hebrew bible as its old testament. And Islam in the Qur'an accepts the Hebrew prophets and Jesus as precursors of Muhammad and recounts the basic storyline in the earlier scriptures. All three religious traditions trace their ancestry to Abraham.
This is how it reads to me? right or wrong? They sounded like they knew their onions.

De,

I will look that stuff up and get back to you. I'm just in the door and havn't had my first beer yet. I think I see trouble are brewing. If the Scholars I'm reading about say one thing, and the ones you have learned say something different? I will have to find a way of checking this stuff out another way.

Hey De,

You asked me to site the source on the Pope regarding the ressurection? I first read it in Time magazine. It was at least several years ago. I have heard this repeated in the English press ,London Times If I remeber correctly. I understood it was very common knowledge in the Catholic church. I was never a secret.

Bill,

I saw today some really interesting Notice boards outside Churches. Jesus is your friend.. God is love.. etc. I wanted to ask you or any thinkling really, about the second.

I am sure God wasn't supposed to be an "emotion" I guess they mean God loves you or God is the centre of love or the like. Remember yesterday we were chatting about how mean God can be smiting or half smiting people and I asked what could be the grand plan? Put that question aside for the minute (but I do want to get back to it) I NEVER see evidence of the oft advertised loving God. One of the most religious places on the planet gets hit by a tusamni and over a million are homeless? Wheres the love? Your Bible belt running along your midwest, gets hit year after year by tornadoes why? where is the love? I find Christains have rose coloured glasses like people have on when they think of the 50's. They see what they want to see and forgive all the bad. Last year we had our 4th straight year of drought amongst our version of your bible belt. People were praying like crazy for rain yet it didn't. eventually a 2mll "downpour" which wasn't enough to wash dust off was hailed as Gods mirecal.Now I don't have the glasses on as you know and I was thinking, why the hell wouldn't you get pissed at the God that "caused the very delimma they had to pray to save? (Still has not rained yet year 5) Now I can't see Gods good in puppy dog faces or babies or angels,rainbows and stuff without thinking about blue ringed octopus,tetse flies and stone fish. God seems to elipse the good thousand fold over with bad stuff. Why don't Christians see this? You probally had a good meal last night? I had lamb shanks!! my French wife can cook up a storm. Of a world population of 6 billion (give or take) only about 4 billion had a meal. Africans starve, there children swell up and die, Indians so poor the have to throw corpses in the Ganges. We can get philisophical and all cause we eat. But much of the world doesn't. Are Africans heathen scum? Does God not love them? What about the Chinese? New Guiinuns ? are they all dieing cause the God you say is all powerful and loving just wants there children to die?
The Calvinator "excumnicated me" because I probally think differently. By this, I have no fear whatsoever of a "God" not a germ of fear. I don't fear death in fact I look fondly towards it. I don't even fear "dying " whilst I have people I know are smart and I can trust. When your in this position, you can afford then to look critically at your God and demand a few answers. I half hope in my heart he does exist because I want a peice of him.
NOw what I wanted to know is, apart from the death of Jesus what underpins your view that God acts "lovingly" or is the God of love? How do you see it from your point of view?

De,

regarding the Papal comment. I will try and hustle up the original. Time mag has an extensive archive, I just don't remember the exact time I read it and may need some searching. I do remember though, that the reprint in The Times (I think) was due to the contoversy this little bomb shell dropped. The person explaining the position was an Arch Deacon or something in the Anglican Church. I will try and find it, but I might need some time if thats ok? How will I know if your serious about eating the keyboard ? and if so, Would it be possible to watch, do you have a web cam?

Anyone ever read Gods inferno?

De,
I think they were indeed embarressed. You asked me about Martyed dieing for Christianity and why they would if they didn't beleive?

I am only guessing.. personally, people that do this for any religions are nut jobs. But my guess would be that they were:
1. Lied to.
2. Mislead.
3. Didn't think.

I expect a greater probability is in 1 or 2. Maybe a minority in 3. But for the most part I think they were insane.

You asked:

How come for all the others, when they were killed, their disciples just faded away, but for Jesus they turned the world upside down, so that a mere 300 years later the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as it’s religion?

De, Do you have any concept of many "Gods" have come and gone in the last 10,000 years? Any concept? Its literally thousands and thousands. Your one, is simply on of the many of the latter. Your God will fall and I would wager my daughters life on it I am that sure. Athiests are growing and an enormous rate world wide. In Australia, we recently had a census and the growth rate for the ungodly was up something like 23% (it blew even me out of the water)
Science makes the concept of Gods and angels redundant. Its not needed to explain how we got here or why the skys blue. I expect the Christain religion has less than 200 years before its wiped out. I mix with a broad group of people, in all sorts of life spheres and over 90% (and I kid you not, no exageration) I was up last night working this out, over 90% fall into athiest (and a few agnostic) groupings. I don't know if the world would be a better place for this, but I can make a personal observation?
These "athiest" people are rich in humanity. I know many who throw themselves into charity work, Many who are involved in non religious social clubs. Nearly.. not all but nearly all have a driving desire to pay back society positively. My Suzy, just turned 21, like me a lifetime non beleiver is simply one of the most kind and gentle human beings I have encountered on earth. I contrast this to people like the Finglands and a partner of mine who are some of the few religious people I know (Catholic and anglican) they both belive there reward is in heaven and I can't explain adequately how cruel they are as humnans
I feel safer, more loved and more optimistic of the survival of our species with the advent of wide spread athiestism.
just my 2 cents worth. well maybe 3..

De,

I have just delved into the Gospel of Paul. We have the same bible don't we the King James version? Because I think I am right in the statement I made earlier.
Which was basically..

Although Paul wrote just a few decades after Jesus's death it was clear he never met Jesus. Based on his Gospel he has no interest in Jesus's pre-death life. Of course Johns story is a little different.
I am a novice at this so please excuse my ignorance, but once again am I not correct? : )

Hey Ellen,

Would you accept an appology from me? I re-read your answer, and you did indeed attempt to answer my question. I unreservedly appologise to you for saying you didn't.
I think I was hoping for an everyday kinda answer rather than a scripture lesson. But I think I understand its the only langauge the answer actually makes sense in your head if that makes sense? Once again sorry for being a dope.

Ray

Still looking for the reference..

found this interesting.. Times of London.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

Is Euthenasia a sin? Do you personally see it as sin? And I mean someone on deaths door with no hope of recovery, is giving them a lethal dose of morphine a sin? I am pretty sure it mightened be covered biblically, and someone was it Phil

Unlike many in Christianity, I believe that the motive counts. For one in pain with a terminal illness (and very close to death), when done with a heart of mercy - I believe that we will be judged with mercy.

I've been in the situation of making the choice so this is no mere mental exercise for me.

Saul was injured on the battlefield and asked for it to be finished. David acted in anger and killed the man to did it, but it was because Saul was king - he never said the act (in and of itself) was wrong.

If you want to get rid of "dear old grandma" so you can read the will a few days earlier, that's a different motive.

By the way.. I saw Bruce Almighty. Talk about movie crapulence. I was embarressed for Carey.

Are you sure that was what you really meant? I was sure I detected some malice.. Guess I must have been wrong. (again) : )

Thank you for that Ellen. I thought you might say this.
Tell me, Is this a popular Christain veiw? I imagine you would be judged with mercy, Hell, I am counting on it ; ) But is the "motive" not important amongst some Christians ? Are these then the fundamentalists ? Ellen are you in Michigan? I once visited there a few years ago now.

It's interesting - (I'm late for work so this will be quick.)

Many who have never been in the situation have hard and fast feelings. Many who have been are more fluid.

If not for the Biblical example, I'd me hard and fast. But we do have one.

Been gone all day, and leaving again. Not time to write anything long . . .

"I was sure I detected some malice.. Guess I must have been wrong. (again) : )"

No malice. My bruce almighty thing was just a joke.

Not sure what you mean by "The Gospel of Paul". Which book of Paul's were you reading? Just want to get synched up with where you are.

by hard and fast do you mean you would have not been a supporter?

Guess I am talking about epistle to the Romans. Thats the right place we are dicussing Paul?

I understand that Paul from acts of apostles is really well.. not Paul actually. This I got from Ferdinand Christain Baurs works. Baurs stuff is all in German and my German isn't good. I have invited a friend of mine Wolfgang who is going to translate it for me today. : )

You remember me telling you about the Pope? I am still trying to find references so could we put this one in purgetory until I come up with proof? I have to seperate English friends, Chris who lives in London and Andy who is from London and lives here. I emailed Chris and I saw Andy a few moments ago. Both remember seeing this thing on the Pope saying the ressurrection is "not to be taken literally." it was Pope John Paul and quite a while ago. Both remember it, as it did make front page news. I needed to mention this because I was thinking I may have dreamed it. Now I have found some Papal announcements but they hugely wordy, and I have to read a lot of material so bear with me on that until I find it.

Thanks
De

DE : some more questions. What is your view on:

Genesis in the Bible. Do you see it as literal?

Adam and Eve is this literal as such?

God's often spoken on in terms of "mercy" but he seems a bit mean and prone to taking vengence.. actually playfully cruel in Job for instance.. How do you see him as merciful? How does this corrolate with 5 years of drought and a billion people not eating on any single day ?

Lamech kills a man and claims that since Cain's murderer would be punished sevenfold, whoever murders him will be punished seventy-seven fold.does this sound like the words of a fair and merciful God? 4:23-24 Wheres the love here?

Abraham begs God not to kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Is this right De?, Since later (Gen.22:2-10) Abraham doesn't even question God's request that he kill his own son.He asks God 2 good questions: "Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?" and "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 18:23-25 any comment De ?

If a man curses or blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. "God says" that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23 De, do we take this literally? Should we not be stoning people to death? I know this is still practised in the middle East under Sharia law, why are we not doing it here? What is your view? And any one else who would like to comment.

Can I ask a last off topic question? I assume your all friends? Is Philip alright? I had said all his family were very sick and I had not heard a peep since. Does anyone know if they are alright? He did say he was a Pastor and I imagine he is probably very busy but I can't help wondering if he and his family are ok. Could someone ask on my behalf if its ok by you?

De,

Speaking of movies. Did you ever see the Mel Gibson movie called "Signs" ? and Did you ever see the Jodie Foster movie "contact" ? both had terrific things to say about faith. They were two of my all time favourite movies.

If Pope john Paul II had really denied the resurrection of Christ, one would be able to find proof of it in about a nanosecond via Google.

I have found various sites "claiming" Pope Benedict XVI has denied the resurrection to come, but those are all anti-Catholic/anti-Pope sites.

Here's something directly from the writings of JPII:

TOUCH ME AND SEE THAT IT IS I MYSELF.

I'm certainly no fan of the office of Pope in general or that much of JPII in particular, but I couldn't let such mis-information stand.

Hey Calvinator,

Yeah that is what I thought. I did find an article from the Times which outlines what the Catholics think is myth verses real. It has the ressurrection under true. However, The "crux" of what I remember hearing, was that in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church it was understood to be a kind of "story" not literal. The commotion at the time was why the view taught in the trenches so to speak was saying its literal. Now this was all a LONG while ago, maybe even 10 or more years now. I know it was published, what I need to find out was on what authority basis. Yair you might think you'd find it on google but you would be amazed at how often you have to go to microfish and stuff. I have to all the time for research purposes.

Oh and Calvinator...

I thought you were not going to respond to me anymore?

couldn't keep you away huh? ; )

How come your not fond of the Pope dude?

PS. Its not mis-information yet.. just in a kind of temporary purgatory. I'll confirm or deny the second our State Library opens (monday) and I can get an hour or 2 to search.

The Calviator,

Hey if your up to it, wanna have a go at my questions?

see above ^

Hey Ray,

I'm in and out a lot today, so I'll take some of the easier ones :-)

About Philip - thanks for asking. I'll let Phil respond when he can.

"Speaking of movies. Did you ever see the Mel Gibson movie called “Signs” ? and Did you ever see the Jodie Foster movie “contact” ? both had terrific things to say about faith. They were two of my all time favourite movies."

I LOVED SIGNS!!!

Fabulous movie. I never saw Contact.

By the way, it's nice sometimes, in the midst of all the questions you're peppering me with ;-), to have a normal friendly conversation about movies we like, etc. So - I really appreciated that question. It lets me step off the dock for a second and just take part in a normal friendly exchange. I hope you know that even if we never satisfy you intellectually with our answers, we're always open to having you hang out and talk about whatnot.

Now, I'll get to one of the 1,000 other questions you've asked when I can. Hopefully this weekend but we'll see.

Gotta go!

De,
If you get the chance see Contact. It was written by a story Carl Sagan once wrote. The main character is this very rational scientist who falls in love with a religious figure basically in USA. It looks like a scinece verses religion movie, but its the end thats fascinating, a Scientist forced to understand a situation almost through the langauge of religion. If this makes sense? I think you might possibally really like it, particulary if you liked Signs.

JUst a couple more..
Lamech, I noticed, is
the first of a long line of biblical men with more than one wife. It seems to me that God approves of such marriages with multiple wives. 4:19 I noticed that in modern times They more or less call it bigamy. But there are sects out there that do have more than one wife. Is there a reason that modern Christians take a differnt line these days?
also..
When God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering which is a bit tough don't you think?. Abraham then shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his own son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13 De, What is the dirt on this one? Is there some shortage of burnt goat smell in Heavan ? Whats with all the burning stuff for God all about? I'm thinking, primitive man thinks God is in "upwards" direction, Devil in downwards, so smoke rising must go to God. You and I know this is well..bull. If God exists it has to be interdimensionally. I mean you can't create a 3 dimension universe in 3 it has to be at least 4. So why would God want burnt goat smoke for?
and another:
The universe is estimated to be over 19 billion years old. I imagine conditions for life have been present for the last 2 or 3 billion years. If a civilization visted us that was able to last out more than a billion years would be mightly advanced in evolutionary terms. They could easily be confused with being a God to humans that lived 2 thousand years ago. I don't think that for a moment this was the case mind you, But how could we seperate a "God" from an advanced species? You remember that saying, technology suffiently advanced is indestiguishable from magic?The same maybe goes for mirecals. Have you ever thought this yourself?

Things I have in common with De.

1. Chocolate icecream
2. Still will tickle my 21 year old kid.
3. Choices of most music. Though I still like some of the stones.
4. Movies. I loved your choices.
5. You seem to have a great as do I.
6. I embarress easy just like you hate it also.

De,
You know how Philip said he was a Pastor? Are many thinklings professionally involved in the Church or is just him?

Hi Ray,

Yes, Phil is a pastor. So is Kenny. And several of the honorary Thinklings are ministers. And they are all really cool.

A few quick answers (my answers, doesn't mean they are difinitive), if I can. I'm still recovering from a very busy last few days.

I'll start with Abraham and Isaac, and leave the others for later (or for someone smarter than me to answer ;-)

And not everyone agrees with this - but I believe the story of Abraham and Isaac is actually a great picture of what God did with His own son - notice that God does not let Abraham follow through with the sacrifice. Human sacrifice is taboo to God, in direct contrast to the pagan nations that were in existence back then and did terrible things, such as offer their babies to the fires of the god Molech.

God is saying in that passage "I will provide the sacrifice" - and he provides a Ram, caught by his head in the bushes. This saved Isaac's life. Abraham was being tested, asked to show how much he loved and trusted God (even though he knew that ALL of God's promises to him were to be fulfilled in Isaac - it made no sense logically, but to Abraham a command was a command).

This is a huge moment in the history of faith - the Bible says Abraham's faith here "was accounted to him as righteousness" - this began the understanding, made complete in the New Testament through Christ, that it is not our good works that save us. It is God's grace and that through our faith.

The Ram is a type of Christ - a full-grown lamb (Jesus is called the lamb of God), offered up to save Isaac. You can take the comparison too far, but I also wonder if the Ram was caught because his horns were in thorny bushes - a literal crown of thorns for the ram, just like Jesus.

But, bottom line, God said he would provide a sacrifice for Isaac. And he did, and it can be argued that this was a prophecy of how he made a sacrifice for us too, in Jesus.

All this talk of sacrifice is often hard for modern people to stomach. But the Bible takes sin very seriously. Before Christ there was a regimen of animal sacrifice, along with grain and oil sacrifices, and these were to "pay" for the sins of the people. Of course, they didn't actually pay for the sins, but they did point the way for what Jesus, the perfect Lamb of God, would do for us many years later.

Hope this helps a bit.

I realize you saked other questions. But I think I can only handle them singly at this point ;-)

Bill,

Please take all the time you want. I am patient and I am finding your replies facsinating. When you said :that it is not our good works that save us. It is God’s grace and that through our faith.
Is this one of the basic differences with Catholics? Or am I mistaken?

Bill,

Is the story considered symbolic? or literal but with symbolic meaning inside? I was trying to get my head around the comparisons with Jesus and how one could make this symbolic link now, but it might not have made the exact same symbolism at the time it was carried out. (I have such a job getting my thoughts down into words!! you have no idea)

I don't know if you do this yourself Bill, I tend to hightlight the responses and cut and paste them to say word pad.. then go from top to bottom. I find working backwards from the last comment really gets confusing. I am just grateful your attempting to answer what for me (at least) difficult questions. I specifically like to here your personal interpretation, but if it differes from mainstream and you tell me this it gives an even wider understanding of the many ways of thinking. I really appreciate you time but don't go letting me drag you from family etc. Just if you can spare a few minutes when you can afford to. Its appreciated. Ray.

Before Christ there was a regimen of animal sacrifice, along with grain and oil sacrifices, and these were to “pay” for the sins of the people. Of course, they didn’t actually pay for the sins, but they did point the way for what Jesus, the perfect Lamb of God, would do for us many years later.

Did you mean that God got the idea from animal sacrifices?

Bill,

Something I have never been able to fully appreciate is the execution of the ressurrection story.
We use to have these neighbours called "The Finglands"
They were a very typical kind of Christian family for over here. Mal the patriach and I had discussions about faith and religious thinking over the course of a few years. I remeber asking him how he "saw" God and he discribed God as this perfect being, and not at all human in any concept. I noticed, I thought, that Philip also had this kind of conception of how he viewed God. Bear in mind we only discussed about 2 paragraphs. But this was the impression I got. I can't help thinking about a God's grander plan, and all I see we have got to go on is the Bible. But if we look at the methodology of how God went about getting the message across it seems wrong to me and it always has. Christianity has lasted a couple of thousand years and while I see you can say its partly sucessfull, If we draw back and look at a world at large you can see that its been way less successfull than it really could have been. Now I understand I think how people see a "plan" of sorts in it, and I understand the wonderful symbolism you see in it also, but it kind of sucks as a way of getting the human race to live better or more godly lives. If Jesus was ressurrected why wouldn't God have had stick around on Earth until he was 90? Why wouldn't Jesus have begun a world wide ministry bringing his fathers word to Africa, Australia England, Germany etc.. why only the deciples and I think it was 500 other souls? Why such a patchy biography? Why wouldn't God himself (or herself) put a document forward like the 10 comandments, etched in a mountain somewhere for all of time? Its always felt hamfisted to me even from the earliest times I was read the biblical stories in school. I keep seeing the works of man attempting to deify an idea or concept, rather than the mirecalous workings of the Lord. Bill have you ever thought this way? I am sure you trust God and that your content truth will someday be revealed, But I am hoping its not some kind of sin to imagine how it could have been done in other ways? I remembered Carl Sagan in an interview saying he expected to see the hand of God in some other logical identifiable way, and never could I say, I think he was onto something.
What do you think?

Dear Bill,

Why do you think God played with Abrahams mind like that? You and I would have to agree that God knows each and everyones mind? I mean he has to in order for the concept of prayer to work. If this is so, Then God would have been aware of Abraham being a Person of God or a person of faith. Now Abraham was willing to slash his own infant sons throat in act of loyalty, Now I don't know if you, yourself would, I catergorically wouldn't even if I believed in a holy Deity. But Abraham did and he rocked up to the place of sacrefice with the wiltshere stay sharp knife. What was in it for God to put him through this when God would have known he would go through with it? What then was the point of killing a harmless animal and then laying that animals carcas to waste by burning it? I am just wondering here Bill, But why wouldn't God just set fire to the bush talk to Abraham directly and tell him to follow through or whatever Gods direction was going to be? I understand your connection with ressurrection symbolism and all, But don't you think this was all a bit unnecessary?
Bill, if we type up that story, and replace the word "God" with the two words "Idi Amin" how would you react to this? Would Idi be a bit of a bully? How do you rationilise this story with God being the God of love,mercy and forgiveness? I know the son didn't die in the end, but don't you think this story has a message of unmitigated cruelty?

Bill,

I wanted to ask you about Homosexuality and the Church. Its a huge topic over here and seems to resurface in waves almost. You have the same issues in the Us I would presume? I did read Leviticus, particulary this line: 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
and I guess for the souls commiting beastialty (we had one here about 2 months ago.. 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. (20:15-16) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, kill them both.



20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Is Leviticus meant to be a literal interpretation?
Are there people that think we should put these kinds of people to death?

Dear Calvinator,

I may owe the Pope an apology. You remember that bit I wrote about the ressurection and the Pope that you couldn't help but go into bat for? Well it appears I may be WRONG!!!!!! : )

I have it on better authority it was the Bishop of Durham. Now if you look at the Queen being the head of the Anglican church, I think the Bishop was 3rd one down. And I think it may have been his personal view rather than Anglicans as a whole. I needed to tell you this, in order to make you and your keyboard feel all the more safer. I will do my utmost, to get you Durhams quote in writing but it was around 10 years ago, and not everything can be googled, try as we might!

Ray, if you're talking about the Bishop of Durham, then he doesn't deny the resurrection. There is already a discussion here about his controversial statement about the resurrection (in which he says he has friends who don't believe in the bodily resurrection that he thinks are Christians).

Hey, thanks for that Alan! I will read it. I was trying to find the print version that made it into the British papers. It was a long time ago now maybe as long as 15 years when the comments first aired and made it onto my radar. I unfortunately confused it with a statement I heard attributed to The Catholic Pope (or someone in the heirachy) thanks for pounting me to that.

Rat

De,Ellen,Philip,Alan,
4:15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.

Given that there is a whole lot of stuff we don't do as per the bibles requests anymore, such as killing Bullocks in Church. And given we seem not to stone people or set them on fire or live polygimously these days, I am guessing (had no answers just yet) that we are discarding some ideas or biblical concepts in modern times. I was wondering why, Christian groups have not gotten together to drop all this stuff from the Bible and just have an abridged version with all the currently agreed stuff only in it? I doubt if it would slim it down that much, but you would know whether say, to turn the other cheek, rather than poking someones eye out. Why has this never been attempted, or has it and I have never heard about it? Or is everything meant to be there for some reason I can't see as of yet?

Ray

Ray, given that you're not open to understanding - it's difficult to address some of these things.

But...

Drag yourself into the New Covenant. There is no more need for sacrifice, since the final sacrifice (of Christ) has been made. We are not "discarding" Biblical concepts.

There is the issue of the three parts of the Old Covenant Law; the moral law, the civil law and the ceremonial law. We have civil laws in our own country and the Hebrew civil law does not hold, any more than the Israli law does. The ceremonial law was for the Jews and I'm not Jewish. That leaves the moral law and what was wrong then is wrong now. What has changed is the penalty under the (Hebrew) civil law.

On polygamy: whether or not you agree with polygamy or oppose it (or take a middle ground and say that the Bible does not condemn it but it's not for you) - in the countries that most of us live in, monogamy is the law of the land. We are instructed in the Bible to obey the governments over us (unless they conflict with Scripture). Since there is no New Covenant Biblical mandate for us to have plural marriages and since our contries have made it against the law, the question is meaningless.

For pitys sake Ellen give me a break would you? Open to understanding? What the hell do you know about me really? How about you keep comments as to "alledged" motives to yourself and have a go at answering my questions so that I MAY have a small chance at "understanding" ? Not to much to ask? : )
What you keep misunderstanding is that I'm not on a path to finding your God, I'm on a path to understanding how you see a biblical even one way and I seem to see it 180 degrees opposite. I'm struggelling here to follow your collective thinking. I have the Bible I AM reading. Stop attacking me just because I seemingly have a different view.
Now to discussion:

You are disregarding your very own Gods word. Who are you to disregard his holy truth? He is saying.. Burn people. He is saying Stone people. He is really,really specific on these points. I want to know on what grounds your superior knowledge overrides your Gods wishes? Polygamy meaningless? apparently not to God Ellen. People brak laws endlessly for God why would this one be different?

Ray, do you want to understand God? Or us?

Are you open to God?

As to polygamy: show me where God says, "Thou shalt not commit polygamy."

I said your question is meaningless. The law of the land says that polygamy is illegal and we follow the law of the land. We can debate it, but we still obey the law.

On the other hand, God DID tell David, "I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

God also gave the law of Leverite marriages. A woman whose husband died without leaving a son would be married to the dead man's brother - and there is not a loophole for a man already married.

How many wives did Isaac have? The Covenant followed the second wife, not the first. How about Jacob? The Covenant followed the second wife, not the first.

Maybe God doesn't have the same opinion of polygamy as we all thing.

Burn people. Stone people. Old Covenant.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Ray, let me turn the tables for a minute.

Look at the process involved in a muscle contraction - all of the things that have to happen in exactly the right order...why is it easier to believe "it just happened" (evolution) than it is to believe it was designed.

Who told plants to breathe in C02 and exhale O2 and animals to breathe in O2 and exhale OC2?

Who told that little bird in Florida that its main food would be on the tongue of the alligator...and who told the alligator (who eats birds) that this one is not prey?

The world is so complex, so diverse...but it "just happened"? How? How, Ray, did all of this "just happen"?

Hi Ray

I have about 3 minutes to comment here, but I wanted to back up a second.

Regarding sacrificing bulls/lambs/etc and all the other laws: Keep in mind that the Bible begins and ends with Jesus. Here's what he said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So, looking at animal sacrifice, Jesus clearly abolished that need by offering himself. In fact, it would be wrong to continue to do animal sacrifice for sins, as that would mean we don't accept the gift of God in Christ.

Jesus himself predicted the end of the sacrificial system - and that prediction came true a generation after his death and resurrection. In AD 70 the Jewish state was overrun by the Romans and the temple was destroyed.

There was no more need for animal sacrifice, because Jesus had offered himself, once for all time, for all of our sins.

The topic of the Jewis civil law and ceremonial law as revealed in the OT is a complex one. No doubt about it.

You want me to explain evolution to you? How much time do we have? You can't be serious even for a Christian to believe in Intelligent design? I mean some of the biggest objecters in the US came from Christian groups that at least vaguely understood, to their credit, the underpinnings of modern biological sciences. Are you saying your a creationist?
As for understanding God or us?
There isn't a God in order for me to Understand Ellen.But I'd like to understand: 1. The logic of your arguments and why you can lets things stand on faith. 2. A better understanding of what you see as the word of your God. 3. A little more understanding of how Christian people tick.

Now on point 2; Could you explain about Old Covenant Law; the moral law, the civil law and the ceremonial law. We have civil laws in our own country and the Hebrew civil law does not hold, any more than the Israli law does.
What this is, what parts of the Bible would be examples? With Civil law you meanmodern day civil law?
Is moral law just modern day morals or is it biblical?
I didn't understand exactly what you meant?

Bill,

Jesus himself predicted the end of the sacrificial system - and that prediction came true a generation after his death and resurrection. In AD 70 the Jewish state was overrun by the Romans and the temple was destroyed.

Where in the Bible is this bit?

The topic of the Jewis civil law and ceremonial law as revealed in the OT is a complex one. No doubt about it.

Is there anything written specifically on this? How could I get educated?

Still busy at Work Bill? I have to shoot out right now and do a 3 hour trip to a town called Orange thats famous for apples. I can't work that out either. ; )

Ray - I don't care to have you "explain" evolution to me. I asked a question that you didn't answer.

There isn’t a God in order for me to Understand Ellen.

Then don't go on the offensive for me believing that you don't care to understand that which you do not believe in.

Could you explain about Old Covenant Law

I'll let the Jews explain it. Here is a catechism for Jewish children.

"Jesus himself predicted the end of the sacrificial system - and that prediction came true a generation after his death and resurrection. In AD 70 the Jewish state was overrun by the Romans and the temple was destroyed.

Where in the Bible is this bit?"

Matthew 24 is an interesting read. Jesus clearly foretells the destruction of the temple, and also many people believe that 24 deals with the overrun of Jerusalem in AD 70.

24:1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

I'm sure there is lots written on the subject of the ceremonial law, polygamy, etc. I'll see what I can find. Feeling under the weather today.

Oh, and about ID - I don't know what I think about it but - bottom line - pretty much every monotheist (be they Christian, Jewish, or Moslem) believes in an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. This is the main initial diff between naturalists and supernaturalists.

I know Theistic evolutionists (some on this site) who still believe that God guided it all.

Cheers

Bill

One other thing, Ray - you mentioned you bought a King James version?

You might be interested in something easier to read - thought beautiful and poetic, the KJV is 400 years out of date, english-language wise.

You might try the ESV.

Dear De,

You might be interested in something easier to read - thought beautiful and poetic, the KJV is 400 years out of date, english-language wise.

Thankyou thank you thank you!! Thats what I have been looking for !! I will endeavor to pick one up from Borders on Friday. Hey, if you think of anything else that helps explain stuff don't hesitate to suggest to me will you?

best regards

Ray

Dear Bill,
I'm breaking my own rule and going backwards!!

Oh, and about ID - I don’t know what I think about it but - bottom line - pretty much every monotheist (be they Christian, Jewish, or Moslem) believes in an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. This is the main initial diff between naturalists and supernaturalists.

I know Theistic evolutionists (some on this site) who still believe that God guided it all.

I like the fact you point me to the useful stuff thank you!. When it comes to "creation science" there isn't really a choice on what to "believe". Now thats not just be blustering away, Scientists that have a Christian faith, call "creation science" bad religion and worse science. They were incidently, some of the most evocative speakers at that trial in Kansas ? There is just such solid evidence that it renders debate on the subject null and void. In fact there is a very good book called "telling lies for God" which kind of sums up the whole thing. If you don't mind me recommending a read? Try Richard Dawkins The selfish gene or even The blind watchmaker.
there is also Blink of an eye. I love reading about science. Its been a lifetime pleasure and hobby. These books don't preclude a God as such but they do explain evolution in useful detail.

Hey Ellen,

My, my your testy. Thank you for the link. I simply didn't have time this morning to answer your message. Will get to it as soon as I can. Have you ever had your Blood pressure checked? Its a really,really good thing to do for your general health. I had the sense yours might be a tad up.

Look at the process involved in a muscle contraction - all of the things that have to happen in exactly the right order…why is it easier to believe “it just happened” (evolution) than it is to believe it was designed.

Evolution isn't exactly "it just happened". You say you don't need it explained and clearly I think you do. I don't mean this offensively : ) (see I used the smile) its just a very complicated subject if you havn't read some background material. I say this, Because I can't tell you how many times I have noticed people talking about it, without comprehending the subject even remotely properly.
For me its easier to believe because there is evidence. Lots and lots of evidence. You can't beleive how much evidence you can see just in modern day genetics and studies of bacteria etc. In fact Ellen, chances are that you or someone in your family is alive today because of bacterial evolution and the impact its had on developing antibiotics.

Who told plants to breathe in C02 and exhale O2 and animals to breathe in O2 and exhale OC2? Now the funny thing here is that the Earth, hasn't always had an oxygen rich atmosphere. Its changed somewhat in the last 4 billion years. Anyways, Plants have changed (evolved) as did primitive life, as the planet itself changed and is still changing now. : )
Nothing "told" "instructed" or "made" plants or animals do a thing. : ) They evolved by minute degrees over the millions of years, or they perished.
There is this really good book called "Why people belive weird things" its author is Micheal Shermer. Its a really good read Ellen, so you can get your head around my strange ideas. : )

Who told that little bird in Florida that its main food would be on the tongue of the alligator…and who told the alligator (who eats birds) that this one is not prey?

WHAT THE ? Whoa Ellen. I don't know about this one. What little bird are we talking about? Eats off of Aligators tongues? Hey your not trying to Gross me out are you?
The world is so complex, so diverse…but it “just happened”? How? How, Ray, did all of this “just happen”?

Well Ellen, Apparently, stuff mutates. And if the stuff mutates in such a way that the thing gets a survival advantage, it passes the trait in its genetic code on down the line. Many mutations are bad. and these die. Some are kind of neutral and some are not. Your the product of one branch of a primate tree. Now, your advantage was maybe good adaption. You havn't been here all that long and the jury is out whether your adaptive skills will last your line another 500 years. I expect it won't Ellen. : )
When our line of homosapiens die out, we will not be replaced by a smarter ape or monkey. Its not how the whole shebang works. I expect, you maybe see yourself as the top rung of the ladder? If you do, go back and do some reading. Educate yourself. If your not frightened to I mean? : )

Either the world is designed or it "just happened". If it isn't on purpose, then what?

I understand the mutating of a species - from one form to another, but a strep virus is still a strep virus, HIV is still a form of HIV.

When does the HIV virus become a fish?

You have enough faith to believe that a single-cell can mutate into human beings, I say it takes less faith to believe in a creator.

Sorry, the animal I referenced is not an alligator, it's the Nile crocodile. The relationship is well-known; it is not known whether the relationship is biologically "symbiotic".

I'm not testy, I just don't feel like reinventing the wheel, so to speak. The Jews are the ones who received the Law from God, it seems logical to let them explain it.

"Educate yourself. If your not frightened to I mean? : )"

Ray,

Even with the smilie faces, this comes across pretty condescending to Ellen. She is a smart lady, trust me.

Even with the smilie faces, this comes across pretty condescending to Ellen. She is a smart lady, trust me.

Bill it probably did. I don't doubt she is smart. I felt a little put upon in the moment.

Ray

Dear Ellen,

When does the HIV virus become a fish?

Can I just say first up, This subject is enormously complicated to discuss. Its not that I can't explain some of the issues, But just my answers are going to be wordy like you have never seen before. I am also not qualified, other than on wht I have read and my level of understanding. If you really would like to appreciate what the people expert in the feild think, you couldn't go past Dawkins by way of example, for a good lengthy but understandable explanation.

As I understand it, Evolution is a series of cumultive moves usually over great time frames usually for the sole benefit of reproduction or eating. There are some smaller quicker examples. Moths could be one, these got darker over the centuries and it attributed to industrialisation. Another one is the common household Dog. These came from a species of grey wolf originally, and look now at a Pekinese compared with say, a Great Dane. This was evolution driven by people, but you get the drift.
Some things apparently don't evolve or don't do so in great spans of time. As I understand it, If it evolves to a point that its successful in reproducing and surviving, then the benefits from basically, breeding mutations (for want of a better discription to give you) don't provide a postitve impetus for the species to go down that mutation alley. I understand there isn't a driving force to complexity if I understand this correctly.

You have enough faith to believe that a single-cell can mutate into human beings, I say it takes less faith to believe in a creator.

I appreciate what your saying here Ellen. Its just not an argument. I will be the first to agree with you, that many things remain as yet unanswered. But, a whole lot is understood now about this area thanks to modern science and special credit goes to genetics. We know most of this as "fact" now as opposed to theory of last century.


Sorry, the animal I referenced is not an alligator, it’s the Nile crocodile. The relationship is well-known; it is not known whether the relationship is biologically “symbiotic”.

Symbiosis happens a lot in nature. It would be a part of evolving certainly. I'm not a biologist and can't give you a break down of the detailed steps for this to happen. But its a fairly ordinary explanation, it doesn't require a "God".

I’m not testy, I just don’t feel like reinventing the wheel, so to speak. The Jews are the ones who received the Law from God, it seems logical to let them explain it.

I take back the comment your testy. I am the same, and its a mamoth amount of typing also. I appreciate your link and the ones from Bill and they will be studied as I am interested in learning about this.

Ray
The sunday school dropout.

DEar Ellen,

I forgot to answer this one.

Either the world is designed or it “just happened”. If it isn’t on purpose, then what?

In short Ellen, It just happened. Why? I expect this ins't a "why" answer. Think of a puddle of water. Think of the puddle thinking.. I must have been designed.. Theres no other explanation.

Ellen,
I don't and the world doesn't know if we are a rare commodity. We have travelled to one moon, and sent probes out to several planets. We have literally no idea of how common life could be. From a mathematical point, Our universe may be teeming with life evolving right now. I imagine, that when certain conditions are met, and when certain building blocks are found together, the beginnings of life will or may start. They won't always end in anything remotely as complicated as life on Earth but I suspect it can happen when we look at the scales of order in our universe. You and I are human, we see things in human lifetimes and in human numbers. The universe has a googleplex worth of galaxies alone, let alone Suns with planets circling. The numbers are mind boggelling huge. Its probable its happened elsewhere.
Earth is a special place, and its interesting when you look at ourselves and realise at various times there was 3 or 4 species of us living here alone.
I don't think we are here on or by any purpose. It just seems that way in our short planet habitation space. There are a series of converging problems arriving over the next 3 or 4 centuries. That will in all likelyhood end our dominence over this planet. Our stay here will in essence be no different than the thousands of other animals that cause there own extinction. We are not special in any real biological way.

I will be the first to agree with you, that many things remain as yet unanswered.

But we have different questions.

You have to ask, "how did this happen?"

I ask, "Why did God do it this way?"

look now at a Pekinese compared with say, a Great Dane. This was evolution driven by people,

But...the DNA still says "dog". That is not evolution from species to species. Natural selection within a species is very common, but it doesn't change that a dog is a dog, a horse is a horse, a human is a human.

Think of a puddle of water. Think of the puddle thinking.. I must have been designed.. Theres no other explanation.

Now think of you standing with a garden hose, wanting a small pool of water for the little birdies to take a bath in.

The puddle "thinks", "I must have been designed...there's no other explanation." The puddle is wrong, there may be another explanation that it may be able to "think" of. But there's only one correct explanation...that puddle was designed.

Hey Ellen,
Its something you may not ever be able to grasp. The trouble is, your religion constricts your ability to examine all the possibilities. And the difficult part is, it makes you ignore the facts as they stand so you can keep comfortable believing a fable. As I suggested earlier, if you ever get the will, you ought to have a good look into the science. This doesn't mean you have to abandon your "God". But your in a kind of denial right now.

That's quite a judgement, Ray.

But…the DNA still says “dog”. That is not evolution from species to species. Natural selection within a species is very common, but it doesn’t change that a dog is a dog, a horse is a horse, a human is a human.

I know this Ellen. I was trying to illustrate how great the changes can get. DNA does change. You see we can read it now just like a book. In this book, are the codes for all kinds of species changes that have gone before.
Read the Science Ellen. Don't make excuses. There is a big wide world out there beyond your bible class.

I know it is. And I wasn't trying to be mean. But thats what religions role is in life, to make it easy for you not to think. If we set up brackets and look for everything in the light of creationism it stymies your ability to read the facts.
Many, MANY really devout religious people understand creationism is a crock. But don't take my word, investigate, get out Dawkins work, don't even buy it borrow it from the library. Expand them horizons!

Ellen, Lets have a go at looking at it differently?

Would you agree the following axioms are on the money?

1. God is a perfect being.
2. God has a special relationship with human beings.
3. God holds humans as special and in his own image.
4. God created the world.
5. God is all knowing.
6. God is wise.

any disagreements with these statements?

Ellen,
You have not replied, its probably late now. I couldn't imagine you having disagreements with my last posting? well nothing major I would think.

Why do you think God would create a world for his premier creation, us, is about 3/5ths uninhabitable?

Why do you suppose he designed a world whereby millions upon millions starve annually for lack of rainfall?

Why do you think God would introduce the tick, the tape worm and onchocerca?

Why make the planet volcanically unstable?

Why design faults into DNA ?

Why design retardation in certain children?

Why introduce breast cancer?

Do you see from where I'm comming from? Why of all the choices make them hostile? Why make the world largely only habitable (in a major way) for humans these last 10,000 years? Why have all life pretty much wiped out completely by Asteroid strikes.. did he make some kind of mistake? Dinosaurs weren't his first choice or something?
I understand how you would want to honour your God Ellen, and I understand how you might want to give him all possible credit and benefit for all the stuff you experience in the world. But I don't see how you can allign supreme power to the supreme being and overlook the billions of errors created by his design of the world.
Personally, I wouldn't want to hang this on the big guy, I like to follow the Science that pre cludes the need for his "assistance". The world unfolds errors and all as it always has done due to random mutation of the process of Evolution.

Ray, I'm done here as well, because for someone who's stated goal is to understand, you're doing a lot of telling me how I'm blinded by my religion, telling that you don't want my God, telling that you like to follow the science that you like to follow.

You're not curious about what makes us tick at all - you're here to evangelize for atheism.

"But I don’t see how you can allign supreme power to the supreme being and overlook the billions of errors created by his design of the world."

Ray,

I agree with Ellen that you're not so much interested in what we think (other than sort of studying us like Gorillas in the mist or something). But did you just randomly show up here or are you part of a group that is out to do this kind of thing (proseletize Christians away from the faith) on purpose? I've been wondering that, frankly, because I've never really been able to figure out your motivation.

Honestly, you're not saying anything that new or earth shattering. You don't think we've ever thought through these things? Every thinking Christian I know has in some way wrestled with these topics.

By the way, Richard Dawkins is one of the "New Atheists" who consider their goal in life to convert people to atheism. There's an aggressive new breed of atheist out there, who feel the world will be better without religion. They ignore, somehow, a large part of the history of the 20th century and the millions of deaths perpetrated on the world by atheistic regimes such as the USSR and China. I don't get that.

Regarding DNA, science, etc. I'm probably not nearly as well-read as you on some of this stuff, but I do know a bit. The difference is, you see a world that is all random and messed up.

I see a world that works like all get-out. Against all odds (ever looked into the odds of the universe even being able to support life, let alone the odds of our planet - astronomical). I see a universe that is wonderful and beautiful, but marred by sin and sin's effects.

In DNA I see an amazing code - a program you mighs say (I'm a programmer, btw) - that boggles the mind. You think it just happened. That boggles my mind too - that you can believe that. I believe there is a lot of comfort in believing that. The "it all happened randomly" is a fantastic and even inspiring story. The rise and fall of man, etc. But I don't believe it to be true.

You are also thinking very man-centric. I don't know why God created dinosaurs, ticks, etc. I don't know why he created spiral nebulae either, or Orion, or Pluto. Maybe he just wanted to. It's not all about you. :-)

Even in sickness, even in deformity and mental retardation, even in all these products of the fall God can be glorified.

In addition, there is a false dichotomy being setup here between Science and God. You don't think God knows science? He knows it cold - he created it. But he is excluded by many who practice it because he is, in their mind, an untestable phenomenon. They must explain all the wonders of creation without him, regardless of how improbable all this happening on its own is.

not quite true Ellen. I will evangelise for Critical thinking and for scientific reason. We probably shouldn't have got side tracked.

Hey there Bill,
No I am not part of a group or anything. I am a member of different things butI don't represent or act on anyone or thing. I got side tracked down the alley of creationism, and I intended to say that today myself. Its not what I wish to actually understand. Argueing with Ellen, is still usefull as it showsme what she knows and doesn't know. I am perfectly in agreement to drop that issue as its boring me as much as its boring you guys.

You say, I mention nothing new or earth shattering, Your right, but what I don't know is what you have tried to understand and how you overcome the rational objections. I mainly was on here to understand how your thinking fell to one side of a cosmic mind and mine to another. I would have thought you could,would or miight find that interesting also about a non Christian.
Your 100% right about Dawkins, particulary his latest book the God dulusion. I wasn't saying in this, that I think Dawkins is right or indeed insightful on his athiest ideas. In fact this morning I was intending to point you to a contrary view of Dawkins I thought was very good and made a point. What I was suggesting to Ellen, was Dawkins did by far the best explanation of evolution. He doesn't much mention God in those earlier books. Its mainly straight science. And that science is informative and certainly won't exclude the presence of a God. I thought it was "safe" but accurate reading for Ellen was all.
I agree with your sentiments on DNA and I did know your background. And I know I am person centric. But the bible talks about God in very person centric terms. I was just wondering, how the result met up with the template of Christian thinking. I can't see it with the same eyes as you, and hence where for me at least the discussion gets at its most interesting.
Do I think a God could know science? Bloody oath as we say down here of course he could or can. I am just exploring ideas and questions Bill.
What I read and here, are different things, and I am not referring to this forum, but more widely and generally.. Theres is God a superbeing another God that is intimate and human like, another who is irrational, another and another and another.. and the conversations on this subject alter God thru the prism of a lense to justfy whatever argument is thrown at him or religion in general. I think part of me wishes to pin down a version or another and see what makes everything tick.
make any sense?

Ellen, one more thing.. why are you always "done" in the middle of any discussion? is it really that your bereft of answers?

"I would have thought you could,would or miight find that interesting also about a non Christian."

Well, if I didn't find it interesting I wouldn't be talking to you, bloke! :-)

"Ellen, one more thing.. why are you always “done” in the middle of any discussion? is it really that your bereft of answers?"

I think she just gets frustrated with the way you treat her online. You're condescending, rude, sarcastic, and demeaning to her. I don't know why.

Plus, you don't seem to be listening to her (you've repeatedly asked her to re-answer stuff she's already answered). What's in it for her to keep talking to you?

Not trying to be offensive. Just being honest. The bare minimum around here is that we treat eachother with respect, no matter how profoundly we disagree.

Does that make sense? Am I being unfair? Let me know.

No your not being unfair. I think your just misjudging me at least some of the time. I keep getting the impression, I am getting condecending answers from Ellen. I am probably misjudging her, but it cuts both ways doesn't it? Its the difficult part of this medium (and indeed emails) that we often sound harsher than we mean.

And Bill,
You have got gumption, saying my veiws are human centric, with what we have been discussing with the biblical God. Don't you think?
Thanks Bill, also for finding this interesting. My worst fear is it will become boring to all and sundry, and I really have a lot of things yet to ask.
Also, I havn't gone quiet on the earlier readings you have directed me, I just will be in the city today and its my first chance to purchase the material.

Have a good night.

Ray

Plus, you don’t seem to be listening to her (you’ve repeatedly asked her to re-answer stuff she’s already answered). What’s in it for her to keep talking to you?

this was on one issue. While yes she did answer it, the answer was not in the form I was hoping for. It still isn't. An attempt at humour was construed as "sarcasm" probably by you all, And it was nothing of the kind from me.
I asked a while ago to be given a break, I hope you can extend me another? It is fascinating all the same isn't it?

Thanks Ray

And, yes, we should all give eachother slack, a break, etc.

You are right that this medium makes it difficult to speak to eachother.

One final thing...

Have you ever read James Watsons self written book on DNA ? James was the principal discoverer and did all the early work on DNA. He is a fascinating man. James was a Christian, right up until he discovered the double helix and began to understand its code and what it meant and said about humanity. He is now a self confessed Atheist. I need to find his wording,but it was something along the lines, he could see the unfolding of our species as the same as the unfolding of a garden worm. Itwas all there in the code all the faults and stuff. There was no reason in his life for the existence of the supernatural. I can identify a lot with this kind of experience. I would like to be able to understand and identify a little more of yours?

I've never read his book, no.

Also, and this may not make sense :-) - I doubt he was a Christian if he threw his faith away so quickly. Upon discovering something as amazing as the double helix?

Garden worms are amazing too. But you'd have to be blind to not see how unique the human race is on earth. I've never understood the "we're just like any other form of life, nothing special" argument. The fact that we can even make that argument proves how special we are? And yet, yes, we share so many traits with the rest of animal creation. I don't find that a put-down of man. Just a wonderful, ingenious, and efficient design by the creator.

And, from the wikipedia on Mr. Watson, we get this gem:

"He has also repeatedly supported genetic screening and genetic engineering in public lectures and interviews, arguing for instance that the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be aborted before birth; that all girls should be genetically engineered to be pretty [1] and has been quoted in The Sunday Telegraph as stating "that if the gene (for homosexuality) were discovered and a woman decided not to give birth to a child that may have a tendency to become homosexual, she should be able to abort the fetus." [2] The biologist Richard Dawkins wrote a letter to The Independent claiming that Watson's position was misrepresented by The Sunday Telegraph article and that Watson also considered the possibility of having a heterosexual child to be a valid reason for abortion. [3]"

The brave new world of atheism . . .

THats odd Bill. He makes no mention of this at all in the book. I wonder of the wikpedia is in fact accurate? I wonder if they were genuine quotes? The paper quoted is our version of that whacko paper that you guys thats always discovering headless aliens.
We are not all that unique Bill. Chimps lie, steal and rape. They feel "awe" or so its beleived. Many animals have a degree of self awareness. Ours is particulary acute. But biological sense.. we have a lot in common with ants. Though, we do have more room for our insides.
Atheism is, the worlds great hope for survival. I would put my money any day on science, verses Prayer.

THats odd Bill. He makes no mention of this at all in the book. I wonder of the wikpedia is in fact accurate? I wonder if they were genuine quotes? The paper quoted is our version of that whacko paper that you guys thats always discovering headless aliens.
We are not all that unique Bill. Chimps lie, steal and rape. They feel "awe" or so its beleived. Many animals have a degree of self awareness. Ours is particulary acute. But biological sense.. we have a lot in common with ants. Though, we do have more room for our insides.
Atheism is, the worlds great hope for survival. I would put my money any day on science, verses Prayer.

Ellen, one more thing.. why are you always “done” in the middle of any discussion? is it really that your bereft of answers?

Middle?

When the answer of one side of a conversation is "nope, not possible.", "Nope, you're wrong." or "nope,I can't believe that" - it would seem that (logically) any attempt at real conversation is at an end.

This is comment #399. Hardly the middle.

I think James Watson's faith in some of the scarier ideas of Eugenics (selective abortions, etc) is pretty well known.

Also - I am not from the UK. From what I've seen of the Telegraph, it doesn't look much like an American tabloid. Anyone from the UK who has an opinion of the Telegraph?

Hey Bill,

I thought you were talking about "our" Sunday Telegraph not the UK one? Ours is like your national enquirer. (I think thats the name of it) Thr realy whacky paper. I don't know "if" its well known or not. I am not sure he has "actual" views like this and in what context. He doesn't mention this at all in his book in fact he looked like a very sane kinda dude.
I would maybe be a bit sceptical of this information until it can be conextualised.

Hey Ellen,

Guess I see it a little differently, and disagree. But thats not real news to you is it now?

Back to the Bible:
Dear Bill,

When Jesus was sacreficed on the cross, its said to be for our sins. Which sins specifically, and are these for all that went before his death, after his death or both?
What types of sins would these have been? all sin I expect.. but could you give a few examples of what they could have been?
Whats original sin? and this a sin of birth?
Do just Catholics beleive in original sin?
Does God ever act on prayers? say, if someone was sick and prayed for healing?
God can change the laws of physics can't he? Its generally beleived that right?

You made mention Yesterday that Watsons faith couldn't have been strong.. does strong faith mean the complete absence of forever more using your brain? Is having faith a licence to lifelong ignorance? Is having faith mean you can no longer investigate life outside the bible?

What were the total number of benefits derived from Having God kill his own son? 1. Forgiveness of sins.. what else?
(to us as humans I mean)

Do you think that over 2000 years its a long time for God not to have made his presence felt again? Why has there been no return?

Does God intercede to some if they prayer? Does he listen to prayers?

Do you think Christians, I guess Gods chosen people benefit more from prayer than non Christians?

Do you think mirecals are quite literal.. do they still happen?

Pentacostals (I have spelled this wrong sorry.) have this thing that God touches them and they fall to ground enveloped in his joy and love.. do you beleive in that yourself?

At there meetings many beleive mirecals occur particulary on health matters, do you think so to?

What was in Gods head to design an Enthropic Universe? Wouldn't you think it would have been better for him and everyone if he didn't?

Without going back to creation again.. are the Adam and Eve stories literal?
Bill how old is the Earth?

Bill, a literature question.. Has anyone ever put out a simpler version of the Bible that takes out the stuff thats thought maybe not have been totally true or mistaken? Leviticus and such like.. Has it never been abridged?

Does God make mistakes? is it possible in your world?

Is the bible the sole repostitory of truth?

Hi Ray,

I'll try to answer your questions. Regarding Watson, just google "James Watson Abortion" and you'll find a number of links.

Here's a citation for one of his quotes:
"If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease.…The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent.… People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
- James Watson
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993451

To be fair, he is not saying (necessarily) that we abort the lower 10%, but that we cure them by altering their genes.

Here's another quote, with citation (granted, this one is over 30 years old):

"Fortunately, now through such techniques as amniocentesis, parents can often learn in advance whether their child will be normal and healthy or hopelessly deformed. They then can choose either to have the child or opt for a therapeutic abortion. But the cruel fact remains that because of the present limits of such detection methods, most birth defects are not discovered until birth...If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering."

James D. Watson, "Children From The Laboratory," Prism, May 1973, p. 13

I'm not a big fan of this.

When Jesus was sacreficed on the cross, its said to be for our sins. Which sins specifically, and are these for all that went before his death, after his death or both?
What types of sins would these have been? all sin I expect.. but could you give a few examples of what they could have been?

All sins. Ones we think of (murder, adultery, stealing) and ones we often overlook (gossip, slander, hatred of parents, etc).

Whats original sin? and this a sin of birth?

I think by "original sin" you referring to the concept that we, as a race, are inherently sinful. We "inherit" sin, due to the fall.

Do just Catholics beleive in original sin?

Well, I'm no expert. I believe in it, as defined above.

Does God ever act on prayers? say, if someone was sick and prayed for healing?

Yes. But, of course, for every story of an answered prayer such as these someone else can explain them away. I've heard amazing stories, personally. But keep in mind that the purpose of Christianity is not just to be healed or see miracles. Jesus got angry with the Pharisees because they demanded to see him do tricks.

God can change the laws of physics can’t he? Its generally beleived that right?

Well, of course. I personally don't think he does it that often. He created the system of physics and it works just fine :-)

You made mention Yesterday that Watsons faith couldn’t have been strong.. does strong faith mean the complete absence of forever more using your brain?

Well, of course not. There are a lot of very smart Christians. C.S. Lewis (once and atheist), N.T. Wright, Jared Wilson, etc.

Is having faith a licence to lifelong ignorance? Is having faith mean you can no longer investigate life outside the bible?

Of course not. You can be a Christian and be a scientist, a scholar, a historian, etc. The idea that Christians are ignorant and incourious is, I think, a stereotype.

What were the total number of benefits derived from Having God kill his own son? 1. Forgiveness of sins.. what else?
(to us as humans I mean)

It meant, bottom line, that we can be with God. The benefits are all of God - I can't put a value on that.

Do you think that over 2000 years its a long time for God not to have made his presence felt again? Why has there been no return?

I would disagree that he hasn't made his presence felt. And there's a passage in the Bible that deals with this exact question

"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." - 2 Peter 3:8-9

Does God intercede to some if they prayer? Does he listen to prayers?

Yes. His answers aren't, of course, always the ones we want. James spoke about this:

"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions." - James 4:1-3

Do you think Christians, I guess Gods chosen people benefit more from prayer than non Christians?

Yes. But I'm not sure how it all works.

Do you think mirecals are quite literal..

Certainly.

do they still happen?

Yes, but see James 4:1-3 above. God is not interested in being a sideshow or being our trained genie. He is God. He does what he wants.

Pentacostals (I have spelled this wrong sorry.) have this thing that God touches them and they fall to ground enveloped in his joy and love.. do you beleive in that yourself?

Do I believe a Christian can be so overwhelmed with the love of God that they fall over? Sure.

I'm not too keen on some of the manufactured versions of that, though. I think some churches are addicted to "buzz". They make the experience the end. It's not. It's a side-effect. The end is God. And you can experience him while sitting quietly.

At there meetings many beleive mirecals occur particulary on health matters, do you think so to?

While I certainly believe in healings, I am wary of certain "faith healers". Some are obviously charlatans - at least they appear so. I don't like the false message they convey

What was in Gods head to design an Enthropic Universe? Wouldn’t you think it would have been better for him and everyone if he didn’t?

Enthropic doesn't appear to be a word :-) (well, I can't find it on dictionary.com). Did you mean anthropic?

Without going back to creation again.. are the Adam and Eve stories literal?

I believe so. But they aren't scientific accounts. But - yes, I believe in a single man and single woman as the ancestor of all humans. (and I'm familiar with the theories that some of us are descended from neanderthals, etc. . . I just don't buy 'em).

Bill how old is the Earth?

I don't know. But Christianity does not preclude an old earth. Several of the Thinklings are old-earthers.

Bill, a literature question.. Has anyone ever put out a simpler version of the Bible that takes out the stuff thats thought maybe not have been totally true or mistaken? Leviticus and such like.. Has it never been abridged?

Thomas Jefferson abridged it - he took out all the miracles and stuff. I think that was pretty foolish, personally :-)


Does God make mistakes? is it possible in your world?

No. And I don't believe it's possible in your world, either, since we're in the same world.

Is the bible the sole repostitory of truth?

Of course not. There is truth all over the place. The Bible talks about creation itself speaking truth about God. C.S. Lewis and others made the point that there is lots of truth to be found in other religions and myths. But I believe God owns all truth, and that Jesus was a