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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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)

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.

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!

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?

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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:

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.

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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.

Its not really a problem just a question.

(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.

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.

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.

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

no help for it now!

That's "mangy git" to you.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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'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. ;-)

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.

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

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.

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.

[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!]

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

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

"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?

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

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

Night all.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

"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.

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]

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

*refer

"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.

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

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Why would he call the Pharisees Jerusalem?

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.

OMG. I think I see your point.

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

Revised Standard Version. ;-)

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

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.

[Bill, commenting from the fence]

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

*thanks

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

Sven,
Great comments

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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... :)

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. :)

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.

Bill,

How nice. You made my day.

Gina

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.

Thanks Jared.

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... :)

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!

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?

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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...

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.

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?

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)

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.

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

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. :)

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, 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 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.

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.

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.

;-)

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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,

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Dang! And I wasn't even being sarcastic..

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,

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?

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?

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?

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?

Philip going to go for a lot more ; ) I think I need them

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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!

You've moved from "I'm really interested" to openly oppositional...

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.

Has anyone read a book called "The Rise and Fall of Soul and self"? by Martin and Barresi.

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.

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.

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.

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 : )

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Anyone ever read Gods inferno?

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..

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Calviator,

Hey if your up to it, wanna have a go at my questions?

see above ^

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.

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,

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.

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?

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?

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).

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

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, 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"?

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?

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.

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 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.

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? : )

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

not quite true Ellen. I will evangelise for Critical thinking and for scientific reason. We probably shouldn't have got side tracked.

Ellen, one more thing.. why are you always "done" in the middle of any discussion? is it really that your bereft of answers?

"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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

I have just read the quote. Goes back to 2003. I guess its an "opinion" and I am sure in some areas people "may" think its got legs. I wouldn't agree with it myself. But I guess he sees a way of making society work better through his particular field.
But just like Christians and non Christians. Theres differing views.
If your wife Bill, was in the really early weeks of pregnancy and you found out the child had a profound case in Encelphaly, would you advise just going right on ahead? or intervene?
How would you handle it?

All sins. Ones we think of (murder, adultery, stealing) and ones we often overlook (gossip, slander, hatred of parents, etc).
Bill is there a definite list? Is it all sin up to that point or for all time?

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. So we can "inherit" sin from other people? My stars that doesn't sound fair? Is this why some babys are born disfigured? a kind of punishment?
If the sacrefice absolves us, how come we still have "original sin then ?

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.

So when the recent double blind trial of intercessary prayer was conducted on cardiac patients which revealed a 3% "increase" in death rates, God was doing the Pharisee thing on them?

So Christians have a differnt mortality rate than no Christians? They don't and I was wondering why?

Buddhist in Japan have the record for longevity and lack of serious desease on the planet. They prayer via meditation and not worrying about riches on Earth. Could they be Gods chosen people? Why wouldn't we follow the evidence and become Buddhist do you think?

Well Physics works kinda fine.. shame about the Entropy thing though.. bit of a bummer.

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.

Ahh.. I don't know.. He does more tricks than the amazing Randi. When it suits him of course. When it doesn't, because just maybe he can't do whatever the little trick was at the time, We get the sideshow argument. Why one rule and not the other?

Do you think mirecals are quite literal..

Certainly.

Ever see a real one Bill? Anyone ever had a limb grow back? or lost an eye and it grew back? Ever see a crushed spine become uncrushed? What ones have you witnessed?
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.

I agree. They try to compete with Vegas don't they?

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

Me either. I would go that bit further and say faith healers don't exist in any real sense. Its a kind of con.
Enthropic doesn’t appear to be a word :-) (well, I can’t find it on dictionary.com). Did you mean anthropic?

Nah.. I meant Enthropic. I may have spelled it wrong. Its the "winding down" of the universe. Its been created in a manner that its going to be non existent in a certain amount of years. Its a process of evolution I guess you would say. God coulda made the universe to last infinity. But sadly he didn't. It seemed a bit ungodlike as if maybe we get to a stage and we bore the crap out of him. I was just speculating why he would go one way and not the other?

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).


Boy thats interesting Bill. Did you know we have black and white comprehensive evidence that we do?
In fact, we have evidence that pushes our line further back that that even. So you really beleive even the Bible "make belive" stuff? Does this make you a fundermentilist?
You did know, that your own ancestory can be traced via DNA now? costs about $200. Ever thought of doing it to see who Adam was? I reckon you would get a huge surprise! Why don't you try it Bill?
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.

You an old earther or a youngy Bill?

Thomas Jefferson abridged it - he took out all the miracles and stuff. I think that was pretty foolish, personally :-)

why foolish Bill?

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.

Bill, you couldn't be more wrong here if you tried. We live in different univereses let alone worlds!
Your kind of the equivilant of a horse with the blinders on. You look for truth I think but in the narrow confines of dogma. I seek truth but I seek it everywhere, even here amongst you guys. Nothings off limits for me. Not the bible, not cosmology not anything.
Actually reading right now God and the new physics.
You and I are poles apart on the approach to understanding the big questions. But thats ok. Examining your faith, and examining the big questions isn't easy. By this, I mean if you do it honestly and with an open mind.
What do I think of Jesus?
A lot actually. I think he was a wandering prophet with a message that emphasised compassion. I think we saw injustice, and in his own way tried to fight it. I think he was bothered by all the people the society of the time excluded from the temples of the day. I think he gained considerbally popularity as he travelled. I think he sponged of the population and did this for a job or a living. I think the Romans were scared of a popular uprising and they decided to do him in, in the way they did it back then. On the cross. I think someone stole his body, and I think the ressurection is complete and utter fabrication.
I think the stries about him after were embellished beyond discription! They wanted to make him a "God" rather than the simple middle eastern man with a concsious he was. I think I would have respected him tremendously. But I wouldn't and couldn't whorship him. I think his simple and small message is perverted beyond discription today by billions of people. I like Jesus the man.

Wow, you ask a lot of questions!

Jesus paid for all sin, for all time.

Ray, this creation is cursed (certainly you agree with that as you are always pointing it out to me). By our sin. I don't know how to put it plainer. Huge topic, of course, but you're blaming everything on God. Do you know how much famine is caused by man? By stupid government policies, corruption, greed, etc.

"So when the recent double blind trial of intercessary prayer was conducted on cardiac patients which revealed a 3% “increase” in death rates, God was doing the Pharisee thing on them?"

Maybe God's not real keen being the subject of an experiment.

"Ever see a real one Bill? Anyone ever had a limb grow back? or lost an eye and it grew back? Ever see a crushed spine become uncrushed? What ones have you witnessed?"

No, not of that sort. I believe what God has done in my life is a miracle. And I've known people who believe their family members have been healed. And I believe the biblical accounts of Jesus' healings.

"God coulda made the universe to last infinity."

Well, he didn't. And he says so in the Bible. I don't see why that's such a problem. He lasts forever, and this material universe isn't all that exists.

"So you really beleive even the Bible “make belive” stuff? Does this make you a fundermentilist?"

Ray, my guess is that neither you nor I really understand the science that you are expounding. I don't believe science is all-knowing, and I don't believe science is unbiased. Doesn't mean I'm anti-science.

Bottom line, though: if we get into a big discussion of science I really don't have the background to discuss it with you (and my guess is you really don't have the background to discuss it with me). Not trying to be offensive. But even scientists don't agree on all this stuff.

"You did know, that your own ancestory can be traced via DNA now? costs about $200. Ever thought of doing it to see who Adam was? I reckon you would get a huge surprise! Why don’t you try it Bill?"

My guess is that they can't tell me who Adam was, Ray.

"You an old earther or a youngy Bill?"

Like I said, "I don't know" :-)

"why foolish Bill?"

Two reasons: 1) the Bible says "the fool has said in his heart there is no God", and 2) it's foolish to assume something can't be true just because it doesn't fit into your paradigm.

"Bill, you couldn’t be more wrong here if you tried. We live in different univereses let alone worlds!
Your kind of the equivilant of a horse with the blinders on. You look for truth I think but in the narrow confines of dogma. I seek truth but I seek it everywhere, even here amongst you guys. Nothings off limits for me. Not the bible, not cosmology not anything."

You can think that about me if you want. Kind of harsh, I'd say. I've been talking to you for weeks now.

Granted, I haven't made your wish come true and became and atheist, but, on the other hand, for such a truth-seeker you've dismissed everything we've said here out of hand. As soon as the words were typed you have jumped in to say how foolish we are for believing this stuff. So, in that way, the words "open truth seeker" don't pop in my head when I think of you. I don't mean to offend, but seriously.

Look, atheism is easy. No consequences, nothing bigger than man (for all the talk about how we're just like any other animal I see a lot more human-centrism and faith in humanity among atheists than among Christians). And I have no doubt that over time atheism will likely become more popular.

But not for me. I can't deny what God's done in my life and the life of my family. I can't leave Jesus up on that cross or in that tomb. He saved me, Ray. Wish I could explain it in a way that made sense to you.

Dear Bill,
Can we talk about your personal experience with Jesus? If this isn't too personal a subject? How has he interreacted with you, in your life? What has been the impact on your family? How did you first find him?

Hi Ray

One thing that would make this conversation easier to read is for you to start putting remarks you are quoting (such as my remarks) in italics. Here's how you do it, with HTML tags

<i>A remark you are quoting</i>

Your reply

A remark you are quoting

Your reply