Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 01:03:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1803 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> So, ok. I have absolutely no issues other than personal preference when it
> comes to the answers that Nathan's given-- They all make perfect sense.
Wow, wish I could end a debate on that note! (This is a joke, please do
not take offensce).
> However, they ONLY make sense accepting what we (or at least I) would
> consider to be *IMPERFECTIONS* in God. See below examples snipped from above:
I assume from this you do not believe in God (particularly the God of
christians). Please do not take it amiss if I refer to his existence in the
positive. Besides believing it, I think it would be crazy to debate his
existance and character at the same time. So I ask for the same concession
as I got from Brendon.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Nathan Todd writes:
> > God created man but unlike the angles man was created in God's image with
> > free will.
>
> By creating beings with "free will", God CANNOT know how they will react, or
> else it's not free will. If the beings he creates are predetermined to act
> in a certain way, and God attended every infintesimal detail of their
> creation, he either doesn't KNOW what will happen, or his creations don't
> actually have true free will.
I don't see the logic in this (forgive me). We have free will but God
knows what we will choose. What is so incompatible about this? It's like me
asking you a question and knowing with certainty what you will say. You
still have a choice in your words but I all ready knew what you would say.
> > His mercy could not forgive without some offering to clean the sin and
> > without a cleansing all evil is consumed in the presence of God (he does not
> > enjoy this the way you picture it...
>
> His mercy *COULD* not forgive? A limitation on God?
God set up perameters when he created the world. He choose to limit
himself in these.
> > Eventually they became so evil that God regretted making them, he
> > had wanted them to be his friends by free will but instead they had grown
> > evil. Despite his love for mankind his role as judge forced him to punish
> > the sinners and start again with Noah.
>
> God *REGRETTED* making them? That most definitely implies that he made a
> mistake. Further, if he wanted to suddenly "start anew", why not just
> *change* all the existing beings into "good" ones, rather than killing them
> off? Loves the sinner, hates the sin? So why kill the sinner if God has the
> option to simply remove their sinful nature?
I can regrett something without being wrong. A mistake is not definetly
implied. I bought a lego set for $20 that normally costs $30. I was right in
thinking it was a good deal but I regretted it when I saw it later for $10.
(Lego example...Oh Yeah!) Again a joke.
> > It seems to me God always had good things planned for us, we just screwed
> > them up.
>
> People are capable of screwing up God's plans?
Yes, because he allowed us to under the original purpose of creating the
world: Free Will (again).
> > In this new covenant anyone at all could be free of their sins and live in
> > God's love by accepting Jesus as the go between. Amazing Grace.
>
> A *NEW* covenant? What was wrong with the old one? Why didn't he start
> things off this way? Again, reminicient of God's error.
The first covenant worked but God wanted to extend it. That doesn't make
the last one a mistake. It just adds a better alternative.
> > After giving people a chance he has no choice but to bring about fair
> > judgement.
>
> Again, God had no choice? Implies he *can't* do something...
He is good and the judge of everything. Because of this he must be fair.
Again something he brought on himself.
> > > 6) Nb 16:41-50
> > > When people complain that the deaths of the 250 rebels was wrongful, God
> > > sends a plague on the sympathizers. Aaron has to intercede to curb God's
> > > wrath, and succeeds, but only after 14,700 are dead.
> >
> > More rebellion, open and in numbers. Also false accusations, hatrid and
> > many other sins. Please remeber all sins carry the death penalty unless some
> > atonement is made, before Jesus' final offering God could not postpone
> > judgement in hope that they would change if he was present. Also note Moses
> > and Aron's attempts to save people.
>
> My take on this example (and the next one) was that Aaron is actually able
> to convince God to stop? Granted, I don't know the story on this one, but
> why would God's "perfect" judgement be altered by an imperfect, free-willed
> human?
God as I am trying to show is merciful. It is when you are evil in his
prescence (pre Jesus) that you are subject to judging. The Holiness of Aaron
(and Moses in other example) acted as a shield. Entering God's prescence in
front of the sin and asking for mercy on behalf of others (much like Jesus)
this enabled God's mercy to come into play.
> > > 7) Nb 21:4-9
> > > Again the Israelites complain about their life in the desert. This time God
> > > sends venemous snakes to attack the complainers, many are killed, and only
> > > the action of Moses prevents further deaths at God's hands.
> >
> > Same as the other complaints. vs 5 'The people spoke against God' they
> > complained and lied to his face!
>
> See above-- *Moses* convinces *God*.
See above.
> > > And the whole forgiving the people who crucified him doesn't really jibe
> > > with the portrait of God from the Old Testament, and since there's a lot
> > > more evidence on that side, it's hard for me to think of the Biblical God as
> > > anything like forgiving.
> >
> > Do you have any evidence that from the cross he called down fire on his
> > killers?
>
> I didn't get your response to this one. I took this as more of the same--
> God's nature changes from the Old Testament (unforgiving stickler for the
> rules, who takes every opportunity to act in smiting, etc) to the New
> (forgiving, who takes nearly NO opportunities to act, except perhaps in
> talking to people)
I think it's more: Old Testament, Merciful God but evil people who in
many cases sin in his prescence with no covering and he is obliged to judge
them. New Testemant, through the blood of his son Jesus acting as an
offering for all sin everywhere God's mercy and love can fully show themselves.
> > Yes we deserve judgement God does not. He has only judged fairly.
>
> Because we have the "God-given" right to free-will, I deem that God is
> DEFINITELY deserving of our judgement. That's what we're here to do! Judge
> God!
That is one way of looking at it. I see our role as fufilling our
original purpose of praising God.
> Decide whether we want to worship him or not; decide whether to love
> him or not; to accept him or not. How else are we to do this save to judge
> God himself?
We should worship him for the sacrifice he made to save us from our own
sins. You can choose not to but that is perty ungrateful. Similar to
kicking a gift horse in the mouth.
> From the above examples, it appears that God is either imperfect, or
> *chooses* to be imperfect. Or at the utter least, variable in his
> still-somehow-perfect decisions. And using my own judgement, I judge the God
> described in the above examples unworthy of my worship. A God who would be
> worthy of my worship would act in a consistant manner; and would be
> incapable of mistake. Certainly, any God who is "convinced" by anyone or
> anything else to *change* his mind is no worthy God in my mind. You may
> choose differently.
Please read my response to the examples.
Also what about the issue of the sacrifice Jesus made for you. If you are
'judging God' you should definetly give it some thought. I assume you have
read about this in the bible if not let me know.
> DaveE
Thanks for your reply,
Nathan
P.S or whatever the net eqiv. is: I didn't mean to be rude with the God Bless.
Please consider that I put it on every post, mean it, and think it really
can't be that bad. I guess I would make too openminded of an atheist as I
would look at 'God Bless' and see someone else waisting there time, no
concern of mine, and in the unlikely (from an atheist perspective) chance
that there is a God someone is asking him to bless me. It can't be bad
either way unless I let it offend me and read into it something that isn't
there.
Brendon this apolidgy goes for you to but I will include it in my reply
to your post.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Nah, I won't take offense. I try not to let anything said in o-t-debate get to me-- it takes all the fun out of it :) (...) No, I don't believe in him, but for the sake of the argument at hand, I'm taking it as a given. Well, ok, that's not (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| So, ok. I have absolutely no issues other than personal preference when it comes to the answers that Nathan's given-- They all make perfect sense. However, they ONLY make sense accepting what we (or at least I) would consider to be *IMPERFECTIONS* (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
