Ep. 93: Conversion

[Ryan]

tonyenglish7 wrote:
Let me ask a question, why would someone want to escape the bondage to sin as you say?

mitchellmckain wrote: Because it is destructive of who we are. Sin is a degenerative disease that can only end in the death of everything we are and everything we could be.

Ryan wrote: Mitch, is this really the reason you would have for someone needing to repent?

mitchellmckain wrote: It is the really the reason why people should escape the bondage of sin. I don't dictate other people's reasons for doing anything.

I am sorry, but you said it is really the reason why people should escape the bondage of sin, which is a dictation of the reason... to say that you then don't dictate other people's reasons is illogical at best and hypocritical at worst. You don't recognize that by stating that something is THE reason, that it necessarily follows that although it may play-out in many ways that you have dictated the ultimate reason whether you intend to or not?

I don't think so. Why should it be? People say all sorts of things with many different things in mind. But I can say this, I see absolutely NOTHING here to suggest that Job is explaining what sin is here.

OK, so what you are saying is that what Job says and what he means are two different things? Job does explain exactly what his sin was... he quotes Job 38:2 when he explains his sin. God questions him about all the things which God knows to demonstrate His authority to which Job responds by promising silence. That is what Job is repenting of, that was his sin... was it degenerative, absolutely... but at its core, it was an affront to God's authority. You claim that things are so obvious to you, but do not see what is made clear?

No. Again people repent for many different reasons and there is no reason to expect that his reasons would have any bearing on whether sin can be called a degenerative disease or not.

Yes, people repent for many different reasons... i.e. one is sexually immoral, another is a thief and another tells lies... but while all of those are "different reasons" and you can clump them into a title like "degenerative disease" but why are they a degenerative disease? Because it makes life hard or it has bad effects on people? Or is it more than that?

Or, was he repenting because he had offended God?

mitchellmckain wrote: No. However much you want to put your own words in his mouth, Job's words are there for all read and his reasons are given there. He repents because He comes to the understanding that he uttered what he did not understand. It is a perfectly good reason for repenting and a reason why many people repent of saying things all the time.

I didn't put words in his mouth, I asked you a question. Yes, Job's words are there for all to read and his reasons are given there and what is wrong with doing that? Who was it that he had uttered things about? As much as you might like to take one verse and just extrapolate out, you need to read the whole situation... Job was repenting because he had offended God by uttering those things which he did not understand... its as clear as day... so while you say I am putting words in his mouth, I say to you read it again.

I may indeed be an affront to the "god" whom people have invented to invest them with power over others. But I do not believe in their little "god".

Who's little "god" are you referring too? A sinner is an affront to God and its right there in scripture "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers."(Psalms 5:5) How big is this god you serve? Is He the supreme authority? The God of the universe? The only one worthy of honor and glory and you say your god is bigger than mine? I am not pointing out these things to have power over you... that is something right out of left field. You don't think you should bow before God's authority (ie not mine)? I really don't understand what your comment has to do with this conversation. But, maybe you are right; maybe we do believe in two different Gods because the one you describe seems to have no authority and no reason for the glory that the Bible clearly speaks about.

What we are by nature is sinful

mitchellmckain wrote: No. We are not sinful by nature. That excuse is a lie. We sin by choice.

Yes its a choice... i described it as such... you have a choice... give in to your nature or fight against it. If you think for a moment that sin is not in your nature, then you have no hope of overcoming it because you are boxing against a shadow.

No the reason why Peter tells us this is not to support your theology/philosophy at all. Peter tells us this because this because these are good habits, and just as the bad habits of sin destroy our life, awareness and free will, good habits expand them.

I didn't say they weren't good habits or that Peter was "supporting my theology/philosophy"... but what you are now talking about is salvation by works, by having these good habits that some how has power to do what exactly? Good habits are good to have but for what reason, and what about bad habits destroys a life? What good habits do you have that are capable of saving you from death? I assure you there are none.

Notice that before affection and love, there is virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness and godliness... Peter didn't put them in an arbitrary order; love and affection is misplaced without the things which proceed it.

mitchellmckain wrote: Love has no place at all in a list of things that someone demands because he threatens to hurt, torment and destroy you if you do not comply. Not unless that person is the worst of criminals like a rapist.

Where did I put love in a list of things that someone demands because he threatens to hurt torment and destroy you if you do not comply? I didn't put it in a list of things that have to be done to save you. Again you are talking about salvation through works... I never made that claim. So, since this is the second time you have talked about what seems to be salvation through works... is that what you believe? I get the feeling that you don't, but your view on sin certainly doesn't line up with salvation by grace through faith.

Yes it is destructive of everything we can be -- everything that God hopes for us, but do not fool yourself, there is no remaining safe in your sins. They most certainly will destroy even what small good there is in you until there is absolutely nothing left that makes your existence worthwhile.

When did I claim such a thing? Repentance is a turning away from sin, there is no safety in sin... your philosophy here takes everything at face value but has no ultimate (eternal) meaning what-so-ever. Why would it matter if my existence in this life is "worthwhile" what makes it "worthwhile"? These questions are at the heart of your philosophy and your answers to them drive your view of who God is.

Unlike me who claims to know plenty about the subject but who never claims to speak for God.

Ryan wrote: You never claimed outright that you speak for God, but your words certainly say otherwise...

mitchellmckain wrote: Those who rule by fear and buying obedience with rewards have nothing to do with love but only with power and control. God has no need of such things and so it is rather obvious that these are the doctrines of men who are serving themselves alone.

Ryan wrote: This is illustrative of your speaking for God. You say that "God has no need of such things"... are those His words or yours?

mitchellmckain wrote: No those are not his words, but no that is not speaking for God. That is speaking of the nature of things, you know like saying that a dog does not need gasoline -- that does not speak for the dog but is only an observation of the dog's nature.

How do you know God's nature outside of what He has said? You can not see the nature of God in the same way you can the nature of a dog... really, how big is this god you speak of? When did you observe God's nature? When did you observe that we (not He) has no need of being ruled by fear or rewarded through obedience? When did you observe these things, Mitchell? How is it that you observed them?

When you say that it is obvious that these doctrines are of men who are serving themselves alone, are those your words, or God's?

mitchellmckain wrote: Nope. I am speaking of what is obvious to me.

So you have special knowledge that we don't have? How did you conclude they are obvious?

Is that not an offense to God and therefor sitting squarely within His right to judge?

mitchellmckain wrote: Nope. I am not making any rules at all about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell because I know that only God can save someone from hell.

Nope its not His right to judge? Your idea of judgment seems to be restrictive to a single field, that of hell... if you do not judge anything at all, how do you decide what those "good" and "bad" habits are? Curious stance you seem to be taking.

If the doctrines are God's, then you are speaking for Him by your denial (and judgment) of the doctrines. If they are not God's you are speaking for Him by affirming (and judgment) that they are not His.

mitchellmckain wrote: Baloney! I am simply making my choice not to follow the little god of power and manipulation some have invented (and the doctrines they have invented to prop it up) that is offended by anyone who dares to think and do other that what they dictate you or I should.

What do you mean "Baloney"? You didn't even address the issue, but skirted it in favor of some invented doctrine non-sense. You say power and manipulation as though that is the God that I am claiming. But, am not - I am claiming a God of Power and Authority, authority is not the same as manipulation. You don't have to do what I do to earn salvation or follow the doctrines I follow, but who's doctrines (instructions) do you have to follow? Your own? What's good for you? And God, who has the power to create the universe and who holds all authority in it, who gave you life is not allowed to dictate what happens? What do you have to do to be saved? Your answers to these questions are doctrines whether you like it or not. You too follow doctrines, but who's are they?

I have undertaken no such position...

You have simply by speaking

...and I refuse this logic by which people seek to absolve themselve of responsibility for seeking the truth by assinging it to others.

I have not done this, I simply said that we both (and all of us) have the same responsibility to seek the truth, I didn't assign it to anyone else.

I never say to believe what I say because I say it, or that God says something because I say so. What I say is that God speaks for Himself and it is up to you to listen and it is nobody's responsibility but your own to seek the truth.

Yet you seem to deny the doctrines (instruction) which he spoke and call them the doctrines of men based on a so called "observation of his nature"? I am curious how you came by this "truth" ... no where in the Bible is there a Lone-Ranger Christian who is out there seeking truth on his own. When you do that, you come to all kinds of false notions because you want to justify yourself rather than having God justify you.

If you want to know what God says then do not listen to me, just read the Bible for yourself and ask Him.

Is that not what I am doing?

As I said this does not mean that God does not use people to speak, but no that does not mean that they are speaking for God.

When you say "God does not need..." who are you speaking for? You aren't simply stating observation, you are speaking on behalf of God. Whether what you say is truth or not is a different matter. If you said "Ryan doesn't need gasoline" I certainly wouldn't say you are speaking on observation... how would you know what I need and don't need? How would you know that my car has a full tank or not? Notice it isn't me (the authority) who needs gas, it is the car (the subject) who needs it, but it is still something I would employee to be able to properly use the car in a meaningful way.

I think the same thing is true of the Bible and that trying to reduce the Bible to the understanding of human writers and what they intended is not a way of seeking what God is saying

Nor did I do such a thing... the Bible is full of things that the author might not have understood completely

so I do NOT accept the attempt of so called Biblical scholars to rewrite the Bible and change it to their words instead.

Nor do I. The Bible speaks for itself. You seem to be imagining a argument that isn't being made. So, when you read the Bible, how do you come to understand it? You don't take others understanding into consideration? You like science right? How did you come to understand science? Just by sitting on your back porch and looking out at the world, or did you take what others had to say into consideration and follow their teachings (doctrine) in addition to your own observations?

But seeking the truth and understanding of things is NOT the same thing as finding out what God has to say. There are in fact many things that God will say nothing about, but leaves us to find the truth about them ourselves.

I don't see why you would imagine that I wouldn't agree with that.

... I have always been and remain far more interested in the truth about things (starting with science) than about what God has to say, though my search for the truth eventually included reading what He says and trying to understand that also.

And maybe that is part of your problem, you are more interested in your truth about things (not talking about science necessarily) than about what God has to say. Its the same problem that almost everyone (including myself) has had at one time or another, to greater or lesser extents. It is the point where that whole "degenerative disease" you call sin starts isn't it? Once you eventually read what He has to say and recognize His authority, how then could anything come second to it? Have you not taken God's authority and stuffed it in a backpack?

[JustJim]

Tony,

What a horrible, arbitrary, fickle, cruel, spiteful, hateful, asshole of a God you two believe in and worship. No offense.

I'm SO glad God is nothing at ALL like you two imagine God to be....

But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong....

Tell me what God should be like in your opinion? Describe what you have in mind that causes such a reaction to our view of God?

First, let me apologize for reacting the way I did. I've committed to being less that way, and I'm sorry I lost control. I'll try to be better.

For me, it's not a matter of what God should be like, Tony. It's what a God who "is Love", who is all-powerful and all-knowing, who truly and genuinely loves each and every one of us would be like. I think such a God would act the way he wants us to act. I think he would treat us the way he expects us to treat each other. I don't think he would do things that anyone, by any standards of common decency, would consider to be atrociously cruel and totally unloving.

To use a beaten-to-death example, I don't think he would kill (or order the killing of) thousands of innocent men, women, children, elderly, weak, helpless, defenseless people to prove a point, show his power, or for any other reason. (By "innocent" I mean people who try their best to be good people, who are remorseful for their failures to live up to their moral standards and commit themselves to turn away from their mistakes, selfishness, anger, lust, etc., who would never intentionally cause harm, pain, or suffering to another human being, and so on.) Apologist "explanations" for the atrocities described in the Bible make things even worse. To say God is God, and therefore he can do whatever he chooses to do, makes God out to be less than all-knowing, impotent, unloving, and arbitrary. To say God knows things we don't/can't know, and therefore he is justified in acting in the very ways he forbids us from acting, makes God out to hold to a double standard of what's right and wrong.

For me, if a story in the Bible portrays God in any way contrary to the way he wants us to be, then that story is a fabrication of the author - not inspired by God - and doesn't belong in a cannon of any kind of scripture. When the Bible says, or is interpreted to say, that God would punish, shut out, annihilate, or otherwise 'uncomfortably dispose of' people who couldn't believe in him (whatever that means), even though they lived their lives the best they could and were personally repentent of their shortcomings and failures, then I don't think that fits the image of God as Love, doesn't describe an omniscient, omnipotent God, and makes God out to be some kind of glory hound who is only interested in his own ego being served. That's a stupid idea of an all-loving, creator God.

I could go on and on with this, but I don't think it would matter. I don't really think God is a horrible, arbitrary, fickle, cruel, spiteful, hateful asshole. I think God is good and God is love. And anything in any book, or in any interpretations of things in any book, that contradict that shouldn't be taken seriously. There's no need for all the theological gymnastics and intellectual gyrations we all seem to want to waste our time on. God isn't all that complicated.

Just look around....

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

I am sorry, but you said it is really the reason why people should escape the bondage of sin, which is a dictation of the reason... to say that you then don't dictate other people's reasons is illogical at best and hypocritical at worst. You don't recognize that by stating that something is THE reason, that it necessarily follows that although it may play-out in many ways that you have dictated the ultimate reason whether you intend to or not?

Incorrect. Having a reason why I think that people should do something is not the same thing as dictating the reason they should have for doing something.

I don't think so. Why should it be? People say all sorts of things with many different things in mind. But I can say this, I see absolutely NOTHING here to suggest that Job is explaining what sin is here.

OK, so what you are saying is that what Job says and what he means are two different things?

No I am certainly not saying anything of the sort. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is as meaningless as is your attempt to put words in the mouth of Job.

Job does explain exactly what his sin was... he quotes Job 38:2 when he explains his sin.

Stating ones sin is not the same thing as explaining what sin is. One is a example of the general classification and the other is an explanation of what defines the general class. Speaking without knowledge certainly is a bad habit and what makes habits bad are how they affect your life in a way that is destructive of your potential.

Job 38:1-2 "The the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, 'who is this that darkens council by words without knowledge?'"
Nope that does not explain what sin is.

God questions him about all the things which God knows to demonstrate His authority to which Job responds by promising silence. That is what Job is repenting of, that was his sin... was it degenerative, absolutely... but at its core, it was an affront to God's authority. You claim that things are so obvious to you, but do not see what is made clear?

Again I do not believe in your fragile god, who has to protect his authority from human beings. So I disagree with your explanation.

No. Again people repent for many different reasons and there is no reason to expect that his reasons would have any bearing on whether sin can be called a degenerative disease or not.

Yes, people repent for many different reasons... i.e. one is sexually immoral, another is a thief and another tells lies... but while all of those are "different reasons" and you can clump them into a title like "degenerative disease" but why are they a degenerative disease? Because it makes life hard or it has bad effects on people? Or is it more than that?

Yes I clump them into bad habits which have a degenerative effect on one's own well being and the God I believe in is in no way threated or damaged by sins of human beings in any way whatsoever.

Who was it that he had uttered things about? As much as you might like to take one verse and just extrapolate out, you need to read the whole situation... Job was repenting because he had offended God by uttering those things which he did not understand... its as clear as day... so while you say I am putting words in his mouth, I say to you read it again.

I am not the one trying to take one little verse and expand it into a whole theology. That is what you are doing. I only know what it says and I could care less about the theology that you are trying to read into it. What is clear as day is what Job in fact said, which was not about sin but about his own realization that he was speaking without knowledge.

How big is this god you serve?

Infinite.

Is He the supreme authority?

Yes He is omniscient therefore if He says something is so then that is reliable. But God counts all His knowledge and power as nothing. That is not what is important to Him. No it is human beings who lust after power and thus invent a god who jealously guards his power and authority over others, so they can use this god as a tool of power and manipulation of others.

The God of the universe?

The universe is a little thing, that God has created for a purpose. Yes is may seem enormous and impressive to many human beings, but compared to God, the physical universe is not so much.

The only one worthy of honor and glory and you say your god is bigger than mine? I am not pointing out these things to have power over you... that is something right out of left field. You don't think you should bow before God's authority (ie not mine)? I really don't understand what your comment has to do with this conversation. But, maybe you are right; maybe we do believe in two different Gods because the one you describe seems to have no authority and no reason for the glory that the Bible clearly speaks about.

Yes your god who is so preoccupied and obsessed with his own glory and authority seems very small to me indeed -- small indeed enough to fit into the pocket of those who use it to for their own glory and authority.

What we are by nature is sinful

mitchellmckain wrote: No. We are not sinful by nature. That excuse is a lie. We sin by choice.

Yes its a choice... i described it as such... you have a choice... give in to your nature or fight against it. If you think for a moment that sin is not in your nature, then you have no hope of overcoming it because you are boxing against a shadow.

Then you think that you can overcome your sin by what you imagine to be your correct understand of it? Wow. I certainly imagine no such thing. I know for a fact that I cannot overcome my sin at all, neither by my understanding nor by any power of mine. For that I look to God alone as something that only He can do with His knowledge and power.

No the reason why Peter tells us this is not to support your theology/philosophy at all. Peter tells us this because this because these are good habits, and just as the bad habits of sin destroy our life, awareness and free will, good habits expand them.

I didn't say they weren't good habits or that Peter was "supporting my theology/philosophy"... but what you are now talking about is salvation by works, by having these good habits that some how has power to do what exactly? Good habits are good to have but for what reason, and what about bad habits destroys a life? What good habits do you have that are capable of saving you from death? I assure you there are none.

No your attempt to put words in my mouth is again absurd and stupid. I was not talking about salvation at all nor imagining as you have that some correct understanding can overcome sin. I was only explaining my understanding of sin and why Peter was telling us to do these things. But now that you mention it I probably don't believe in your magical idea of salvation either.

mitchellmckain wrote: Love has no place at all in a list of things that someone demands because he threatens to hurt, torment and destroy you if you do not comply. Not unless that person is the worst of criminals like a rapist.

Where did I put love in a list of things that someone demands because he threatens to hurt torment and destroy you if you do not comply? I didn't put it in a list of things that have to be done to save you. Again you are talking about salvation through works... I never made that claim. So, since this is the second time you have talked about what seems to be salvation through works... is that what you believe? I get the feeling that you don't, but your view on sin certainly doesn't line up with salvation by grace through faith.

No I do not claim that your post made a list of things that you must do to be saved. I was simply explaining why I do not believe in the god that you seem to believe in, who makes demands and torments people for daring not to comply because he so obsessed with his own glory and authority. In any case, the topic of salvation was raised by you in this conversation that was previously only about the nature of sin and you began your introduction of this topic of salvation into the discussion with a claim that one should have an understanding sin that allowed one to overcome it. So regardless of your ranting, you have made it crystal clear that it is YOU who believe in a salvation by your own works. I do not believe that there is ANYTHING you can believe, think, say, or otherwise do with any part of your body or mind in order to save yourself, but that salvation comes only by what God does and knows.

Yes it is destructive of everything we can be -- everything that God hopes for us, but do not fool yourself, there is no remaining safe in your sins. They most certainly will destroy even what small good there is in you until there is absolutely nothing left that makes your existence worthwhile.

When did I claim such a thing?

You said that sin is not destructive of who you are and I say that sin is destructive of who you are.

Repentance is a turning away from sin, there is no safety in sin... your philosophy here takes everything at face value but has no ultimate (eternal) meaning what-so-ever. Why would it matter if my existence in this life is "worthwhile" what makes it "worthwhile"? These questions are at the heart of your philosophy and your answers to them drive your view of who God is.

Another good example of how you put your own words in the mouths of other people. But hey you do it to God, Peter and Job, so why should I be immune to your bad habit. Here of course, you insert the words "in this life" to make what I said about something completely different than my intention. I am talking about an existence which eternal whether you like it or not, and sin will destroy everthing that makes that eternal existence worthwhile, and that is what the hell that I believe in is all about. No I don't believe in the hell created by your so called "god" obsessed with glory and authority who has to back up your threats by tormenting people who dare to believe differently than you do. I most certainly believe in hell though because I am not blind. I see people creating hell all around them everywhere in this world. So yeah I believe in a hell created by human beings, and it does not surprise me that they also create gods in their own image that likes to create hell for other people too. But the God that I believe in creates heaven not hell, and it consists of all the things of life, like growth, excitement, creativity, love, wonder, challenges, passion, learning and service, that only an infinite being like God can provide for an eternity.

How do you know God's nature outside of what He has said?

I know of God's nature from what He says that He did. Jesus said that we can know God by looking at Him, and thus I see God as it is revealed in the life and death of Jesus. And thus what I see is a humble God, who not caring anything about being God, set aside all His power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant, and after growing up perfectly blameless to show how we should live, He was mocked and whipped before being excecuted on a cross. This He did this in order for us to get past all the lies and misunderstandings, to show how much He loves us and thus to heal our relationship with the infinite God in whom we can find eternal life. God's infinite nature may be incomprehensible, but God is not complex like human beings in the sense that He is conflicted, with love and hatred at war in Him battling for control. He is absolutely pure in His love and everything He does is for the sake of those whom He loves. And so it is by this love that we can know Him, and actually know Him better than we know each other or ourselves.

I also know the nature of God from what He has created, not only something of His nature but of His intention also, for we can see in the design of the universe something of the purpose for which He created it.

You can not see the nature of God in the same way you can the nature of a dog

Yes I can, not only in what he created but also because that is the greatest gift of Jesus, that by coming down to live among us as a human being, He showed Himself to us literally in the flesh.

... really, how big is this god you speak of?

Infinite.

When did you observe God's nature? When did you observe that we (not He) has no need of being ruled by fear or rewarded through obedience? When did you observe these things, Mitchell? How is it that you observed them?

John 14:8-9 Philip said to him, "Lord show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

So Ryan, do you believe that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him? Do you believe that the scriptures have an accurate observation of Jesus? Have you read the scriptures? If so, then how can you say "when did you observe God's nature?" as if this was not a thing to be imagined!

Romans 1:19-20 For what can be know about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His eternal power and deity has been clearly percieved in the things that have been made.

So Ryan, do you agree with these words of Paul or do you disagree? More than ever before, with the eyes that science has given us we can see more of the physical universe than ever before. You may not have look beyond the pages of the Bible and what your religion has told you it means, but I have studied science quite a bit and thus see much of the vastness and detail of this physical universe that God has made.

When you say that it is obvious that these doctrines are of men who are serving themselves alone, are those your words, or God's?

mitchellmckain wrote: Nope. I am speaking of what is obvious to me.

So you have special knowledge that we don't have? How did you conclude they are obvious?

Conclude that they are obvious???? I have reported that they are obvious to me. There are other things that are obvious to me such as the truth of the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity. Maybe these things are not obvious to you, but that does not change the fact that they are obvious to me.

Is that not an offense to God and therefore sitting squarely within His right to judge?

mitchellmckain wrote: Nope. I am not making any rules at all about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell because I know that only God can save someone from hell.

Nope its not His right to judge? Your idea of judgment seems to be restrictive to a single field, that of hell... if you do not judge anything at all, how do you decide what those "good" and "bad" habits are? Curious stance you seem to be taking.

No again I refute this right you think you have to put whatever words you like in the mouth of God and human beings. My "nope" is in reply to your sentence and your sentece was not that God has a right to judge. Nope, what I said is NOT an offense to God nor taking upon myself His right to judge. Nor does this mean that we have no right to excercise any judgement whatsoever as you suggested here to support your absurd accusation. No the kind of judgement that takes on too much is clearly explained in Romans 10:5-7 as it explains the difference between a righteousness based on faith from one that is based on laws.

"Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness based on the law shall live by it. But the righteousness which is based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will assend into heaven?' (that is to bring Christ down) or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is to bring Christ up from the dead)."

Thus since I have neither the power to bring Christ down nor bring Christ up from the dead, I choose to live a life of faith and so I do not presume to say who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, but hold fast to the truth that only God has the power and knowledge of salvation.

You say power and manipulation as though that is the God that I am claiming. But, am not - I am claiming a God of Power and Authority, authority is not the same as manipulation.

Right and I beleive in a God of love, not your god of Power and Authority, because I frankly believe that this is a god that is invented by human beings as tool to support their own desire manipulate and hold power over other people.

You don't have to do what I do to earn salvation or follow the doctrines I follow, but who's doctrines (instructions) do you have to follow?

I don't put my faith in doctrines. I put my faith in God -- in God who is reveal by Jesus, in a God who is real and living and active, in a God who can speak for Himself and act for Himself.

And God, who has the power to create the universe and who holds all authority in it, who gave you life is not allowed to dictate what happens?

No it is simply YOU and those you follow who are not allow do dictate what happens, no matter how many of you uphold this god of power and authority that you have invented.

What do you have to do to be saved?

So asked the rich man taking to Jesus, and Jesus' reply was to keep asking more and harder things from him until he went away disappointed. The disciples were astonished and asked "who then can be saved?" Jesus replied, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." If you are looking for what is enough then you are chasing a delsuion because there is no enough. There is nothing that you can do that will accomplish this. Only God can do it.

Your answers to these questions are doctrines whether you like it or not. You too follow doctrines, but who's are they?

Yes my answer to your question is the teachings of Jesus and the apostle Paul. But just as the Pharisees distorted the law to serve them so also has the Gnostic legalists of modern times twisted Christianity into a religion that serves them rather than God.

I have undertaken no such position...

You have simply by speaking

I have made assertions to be sure and take a postion in that sense. But I have not claimed any authority for myself and so I have not taken on a job or role of prophet. I take the postion (stand) is that was taught by Jesus and the apostle Paul. But the authority is theirs and not mine. However much you believe that the only requirement for being a prophet is to speak, that is not my belief.

I never say to believe what I say because I say it, or that God says something because I say so. What I say is that God speaks for Himself and it is up to you to listen and it is nobody's responsibility but your own to seek the truth.

Yet you seem to deny the doctrines (instruction) which he spoke and call them the doctrines of men

Yes I deny the doctrines which you declare are His in your rather pervasive habit of putting your words into mouths of other people.

As I said this does not mean that God does not use people to speak, but no that does not mean that they are speaking for God.

When you say "God does not need..." who are you speaking for? You aren't simply stating observation, you are speaking on behalf of God.

No, I am not speaking for God. I claim no authority for what I say at all. I say only what I believe to be true. You can parrot what you have been taught all you want but however much you think that lend credibility to what you say, it does not make it credible to me. That is only the formula for the repetition of error and never learning from ones mistakes, that is something that the history of science has taught us.

so I do NOT accept the attempt of so called Biblical scholars to rewrite the Bible and change it to their words instead.

Nor do I. The Bible speaks for itself. You seem to be imagining a argument that isn't being made.

I am imagining nothing, such arguments have been made to me on numerous times. But no unlike you I am claiming that you have said something which you did not say, I am only making an assertion about what I do not accept. The implications you choose to read into what I say with your absurd battle mentality is probably just another manifestation of your habit of inserting your own words into what other people say.

So, when you read the Bible, how do you come to understand it? You don't take others understanding into consideration?

I take EVERYTHING into consideration. Everything I have seen, heard, felt and otherwise experienced in any way at all. There is no data which I reject, I simply weave all that data together into a coherent picture.

You like science right? How did you come to understand science? Just by sitting on your back porch and looking out at the world, or did you take what others had to say into consideration and follow their teachings (doctrine) in addition to your own observations?

No I studied science (physics in particular) at university to get a masters degree just as I studied the Bible, church history, philsophy, psychology and minsitry at seminary to get a masters degree. In that way, I could make my understanding of these things as informed as I could.

... I have always been and remain far more interested in the truth about things (starting with science) than about what God has to say, though my search for the truth eventually included reading what He says and trying to understand that also.

And maybe that is part of your problem, you are more interested in your truth about things (not talking about science necessarily) than about what God has to say. Its the same problem that almost everyone (including myself) has had at one time or another, to greater or lesser extents. It is the point where that whole "degenerative disease" you call sin starts isn't it? Once you eventually read what He has to say and recognize His authority, how then could anything come second to it? Have you not taken God's authority and stuffed it in a backpack?

I deny that you have any authority or understanding to speak about what are my problems. Since I think your knowledge is actually limited to your own problems, then what you really should say is, that this may be part of YOUR problem with me. I like to look at the whole truth and how God message fits in that context. You apparently have no interest in the truth at all but only in pushing and parroting this dogma that you have been taught. But I think that my approach gives me a better understanding of what God is saying. That is one of the values of higher education. By broading your mind to see the context of human thought and language, your own understanding of what something means is based on a much broader base of information and ideas.

[Ryan]

Having a reason why I think that people should do something is not the same thing as dictating the reason they should have for doing something.

That is fine, but it isn't what you said before... you said it is the reason... not a reason. Just to be clear.

I don't think so. Why should it be? People say all sorts of things with many different things in mind. But I can say this, I see absolutely NOTHING here to suggest that Job is explaining what sin is here.
Ryan wrote: OK, so what you are saying is that what Job says and what he means are two different things?

mitchellmckain wrote: No I am certainly not saying anything of the sort. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is as meaningless as is your attempt to put words in the mouth of Job.

Mitchell, I am not attempting to put words in your mouth... notice the question mark... it was a question based on what you had said, not a statement of what you had said.

Job does explain exactly what his sin was... he quotes Job 38:2 when he explains his sin.

mitchellmckain wrote: Stating ones sin is not the same thing as explaining what sin is. One is a example of the general classification and the other is an explanation of what defines the general class. Speaking without knowledge certainly is a bad habit and what makes habits bad are how they affect your life in a way that is destructive of your potential.

Job 38:1-2 "The the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, 'who is this that darkens council by words without knowledge?'"
Nope that does not explain what sin is.

I didn't say that Job 38 says "what sin is" I said that Job quotes chapter 38 when he explains what his sin was. So you are saying that all sins are is a destructive habit of your potential? Is that correct? You fail to recognize why God addresses him in the first place, it certainly wasn't because he was failing to meet his potential.... what is the root cause of God addressing Job?

God questions him about all the things which God knows to demonstrate His authority to which Job responds by promising silence. That is what Job is repenting of, that was his sin... was it degenerative, absolutely... but at its core, it was an affront to God's authority. You claim that things are so obvious to you, but do not see what is made clear?

mitchellmckain wrote: Again I do not believe in your fragile god, who has to protect his authority from human beings. So I disagree with your explanation.

You can disagree with me all you want, that isn't my concern. But, I didn't say God "has to protect his authority from human beings". He chose to confront Job to fulfill His purpose through Job. There is a drastic difference there. But, I would like to hear your explanation of why God confronted Job about it, what about speaking without knowledge was God so worried about Job's "potential" that was putting him in danger any more than anything else?

Ryan wrote: Yes, people repent for many different reasons... i.e. one is sexually immoral, another is a thief and another tells lies... but while all of those are "different reasons" and you can clump them into a title like "degenerative disease" but why are they a degenerative disease? Because it makes life hard or it has bad effects on people? Or is it more than that?

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes I clump them into bad habits which have a degenerative effect on one's own well being and the God I believe in is in no way threated or damaged by sins of human beings in any way whatsoever.

I didn't say God was threatened or damaged by our sins... I said it was an affront to His righteousness and authority. "For all have fallen short of the glory of God"

Who was it that he had uttered things about? As much as you might like to take one verse and just extrapolate out, you need to read the whole situation... Job was repenting because he had offended God by uttering those things which he did not understand... its as clear as day... so while you say I am putting words in his mouth, I say to you read it again.

mitchellmckain wrote: I am not the one trying to take one little verse and expand it into a whole theology. That is what you are doing. I only know what it says and I could care less about the theology that you are trying to read into it. What is clear as day is what Job in fact said, which was not about sin but about his own realization that he was speaking without knowledge.

I'm not expanding one little verse into a whole theology Mitchell, I am using the book of Job (and specifically the last 4 chapters) as an example. So he spoke with out knowledge... bad habit that prompted God to confront Job in one of the most intense moments in all of scripture... OK, we can leave it at that if you want.

How big is this god you serve?

mitchellmckain wrote: Infinite.

How do you know that? Observation?

Is He the supreme authority?

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes He is omniscient therefore if He says something is so then that is reliable. But God counts all His knowledge and power as nothing. That is not what is important to Him. No it is human beings who lust after power and thus invent a god who jealously guards his power and authority over others, so they can use this god as a tool of power and manipulation of others.

Why do you accept the doctrine of omniscience but reject the others? How do you know that God "counts all His knowledge and power as nothing?" Who are you speaking for here? Your opinion or an observation or is it something that God said? You continue to dish out the "tool of power and manipulation of others" as though I am the Pope or running for congress... what stake do I have in that? Again, you are arguing someone else here, not me.

The only one worthy of honor and glory and you say your god is bigger than mine? I am not pointing out these things to have power over you... that is something right out of left field. You don't think you should bow before God's authority (ie not mine)? I really don't understand what your comment has to do with this conversation. But, maybe you are right; maybe we do believe in two different Gods because the one you describe seems to have no authority and no reason for the glory that the Bible clearly speaks about.

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes your god who is so preoccupied and obsessed with his own glory and authority seems very small to me indeed -- small indeed enough to fit into the pocket of those who use it to for their own glory and authority.

I hope one day you can recognize that God isn't "preoccupied" or "obsessed" with his own glory and authority... but that He is "worthy" (HUGE difference) of them both.

No. We are not sinful by nature. That excuse is a lie. We sin by choice.

Ryan wrote: Yes its a choice... i described it as such... you have a choice... give in to your nature or fight against it. If you think for a moment that sin is not in your nature, then you have no hope of overcoming it because you are boxing against a shadow.

mitchellmckain wrote: Then you think that you can overcome your sin by what you imagine to be your correct understand of it? Wow. I certainly imagine no such thing. I know for a fact that I cannot overcome my sin at all, neither by my understanding nor by any power of mine. For that I look to God alone as something that only He can do with His knowledge and power.

No, actually I never said I could overcome my sin, you misread that. I can't overcome being human either, its my nature. But, if its a choice, all you gotta do is make the right choices right? If its not part of your nature it should be easily conquered. But, I am finally happy that we see eye to eye on at least one thing, that only God can overcome sin. (guess I am assuming that is what you meant by "nor by any power of mine")

I didn't say they weren't good habits or that Peter was "supporting my theology/philosophy"... but what you are now talking about is salvation by works, by having these good habits that some how has power to do what exactly? Good habits are good to have but for what reason, and what about bad habits destroys a life? What good habits do you have that are capable of saving you from death? I assure you there are none.

mitchellmckain wrote: No your attempt to put words in my mouth is again absurd and stupid. I was not talking about salvation at all nor imagining as you have that some correct understanding can overcome sin. I was only explaining my understanding of sin and why Peter was telling us to do these things. But now that you mention it I probably don't believe in your magical idea of salvation either.

Read above... you read into my statement something that wasn't there. What pray-tell is the "magical idea of salvation" that you probably don't believe?

mitchellmckain wrote: No I do not claim that your post was posting a list of things that you must do to be saved. I was simply explaining why I do not believe in the god that you seem to believe in, who makes demands and torments people for daring not to comply because he so obsessed with his own glory and authority. In any case, the topic of salvation was raised by you in this conversation that was previously only about the nature of sin and you began your introduction of this topic of salvation into the discussion with a claim that one should have an understanding sin that allowed one to overcome it. So regardless of your ranting, you have made it crystal clear that it is YOU who believe in a salvation by your own works. I do not believe that there is ANYTHING you can believe, think, say, or otherwise do with any part of your body or mind in order to save yourself, but that salvation comes only by what God does and knows.

See, you are making judgment calls about what I believe on things that are obscenely false, furthermore you replace words like "worthy" with words like "obsessed", words that are quantitatively different, for what ends? But, again, glad to see that we agree that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves.... apparently it wasn't as crystal clear as you would like to believe. I said I believe that salvation is by grace through faith... that is, it is a gift from God and trusting in him to fulfill a promise that was made. How is that a works based salvation?

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 John 5:3-5

You said that sin is not destructive of who you are and I say that it is.

That isn't what I said... there is a missing piece there Mitchell

Yes, destructive, but not to who we are, but to who we should be.

Who we are is destroyed already... "who we should be" is something we aren't currently... i.e. we have not overcome sin, as evidenced by this very conversation (or at least my part in it).

Repentance is a turning away from sin, there is no safety in sin... your philosophy here takes everything at face value but has no ultimate (eternal) meaning what-so-ever. Why would it matter if my existence in this life is "worthwhile" what makes it "worthwhile"? These questions are at the heart of your philosophy and your answers to them drive your view of who God is.

mitchellmckain wrote: Here of course, you insert the words "in this life" to make what I said about something completely different than my intention.

Please forgive me if I have misrepresented your intentions.

I am talking about an existence which eternal whether you like it or not, and sin will destroy everthing that makes that eternal existence worthwhile, and that is what the hell that I believe in is all about. No I don't believe in the hell created by your so called "god" obsessed with glory and authority who has to back up your threats by tormenting people who dare to believe differently than you do. I most certainly believe in hell though because I am not blind. I see people created hell all around them everywhere in this world. So yeah I believe in a hell created by human beings, and it does not surprise me that they also create gods in their own image that likes to create hell for other people too. But the God that I believe in creates heaven not hell, and it consists of all the things of life, like growth, excitement, creativity, love, wonder, challenges, passion, learning and service, that only an infinite being like God can provide for an eternity.

I never made any such claim, just to be clear about it. And I most certainly do like it that you are talking about an eternal existence. I don't recall ever even mentioning hell, nor its relationship in the matter, although if you'd like to open that can of worms, I will play along.

I know of God's nature from what He says that He did. Jesus said that we can know God by looking at Him, and thus I see God as it is revealed in the life and death of Jesus. And thus what I see is a humble God, who not caring anything about being God, set aside all His power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant, and after growing up perfectly blameless to show how we should live, He was mocked and whipped before being excecuted on a cross. This He did this in order for us to get past all the lies and misunderstandings, to show how much He loves us and thus to heal our relationship with the infinite God in whom we can find eternal life. God's infinite nature may be incomprehensible, but God is not complex like human beings in the sense that He is conflicted, with love and hatred at war in Him battling for control. He is absolutely pure in His love and everything He does is for the sake of those whom He loves. And so it is by this love that we can know Him, and actually know Him better than we know each other or ourselves.

I agree whole-heartedly with most of that (depending on your answers to the following, maybe all of it). But, there are two sides to every coin and God is both loving and just, the lover of righteousness and the hater of evil. As was Jesus. Was Jesus being all helpless when he drove the money changers out of the temple? When he raised Lazarus from the dead? When He commanded the storm to stop? When he sent the demons into the pigs? What did the demons say to him at that time? You say that He God didn't care anything about being God and set aside all His power and knowledge... is that to say that Jesus divested himself of his divine nature? (its a question now, don't say I'm putting words in your mouth please)

You can not see the nature of God in the same way you can the nature of a dog

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes I can, because that is the greatest gift of Jesus, that by coming down to live among us as a human being, He showed Himself to us.

So you know all of Jesus' nature? Where does Jesus say that he (and by he I mean for our sake) has no need of doctrine? This was the claim that spurred by comment above. Jesus taught the doctrines, did he not?

When did you observe God's nature? When did you observe that we (not He) has no need of being ruled by fear or rewarded through obedience? When did you observe these things, Mitchell? How is it that you observed them?

mitchellmckain wrote: John 14:8-9 Philip said to him, "Lord show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

So I ask again in a different way, when did you see Jesus? John did, but have you? You have read and studied about him sure, but you were talking about making observations... reading is learning about yes, but quantitatively different from observing.

So Ryan, do you believe that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him? Do you believe that the scriptures have an accurate observation of Jesus? Have you read the scriptures? If so, then how can you say "when did you observe God's nature?" as if this was not a thing to be imagined!

Yes I do. An accurate account, yes. An accurate observation, no. Yes and I continue to daily. I can ask that because you are talking about making observations (not reading revelations) about God in the same light as you can with a dog, which was and is not equal in respect, nor can one grasp the greatness of God's full nature even if they read and understood every word of scripture... that is the nature of being infinite is it not?

So Ryan, do you agree with these words of Paul or do you disagree? More than ever before, with the eyes that science has given us we can see more of the physical universe than ever before. You may not have look beyond the pages of the Bible and what your religion has told you it means, but I have studied science quite a bit and thus see much of the vastness and detail of this physical universe that God has made.

As do I Mitchell, I study science and God's creation daily as well as his word. They are both wonderful and I certainly agree with what Paul said in Romans... but, what Paul says does not tell us that we can understand God's nature nor fully comprehend his desire outside of what is written and still stand by my statement that saying "God has no need of doctrines" is a dangerous statement for the reasons cited. God revealed doctrines, not dogmas.

When you say that it is obvious that these doctrines are of men who are serving themselves alone, are those your words, or God's?

mitchellmckain wrote: Nope. I am speaking of what is obvious to me.

Ryan wrote: So you have special knowledge that we don't have? How did you conclude they are obvious?

mitchellmckain wrote: Conclude that they are obvious???? I have reported that they are obvious to me.

And I asked how did you conclude that? What made it so plainly obvious to you that "these doctrines" are of men?

There are other things that are obvious to me such as the truth of the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity.

Those things are obvious to you? When I hear the word obvious I think of things like, the sky is blue... not complex discoveries that took mankind most of its history and a great many of the smartest minds to understand.

Maybe these things are not obvious to you, but that does not change the fact that they are obvious to me.

Apparently you are much brighter than I am. You are right, I don't think they are obvious... there is much still to learn about them, just as there is of God's nature.

Nope. I am not making any rules at all about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell because I know that only God can save someone from hell.

Ryan wrote: Nope its not His right to judge? Your idea of judgment seems to be restrictive to a single field, that of hell... if you do not judge anything at all, how do you decide what those "good" and "bad" habits are? Curious stance you seem to be taking.

mitchellmckain wrote: No again I refute this right you think you have to put whatever words you like in the mouth of God and human beings. My "nope" is in reply to your sentence and your sentece was not that God has a right to judge. Nope, what I said is NOT an offense to God nor taking upon myself His right to judge. Nor does this mean that we have no right to excercise any judgement whatsoever as you suggested here to support your absurd accusation. No the kind of judgement that takes on too much is clearly explained in Romans 10:5-7 as it explains the difference between a righteousness based on faith from one that is based on laws.

Again, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was asking a question hence the question mark. Thank you for explaining...

Thus since I have neither the power to bring Christ down nor bring Christ up from the dead, I choose to live a life of faith and so I do not presume to say who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, but hold fast to the truth that only God has the power and knowledge of salvation.

Nor do I. I haven't made any claim about anyone going to hell in this entire conversation, yet it is consistently thrown at me as though I have.

You say power and manipulation as though that is the God that I am claiming. But, am not - I am claiming a God of Power and Authority, authority is not the same as manipulation.

mitchellmckain wrote: Right and I beleive in a God of love, not your god of Power and Authority, because I frankly believe that this is a god that is invented by human beings as tool to support their own desire manipulate and hold power over other people.

Misappropriation. I stated two of God's attributes, not all of them. God is a God of many attributes, among them are Power, Authority, Love, Righteousness, Mercy and many more, to extrapolate out that a God of Power and Authority is not a God of Love is simply a false understanding.

You don't have to do what I do to earn salvation or follow the doctrines I follow, but who's doctrines (instructions) do you have to follow?
mitchellmckain wrote: I don't put my faith in doctrines. I put my faith in God -- in God who is reveal by Jesus, in a God who is real and living and active, in a God who can speak for Himself and act for Himself.

Yes, but you missed my point. Doctrines are instructions... so who's instructions do you follow? I didn't ask what you put faith in. I put faith in God as well, the God who is living and active, revealed through Jesus and who can speak and act for Himself... but I follow the instructions (doctrines) which were revealed through Jesus, through his disciples and apostles, through his prophets, and through his church. So I ask again... who's instructions (doctrines) do you follow? "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" do you agree with those words of Jesus or don't you? Questions, not accusations.

No it is simply YOU and those you follow who are not allow do dictate what happens, no matter how many of you uphold this god of power and authority that you have invented.

I am not dictating anything my friend, stating God's revealed attributes is not a dictation in any stretch of the imagination.

The disciples were astonished and asked "who then can be saved?" Jesus replied, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." If you are looking for what is enough then you chasing a delsuion because there is no enough. There is nothing that you can do that will accomplish this. Only God can do it.

Again, glad to see we agree on something.

Your answers to these questions are doctrines whether you like it or not. You too follow doctrines, but who's are they?

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes my answer to your question is the teachings of Jesus and the apostle Paul. But just as the Pharisees distorted the law to serve them so also has the Gnostic legalists of modern times twisted Christianity into a religion that serves them rather than God.

Ahhh so you do follow doctrines... the same ones I follow in fact. Don't know why you bring up Gnostics and legalism because I am neither of those things.

I have made assertions to be sure and take a postion in that sense. But I have not claimed any authority for myself and so I have not taken on a job or role of prophet. I take the postion (stand) is that was taught by Jesus and the apostle Paul. But the authority is theirs and not mine. However much you believe that the only requirement for being a prophet is to speak, that is not my belief.

The Hebrew and Greek word for prophet literally means "inspired speaker", I am not saying you are a special prophet as in Moses, Samuel and the like, I am saying you (and others) are a prophet in that you (assuming that you are) inspired by God to spread the gospel. The gospel is his, not ours. Neither have I claimed to have any authority.

No, I am not speaking for God. I claim no authority for what I say at all. I say only what I believe to be true.

OK...

I am imagining nothing, such arguments have been made to me on numerous times. But no unlike you I am claiming that you have said something which you did not say, I am only making an assertion about what I do not accept. The implications you choose to read into what I say with your absurd battle mentality is probably just another manifestation of your habit of inserting your own words into what other people say.

So do you punish me for the arguments made by others?

Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
Proverbs 9:8-10

And maybe that is part of your problem, you are more interested in your truth about things (not talking about science necessarily) than about what God has to say. Its the same problem that almost everyone (including myself) has had at one time or another, to greater or lesser extents. It is the point where that whole "degenerative disease" you call sin starts isn't it? Once you eventually read what He has to say and recognize His authority, how then could anything come second to it? Have you not taken God's authority and stuffed it in a backpack?

mitchellmckain wrote: I deny that you have any authority or understanding to speak about what are my problems.

I said maybe... sorry for tryin to help out...

Since I think your knowledge is actually limited to your own problems, then what you really should say is, that this may be part of YOUR problem with me.

I have no problem with you, I am having a conversation... not battling you for world domination or somethin.

You apparently have no interest in the truth at all but only in pushing and parroting this dogma that you have been taught.

Sigh...
Now its moved on to "dogma" by saying God has Power and Authority as two of his many attributes... goodness
We can leave it at that, I will give you the final word in response. Thanks for the lively conversation and my apologies for being a stumbling stone in your path.

[mitchellmckain]

So you are saying that all sins are is a destructive habit of your potential? Is that correct?

That is correct. Sin is what it is for a reason and not because some deity of yours arbitrarily decides that this is something he doesn't want people to do just for the joy of throwing his weight around. I don't believe in a god that finds joy in that and it is a god described in that way who sounds so small and pathetic to me. Things are are not right or wrong because God says so, God tells us things because He knows the reasons why they are right or wrong.

You fail to recognize why God addresses him in the first place, it certainly wasn't because he was failing to meet his potential.... what is the root cause of God addressing Job?
...
But, I would like to hear your explanation of why God confronted Job about it

I repeat that I do not agree with your theology and the reasons you like to read into the text for why God does things. But since you ask about what is going on in the book of Job, I will explain it. There is a courtroom-like scene where God seeks to defend the value of human beings by putting forth Job as an example and Satan refutes God's evidence by suggesting that Job only does good because things are going well for him, so God allows Satan to afflict Job in many ways. Job thinks that God must hate him and like so many of us crys out to God for an answer for why God has done these things to him. His friends like so many legalistic religionists, believe and insist that what has happened to Job are punishments from God for his sins and so God does indeed hate Job. But Job insists upon his innocence and calls out to God for an answer. We know from the context of the story that God does indeed love Job and therefore it should be no suprise that God does answer Job's cry with an answer for him that Job can understand. God rebukes Job's friend and answers Job's demand by telling him something of His own works and responsibilities. Through this Job, because he indeed is living a life of faith and service to God understands, that no these things that have happened to him do not mean that God hates him, but that God's responsibilities and understanding are so far above his own that an attempt to hold God account for his own trivial troubles is foolish. As it explain in Romans 9, God will do what required for His work even if it destroys some and blesses others because He is the creator of the universe and life and He is the only one with the power and understanding to bring about our salvation.

So to answer your question, "why does God speak to Job?" It is because He loves Job. I reject the god of hate that legalistic religionists like to push in order to lift up themselves and instead believe in a God of love whose understanding and responsibilities are far beyond what most people imagine.

What about speaking without knowledge was God so worried about Job's "potential" that was putting him in danger any more than anything else?

God questions him about all the things which God knows to demonstrate His authority to which Job responds by promising silence. That is what Job is repenting of, that was his sin... was it degenerative, absolutely... but at its core, it was an affront to God's authority.

Yes our understanding of the nature of sin reflects the nature of the God that we believe in. Your god is obsessed with his own power, glory, rights and authority, and you see his motivations coming from this, so you define sin as that which threatens your god's glory, rights and authority to offend him. But my God cares nothing for such things, His obsession if you will is with love and life, and it is to promote love and life in all things that is His motivation for doing things, thus I define sin as that which threaten these things that God really does value -- the life of the creatures he has made (on the largest and longest scales - i.e. eternal life of us personally and the advancement of life and love on the whole planet). So you see I reject the very premise of your question that sees God as a sin police only acting to protect his glory, rights and authority from human sins, to instead see God as one who passionately cares for us and answers the cry of our hearts with love and to show us a way to a greater life with more understanding and awareness.

I didn't say God was threatened or damaged by our sins... I said it was an affront to His righteousness and authority. "For all have fallen short of the glory of God"

And as I said I am not interested in this small god of yours who is obsessed with His righteousness and authority. That is the god of the legalistic religionists like the Pharisees not the God I see in the life and death of Jesus.

How do you know that? Observation?

Yep.

Why do you accept the doctrine of omniscience but reject the others? How do you know that God "counts all His knowledge and power as nothing?"

Because by looking at Him -- at His life and death -- for an understanding of God, as Jesus told us to, I can discern the ideas that come from God for His reasons from those that come from human beings for their reasons. But in Phillipians 2:5-8 we find an explanation which fits this picture: "Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." This is the humble God I believe, who counts no cost to Himself doing what is required for the greater well being of those whom He loves, which includes all human beings, without exception.

Who are you speaking for here?

I am speaking for myself alone about the God whom I believe in. You can choose to believe in a different god of course and will affirm and defend your right to do so.

You continue to dish out the "tool of power and manipulation of others" as though I am the Pope or running for congress... what stake do I have in that? Again, you are arguing someone else here, not me.

That is the motivations of sinful men that I discern in certain dogmas and know that they therefore come from men rather than God. As for the power and manipulation that is found in religion, I suggest you talk to talk to the atheists here for they know about that very well and love to speak of that endlessly. But after being raised in that environment with that understanding I have gone beyond these human distortions of religion to see a truth there in spite of it, so when you have finished learning what the atheists have to teach (if you are even capable of that), then come back to me and see if what I am saying is helpful to you then.

I hope one day you can recognize that God isn't "preoccupied" or "obsessed" with his own glory and authority... but that He is "worthy" (HUGE difference) of them both.

But that is the God that I believe in and have been talking about from the beginning of this discussion. But no I will NEVER recognize the god which which you wield out of your back pocket as the God of love and creator of life. The God I believe in has no need for you or me to speak for Him at all.

No, actually I never said I could overcome my sin, you misread that. I can't overcome being human either, its my nature. But, if its a choice, all you gotta do is make the right choices right? If its not part of your nature it should be easily conquered. But, I am finally happy that we see eye to eye on at least one thing, that only God can overcome sin. (guess I am assuming that is what you meant by "nor by any power of mine")

Yes it is a choice and no we are not sinful by nature. But sin destroys our free will and thus having sinned it is no longer a matter of choice but of habit. Yes we start completely free to choose something other than sin, and no we cannot blame some fault in the way that we are made for our choices. But as the Bible says, no one can say that they are without sin. So how can this be? It is simple, we were never intended to navigate the moral landscape without the guidance of God and so you could say that avoiding sin without the help of God is as unlikely and impossible as it would be for intellegent life to evolve on this planet without God's involvement and direction. By the time we can speak to say the words, "I am without sin" , we can no longer say the words truthfully. So why is it that we don't have the the guidance of God as we were intended. That explanation is what the Bible is all about from the very first page!

What pray-tell is the "magical idea of salvation" that you probably don't believe?

This is a little different topic and I was going to point you to where I have posted it previously, but could not find it, so I posted it again in the Christian section of this forum.

Who we are is destroyed already... "who we should be" is something we aren't currently... i.e. we have not overcome sin, as evidenced by this very conversation (or at least my part in it).

No. Who we are is not completely destroyed. It simply isn't true that there is nothing of goodness or value in our existence and it is claims like this that tell the atheists that you are obviously full of crap.

No what we find in the natural fallen man (i.e. without the grace of God), is not someone who is completely evil or completely destroyed but someone who is under the law of sin and desire, which is a lot like the law of gravity, so that no matter how you might be moving on the earth under your own power, there is only one direction you can go and that is down. In life we may be held up by His creation, but afterwards there will be nothing to stop our downward fall. Some because of circumstance may look like they are moving in a positive direction while others seem to be searching for the lowest point they can go, but the destination of all is completely the same. The only alternative is to be in the hands of God.

But, there are two sides to every coin and God is both loving and just, the lover of righteousness and the hater of evil. As was Jesus. Was Jesus being all helpless when he drove the money changers out of the temple? When he raised Lazarus from the dead? When He commanded the storm to stop? When he sent the demons into the pigs? What did the demons say to him at that time?

Yes God is just but not in a way that most people understand and certainly not in the way that you seem to understand, which I think is completely absurd. I am talking about this nonsense about offending God being an infinite offense so that "justice" requires a single bad thought to be answered with an eternity in god's little torture chamber where he will enjoy your suffering without reprieve for ever and ever. Justice as I understand and believe in it, is about understanding the natural and logical consequences of our actions. So what God would make clear to us is that His love for us does not mean these consequences of what we do can be made to go away with any kind of divine magic (it would make our entire existence meaningless to do so). It is a magical Christianity that thinks that this is what Christianity is all about, escaping the consequences of what we do. I don't believe in that at all. But yes I believe that God's justice is perfect.

But from the context, you seem to be talking about God's wrath rather than His justice, and yes God is very angry but not for the reasons that you have been giving. God's wrath comes from His love for us and so when He sees us doing harm to those He loves then He is indeed VERY angry. I have experienced this anger myself because I am a parent, and so just like God, when I see one child doing something awful to another of my children, I am very angry. He doesn't stop loving them any more than I stop loving mine, but yes he is very angry indeed. So God promises that we will indeed see justice done. So where does this anger lead? What does God do? Make a torture chamber in which to inflict suffering on them? No I do not believe this at all. I think we find the answer to the question of what God will do in the first chapter of Romans. "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity" "God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." In other words, we are quite capable of making a hell for ourselves without any help from God at all, so all God has to do is to let us have our own way. Thus I say that hell is where we find our heart's desire, but heaven is where we find God's desire for us.

You say that He God didn't care anything about being God and set aside all His power and knowledge... is that to say that Jesus divested himself of his divine nature? (its a question now, don't say I'm putting words in your mouth please)

I have no problem with questions. On the contary, I love questions. No Jesus did not cease to be the God who created the universe, because God's divinity does not depend on power and knowledge any more than our humanity depends on powers to walk or speak or on retaining memories or information. Thus when Jesus set aside all His power and knowledge, He did not cease to be God anymore than a person ceases to be a human being when he is crippled or forgets something.

Ryan wrote: You never claimed outright that you speak for God, but your words certainly say otherwise...

mitchellmckain wrote: Those who rule by fear and buying obedience with rewards have nothing to do with love but only with power and control. God has no need of such things and so it is rather obvious that these are the doctrines of men who are serving themselves alone.

Ryan wrote: This is illustrative of your speaking for God. You say that "God has no need of such things"... are those His words or yours?

mitchellmckain wrote: No those are not his words, but no that is not speaking for God. That is speaking of the nature of things, you know like saying that a dog does not need gasoline -- that does not speak for the dog but is only an observation of the dog's nature.

Ryan wrote: You can not see the nature of God in the same way you can the nature of a dog

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes I can, because that is the greatest gift of Jesus, that by coming down to live among us as a human being, He showed Himself to us.

Ryan wrote: So you know all of Jesus' nature? Where does Jesus say that he (and by he I mean for our sake) has no need of doctrine? This was the claim that spurred by comment above. Jesus taught the doctrines, did he not?

No what spurred this line of discussion what your attempt to justify your own claims to speak for God by insisting that I am trying to speak for God. So You tried to make my statement about what God does not need into an example of this and I said no that is an example of speaking about the nature of the God that I believe in. You then declared that I cannot see the nature of God and again I refuted your declaration. I can see the nature of the God I believe in and I can therefore make observations about His nature without ever pretending to speak for God. I said that God has no need to rule by fear and buying obedience with rewards, and thus doctrines that portray god in this manner are made by men to serve their own lusts for power and control.

When did you observe God's nature? When did you observe that we (not He) has no need of being ruled by fear or rewarded through obedience? When did you observe these things, Mitchell? How is it that you observed them?

mitchellmckain wrote: John 14:8-9 Philip said to him, "Lord show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

So I ask again in a different way, when did you see Jesus? John did, but have you? You have read and studied about him sure, but you were talking about making observations... reading is learning about yes, but quantitatively different from observing.

And again I ask you, do you or do no not believe that the gospels are an accurate observation of Jesus? But then you answered...

An accurate observation, no.

So you apparently think that when Jesus said to see the Father you only have to look at Him, He was only speaking to the disciples and not to us at all. That makes sense for the legalist religionists who want to say that a secret knowledge and authority has been passed down only to special people so that they can speak for God and wield His authority. But I don't believe in any of that.

And I asked how did you conclude that? What made it so plainly obvious to you that "these doctrines" are of men?

Because what they say reveal the motivations for which they have been said, and knowing God in Jesus, one can see which motivations are from God and which are from human beings.

There are other things that are obvious to me such as the truth of the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity.

Those things are obvious to you? When I hear the word obvious I think of things like, the sky is blue... not complex discoveries that took mankind most of its history and a great many of the smartest minds to understand.

Yes they are obvious to me because I am a scientist and so science has become an extension of my perception of the world for that is nature of science that by reason and method it extends our sight to see much more of the world than we could have before. Yes the evolution of science was long and difficult but not nearly so long and difficult as the evolution of human eyesight. I don't have to reinvent science any more than I have to reinvent human eyesight, I am a product of a long history that has bequeathed an inheritance of many abilities that others have learned and even fought and died for.

Maybe these things are not obvious to you, but that does not change the fact that they are obvious to me.

Apparently you are much brighter than I am. You are right, I don't think they are obvious... there is much still to learn about them, just as there is of God's nature.

Oh yes there is indeed much much much more to learn of the universe and God. In fact, one of the things that you find out is that the more you learn the more questions you have. Awareness is like an expanding sphere, so that the more there is inside the sphere the greater the frontier there is showing all the things that you do not know.

Misappropriation. I stated two of God's attributes, not all of them. God is a God of many attributes, among them are Power, Authority, Love, Righteousness, Mercy and many more, to extrapolate out that a God of Power and Authority is not a God of Love is simply a false understanding.

No it is a matter of priority -- a matter of understanding what is important to God. You harp on and on about your god's obsession with power and authority. Yes of course the God I believe has unlimited power and the authority that comes with perfect knowledge, but what He does not have is this obsession with them that you harp about. That is the obsession of superficial human beings and that is how I know where such doctrines really come from. So when I say that I beliee in a God of Love I am talking about what the God that I believe in thinks is important, and it is by these priorities I see in the God whom I have a personal relationship with, that I can see what truly comes from Him.

You don't have to do what I do to earn salvation or follow the doctrines I follow, but who's doctrines (instructions) do you have to follow?

mitchellmckain wrote: I don't put my faith in doctrines. I put my faith in God -- in God who is reveal by Jesus, in a God who is real and living and active, in a God who can speak for Himself and act for Himself.

Yes, but you missed my point. Doctrines are instructions... so who's instructions do you follow? I didn't ask what you put faith in. I put faith in God as well, the God who is living and active, revealed through Jesus and who can speak and act for Himself... but I follow the instructions (doctrines) which were revealed through Jesus, through his disciples and apostles, through his prophets, and through his church. So I ask again... who's instructions (doctrines) do you follow? "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" do you agree with those words of Jesus or don't you? Questions, not accusations.

mitchellmckain wrote: The disciples were astonished and asked "who then can be saved?" Jesus replied, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." If you are looking for what is enough then you chasing a delsuion because there is no enough. There is nothing that you can do that will accomplish this. Only God can do it.

Again, glad to see we agree on something.

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes my answer to your question is the teachings of Jesus and the apostle Paul. But just as the Pharisees distorted the law to serve them so also has the Gnostic legalists of modern times twisted Christianity into a religion that serves them rather than God.

Apparently I have not missed the point at all you are simply a little quick on the draw to make unfounded accusations, which is how this whole discussion started. Jesus said that as you judge so shall you be judged and thus it is from your accusations that I have had the basis to make judgements of you in response. But as you withdraw your accusations you also withdraw the foundation for the judgements I have made of you. The same thing happened with Jesus and the Pharisees, they looked to find fault in Him and all they accomplished was to reveal to Jesus what was wrong with themselves. I do try to follow in Jesus' footsteps to the degree that I can understand what He is doing.

I have made assertions to be sure and take a postion in that sense. But I have not claimed any authority for myself and so I have not taken on a job or role of prophet. I take the postion (stand) is that was taught by Jesus and the apostle Paul. But the authority is theirs and not mine. However much you believe that the only requirement for being a prophet is to speak, that is not my belief.

The Hebrew and Greek word for prophet literally means "inspired speaker", I am not saying you are a special prophet as in Moses, Samuel and the like, I am saying you (and others) are a prophet in that you (assuming that you are) inspired by God to spread the gospel. The gospel is his, not ours. Neither have I claimed to have any authority.

Well I do indeed think that the inspiration of God is pervasive and to be found everywhere in the world, not only in what He has created but in the words and writings of all kinds of people as well. But the question of what is inspired is more a matter of whether we can see past the banality of human motivations that obscures it. Thus it is not for me to say how my words are inspired but rather the reader to say whether He can find God's pervasive inspiration in what I say or not.

I am imagining nothing, such arguments have been made to me on numerous times. But no unlike you I am claiming that you have said something which you did not say, I am only making an assertion about what I do not accept. The implications you choose to read into what I say with your absurd battle mentality is probably just another manifestation of your habit of inserting your own words into what other people say.

So do you punish me for the arguments made by others?

I am sorry if you are tormented by my effort to explain what I believe and understand, but I will not change what I believe for the sake of your comfort.

Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
Proverbs 9:8-10

So are you a scoffer or a wise man? Or is it possible that you have turned from scoffing in the beginning to learning some tiny tidbits from what I have had to say? Let me say that if the latter is the case, then I have little doubt that I know nothing of what you have learned because as I said, God does use people to speak and this is not the same as people speaking for Him, because rather often God communicates what the speaker never understood.

Thanks for the lively conversation and my apologies for being a stumbling stone in your path.

No you have not been a stumbling stone to me, so there is no need to apologize to me. But I very much hope that you have learned something about how to be less of stumbling stone to those who do not believe. If you have been a stumbling stone to them, then apologize to God, but know that He has a plan that is in no danger of being upset but either my bumbling or yours.

[Ryan]

I was going to give you the last word, and intend to do so for the majority of what you have said here despite my disagreement with your methods and explanations. However, you asked me a couple of questions and I will address those here (along with one other tid bit).

And again I ask you, do you or do no not believe that the gospels are an accurate observation of Jesus? But then you answered...

Ryan wrote:An accurate observation, no.

mitchellmckain wrote: So you apparently think that when Jesus said to see the Father you only have to look at Him, He was only speaking to the disciples and not to us at all. That makes sense for the legalist religionists who want to say that a secret knowledge and authority has been passed down only to special people so that they can speak for God and wield His authority. But I don't believe in any of that.

First things first.... that is not what I said, I said an "accurate account, yes. An accurate observation, no." Not quite the same thing there. Nor am I a "legalist religionist" Now on to the question, unless I am misunderstanding and you aren't asking but making an accusation... No, I think that Jesus said exactly what he meant "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." There isn't anything secret in that. No authority has been passed down to anyone, but given to whom God wills. There is only one who has authority, God. If you weren't asking... sorry

So are you a scoffer or a wise man? Or is it possible that you have turned from scoffing in the beginning to learning some tiny tidbits from what I have had to say? Let me say that if the latter is the case, then I have little doubt that I know nothing of what you have learned because as I said, God does use people to speak and this is not the same as people speaking for Him, because rather often God communicates what the speaker never understood.

A little presumptuous, I could ask you the same thing. To answer your question, I learn from every moment and every conversation, I am neither a scoffer nor a wise man, AND I am both... just a weak man. I understood most of your argument, I see eye to eye with some of it and disagree with other portions, so spins the wheels...



One final point, since I am writing this...

I am sorry if you are tormented by my effort to explain what I believe and understand, but I will not change what I believe for the sake of your comfort.

It wasn't torment, it was insult. I didn't ask you to change what you believe... I asked you to change your method of mis-characterizing what I believe by pulling in some unknown third party who believes something that I do not, but that didn't happen. But, as with all things I won't hold that against you or anyone else.

...so when you have finished learning what the atheists have to teach (if you are even capable of that), then come back to me and see if what I am saying is helpful to you then.

Continually insulting my intelligence like you know me and my history, mis-characterizing my position as though you know it and demonizing others in your effort to explain yourself... What I see in your posts are prideful comments, so sure of yourself that you dismiss (on principle) those who do not agree with you. Hopefully what I am seeing is wrong.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity, my friend. Things I need to work on as well.

[mitchellmckain]

So are you a scoffer or a wise man? Or is it possible that you have turned from scoffing in the beginning to learning some tiny tidbits from what I have had to say? Let me say that if the latter is the case, then I have little doubt that I know nothing of what you have learned because as I said, God does use people to speak and this is not the same as people speaking for Him, because rather often God communicates what the speaker never understood.

A little presumptuous, I could ask you the same thing.

I am a little presumptuous to ask you where you fit in with this Bible passage that you posted. What a puzzling thing to say -- is it not possible that passages in the Bible could have any relevance to you? Hmmm...

Anyway, I shall assume that you do ask the question of me. I do not scoff at honest faith, but yes I do scoff at scoffers -- at those who treat the beliefs of others with contempt - whether they be theist or atheist, Christian or something else. I do seek to learn from every new thing I hear but I admit it is rather hard to learn from someone who is parrotting the same things I have heard a hundred times with very little sign of understanding much of it - sorry. But yes I do learn things from discussions like these all the time.

I am sorry if you are tormented by my effort to explain what I believe and understand, but I will not change what I believe for the sake of your comfort.

It wasn't torment, it was insult.

Then I am sorry if you are insulted by me effort to explain what I believe and understand, but I still will not change what I believe for that reason either. Nor will I be silent because of it.

I asked you to change your method of mis-characterizing what I believe by pulling in some unknown third party who believes something that I do not, but that didn't happen. But, as with all things I won't hold that against you or anyone else.

First I have heard of such a request. Hmmm... well I will take that as request that I not hold your constant gross mischaracterizations by adding your own words to my statements... I don't hold grudges for such things, but if you continue in the same pattern then I will not fail mention it.

...so when you have finished learning what the atheists have to teach (if you are even capable of that), then come back to me and see if what I am saying is helpful to you then.

Continually insulting my intelligence like you know me and my history

It is insulting your intellegence to suggest that you might learn something from atheists? Or is it the fact that I do not assume that you can learn from them? Well as you have observed, I do not know you and there are examples of others who do seem to be incapable of learning from them and so I cannot know if you are like them or different from them, only that you seemed to be talking rather a lot like them. But so far I do not have cause to say that you are in fact like them at all.

mis-characterizing my position as though you know it and demonizing others in your effort to explain yourself...

I have only stated the position that your attacking and accusing posts have implied. Did Jesus demonize the Pharisees? Did the apostle Paul demonize the Judaizers? Both greatly objected to the harm that they were doing, Jesus saying that the Pharisees were shutting the kingdom of God against men, and Paul saying that the unbeleivers blasphemed the name of God because of the religious legalists of his time. I see Christians do the same thing that Jesus and Paul objected to and I think they need to be called out on it, by the very things which they profess to believe and follow. I do not see this as demonizing them.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity, my friend. Things I need to work on as well.

I don't have anything to say in response to this, and although I have heard some parts of the ideas in it, it is nonetheless something I have not heard stated this way before exactly. So I found it interesting to read and think about its meaning.

[tonyenglish7]

Jim,

I could go on and on with this, but I don't think it would matter. I don't really think God is a horrible, arbitrary, fickle, cruel, spiteful, hateful asshole. I think God is good and God is love. And anything in any book, or in any interpretations of things in any book, that contradict that shouldn't be taken seriously. There's no need for all the theological gymnastics and intellectual gyrations we all seem to want to waste our time on. God isn't all that complicated.

Just look around....

Thanks for that honest response. I appreciate what you are saying. You said it very clearly and I know you believe what you are saying. The thing is that what you believe is the most commonly held belief about how God is. God indeed is love, is the cause of all love and is the grounding for all love. He is a good person to seek and find.

But we are free beings and the world has a forward moving time line where each little decision causes the possibility of evil to increase. God has the plan to bring in to eternity, free beings who freely choose him and his plan of salvation from sin. Sin causes suffering and it is the reason things are not the way they ought to be. God has a plan to make a perfect universe where all the beings there are there based upon free will.

God is also just. He is fair, and every evil decision has to be judged. We just got Usama Bid Laden and get received a just end to his evil decisions, not matter how sincere he was. God is loving and he is offering an amazing future in love to anyone who wants to be with God. But God is the center of the universe, the king of it and his followers must submit to this loving perfect being. It is just because his very nature is greatness.

The events in history that God caused directly were because he had an all knowing knowledge of the counterfactual future that would have been if he had not caused the event, i.e. flood, hail stones, raiders or whatever. The event was a key change for the future. You have know idea what small events change the future. God in his love is seeking the right specific persons and I think the largest number of free worshipers. So, events that are both directly caused or allowed will prove to be the best possible way to get to the best possible world.

There are answers to your objections of the bible. If you would dig a little deeper you will see the most amazing love story, revealing a much more loving God than the one you naturally think must exist. This God actually freely came into our world and suffered, died and rose as proof of his love. And he did it for you, so you would find the relationships you were designed to find.

[Ryan]

Sorry to keep coming back, but...

I am a little presumptuous to ask you where you fit in with this Bible passage that you posted. What a puzzling thing to say -- is it not possible that passages in the Bible could have any relevance to you? Hmmm...

No, I didn't say that; is not presumptuous to ask if I am a scoffer or wise man... its a question.

Or is it possible that you have turned from scoffing in the beginning to learning some tiny tidbits from what I have had to say?

...it was presumptuous to to think that I was scoffing, I wasn't, I was disagreeing.

I do not scoff at honest faith, but yes I do scoff at scoffers -- at those who treat the beliefs of others with contempt

Is that not the pot calling the kettle black? Is that not what you were doing, treating others beliefs with contempt? I mean saying that someone who believes God has power and authority are therefor trying to manipulate people... really?

A thought on scoffing scoffers...
Proverbs 3:34: Though He (God) scoffs at the scoffers, Yet He gives grace to the afflicted.
(I certainly wouldn't say I have a right to scoff at a scoffer because I don't have the knowledge that God has therefore scoffing a scoffer would be a fruitless en-devour for me)

I do seek to learn from every new thing I hear but I admit it is rather hard to learn from someone who is parrotting the same things I have heard a hundred times with very little sign of understanding much of it - sorry. But yes I do learn things from discussions like these all the time.

The bible also repeats things over and over, often because we need to hear it over and over for it to sink in.

Then I am sorry if you are insulted by me effort to explain what I believe and understand, but I still will not change what I believe for that reason either. Nor will I be silent because of it.

Sigh... never asked you to change what you believe... did you see that part?

First I have heard of such a request. Hmmm... well I will take that as request that I not hold your constant gross mischaracterizations by adding your own words to my statements...

For which I apologized... and apologize again for mis-characterizing your statement... however unintentional it was. But, glad to see that you ignore the substance of the request and instead take it as a request to do what you want to do. Par for the course I guess... read on

but if you continue in the same pattern then I will not fail mention it.

You haven't so far...wouldn't expect you not to.

...so when you have finished learning what the atheists have to teach (if you are even capable of that), then come back to me and see if what I am saying is helpful to you then.

Ryan wrote: Continually insulting my intelligence like you know me and my history

mitchellmckain wrote: It is insulting your intellegence to suggest that you might learn something from atheists? Or is it the fact that I do not assume that you can learn from them?

"If you are even capable of that" is you not assuming that I can learn from them? Anyone can learn from anyone unless they are mentally incapable of doing so. Whether what they teach is worth learning is another story entirely. (not saying atheists don't have things worth learning, read below) But, how do you know that I haven't learned from atheists already and continue to do so? That seems to be the assumption.

Well as you have observed, I do not know you and there examples of others who do seem to be incapable of learning from them and so I cannot know if you are like them or different from them, only that you seemed to be talking rather a lot like them.

Others are not incapable of learning from them, they are unwilling to learn from them and well within their right to use discernment when choosing who to learn from.

But so far I do not have cause to say that you are in fact like them at all.

Then why treat me like them? Seems like the cart went before the horse there.

I have only stated the position that your attacking and accusing posts have implied.

Maybe we have had two different conversations because you interpreted me as "attacking and accusing" which I was doing neither. I was stating my case, take it or leave it. Not everyone who disagrees with you is persecuting you.

Did Jesus demonize the Pharisees? Did the apostle Paul demonize the Judaizers?

So, after a day of talking you have concluded that I am in the same boat as the Pharisees and Judaizers because I disagree with you? With the measure of judgment you use...

Both greatly objected to the harm that they were doing, Jesus saying that the Pharisees were shutting the kingdom of God against men, and Paul saying that the religious legalists of his time were cause unbelievers to blaspheme the name of God because of them. I see Christians do the same thing that Jesus and Paul saw them doing and I think they need to be called out on it, by the very things which they profess to believe and follow. I do not see this as demonizing them.

It is when you lump everyone together in a collective state and say that people who believe that God is a God of Power and Authority (among many other attributes) are the same as Pharisees and Judaizers. Jesus also said to not take the sliver out of our friends eye before we take the plank out of our own... who can say they have not been a hypocrite at some point?

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity, my friend. Things I need to work on as well.

mitchellmckain wrote: I don't have anything to say in response to this, and although I have heard some parts of the ideas in it, it is nonetheless something I have heard stated this way before exactly. So I found it interesting to read and think about its meaning.

Yeah its a famous saying from the 1600's... that's why you heard it exactly that way. You are entitled to your opinion and we can disagree on non-essential issues, doesn't mean we have to call our Christian brothers and sisters out as modern day Pharisees because we disagree on an issue, hash it out, iron sharpens iron and all that stuff.

[mitchellmckain]

mitchellmckain wrote: I don't have anything to say in response to this, and although I have heard some parts of the ideas in it, it is nonetheless not something I have heard stated this way before exactly. So I found it interesting to read and think about its meaning.

Yeah its a famous saying from the 1600's... that's why you heard it exactly that way. You are entitled to your opinion and we can disagree on non-essential issues, doesn't mean we have to call our Christian brothers and sisters out as modern day Pharisees because we disagree on an issue, hash it out, iron sharpens iron and all that stuff.

Sorry my editing of last post was badly lacking including the missing word "not", which was probably pretty confusing. Anyway thanks for the additional information about that saying which makes it even more interesting to me.


As for the rest of it, I have reached my limit. It has just become too taudry, banal and repetetive to bother with anymore. I have stated my position and reasons for responding the way I did and we will just have to agree to disagree.

[mitchellmckain]

deleted

[JustJim]

Tony,

Thanks for your sincere and thoughtful answers.

Thanks for that honest response. I appreciate what you are saying. You said it very clearly and I know you believe what you are saying. The thing is that what you believe is the most commonly held belief about how God is. God indeed is love, is the cause of all love and is the grounding for all love. He is a good person to seek and find.

Perhaps there are good reasons why that's the most commonly held belief about how God is? Maybe better reasons than for those beliefs that make God out to be a jealous, heartless, egotistical villain?

But we are free beings and the world has a forward moving time line where each little decision causes the possibility of evil to increase. God has the plan to bring in to eternity, free beings who freely choose him and his plan of salvation from sin. Sin causes suffering and it is the reason things are not the way they ought to be. God has a plan to make a perfect universe where all the beings there are there based upon free will.

The way I see it, the possibility of evil exists because we have free will to choose things that are bad for us, our fellow human beings, our planet, and our future well-being - even when we know the potential consequences in advance of our choices, and then make the wrong choice anyhow. There can't be free will without the possibility of evil, here or in some imaginary heaven full of beings with the free will to choose wrongly.

Also, I see "sin" more as the things we choose to do that hurt us or our fellow beings out of our own greed, selfishness, lack of love, etc. Those things we choose to do that hurt us or others out of ignorance, stupidity, or simply by mistake - without malice or evil intent - are not sins, I don't think. That is also why I don't think it's a sin to not believe in God. But I think you see sin as anything you think God would find offensive, regardless of the underlying factors or intentions involved. You think it is a sin simply to disobey God, because of the disobedience, whereas I would see disobeying God as sin because of the consequences of that disobedience. IOW, I don't think anything is sinful just because it offends God, but rather because the consequences of the act are harmful or hurtful. Breaking "the rules" is not a sin on its own; it only becomes a sin when the consequences of breaking the rules cause pain, harm, or suffering. It's the consequences of an act that make it a sin or not.

God is also just. He is fair, and every evil decision has to be judged.

It would not be just, I don't think, for God to endow people with free will, intelligence, and a natural sense of the difference between right and wrong, and then turn right around and punish them for exercising those gifts and coming innocently to the wrong conclusions about things like whether he exists or not.

But God is the center of the universe, the king of it and his followers must submit to this loving perfect being. It is just because his very nature is greatness.

No, his very nature is not greatness. It's LOVE. God is a servant king, not an evil despot demanding submission and worship from his subjects.

The events in history that God caused directly were because he had an all knowing knowledge of the counterfactual future that would have been if he had not caused the event, i.e. flood, hail stones, raiders or whatever.

If you're including the murders of innocents and other such atrocities to further his own agenda as part of God's plan, I think you're wrong. None of those things were caused by God. They may have been blamed on God or erroneously attributed to God, but God had nothing to do with them because they contradict his nature. They were caused by human beings. In the case of natural "disasters" like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc., I don't think any of those things are "caused" by God either. They're just part of how the world works. We're slowly learning how to protect ourselves from their effects, but we'll never be able to prevent them from happening. But I think God has enabled us to use our free will, intellect, and sense of morality to minimize the impacts of such disasters on our fellow human beings and to make the best of bad situations.

There are answers to your objections of the bible. If you would dig a little deeper you will see the most amazing love story, revealing a much more loving God than the one you naturally think must exist. This God actually freely came into our world and suffered, died and rose as proof of his love. And he did it for you, so you would find the relationships you were designed to find.

I've read the Bible cover-to-cover eight times, in several versions and translations, and read the New Testament beginning-to-end several more times. I've read my favorite individual books of the Bible many more times. I've studied the Bible from a few different perspectives and angles, and I've had a couple different intensive courses of instruction in Bible study. I completed an entire course of study for a Masters of Religion degree, but without attending the classes or earning the degree. The Bible is easily the most fantastic thing I've ever read. I've learned more from reading and studying it than from any other sources I can think of. There's a lot in the Bible I don't think should be there, but that's not God's fault. He didn't write it or compile it. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that's attributed to God or presented as God's "will" that I think is more likely the totally subjective, uninspired, interpretation and opinion of the author. A lot of those opinions, I think, were mistaken. When things in the Bible contradict the totally unconditional, boundless, overflowing "agape" nature of God, then I think those things are not the "word of God" and shouldn't be taken as such. When things in the Bible contradict what we are able to see of the world now, even though they may not have been able to see those things at the time it was written, then I think we must go with what our eyes (science) reveal to us.

Jesus is another matter entirely... and I'm still not sure who or what he was or is. I'm working on it, as I have been for years, and can't seem to stop. I don't want to stop. I know that when people say things like, "God actually freely came into our world and suffered, died and rose as proof of his love. And he did it for you, so you would find the relationships you were designed to find," it pretty much turns me off and away. I know your intent is only good and you only have my best interests, as you see them, at heart. So I'm not angry or offended. I just see those kinds of things as cliché. If simply saying those things worked, there'd be no atheists. What I end up believing, I've slowly and painfully discovered, must come from somewhere inside of me. So that's where I'm searching....

Jim

[Ryan]

As for the rest of it, I have reached my limit. It has just become too taudry, banal and repetetive to bother with anymore. I have stated my position and reasons for responding the way I did and we will just have to agree to disagree.

I agree 100% with that, thanks for the conversation

[tonyenglish7]

Just Jim,

The way I see it, the possibility of evil exists because we have free will to choose things that are bad for us, our fellow human beings, our planet, and our future well-being - even when we know the potential consequences in advance of our choices, and then make the wrong choice anyhow. There can't be free will without the possibility of evil, here or in some imaginary heaven full of beings with the free will to choose wrongly.

Jim wrote: Also, I see "sin" more as the things we choose to do that hurt us or our fellow beings out of our own greed, selfishness, lack of love, etc. Those things we choose to do that hurt us or others out of ignorance, stupidity, or simply by mistake - without malice or evil intent - are not sins, I don't think. That is also why I don't think it's a sin to not believe in God. But I think you see sin as anything you think God would find offensive, regardless of the underlying factors or intentions involved. You think it is a sin simply to disobey God, because of the disobedience, whereas I would see disobeying God as sin because of the consequences of that disobedience. IOW, I don't think anything is sinful just because it offends God, but rather because the consequences of the act are harmful or hurtful. Breaking "the rules" is not a sin on its own; it only becomes a sin when the consequences of breaking the rules cause pain, harm, or suffering. It's the consequences of an act that make it a sin or not.

Interesting. I think I almost agree, in that the things done in ignorance and without evil intent are not as bad as those done with intent and awareness. And I think God is fair and will take all things into account. In fact, he is the only person who has the true perspective on how each person was thinking, what they knew and when they knew it. The problem is, we have all acted with intent, caused pain and suffering and even when we thought out little sin was not hurting anyone, many times it did, in the long run. So even if we agree on the idea that sin is lack of love, selfishness, greed etc.. we have an issue that needs to be dealt with. But God is also a king, and there are divine commands that should be obeyed. Even if you didn't hurt anyone, yet rebeled against God's divine commands, this would be a sin as well....

Tony wrote:
God is also just. He is fair, and every evil decision has to be judged.

Jim wrote:It would not be just, I don't think, for God to endow people with free will, intelligence, and a natural sense of the difference between right and wrong, and then turn right around and punish them for exercising those gifts and coming innocently to the wrong conclusions about things like whether he exists or not.

The whole grounding for justice is found it God, so, your sense of justice I think is grounded in objective truth and basically correct. And he will not judge those who innocently came to the wrong conclusions. But he has no obligation to exult them into an eternally glory of perfection that cannot be imagined by the human mind. They will just get what fairness demands. I am confident that whatever that is, it will be fair. The opportunity to have lived in God's universe is a gift of grace itself. There are a lot of potential individuals that never got that chance.

Tony wrote:
But God is the center of the universe, the king of it and his followers must submit to this loving perfect being. It is just because his very nature is greatness.

Jim wrote: No, his very nature is not greatness. It's LOVE. God is a servant king, not an evil despot demanding submission and worship from his subjects.

Where do you get this idea that he is a servant king? If it is from Jesus, you should read the other things he said as well. (I know you have) God has greatness in every one of his attributes, love is one, but holiness, knowledge, power, existence, etc... So, yes, love is his nature and the greatness of his love is his nature. But he has a plan, he is doing something with a purpose. This universe is only the seed that will germinate into the perfect universe and now is the time for the persons to die as Jesus said in order to live for God.

Tony wrote:
The events in history that God caused directly were because he had an all knowing knowledge of the counterfactual future that would have been if he had not caused the event, i.e. flood, hail stones, raiders or whatever.

Jim wrote: If you're including the murders of innocents and other such atrocities to further his own agenda as part of God's plan, I think you're wrong. None of those things were caused by God. They may have been blamed on God or erroneously attributed to God, but God had nothing to do with them because they contradict his nature. They were caused by human beings. In the case of natural "disasters" like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc., I don't think any of those things are "caused" by God either. They're just part of how the world works. We're slowly learning how to protect ourselves from their effects, but we'll never be able to prevent them from happening. But I think God has enabled us to use our free will, intellect, and sense of morality to minimize the impacts of such disasters on our fellow human beings and to make the best of bad situations.

God gives life and has the right to take it away. Life is like a lease, you can be evicted anytime the owner desires. But what is innocence? The pagans that worshipped devils and tortured their babies in honor of the pagan gods? He had a right to end that breed of humans by culling them from the human race for its own good. And as long as there is even one potential explanation for an act that seems wrong, there is no way you can claim that this God is evil. Where do you find the evidence for the God you claim is passively weak, a servant of man (genie) and only loving and not just? Please give some evidence for this creature you claim is god?

Tony wrote:
There are answers to your objections of the bible. If you would dig a little deeper you will see the most amazing love story, revealing a much more loving God than the one you naturally think must exist. This God actually freely came into our world and suffered, died and rose as proof of his love. And he did it for you, so you would find the relationships you were designed to find.


Jim Wrote: I've read the Bible cover-to-cover eight times, in several versions and translations, and read the New Testament beginning-to-end several more times. I've read my favorite individual books of the Bible many more times. I've studied the Bible from a few different perspectives and angles, and I've had a couple different intensive courses of instruction in Bible study. I completed an entire course of study for a Masters of Religion degree, but without attending the classes or earning the degree. The Bible is easily the most fantastic thing I've ever read. I've learned more from reading and studying it than from any other sources I can think of. There's a lot in the Bible I don't think should be there, but that's not God's fault. He didn't write it or compile it. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that's attributed to God or presented as God's "will" that I think is more likely the totally subjective, uninspired, interpretation and opinion of the author. A lot of those opinions, I think, were mistaken. When things in the Bible contradict the totally unconditional, boundless, overflowing "agape" nature of God, then I think those things are not the "word of God" and shouldn't be taken as such. When things in the Bible contradict what we are able to see of the world now, even though they may not have been able to see those things at the time it was written, then I think we must go with what our eyes (science) reveal to us.

Maybe you should edit the bible and take out the parts you think are not of God and publish a true bible?

Jesus is another matter entirely... and I'm still not sure who or what he was or is. I'm working on it, as I have been for years, and can't seem to stop. I don't want to stop. I know that when people say things like, "God actually freely came into our world and suffered, died and rose as proof of his love. And he did it for you, so you would find the relationships you were designed to find," it pretty much turns me off and away. I know your intent is only good and you only have my best interests, as you see them, at heart. So I'm not angry or offended. I just see those kinds of things as cliché. If simply saying those things worked, there'd be no atheists. What I end up believing, I've slowly and painfully discovered, must come from somewhere inside of me. So that's where I'm searching....

Is it true that if the bible worked, there would be no atheists? I am sorry that the act of Jesus, being submissive to the kind of death he suffered as a display of his love for you, is cliché. But if you keep searching, maybe you will realize this cliché reveals the kind of God we have. There is a lot more to the truth revealed in the bible than just logical evidence that will cause people to bend their knees in worship and obedience. But think about that for a moment. If God exists, he could certainly reveal himself so strongly that everyone would be forced to submit to his authority. But this is not what God wants. He is looking for those who want him as their King, ruler, purpose and leader. So, he is ontologically distant just enough to allow freedom, which leads to sin, which leads to judgment and also leads to a gracious way to create free individuals who will be changed, never able to sin or make ignorant bad decisions as you say.

The perfect world is on its way and it is better than any individual can imagine. The story is not over yet. I suggest you continue, as I will, to seek this Jesus you and I are discussing. The story that you are god and all you have to do is look within is a false story. But the only place you will find the real God is within your inner man as you honestly search for the truth. Jesus said, the kingdom of God is within you and in your midst. So it is not a religion, as you know. It is a relationship with the risen Jesus. If you earnestly seek him

[mikedsjr]

For me, it's not a matter of what God should be like, Tony. It's what a God who "is Love", who is all-powerful and all-knowing, who truly and genuinely loves each and every one of us would be like. I think such a God would act the way he wants us to act. I think he would treat us the way he expects us to treat each other. I don't think he would do things that anyone, by any standards of common decency, would consider to be atrociously cruel and totally unloving.

To use a beaten-to-death example, I don't think he would kill (or order the killing of) thousands of innocent men, women, children, elderly, weak, helpless, defenseless people to prove a point, show his power, or for any other reason. (By "innocent" I mean people who try their best to be good people, who are remorseful for their failures to live up to their moral standards and commit themselves to turn away from their mistakes, selfishness, anger, lust, etc., who would never intentionally cause harm, pain, or suffering to another human being, and so on.) Apologist "explanations" for the atrocities described in the Bible make things even worse. To say God is God, and therefore he can do whatever he chooses to do, makes God out to be less than all-knowing, impotent, unloving, and arbitrary. To say God knows things we don't/can't know, and therefore he is justified in acting in the very ways he forbids us from acting, makes God out to hold to a double standard of what's right and wrong.

Jim, i snipped out the part that is central to your position. I think you make a fair point against people using the statement, "I think God is God and therefore he can do whatever he chooses" without any sort of basis for what they mean. I do agree with that statement. Scripture teaches us that God doesn't kill people to prove a point with no basis behind it. The difference between you, Scott, Mitch and others versus a position than My position, and more or less Tony's, is we believe God is Just as well.

you make the statement,

I mean people who try their best to be good people, who are remorseful for their failures to live up to their moral standards and commit themselves to turn away from their mistakes, selfishness, anger, lust, etc., who would never intentionally cause harm, pain, or suffering to another human being, and so on.

Here is where you and I part ways. You don't believe all scripture to be God's word. And in that you have to pick and choose what to believe and not to believe. Romans 3:10 says there is no one good. The most important commandment in scripture is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. Every single day you and i fail at this. I'm guilty. You're guilty. We are all guilty. Very few make it through a day without failing at this. yet what you are telling me is that God, Holy and perfect, should not punish a crime against him, which that is what sin is, but just forgive and forget because He isn't Just, but only Love. So really, Love, your definition of love, is God and not God is God.

I don't want to misrepresent you and i'm sorry if i have. The issue comes down to scripture and rightly understanding it. i'm not perfect. I rely on many others that have far more understanding to help me put the pieces together that i don't get.