"Friendship with the world"

by Schizm 108 Replies latest jw friends

Schizm

Schizm,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the identities of the beasts/heads/horns of Daniel and Revelation.

Yep!
.
MerryMagdalene

This will clear up the whole James chapter 4 thing, I'm sure of it...from Merry's Primitive Bible Translation by the Under-educated, for the Under-educated (using Strong's Concordance):
1) Whence come wars and battles among you? Are they not from your sensual pleasures that go to war among your body parts?
2) You set your heart upon something and grasp it not; are a murderer and have heated feelings for something and are not able to chance upon it; war and battle but grasp not, asking not.
3) You ask and grasp not on the very account of asking badly in order to expend on your pleasures.
4) Male paramours and female paramours, see not that fondness for [friendship with] the adorning and arrangement of things [world (Gk. kosmos)] is hatred of God?
5) Or do you think that the document relates to no purpose that the breath that resides within us craves intensely with ill will?
6) But of the giving of greater gratification, therefore, is related, "God ranges himself against those appearing above others but gives gratification to the low."
7) Subordinate yourself certainly to God. Cleanse your hands, losers, and make clean your hearts, double-thinkers/double-talkers.
and so on
Looks to me like this is basically a diatribe against the desire for material wealth, status, and sensual gratification and the attempt to get it at the expense of others' well-being as well as one's own.
--Merry (who does not believe the Bible is the Word of God but is interested in it because of all the trouble it has caused down through the centuries)
Schizm

Neon,
Thats because my preferred way is to read and believe what the Bible says. ... None of the texts we have been discussing imply in the slightest that God permits human rulership, all of them explicitly state that He establishes them.
I'm afraid your mind is so closed that it can't grasp the fact that just the opposite of what you say here is true. Yes, your "preferred way" conforms to the way that most commentaries explain Romans 13, but that's because the authors of those commentaries just don't "get it" either.
You find it necessary to infer a meaning that is not there because of your subjective interpretation of Daniel and Revelation.
That's not exactly true. As I've already said, those parts of the Bible merely confirm that my explanation of Roman's 13 is superior to yours. Also, it's not for no reason at all that governments who have exercised Universal Rule (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome) are symbolized as "beasts". Each and every one of these governments exhibited bestial tendencies during their tenure of ruling over mankind.
bestial 1. Beastly. 2. Marked by brutality or depravity.

God has simply allowed man to govern himself in accordance with man's wish. Adam and Eve insisted on self-rule, did they not? How can you claim that God is to blame for what governments do when God is merely accommodating man's wish of ruling himself?
I trust that you realize that what you are saying here is simply parroting Watchtower theology, and is not Biblical?
Oh my, give me a break! Yes, what I'm saying does indeed conform to what the Watchtower says on the subject. But I say it because I myself am convinced that the reasoning is sound. What would you have me do, reject it simply because the "Watchtower" teaches it?
God is Sovereign, and is fully in control of all man's affairs. He foreknew that Adam and Eve would sin and what the consequences would be.
That's not the least bit true. Why? Because, unlike their progeny (such as Esau), Adam and Eve were as white as snow, pure and innocent, prior to their sin. The direction those two would take was to be determined by whether or not they would obey God with regards to not eating from that certain tree. Until they took that step nobody--not Satan, not the angels, not even God Himself--knew what they would do.
This business of Satan posing a serious challenge to God's sovereignty is merely another expression of the open theism and finite godism that charactertizes Watchtower theology.
Man, you didn't learn anything at all during the time you were a JW.
Adam and Eve did not "insist on self-rule," except in the vague sense that they disobeyed.
No, they didn't just simply disobey. Their act of disobedience was an expression of their wish to do as they themselves would please, rather than that which their Creator had stipulated. Yes, they took off on a course of "self-rule" by doing the opposite of what God commanded.
You find it illogical that God would place Hitler in his position and then allow him to rule any way he wishes, yet find it believable that God would place (or allow, if you prefer) Satan in a position of rulership over the earth and allow him to rule in any way he wishes? Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me....
It is YOU who says that God placed Hitler in his position and then allowed him to rule as he wished. And, from what you say here, I gather that YOU also believe that God placed Satan in a position of rulership over the earth and has allowed him to do as he pleases. You're wrong on both counts! God did NOT place Hitler in his position. Neither did He place Satan in a rulership position. What Satan and Hitler did was by ALLOWANCE, and NOT by appointment as you argue.
If a business owner allows a manager under his authority [whom he appointed] to operate in any way he pleases, the owner is fully responsible for whatever the manager does. How can you think that God somehow escapes such responsibility because you choose to believe that He merely "allows" Satan to operate freely?
You see what I inserted into your comment? Yes, I would agree that in the case of a manager whom a business owner has APPOINTED to that position, the owner indeed becomes responsible for whatever his manager does. But it was NOT by God's appointment that Satan operates freely!
"Actually say" ... *LOL* Shall I repeat myself as many times as you do? *LOL* Will that prove anything if I do? No, not any more that you do by repeating yourself.
Frankly, my repetition is deliberate. Call it "repetition for emphasis" if you want. The simple fact is that you seem to keep missing the point.
No, I've understood from the beginning exactly where you are coming from. There's no need for you to keep repeating the same thing over and over, unless, of course, you need to in order to keep yourself convinced.
Translation: "I wouldn't dare try to figure out the meaning of the symbols of Revelation". Well, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you. You're afraid to step in and get your feet wet it seems.
Well, no, that's not an accurate translation. I have my opinions about what Revelation means, but I don't think they are particularly germane to this discussion, since I don't interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of my personal opinions about Revelation.
And neither do I, and it's not fair of you to continue to insinuate that I do.
I guess you can consider yourself whatever you want, but being a "scholar" usually implies having some academic credentials.
You mean like having studied at some theological Seminary? Do you realize what you're saying here? You're saying that attending a Seminary is a prerequisite if the Bible is to be properly understood. Are you sure that you want to stick with that?
The thing that worries me the most is that you seem to parrot Watchtower theology to such a great degree. The WT organization fits the Biblical definition of a false prophet to a "T",
Well that's altogether a different subject.
.
NeonMadman

Yes, your "preferred way" conforms to the way that most commentaries explain Romans 13, but that's because the authors of those commentaries just don't "get it" either.

Yes, somehow they seem to have missed the concept of "permitting" that you have inferred from the text without justification. I wonder why they would fail to "get" a concept that is absent from the text?
As I've already said, those parts of the Bible merely confirm that my explanation of Roman's 13 is superior to yours.
But those parts of the Bible are the only evidence you have offered for your position, other than that it makes sense to you. What can I conclude but that you are allowing your interpretation of prophecy to override what the Bible clearly states?
What would you have me do, reject it simply because the "Watchtower" teaches it?
No, not necessarily. But I would not give it any credence because the Watchtower teaches it, either. And the fact that the doctrine is held only by an organization that can be proven to be a false prophet at least makes it highly suspect and subject to severe scrutiny. But you're right, there may be a few things they aren't wrong about. I just don't think this is one of them.
Dang, last time it was red print, now I can't get rid of this highlighting...
Until they took that step nobody--not Satan, not the angels, not even God Himself--knew what they would do.
This is what I was talking about when I referred in an earlier post to the "open theism" of the Watchtower. They believe in a God who doesn't know the future, and I see that's another one of their completely unscriptural beliefs that you cling to. My God "knows the end from the beginning." Sorry about yours.
Man, you didn't learn anything at all during the time you were a JW.
Either that, or you learned too much. I learned it all well, and rejected it on the basis of further study of the Bible. What they teach cannot be demonstrated by Scripture alone; it requires the "explanations" of the "faithful and discreet slave" to make it all work. Tell me, do you still think that the anointed JW's are the F&DS class? It wouldn't surprise me if you do, since you are clearly still locked into their flawed theology.
Yes, I would agree that in the case of a manager whom a business owner has APPOINTED to that position, the owner indeed becomes responsible for whatever his manager does. But it was NOT by God's appointment that Satan operates freely!
So we come around again to the illustration of the dog owner who sits on his porch doing nothing while his dog mauls a child outside his house. Is he not responsible because he didn't directly sic the dog on the kid? If an owner somehow had a manager working for him whom he had not directly appointed, but he allowed the manager to operate and to continue in his position and to operate freely once he became aware of the manager's activities, do you think for a minute that any court in the land would absolve the owner of responsibility for that manager's activities?
This principle has a real practical application in my business. I am in a service industry, in which contracts are usually written for a period of time, several years at a clip. Now, occasionally, a business owner will try to argue his way out of the contract claiming that the individual who signed it (usually a manager of some type) wasn't authorized to sign contracts. That argument might work (though it might not) if it was made within the first service period, but once the owner has allowed service to continue over any period of time, perhaps even paying his invoices, he becomes as responsible as if he had signed the contract himself.
You are suggesting that God is not responsible for what Satan does because He did not directly appoint Satan. Yet God clearly has the power to stop Satan's activities at any time (well, maybe your God doesn't, since he doesnt know the future and undoubtedly tends to be surprised by what Satan does). Clearly, whatever happens - whatever Satan does - must be within the sovereign will of God, as in the case of Job.
I don't interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of my personal opinions about Revelation.
And neither do I, and it's not fair of you to continue to insinuate that I do.
Well, you haven't given me any other basis for your reading the concept of "permitting" into Romans 13, except that (1) it makes sense to you, and (2) it harmonizes with your interpretation of Revelation 13. So, until I see some other reasons, I'll have to stand by my statement.
You mean like having studied at some theological Seminary? Do you realize what you're saying here? You're saying that attending a Seminary is a prerequisite if the Bible is to be properly understood.
I said no such thing. Understanding of the Bible comes from study and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. What I did say was that calling oneself a "scholar" is normally associated with having academic credentials. But since I no longer share the Watchtower's hatred of the clergy, I think that studying at a seminary can certainly help one to better understand the Bible. Interestingly, while the Watchtower denigrates a seminary education, they are quick to quote scholars of Christendom when they think that doing so will lend credibility to their own teachings. And the absolute lack of any sort of academic credentials among Watchtower leadership should lead one to seriously question their theological positions.
Schizm

And the fact that the doctrine [governments rule only by God's permission] is held only by [the WTS]....--Neon.

You've just confirmed that the WTS is unique with regards to an understanding of one of the most important things there is for a Christian to know about. If the WTS is correct in this matter, and it quite obviously is, then that means that the whole of Christendom are suckers for Satan.
As I've already said, those parts of the Bible merely confirm that my explanation of Roman's 13 is superior to yours.--Schizm.

But those parts of the Bible are the only evidence you have offered for your position, other than that it makes sense to you.--Neon.

What you are doing is choosing to ignore that which you cannot contend with. For example:
That's not exactly true. As I've already said, those parts of the Bible merely confirm that my explanation of Roman's 13 is superior to yours. Also, it's not for no reason at all that governments who have exercised Universal Rule (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome) are symbolized as "beasts". Each and every one of these governments exhibited bestial tendencies during their tenure of ruling over mankind.
bestial 1. Beastly. 2. Marked by brutality or depravity.
Yes just as one would have expected YOU to do, you chose to disregard what I said there. You had no rebuttal because of your ineptitude in this field, in spite of the fact that it's so simple and plain that even a young man would have no trouble at all with it.
Another example:
God is Sovereign, and is fully in control of all man's affairs. He foreknew that Adam and Eve would sin and what the consequences would be.--Neon.
That's not the least bit true. Why? Because, unlike their progeny (such as Esau), Adam and Eve were as white as snow, pure and innocent, prior to their sin. The direction those two would take was to be determined by whether or not they would obey God with regards to not eating from that certain tree. Until they took that step nobody--not Satan, not the angels, not even God Himself--knew what they would do.--Schizm.
Without giving much thought at all to what I had said there in my reply to you, you responded as follows:
Until they took that step nobody--not Satan, not the angels, not even God Himself--knew what they would do.--Schizm.
This is what I was talking about when I referred in an earlier post to the "open theism" of the Watchtower. They believe in a God who doesn't know the future, and I see that's another one of their completely unscriptural beliefs that you cling to. My God "knows the end from the beginning." Sorry about yours.--Neon.
You know, or at least should know, that what you said there is absolutely FALSE! And you obviously gave no thought to what I'd spoken before you got busy typing up your reply. What's the use in my even talking to you?
Another example:
Adam and Eve did not "insist on self-rule," except in the vague sense that they disobeyed.--Neon.
No, they didn't just simply disobey. Their act of disobedience was an expression of their wish to do as they themselves would please, rather than that which their Creator had stipulated. Yes, they took off on a course of "self-rule" by doing the opposite of what God commanded.--Schizm.
Again, as one would expect, you chose to avoid what I said there too. Yes, you tip-toed around that one too didn't you. Not one word out of you! You pick and choose what you want to reply to, which says a lot about how much you REALLY know about God and the Bible.
.
NeonMadman

You've just confirmed that the WTS is unique with regards to an understanding of one of the most important things there is for a Christian to know about. If the WTS is correct in this matter, and it quite obviously is, then that means that the whole of Christendom are suckers for Satan.

I guess it's obvious only to you, since it certainly isn't supportable by scripture. It seemed obvious to me, too, back when I was willing to allow the WTS to tell me what to think. The whole thing fell apart when I actually started to require Biblical proof for what I believed. Every cult has unique doctrines; it doesn't make them correct.
What you are doing is choosing to ignore that which you cannot contend with.
No, but I have chosen several times during our discussion to ignore arguments that I thought were so silly they didn't deserve a reply, like the one you cite in support of the above statement:
it's not for no reason at all that governments who have exercised Universal Rule (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome) are symbolized as "beasts". Each and every one of these governments exhibited bestial tendencies during their tenure of ruling over mankind. ... bestial 1. Beastly. 2. Marked by brutality or depravity
There have certainly been governments throughout history marked by such behavior, but that has not been true of every government that has ever existed. While it may be true that some of the governments in question did exhibit "beastly" tendencies, it is by no means clear that that was what God intended to imply by depicting them metaphorically as beasts. Such an assertion is mere speculation, and is not directly supported by scripture. Otherwise, we might have to conclude that God also intended to imply that the same governments were silent, unmoving and lifeless, since He depicted them as a statue in Daniel 2.
Furthermore, none of the governments you identify with the beasts of Daniel 7 exercised "Universal Rule," as you suggest. None of the governments in question, for example, ruled over China or the Native American peoples. What they did have in common was that each of them exercised rulership over God's people.But to assert that these governments exercised "Universal Rule" is simply false. And to then spin that false assertion into an argument that an entirely different "beast" mentioned in a completely different part of the Bible must of necessity represent some symbolic amalgam of those four beasts in Daniel is simply scholastically dishonest. Your entire argument is a non-sequitur, yet you choose to interpret away the plain statements of Romans 13 on the basis of it.
This is what I was talking about when I referred in an earlier post to the "open theism" of the Watchtower. They believe in a God who doesn't know the future, and I see that's another one of their completely unscriptural beliefs that you cling to. My God "knows the end from the beginning." Sorry about yours.--Neon.
You know, or at least should know, that what you said there is absolutely FALSE! -Schizm
You accuse me of making a false statement when I say that the God of Jehovah's Witnesses does not know the future, yet continue to assert that he did not know in advance whether Adam and Eve would sin. Which is it? Does he know the future or not? If you are planning to give the stock Watchtower answer that he chooses not to know, I would ask for even one explicit scripture demonstrating that God sometimes chooses not to know things.
What's the use in my even talking to you?
Funny, I've been asking myself that question. It's pretty clear to me that you approach the Bible in typical JW fashion: you already know what you believe and are looking for proof texts to support it. If a certain text seems to say something different, you just read a different meaning into it than what the Bible actually says. I find it almost funny (but sadly not so) that you actually ridiculed my repeated insistence on reading "what the Bible actually says." Clearly, you are not interested in doing so, but only in finding ways to support Watchtower dogma.
No, they didn't just simply disobey. Their act of disobedience was an expression of their wish to do as they themselves would please, rather than that which their Creator had stipulated. Yes, they took off on a course of "self-rule" by doing the opposite of what God commanded.--Schizm.
Again, as one would expect, you chose to avoid what I said there too. Yes, you tip-toed around that one too didn't you. Not one word out of you! You pick and choose what you want to reply to, which says a lot about how much you REALLY know about God and the Bible.
Yep, I tip-toed all the way around the fact that you had made an argument simply by assertion, without a whit of scriptural backing. You are so used to equating Watchtower dogma with Biblical fact, that I really don't think you even know when you are doing it. You accuse me of avoiding your argument as if you had actually offered one. All you did was make an assertion without offering any evidence whatsoever to back it up. And I think that speaks volumes about how much YOU really know about God and the Bible.
To be more specific, it is strictly YOUR opinion (cribbed from the Watchtower, of course) that "their act of disobedience was an expression of their wish to do as they themselves would please, rather than that which their Creator had stipulated." No text of Scripture makes such a statement about their motives, and it is pure speculation that they had such an intent. But again, you are prepared to read whatever you need to into the Bible in order to support the dogma of the false prophet you follow. What Jesus said of false prophets was that "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Instead of following their false and speculative teachings, you should be re-examining scripture from the ground up to find out what it really says.
Schizm

it's not for no reason at all that governments who have exercised Universal Rule (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome) are symbolized as "beasts". Each and every one of these governments exhibited bestial tendencies during their tenure of ruling over mankind. ... bestial 1. Beastly. 2. Marked by brutality or depravity

....While it may be true that some of the governments in question did exhibit "beastly" tendencies, it is by no means clear that that was what God intended to imply by depicting them metaphorically as beasts. Such an assertion is mere speculation, and is not directly supported by scripture. Otherwise, we might have to conclude that God also intended to imply that the same governments were silent, unmoving and lifeless, since He depicted them as a statue in Daniel 2.

No, again you don't know what you're talking about. The "statue" in Daniel 2 resembles a man, meaning that those governments represented by it's four parts = man's rule, as opposed to God's rule.
Furthermore, none of the governments you identify with the beasts of Daniel 7 exercised "Universal Rule," as you suggest. None of the governments in question, for example, ruled over China....
Oh, but you're quite mistaken. And if you really knew your Bible then you'd not have made such a ridiculous claim (hint: "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling"; Da 2:38 ... and there are other proof texts as well).
You accuse me of making a false statement when I say that the God of Jehovah's Witnesses does not know the future, yet continue to assert that he did not know in advance whether Adam and Eve would sin. Which is it? Does he know the future or not?
Again, you're not listening. I've already hit on that point and I'm not going to continue to hold your hand and lead you back to where you've overlooked my explanations. Go back and find them for yourself! This time pay more attention.
If you are planning to give the stock Watchtower answer that he chooses not to know, I would ask for even one explicit scripture demonstrating that God sometimes chooses not to know things.
If you'd been paying attention then you would of taken note of the fact that my explanation is different than that of the Watchtowers. But who would ever accuse you of paying attention!
To be more specific, it is strictly YOUR opinion (cribbed from the Watchtower, of course) that "their act of disobedience was an expression of their wish to do as they themselves would please, rather than that which their Creator had stipulated." No text of Scripture makes such a statement about their motives, and it is pure speculation that they had such an intent.
You're a hopeless case, that's for sure. Even a young person can understand this point about the Bible, but not YOU. It's really a quite simple thing to see.
But again, you are prepared to read whatever you need to into the Bible in order to support the dogma of the false prophet you follow.
You really ought to get down off of your soap box and stop making false assertions such as this. There's a lot of things that I disagree with the Watchtower on. If it were true that I "follow" the WT then would I disagree with them at the same time?
.
NeonMadman

No, again you don't know what you're talking about. The "statue" in Daniel 2 resembles a man, meaning that those governments represented by it's four parts = man's rule, as opposed to God's rule.

And we know that's the correct interpretation because you said it is.
Oh, but you're quite mistaken. And if you really knew your Bible then you'd not have made such a ridiculous claim (hint: "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling"; Da 2:38 ... and there are other proof texts as well).
So it's your contention that the neo-Babylonian empire ruled over the Chinese, the Native Americans, the aborigines of Australia, etc.? There are a lot of historians who will be interested in your discoveries, just as soon as you present them with the evidence. Is it possible that Daniel was speaking in hyperbole in verse 38? Is it possible that he was referring to the world that was known to him at that time, rather than the entire ("universal") world? No, I guess those are not possible because that's not the way that you interpret it, so that can't be correct. The fact that the rest of the Bible disagrees with you (if you read what it actually says -oops, I did it again!) makes no difference when you have the "Present Truth", does it?
Again, you're not listening. I've already hit on that point and I'm not going to continue to hold your hand and lead you back to where you've overlooked my explanations. Go back and find them for yourself! This time pay more attention.
I can't go back and find what isn't there. Time after time in this thread, you've asserted that you had "proved" various things. When I went back to check what you had said, I found that you had merely asserted them without offering any proof at all. Apparently you don't know the difference, and I'm not about to hold your hand any longer to point out your foolishness, since you are obviously quite convinced of your own infallibility.
You're a hopeless case, that's for sure. Even a young person can understand this point about the Bible, but not YOU. It's really a quite simple thing to see.
There seem to be a lot of things that you find "simple to see" that just aren't in the Bible. I choose not to impose my own opinions on scripture, and when I do hold an opinion as to what a text means (but doesn't plainly say), I try to present it as my opinion, and not as fact. You should consider doing the same.
There's a lot of things that I disagree with the Watchtower on. If it were true that I "follow" the WT then would I disagree with them at the same time?
Well, it's certain that you still have their all-or-nothing mentality, since you think it is impossible to "follow" them without agreeing in every detail. Yes, it is entirely possible that you could regard them as generally led by God and follow them in the sense of believing the general structure of their theology, yet still disagree with them on certain details. I dare say there are a lot of JW's who hold at least some private disagreements on minor issues, but who are afraid to voice them because of the Watchtower's oppressive intolerance toward dissent. You are clearly still mentally locked into their structure of Biblical interpretation, and in that sense you continue to follow a false prophet, even if you are no longer actually a member of the organization itself (which I don't know, since you haven't stated it).
Schizm

No, again you don't know what you're talking about. The "statue" in Daniel 2 resembles a man, meaning that those governments represented by it's four parts = man's rule, as opposed to God's rule.

And we know that's the correct interpretation because you said it is.

Well, I suppose that I could've assumed that YOUR idea of what it COULD mean was a superior interpretation of why a statue was used to symbolize the march of Universal Rule, and that would've made you happy, but your happiness is not my main concern. The fact is that a person with your indecisiveness will NEVER reach a conclusion of what anything like this means. It will always be a mystery to you, and when someone else expresses confidence that they themselves have discovered the proper meaning then to you they must be wrong ... because you're just not happy with it ... no other reason than that you're just not happy with it.
Oh, but you're quite mistaken. And if you really knew your Bible then you'd not have made such a ridiculous claim (hint: "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling"; Da 2:38 ... and there are other proof texts as well).
So it's your contention that the neo-Babylonian empire ruled over the Chinese, the Native Americans, the aborigines of Australia, etc.? There are a lot of historians who will be interested in your discoveries, just as soon as you present them with the evidence.
Neither you nor I were alive in those days in order to know otherwise. I take the Bible's word for it over what you or others might speculate about. YOU can't say for sure that "the Native Americans" etc even existed in that day and time. If you do say that they in fact did exist then you're merely taking another person's word for it. Like I've already said, there are other proof texts that suggest the 7 "kings" exercised Universal Rule. The text of Daniel 2:38 is merely one of such references one could point to.
Is it possible that Daniel was speaking in hyperbole in verse 38? Is it possible that he was referring to the world that was known to him at that time, rather than the entire ("universal") world?
Like I said, "a person with your indecisiveness will NEVER reach a conclusion of what anything like this means. It will always be a mystery to you." Your idea is that if YOU don't know something then nobody else is supposed to either.
The fact that the rest of the Bible disagrees with you (if you read what it actually says....
You say that the "rest of the Bible disagrees" with my contention that the 4 beast of Daniel 7 exercise Universal Rule. I challenge YOU to produce the proof where the Bible says or implies such a thing.
Time after time in this thread, you've asserted that you had "proved" various things.
You're a windy sort of a person, aren't you. That's stretching it a bit, don't you think. Maybe it's simply due to my ideas continuing to swirl around in your tiny little head that you just think that's the case.
There seem to be a lot of things that you find "simple to see" that just aren't in the Bible.
We know that's the case because YOU said it is. That settles the matter I guess.
I choose not to impose my own opinions on scripture, and when I do hold an opinion as to what a text means (but doesn't plainly say), I try to present it as my opinion, and not as fact. You should consider doing the same.
It's only YOUR opinion that certain texts that we've talked about is obscure. Again, we know you're correct because it is YOU who says so. Perhaps you need to hear it repeated what I said up above: "A person with your indecisiveness will NEVER reach a conclusion of what anything like this means. It will always be a mystery to you. Your opinion is that if YOU don't know something then nobody else is supposed to either."
You are clearly still mentally locked into their structure of Biblical interpretation
I've gleened what is accurate and kept it. What would you have me do, throw out the baby with the bath water? Apparently so!
As has been evidenced from this discussion, for ALMOST everything that I say, there will be some sort of a weak counter-argument offered from you. There are few people who realize that man's self-rule is not something that God himself founded. It arose out of a rejection of God's rule in the Garden of Eden, and God merely is tolerating it for a reason and for a season. Those, like you, who can't understand this will invariably give their own preferred twist to Roman's 13, where it says that the authorities "stand placed in their relative positions by God". To them that says that God actually put the governments into place, rather than them occupying such positions simply due to the reason that they are allowed by the Almighty to exist (whatever God allows can be said to be "placed" by God, for who can argue with the Almighty). Did God place Hitler on the throne there in Germany? Those, like you, who insist that God puts the governments into place, that they exist by his choice, will have a tough time with the question of Hitler. They'll also tell you, exactly as you have, that "nobody understands the symbols of Daniel and Revelation" ... as if that will save them from being proven wrong. The fact is that in most cases they aren't really serious about learning what those symbols mean. You appear to be one of those.
.
Rabbit

You guys...are really getting bogged down...sheesh !
Let me interject some simple questions: With all the gobble-dee gook about God's or Satan's or mans' responsibility in relation to sin...according to the Bible writers...only 3 people were ever created (by God) that were perfect... Adam, Eve and of course, Jesus, right?
Think about it: Out of God's only 3 perfect human creations ...2\3 of them FAILED a simple loyalty test ! What possible chance do we have being imperfect, with polluted minds and brains, chemical imbalances, retardation, etc., etc.???? NO CHANCE !
Now...What kind of 'fair' God would introduce 'inherited sin' and subsequent death into the gene pool of billions and billions of the innocent offsping of HIS OWN CREATION ? In all His wisdom, could He NOT have foreseen...the thousands upon thousands of years of agony and pain and anguish and wars, that His decision would have upon ALL of innocent mankind ????????
Of course -- HE knew didn't He ??? He SAID (according to the Bible writers) that's what would happen !
What would have been wrong with a really 'patient and loving God'...who would have said,"Well, Adam, Eve... you guys...ya' f**ked up, but, hey...do better next time. After all, eating a piece of fruit, should not condemn you and ALL of mankind to pain, agony and death...should it? Hey...love you guys, too!"
OR: "Hey, you guys, ya' f**ked up for the last time. I told you you'd die, now....ZZZZZTTTTTTTPooooffff !
God: I'll make some NEW improved humans this time.
My simple, simple point is, He, could have simply disciplined the 'guilty' parties all thru mankinds history -- one at a time. If ANY human judge. were to mete out a punishment that would include ALL of the guity person's offspring, too -- he would viewed as barbaric !
To me...that is how I view most of the Bible's 'stories' -- barbaric. I do still believe in a loving God, I just don't think the Bible properly represents him.
Of course, that's only my opinion...and my brain is f**ked up...

"Friendship with the world"

Share this