Faith and belief - The Almighty God revealed through his grandness

Devil writes:.Its good to see you again my ole Naval friend, or should I callyou Lord Helment (Dark Helment} from somewhere in the Ford Galaxy, I just love using that line from spaceballs. Rick Moranes is a straight crack up, his part in that movie is priceless. But then I was always very easy to impress. Then ofcourse there is "Yogart", the "everlasting know it all", or Cavediver, which ever is easier, ha ha. Just kidding CD, dont have a anurism.Anywho let me address you latest comments concerning Jesus' actions that you have described as unlawful.In Matt 12:1-21 I think you will find the answers you are looking. It should be remembered in this context that while Jesus was in full human form, he never ceased to be the immortal God in any respect."let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made of himself no reputation and humbled himself and was found in fashion of a servant and he became obedient even unto death""In him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, bodily" That is while in the flesh he was fully God."The Son of man is lord of the sabbath", "But I say unto you there is one greater than the temple here", "Before Abraham was, I AmIn these passages he makes it very clear that God or the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. As God he can adjust a law that he has made to to demonstrate another moral point, without contradiction. As to this point he makes it clear that he "desires mercy rather than sacrifice". In this instance he was demonstrating a higher principleIt should be noted that these laws were made for man not God and there can be no contradiction in his actions.In a will or a testament the arbitrator of the will may change or adjust that as he sees fit during his life. Hebrews 9. The Old Law or testament was Gods laws and wishes in this connection and as an objective moral standard his decisions and wishes apply to man.It is true in this instance that had Jesus (God) not been present, they would have been justified in carryng out the Law. However, Jesus knowing thier hearts and that thier deisres were not to fulfill Gods wishes, he desired to point out a higher principleand to display what thier actual intentions actually were. He then reinforces the his point by stating that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. In the instance in John 8, the same principle would apply. Jesus is not ignoring or disobeying the Law, he is the Lord of the laws.To corroborate the point that only God has a right to pass judgement on man, he reinforces his point by stating "let HE that is without sin among you cast the first stone." He knew there intentions here were one of piety and not a desire to fulfill Gods law, as a result he used the situation to demonstrate a higher principle. He did it by being the author of the Law in the first place and demonstrated further his deity, over man and our perceptions of subjective moral standards. He closes the door in this situation and the one in John chapter 8 on who and what he is in this respect.It is no different than the instance, when he was challenged about telling a man his sins were forgiven after he had healed him. With one simple line he quited them by asking, "Which is easier to do, tell the man to rise up and walk or tell him his sins are forgiven" In other words, dont both actions demonstrate who and what I AM.What seems like a contradiction or contradictory actions is easily understandable, when it is taken in context and in its entirity. There were times when Jesus (God) corrected misunderstandings about the Sabbath, Law and Sin, then there were times he set the sentence aside to demonstrate a higher principle. But then ONLY God can do this correct, so there is no immediate contradiction or MORAL INCONSISTENCIES, correct once again? One might as well try and condemn Gods action in Cannan, concerning certain actions with some verses his mercy with others. He can only know what is RIGHT, MORAL AND JUST. Thus, with a simple explanation and a little contextual and total scriptural perspective, your whole assertion and contention falls to the ground, like a house of cards, DA.If a man wants to complain about the God of the Bible and his actions, atleast let him understand what the Bible has to say in its entirity about that God.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Devil writesThanks for your recent post there President Screw, Ill get to it as soon as I can this evening, it may be very late, work and all that you understand.D Bertot

DA writes:God does not disobey any Law he has set in motion. He is Lord of any law because he is absolute in morality to begin with. You would need to demonstrate from the source you cite (the scriptures) that this same God does not possess these qualities to condemn an action in these instances. Since both in the Old and New T, it is clearly stated in no uncertain terms, as I have quoted that he is Lord of all, that he disobeyed anything. Your task is insurmountable.Yoiur problem as always is that you are ignoring the grandure of the being from the source you condemn. You have no way to proceed. I am not defending Peg or ICANT, especially Peg. I noticed you quoted nothing from ICANT, so I will wait. But i doubt he disagrees to much to matter."One like the Son of man came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him" You will notice that the quote, :Hosea 6: 4, "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice and and knowledge over buunt offerings is from the Old Testament and referenced in the NT. Devil writes:Again any attempts to show a different God in the OT verses the one in the NT fails first by a simple examination of passages in both testaments. The abve verse is a classic example. Again, like always, yours is one of failing to distinguish between a God, judge and lawgiver, verse the way in which he wishes us to interact with eachother. God can certainly forgive or overlook any sin based on his eternal justice. Notice DA the SEVERITY of the consequences spokenof in this passage alone. Does it not indicate as through the whole Old Testament that God is both merciful, longsuffering and Just. Its usually and only when people have ignored Gods commands and wishes, time after time after time, he is forced to act as a judge and jury, so to speak.Yet this has nothing to do with the fact that the same priciples that are taught in the New are not already present in the Old Testament. So your contention that he waited for however long is without merit or force.
For a moment lets look at it from a humanistic, non-biblical, non-religious perspective. In manycoutries it is perfectly acceptable to lop off someones hand if they are caught stealing, in some other countries it aceptable to despense justice in ways that would seem bizzare to us. Who is correct and are we justified in proclaiming them as evil, irrational and inconsistent. So yes, me explaining that God can change his methods, from the source you quote, but fail to realize his qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, does make it right and eliminates any form of inconsistencies.
Heck most people would look at our system where individuals are granted appeal after appeal only to be set free in such instances and this goes on for 15 to 20 years at times. They would say this is inconsistant behavior, from thier perspective. Do you see where I am going again DA. Your insistance that Gid is inconsistant is simply absurd. The only thing that makes it more absurd is the vehemence and assurance with which you state your case, as if you knew what was consistant or not. God has specific purposes for all that he does in and from his eternal perspective (his granduer).Hebrews 1 explains that God does indeed do things in different ways at different times for different purposes.Paul says" the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ". He also states that "In the FULLNESS OF TIME he sent forth his Son into the world." The time table is for our purposes no t his, due to the fact that he designed us in this or that fashion.
The devil writes:What if the PRINCIPLE in this scenario overrides both the child and parents wishes and imposes punishment on the child (expulsion) since the incident and the child are under the principles (Gods)purview ? Would the action be correct. What if the next student only recieved a verbal reprimand, is it in the principles righs to administer judgement as they see fit? Do you see where I am going with this DA? Now I know you are only in the Navy you knothead, no Im just joking ofcourse, DA, but LISTEN UP SEAMAN. You are the one accusing God and the scriptures of inconsistency, you are basing this inconsistency from principles in the scriptures and the God of the Bibles character. It beehoves you to take all the scriptures has to say about his character before proceeding to the argument about whether this is real or not in the first place. Since you keep avoiding it in principle I will ask you a direct question. ASSUMING the scriptures are correct about God and his character, would you say that as an omnipotent and omniscient being possessing all knowledge, has the right to decide what is right and proceed with judgement and punishment, Yes or No? Gods covenant or will was with Israel. Christ is the mediator of a different covenant in Gods plan. Would not the earth and the people in it be Gods property? Look at Romans 2:14-16. God dealt with the gentiles in a covenant of the heart and mind, against the law he put in our hearts. However, and eternal Gods judgements are based on his grandure and omniscience. You can avoid this point but you cannot set it aside. He did. There are no moral principles in the New that are not already echoed or advocated in the Old. But please distinguish between Gods moral principles of Mercy and Justice.
Thou shalt LOVE the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.
Trust me, I can go to most books in the Old and produce the same principles in the NT.God justice is based on his eternal knowledge and morality.
Sometimes his jutice is swift as in the case of the man that touched the ark or in the NT with Annanias and Sapphira. Sometimes it is longsuffering. Can WE be Gods Judge? NO.
Your not paying attention DA. If God/Jesus is LORD of the Law or Sabbath, he has the right to decline sentence in such matters. There is only Law because of Gods existence, not visversa. He did not break a law if he is the one that set it in motion for humans themselves. If a omnipotent and omniscient God decides to exercise JUDGEMENT on human behavior in the form of extermination, based on eternal absolute knowledge, how will we condemn such action? It is not murder, its justice. If you dont like this I would suggest you BECOME all of the things God is, then you can oppose him in some serious fashion.At present your arguments amount to nothing but complaints. You really should study ALL the principles in the OT before you designate them as hypocritical or mechanical. Besides failing to distinguish between Gods Mercy verse his Justice, you cherry pick what you dont like and leave the rest behind. Ok then, you win. Ill make you and your band of Merry Humanists my God/s. Do you have any instructions for me now that I have converted to your philosophies. Oh yes, one more question, what do I do when I run into another human being that disagrees sharply with your way of proceeding or thinking? Could you get me a scripture on how to proceed in this situation? Oh please hurry DA, Im sinking fast. Wheeew, I was beginning to worry. I was scared that you did not understand the difference between an ARGUMENT and a DISAGREEMENT. So then you you just disagree, you have no valid argument to condemn the God of the sriptures. Perhaps at this point yo would like to retreat back to, "None of this is real anyway", assertion.D Bertot