How do the morals of man show that God is self-evident/obvious (easily discovered, seen, or understood).
Whose inconsistency to accomplish what?
Trust me I am very tempted to get into this very simple conversation, however it is hard to take serious, anyone who believes that God did not actually know where Satans was before the Staff meeting, or know what the status and condition of Sodom was before he gave a visit, by himself or the angels with him
Forgive me I dont mean to sound superior, I certainly AM NOT, but some times people need to study a bit further before actually discussing and debating Gods Word. "For when for the time that you should be teachers, you have need that one need that one teach you again, that which is the first principles of the oracles of God." Hebrews
Your position, as one who has, perhaps, been proselytized - before seeking the character, the heart and the will of God, into accepting the idea of sola scriptura, as presented in the poli-religious arena, seems unworthy of envy as well. However, I don't believe all people will rot in such putrid beliefs, but rather, I have abundant faith many will pursue the eradication of social misjustice caused by fear based poli-religious doctrines such as 'sola scriptura'.
My hope and prayer, then, is that many will not throw out the baby with the bath water, as it were, after becoming completely and totally frustrated by the deceit, ignorance, naivety and nullification of evidence constantly and consistently promoted and promulagated by those weak minded fear mongers.
A question from a 'Weak minded fear monger' Ignoring humanistic and evolutionary concepts for a moment, did in your view the flood which destroyed countless thousands of people actually happen, did it happen or is just another poem or prohetic utterance?
Forgive my weak mindedness, I just need the help of those that understand the Word of God perfectly.
The first three are taken on a prophetic stance. The would be victims are all Yisraelis who have misrepresented the heart and will of God.
If so, they speak for God, claiming to quote God. The dilemma then becomes whether or not the minor or major prophets are liars or whether God really does want to slaughter infidels.
Perhaps I also feel that I have a certain understanding - as do you, but mine concerns the style that was often employed throughout prophetic utterance.
So are you saying that it is only a literary work and not the work of God?
According to the prophet, God was not happy about it and was willing to allow the Yisraelites to succumb to their own aggression and social misjustice.
Yes, I understand that, but are you not seeing the dilemma? You either reduce Isaiah and other venerated prophets as false prophets (claiming to speak revelations from God), which is biblically condemned even by those very prophets (which would then make them hypocrites as well as liars) or they really are vessels for God, in which case he in fact did order such atrocities.
Think about it. Any which avenue you choose invariably leads to some theological catastrophe.
What I feel is tragic is when a nation or a people go out of their way to misrepresent the heart and will of God, thinking they will somehow benefit.
I agree it most likely would be a misrepresentation of God, but how else would know? If the bible is the revelation of God's mind and lays out the conduct for mankind, yet is also subject to man's sinful intervention, then how would you really know the mind of God versus instructions coming from men claiming to represent God?
quote:what must you think when God says it?
That God is unwilling to cater towards social misjustice.
Is it not an injustice to slaughter innocent infants who could not possibly have affronted God with their sin, since they have not yet the capacity to do so?
I've suggested the roman bible as an infallible witness of sorts. Making a stride towards understanding who speaks what to who - and why, is critical.
And what is your personal understanding of it? Are the prophets liars or does God command atrocity?
That being, as far as my understanding goes, that God is unwilling to cater to social misjustice, and will not let forgeries go undocumented.
This is a contradiction, as previously, and later down the line in this post we'll see that you do not ascribe to the belief of infallibility. You can't have it both ways since one nullifies and contradicts the other.
It is obvious that because I will not succumb to your sola scriptura that I'm some sort of terrorist. I get that from dogmatics constantly.
Actually, I rather agree more with how you view it to some degree than the dogmatists, my criticisms aside. I'm playing the role of devil's advocate right now.
I understand that it's a fear based mentality massaged and promoted by the church and those who believe them, over the more critical evidence.
The RCC is almost a complete bastardization of what Jesus worked so hard for and gave his life for. I personally have a strong affection for Jesus, provided the stories attributed to him are true. He was right about so many things in my estimation and the world would be a better place if we would take it to consideration.
Honestly, this isn't about winning to me, as much as it is about allowing a spirit of truth to flourish through a more critical analysis of these various texts. That is not to imply, by any means, that I indeed know the TruthTM, but rather that, much like you if I may suppose, I'm not quick to believe the corporation.
Hear, hear!!! Well said. It appears that I have misjudged you, and I apologize for so hastily prejudging you. I just got through debating a very hard-headed indivual who made every excuse imaginable. It was disturbing. I should not have lumped you in with all the leaven.
Again, I have more faith that, as I submit my conscience and intellect to God, I will be assisted by a spirit of truth more honest than the former.
This is how I tend to view theology as well.
However, I have no desire to partake in nationalism and have identified that these ancient Jewish texts were formed into a book paid for by Constantine.
My personal opinion is that for the most part it is an invaluable historical document. A great deal of it is incredibly accurate. And I think it attempts to search the heart of God. There is much beauty and benevolence in that. That said, I don't think it is free from human infiltration which corrupts its character.
I'm sure my lack of patience with dogmatics and abundance of sarcasm doesn't always serve me - or others, well, but that's something I need to work on.
Actually I rather like it. Carry on, and carry on strong!
Again, thanks for the exchange hyro, and - peace to you bud.
And you the same
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
quote:Trust me I am very tempted to get into this very simple conversation, however it is hard to take serious, anyone who believes that God did not actually know where Satans was before the Staff meeting, or know what the status and condition of Sodom was before he gave a visit, by himself or the angels with him
No you aren't aren't really tempted. You just don't have anything concerning God being self evident. If you did, you would have presented it by now and not wasted so many posts on off topic issues. A self-evident god wouldn't need a complicated answer.
Morals come from the mind of man. If man ceases to exist, morals cease to exist. Gods, on the other hand, have come and gone, but morals are still around and change as man changes.
When you present the idea that the God of the Bible is exempt from following his own rules and can do as he pleases, then morals are not an obvious footprint of the God of the Bible.
Show me what is obvious.
quote:Forgive me I dont mean to sound superior, I certainly AM NOT, but some times people need to study a bit further before actually discussing and debating Gods Word. "For when for the time that you should be teachers, you have need that one need that one teach you again, that which is the first principles of the oracles of God." Hebrews
Considering you haven't actually engaged me in a real debate concerning the Bible, I suggest you temper your judgment of my Bible knowledge and not use that as an excuse to abstain from the debate.
It is common courtesy to provide the scripture you are quoting, not just the book. Hebrews 5:12
The author of Hebrews is telling his audience they have not progressed as they should have.
Hebrews 5:12-14 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Don't confuse tradition with righteousness. I don't drink milk.
PS: Difference of opinion, doesn't mean lack of knowledge.
Edited by purpledawn, : PS
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz