Keep the focus on candidates' capabilities, not their faith

RCofield,

"Speaking strictly from the standpoint of Scripture, either:
A) The time appointed for his conversion has not yet come:

[bibley superstition expurgated]

OR,
B) He is a vessel of God's wrath made for destruction. [bibley superstition expurgated]

I do pray that it is the former."

You are such a silly little preacher.

You know that your ignorant superstitious beliefs do not apply to me.

Your childish prayers are meaningless, except to you.

Continue praying; I will continue to deflower virgins.

Have fun.

peterhuff,

"You seem to have had a bit of a breakthrough with PSolus. [Hello Kitty emoticon expurgated]"

Do you really believe that, or is it just bluster?

"He said, "I believe nothing...." so he has at last admitted to believing something, a belief which is nothing. [Hello Kitty emoticon expurgated]"

Do you believe that out of fear, or embarrassment?

"I believe, I believe, I believe!"

Yes, you are a believer; you are apparently nothing without your beliefs.

"He believes 'nothing'!"

That is correct; I believe nothing.

"Hilarious PSolus!"

Glad I could be of help.

"Certainly a mass of contradiction."

Isn't everything that you cannot understand a contradiction?

peterhuff,

"You seem to have had a bit of a breakthrough with PSolus. [Hello Kitty emoticon expurgated]"

Do you really believe that, or is it just bluster?

"He said, "I believe nothing...." so he has at last admitted to believing something, a belief which is nothing. [Hello Kitty emoticon expurgated]"

Do you believe that out of fear, or embarrassment?

"I believe, I believe, I believe!"

Yes, you are a believer; you are apparently nothing without your beliefs.

"He believes 'nothing'!"

That is correct; I believe nothing.

"Hilarious PSolus!"

Glad I could be of help.

"Certainly a mass of contradiction."

Isn't everything that you cannot understand a contradiction?

peterhuff,

"You seem to have had a bit of a breakthrough with PSolus. [Hello Kitty emoticon expurgated]"

Do you really believe that, or is it just bluster?

"He said, "I believe nothing...." so he has at last admitted to believing something, a belief which is nothing. [Hello Kitty emoticon expurgated]"

Do you believe that out of fear, or embarrassment?

"I believe, I believe, I believe!"

Yes, you are a believer; you are apparently nothing without your beliefs.

"He believes 'nothing'!"

That is correct; I believe nothing.

"Hilarious PSolus!"

Glad I could be of help.

"Certainly a mass of contradiction."

Isn't everything that you cannot understand a contradiction?

Hi again MrMeaner,

I'm going away for the weekend so this may have to be continued when I return depending on the time I can find tomorrow night.

You said:

I've explained those differences as typologies, which you both acknowledge exist....except in the cases where you don't believe they exist. -MrM

Many of the typologies of the OT are explained in the NT. Hebrews is a prime example. Remember the old saying, 'In the old contained, in the new explained?' I'm not sure if that always applies but it does very often for Christ came to fulfill what was written about Him (Luke 18:31-34 or Luke 24:25 or Luke 24:44).

What neither of you have done, is explain how it is that God's written purpose for the nations, Israel, and Judah has been "changed", thus making the entire Old Testament null and void."

It was not God who changed. The covenant He made with these people was not honored, and His purpose was always pointing to the eternal covenant in Jesus. Deuteronomy 28 promised blessings and curses. 'If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all His commands...all the blessings will come upon you...However, if you do not obey...all these curses will come upon you and overtake you."

Well, the curses no more so than when they rejected His Son.

Ken Gentry likens God's judgment to a certificate of divorce. I think a case can be made for this 'typology' of marriage and divorce as applying to the people of God of the old covenant, as Ken Gentry does and to the Lamb of God in the new and the marriage supper of the Lamb. Some of the parables lead along these lines.

We know that it's impossible for God to lie, but it's OK for God to change the meaning of the word "Israel".
Am I right?

No, the true Israel of God are those in Christ and always have been. The true Israel of God have always been through the promise of Christ.

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe [as did Abraham]...Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring [those whom are also credited with the righteousness of Christ]" (Romans 3:22a, 16a)

It is not God who changed His mind, but the people who failed to honor the covenant they made with Him. That is why the New is so much better - perfect - and the old is obsolete and worn away (Hebrews 8:13). It was worn away with the destruction of the Temple and Jewish system of worship and sacrifice that God had put in place and the people had agreed to.

Notice the words of Hebrews 8:13:

"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

'Soon' is not twenty plus centuries later in most peoples books, well, maybe the Dispensationalists.

Hi MrMeaner,

Wow! You said:

Here's the problem, guys. You are debating about things like verb tenses, and the antiquity of objects mentioned. -MrM

Do you not think time indicators or verb tenses are important in conveying information?

Do you think God is capable of saying what He means?

When Jesus says, "This generation shall not pass until all these things come to pass" and you turn it into a generation twenty centuries at least removed, how can we know what God is saying, especially when every other time the phrase 'this generation' is used by Him it seems to mean the current generation that Jesus is living in?

When He says to His disciples "at that time" concerning the abomination
of desolation, the fleeing of those in Judea to the mountains, praying that their flight will not take place in the winter or on the Sabbath, or His talking about great distress, for if those days had not been cut short no one would survive, His predictions of false Christs arising...and He builds precept upon precept and says to them, "See, I have told you ahead of time." Then He caps it off by "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" why do you, MrMeaner, project that way, way into the future?

What gives you the reason to interpret Scripture in this manner? Do you think it may possibly be that you have been influenced by others to think this way, rather than listening to God's word for what it is saying?

Who is Jesus speaking to? Who are the elect spoken of here? When was the abomination of desolation to occur? When was this period of great distress, 'unequaled since the beginning of the world' to take place? What does the 'sign' of the Son of Man mean? What does coming on the clouds mean? Is this term to be taken literally?

Can you give evidence from Scripture and link it together to back up your interpretation so we can see how you make sense of Matthew 24? Can you explain away the historical references of Josephus and his accounts that seem to mirror much of what Jesus had to say in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13? Can you explain away why so many of these phrases and terminology such as persecution and trials found in these three accounts of the Olivetti Discourse are found in other portions of the gospel (i.e., Matthew 24:9-13 with Matthew 10:17-23 or Luke 17:20-37 with Matthew 24:23-28, paying special attention to Luke 17:20-21 in reference to the kingdom) concerning the disciples, and then seemingly fulfilled in the book of Acts and other epistles and accounts?

MRMEANER,

Am I right?

I can't speak for Peter, but as for myself, no. Not even on a single point in that entire post.

GOLDENEAGLES,

If that's true, what is He waiting for?

Speaking strictly from the standpoint of Scripture, either:

A) The time appointed for his conversion has not yet come:

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (cf. Acts 22:1-11)

OR,

B) He is a vessel of God's wrath made for destruction. (See Ro. 9:17-24)

I do pray that it is the former.

REMINDER

This thread will time out soon. When it does, let's jump here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/frank_pavone/2011/02/tightrope_of_religion_and_politics.html

Hi RCofield,

That is astounding about Justin, your daughter and her future husband! Your youth group seems to be very dynamic. It is nice to see great thinkers that can get behind the facade of these false world-views and challenge the culture of our times with the truth of the Gospel.

You seem to have had a bit of a breakthrough with PSolus. (^8

He said, "I believe nothing...." so he has at last admitted to believing something, a belief which is nothing. (^8

I believe, I believe, I believe! He believes 'nothing'! Hilarious PSolus! Certainly a mass of contradiction.

Here's the problem, guys.
You are debating about things like verb tenses, and the antiquity of objects mentioned.
I've explained those differences as typologies, which you both acknowledge exist....except in the cases where you don't believe they exist.

What neither of you have done, is explain how it is that God's written purpose for the nations, Israel, and Judah has been "changed", thus making the entire Old Testament null and void.
This is what you're saying, isn't it?
God's counsel is immutable....unless absolutely necessary.
We know that it's impossible for God to lie, but it's OK for God to change the meaning of the word "Israel".
Am I right?

here are 10:
Abassi
Abira
Adroa
Ahone
Ahura Mazda
Aiomun-Kondi
Alatangana
Altjira
Amotken
Amun

wow... just heard this and thought "if only"...

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
---------------

oh well... never happen... we'll forever be killing each other over (false) religions and (imaginary) national borders. sigh...
------------

rco, re your first cause challenge: that's just going to be a waste of my time. i'm not going on some sort of googling expedition to find god that made the universe. are you making the distinction that other religions had many gods and your religion has one god (because that seems more like a corporate restructuring than a new idea aboput god(s).)? all peoples, when pondering "how did we get here"? answered, "god(s) did it."

i'll answer your other questions later today, if possible.

Rcofield to Psolus, "I also know He can change your heart (you know, that “soul” thing you don’t think you have) before you stand before Him in judgment. Wouldn’t that be something?"

If that's true, what is He waiting for?

RCofield,

"I do, as that is where the evidence points."

Superstitions are like that; they can point to anything that you want them to point to.

"I also know He can change your heart..."

What's he going to change it into?

"...(you know, that “soul” thing you don’t think you have)..."

Were you home schooled?

"...before you stand before Him in judgment."

Again, how old are you, twelve?

Are you still being home schooled?

"Wouldn’t that be something?"

Yeah, that would be "something"; for you perhaps.

"Except that you believe you believe nothing,..."

No, I believe nothing; I am aware that you are incapable of understanding that.

"...which negates your contention…."

Only in your believer-mind.

"...well, you know the drill."

That's your "drill", not mine.

"Give me something to work with."

I think that I have already over-challenged you as it is.

"No, you really should brush up on your logic."

No, you want me to agree with your superstitious belief-logic; not my thing.

"Your emphatic insistence about what should logically be a neutral stance."

You are again confusing logic with belief.

"I’m here to do more than simply make “good retorts.”"

That is not obvious; besides, I was just being sarcastic.

"I didn’t think so."

Do you think at all?

"Heck, I even pray for you."

And I deflower virgins for you.

You're welcome.

"Do you find that unsettling?"

No, I rather enjoy deflowering virgins.

"I’m a multi-tasker from ‘way back."

Sure you are.

"Why not post some of your thoughts?"

Did peterhuff give you a tongue-lashing?

"Do you find that it dulls the pain only temporarily?"

What makes you believe that there is any pain to dull?

More superstitious believing?

PETER,

Thanks for the links.

PETER,

Justin seems to have a good understanding of the issues, does he not?

Justin is brilliant. He was home-schooled, started his university education at 16, and graduated after only 3 years with a 4.0 average. He and my second daughter graduated together and were both awarded the highest academic/citizenship award given at their university.

Justin received a full scholarship to Vanderbuilt University Law School (one of the top 5 law schools in the U.S.), where he is studying Constitutional Law. He just completed his first semester with a perfect 4.0 average. Amazing kid.

My daughter received the Rotary International Scholarship for business and will begin working on her master's degree in business at the University of Cambridge this fall, God willing.

She is engaged to be married to a wonderful young Englishman on May 7th, who, incidentally, was converted from atheism three years ago through the witness and testimony of several of our young people.

I can honestly say I've never seen a new convert to Christianity grow spiritually as quickly as this young man has. He has a voracious appetite for theology, and plans to study at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky under Dr. R. Albert Mohler when he and my daughter return from Europe.

I am constantly amazed and humbled at the abounding grace of God. We are blessed beyond measure.

Hi RCofield,

I have been busy listening to your teachings on the 'New Atheism' and the 'lightening round.' (^8

It is a great way to prepare young people for higher education - help them to think through the issues and the masks behind the issues before they hit secular universities and colleges.

Justin seems to have a good understanding of the issues, does he not?

I hope MrMeaner will make another appearance. I thought you dealt with the eschatological issues he raised quite handily. - RCO

He keeps dodging the text by pointing me to other texts instead of refuting the points I make about given texts. What are they saying? Whom are they addressing as the primary audience? Changing the focus is the same tactics the JWobblies use. How has he answered any of my relevant questions about time issues and context.

I'd love to see some more exchanges between the two of you. It's been a long time since I have visited that subject, and I found your perspective refreshing. - RCO

I love eschatology in as much as I understand it. It just verifies God's word is true, as does everything else in creation!

I'm willing but I am under time restraints this whole week. MrMeaner has not addressed many points from former posts. He seems more interested in the creation/evolution debate at present.

If he does resume our debate I think it would do him well to read how Preterism explains much of the biblical history as it relates with secular and church history concerning 70AD that we know of or that has been found to date.

Just taking passages from Matthew 24 or Revelation and comparing them to what Josephus had to say seems to confirm ideas such as, either, that Josephus read the gospel accounts and copied from their language when describing the fall of Jerusalem and temple, which is hard to explain when coupled with other historians from the period and his own beliefs, or that he understood a lot of the OT references and compared them and what he witnessed to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which is much more likely.

And there is such a slew of writings on these accounts by Christian writers of the past.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/index.html

As of yet, I have not seen a view of eschatology that can explain and make sense of the Scriptures as the Preterist position does. But, alas, I have not read the Amillennial position yet.

Since you liked what Philip Mauro had to say on Dispensationalism, here is another link that I am reading at present.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html

R.C. Sproul (The Last Days According to Jesus) was very impressed with some, but not all, of what James Stuart Russell had to say in 'The Parousia.' You can find this along with some books and articles by John Owens in the first link above.

Blessings in Christ Jesus the Lord!

PEREGRINE,

You actually believe that that will happen, don't you?

I do, as that is where the evidence points. I also know He can change your heart (you know, that “soul” thing you don’t think you have) before you stand before Him in judgment. Wouldn’t that be something?

I believe nothing.

Except that you believe you believe nothing, which negates your contention….well, you know the drill.

Perhaps you should interpret more thoughtfully.

Give me something to work with.

Good retort.

No, you really should brush up on your logic.

What makes you believe that?

Your emphatic insistence about what should logically be a neutral stance.

Good one……Another good one.

I’m here to do more than simply make “good retorts.”

I believe nothing.

I didn’t think so.

Does it occur to you that you are thinking about me way too much?

Heck, I even pray for you. Do you find that unsettling?

Shouldn't you be thinking about the members of your herd instead?

I’m a multi-tasker from ‘way back.

Yes, constantly.

Why not post some of your thoughts?

Who keeps count?

Do you find that it dulls the pain only temporarily?

PETER,

Hi, brother. I've missed you in your brief absence.

I hope MrMeaner will make another appearance. I thought you dealt with the eschatological issues he raised quite handily.

I'd love to see some more exchanges between the two of you. It's been a long time since I have visited that subject, and I found your perspective refreshing.

RCofield,

"That will change when you stand before Him in judgment."

You actually believe that that will happen, don't you?

"Experience."

Or, so you believe.

"Farcical, ludicrous, ridiculous....something along those lines."

Indeed.

"So, do you posit that the interpreter determines the meaning of a text?"

What makes you believe that?

"That's just your opinion, and even you don't believe your opinions."

I believe nothing.

"Perhaps you should post more thoughtfully."

Perhaps you should interpret more thoughtfully.

"You should brush up on your logic."

Good retort.

"Your emphatic insistence that you believe nothing is betraying you."

What makes you believe that?

"I see that one is still over your head."

Do you really believe that?

"Try thinking."

Good one.

"Among many other things, apparently."

Another good one.

"Do you really believe that?"

I believe nothing.

"Chasing a tail that you don't have hardly improves your position."

Does it occur to you that you are thinking about me way too much?

Shouldn't you be thinking about the members of your herd instead?

"And still you do not know what fundamentalism is."

But you do, and that's what's important.

"Do you think?"

Yes, constantly.

"If you were capable of debate this would be the point at which a debate should begin to take place....alas..."

Alas?

"How many glasses of Chardonnay did it take to come up with that one?"

Who keeps count?

"Absurd, cockeyed, derisory, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, preposterous, ridiculous....something along those lines."

Indeed.

RCofield,

"I dunno, GoldenEagles. It could well be that he is one of these:"

[bibley stuff expurgated]

I have no actual comment; I just felt like expurgating some ignorant superstition.

GoldenEagles,

"Rcofield, I Give You Psolus
as Exhibit “A”, Proving That
A Mere Creature, Possessed
by a Spirit of Rebellion, Can
Thwart the Hopes and Dreams
of God our Father for the
Freedom of that Soul."

My, my.

"Indeed, every word of Wisdom spoken into his ears, he spits out, like Gollum spit out the Elvin Bread."

I prefer Entenmann's Coffee Cake.

Hi RCofield, Walter,

Great job RCofield! I like where your logic is leading with your last two posts to Walter.

Walter, I look forward to seeing your answers. I does seem awfully hard for an agnostic or atheist to make sense of anything when the foundations of their beliefs are explored.

Walter, have you, like PSolus, built your foundation on nothing, as a couple of Christian author's wrote about concerning Relativism - 'Feet firmly planted in mid-air'????

PEREGRINE,

Your bogeyman does not frighten me.

That will change when you stand before Him in judgment.

What makes you believe that?

Experience.

Farcically?

Farcical, ludicrous, ridiculous....something along those lines.

Isn't gambling a "sin"?

So, do you posit that the interpreter determines the meaning of a text?

Again, you are a believer, not a thinker.

That's just your opinion, and even you don't believe your opinions.

How do you know; you are probably just misinterpreting everything that I post.

Perhaps you should post more thoughtfully.

No, I believe nothing; perhaps you need to brush up on your interpreting skills.

You should brush up on your logic. Your emphatic insistence that you believe nothing is betraying you.

Another example of misinterpretation, and belief-logic.

I see that one is still over your head. Try thinking.

My hat is over my head.

Among many other things, apparently.

Well, I'm not a believer; you are nothing but a believer.

Do you really believe that?

I don't have a tail.

Chasing a tail that you don't have hardly improves your position.

Don't worry, your secret is safe with me.

And still you do not know what fundamentalism is.

Good one, preacher.

Do you think?

“Sure it does.".....No, it doesn't.....“Sure it does.".....No, it doesn't.....“Sure it does.".....No, it doesn't.....“Sure it does.".....No, it doesn't.....

If you were capable of debate this would be the point at which a debate should begin to take place....alas...

You might be confusing it with drinking.

How many glasses of Chardonnay did it take to come up with that one?

Absurdity?

Absurd, cockeyed, derisory, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, preposterous, ridiculous....something along those lines.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Rcofield, I Give You Psolus as Exhibit “A”, Proving That A Mere Creature, Possessed by a Spirit of Rebellion, Can
Thwart the Hopes and Dreams of God our Father for the Freedom of that Soul.

I dunno, GoldenEagles. It could well be that he is one of these:

Romans 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Rcofield, I Give You Psolus
as Exhibit “A”, Proving That
A Mere Creature, Possessed
by a Spirit of Rebellion, Can
Thwart the Hopes and Dreams
of God our Father for the
Freedom of that Soul.

Indeed, every word of Wisdom spoken into his ears, he spits out, like Gollum spit out the Elvin Bread.

RCofield,

"More than you could possibly realize."

Your bogeyman does not frighten me.

"You may be confusing my age with the mentality of your posting persona."

No, I'm guessing that most people lose their fear of the bogeyman before they turn twelve.

"No, that's definitely one of the few things you have written that you have yet to contradict."

You don't know that.

"Both with the bible and the Constitution, the problem more often than not lies with the reader, not the framer(s)."

What makes you believe that?

"Then, of course, there are those such as yourself who farcically dismiss one or the other without even having read them."

Farcically?

"And I'll bet you would posit that the interpreter is the one who determines the meaning, right?"

Isn't gambling a "sin"?

"No, I think you did."

Again, you are a believer, not a thinker.

"You've posted nothing here that would indicate you are thinking, let alone indicate that you understand the distinction between thinking and believing."

How do you know; you are probably just misinterpreting everything that I post.

"Yet you believe that you believe nothing,..."

No, I believe nothing; perhaps you need to brush up on your interpreting skills.

"...thereby negating your contention that you believe nothing."

Another example of misinterpretation, and belief-logic.

"That really is over your head, isn't it?"

My hat is over my head.

"I had better believe that?"

Do you have a choice?

"You, by your own admission, do not believe that."

Well, I'm not a believer; you are nothing but a believer.

"I'm in no way obligated to chase your tail with you."

I don't have a tail.

"Just as I thought; you obviously still don't know what fundamentalism is."

Don't worry, your secret is safe with me.

"You apparently live under one intellectually."

Good one, preacher.

"Sure it does."

No, it doesn't.

"Bouts of dizziness would be one obvious drawback."

You might be confusing it with drinking.

"Oh, I'm sure believing “superstitious nonsense” does have its drawbacks."

And, you should know.

"But focus, now, and let's not loose sight of the absurdity of your brand of skepticism."

Absurdity?

PEREGRINE,

Scary.

More than you could possibly realize.

How old are you, twelve?

You may be confusing my age with the mentality of your posting persona.

That's one of the few things that I have written that you want to believe that I have yet to contradict.

No, that's definitely one of the few things you have written that you have yet to contradict.

Because the Constitution was written by men, as was your magic book of superstitious beliefs.

Both with the bible and the Constitution, the problem more often than not lies with the reader, not the framer(s). Then, of course, there are those such as yourself who farcically dismiss one or the other without even having read them.

No, it isn't; all things created by man need to be interpreted.

And I'll bet you would posit that the interpreter is the one who determines the meaning, right?

No, you simply need to believe that I did.

No, I think you did.

It is much easier to believe than it is to think.

You've posted nothing here that would indicate you are thinking, let alone indicate that you understand the distinction between thinking and believing.

But, of course, I believe nothing.

Yet you believe that you believe nothing, thereby negating your contention that you believe nothing. That really is over your head, isn't it?

I believe nothing, and you better believe that.

I had better believe that? You, by your own admission, do not believe that. I'm in no way obligated to chase your tail with you.

I recognized you, didn't I?

Just as I thought; you obviously still don't know what fundamentalism is.

I have a rock?

You apparently live under one intellectually.

No, it doesn't.

Sure it does. Bouts of dizziness would be one obvious drawback.

However, this "I believe in superstitious nonsense" does seem to have its drawbacks.

Oh, I'm sure believing “superstitious nonsense” does have its drawbacks. But focus, now, and let's not loose sight of the absurdity of your brand of skepticism.

RCofield,

"You well may."

Scary.

"I certainly hope not, but the leading indicators aren't very promising."

How old are you, twelve?

"That's one of the few things you have written that you have yet to contradict."

That's one of the few things that I have written that you want to believe that I have yet to contradict.

"Why do Supreme Court Justices interpret the Constitution differently?"

Because the Constitution was written by men, as was your magic book of superstitious beliefs.

"This is not an anomalous issue."

No, it isn't; all things created by man need to be interpreted.

"I think you did."

No, you simply need to believe that I did.

It is much easier to believe than it is to think.

"But, of course, you don't actually believe that actual truth doesn't exist."

But, of course, I believe nothing.

"That's just your opinion and even you, by your own admission, don't believe your opinions."

I believe nothing, and you better believe that.

"Still don't know what a fundamentalist is, huh?"

I recognized you, didn't I?

"You seem a little reticent to stick your head out from under your rock now."

I have a rock?

"This "I know nothing" and "I believe nothing" skepticism does have its drawbacks."

No, it doesn't.

However, this "I believe in superstitious nonsense" does seem to have its drawbacks.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

While you are working on that list of “gods of the ancients” that were viewed as the first cause of all that exists, I'll offer my next level of argument for the existence of God.

Keep in mind that we have agreed that it is not unreasonable to consider that:

A) The universe probably had a first and moving cause…and
B) Time is probably not infinite…and
C) That the cause of the universe therefore probably existed apart from the space/time continuum of the universe…and
D)That the cause of the universe is probably without beginning

The material world we know is a world of change. I am now 6'-0” tall, but I was not always that height. The massive oak tree in my yard grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.

As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Obviously, self-moving things, like animal or human bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers (or causes) also moving (or changing)? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But I have already pointed out that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe.

In summary, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other.

Bottom line: This being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. Therefore, it is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging source of change.

Do you find this argument to be reasonable? If not, what are the flaws in its logic?

Peace, brother.

PEREGRINE,

Well, I'll be damned. (Heh, heh.)
Well, I'll be damned. (Heh, heh.)

You well may. I certainly hope not, but the leading indicators aren't very promising.

And, you believe me when I write that?

That's one of the few things you have written that you have yet to contradict.

Then, why do you, and each of your fellow travelers, interpret it differently...

Why do Supreme Court Justices interpret the Constitution differently? This is not an anomalous issue.

No, I didn't, and I see that you haven't either.

I think you did. But, of course, you don't actually believe that actual truth doesn't exist. That's just your opinion and even you, by your own admission, don't believe your opinions.

Why are you in such need of my guidance in these matters?

Still don't know what a fundamentalist is, huh?

You seem a little reticent to stick your head out from under your rock now.

This "I know nothing" and "I believe nothing" skepticism does have its drawbacks.

RCofield,

"Yes."

Well, I'll be damned. (Heh, heh.)

"Of your anonymity?"

Yes, of my anonymity.

"Your posts say about all that needs saying on that point."

How efficient of me.

You're welcome.

"No."

Well, I'll be damned. (Heh, heh.)

"You have stated you believe nothing, including your own opinions."

And, you believe me when I write that?

"Correct."

Well, OK then.

"No, it is the plain meaning of the actual bible given to those who bother to read it by the only authentic God."

Then, why do you, and each of your fellow travelers, interpret it differently, according to each of your individual, imaginary, "gods"?

"“Actual truth”?"

Actual truth.

"Who do you think you are kidding?"

Right now, I am kidding you, sometimes I kid peterhuff, sometimes I kid GoldenEagles, sometimes I kid MrMeaner; there are many others.

"Did you forget that you don’t believe “actual truth” actually exists?"

No, I didn't, and I see that you haven't either.

Do you believe me when I write that?

"Did you figure out what a fundamentalist is over the weekend?"

Do you have a particular fundamentalist in mind?

"Why don't you give us your definition of fundamentalism?"

Why are you in such need of my guidance in these matters?

PEREGRINE,

Obviously?

Yes.

I am wrong at any turn?

Yes.

Accusation?

Yes.

Indeed?

Yes.

I have?

Yes.

Why would I be covetous?

Of your anonymity? Your posts say about all that needs saying on that point.

Did I?

Yes.

My asinine posts?

Yes.

I don't believe my own opinions?

No. You have stated you believe nothing, including your own opinions.

Two counts?

Yes.

None whatsoever?

Correct.

Your own hands?

Correct.

But, that is simply your interpretation of what you believe that your imaginary "god" wrote in your imaginary magic bible, right?

No, it is the plain meaning of the actual bible given to those who bother to read it by the only authentic God.

I obviously feel threatened and am misdirecting my angst?

Yes.

You are aware that believing that you know the truth does not make your superstitious nonsensical beliefs the actual truth, aren't you?

“Actual truth”? Who do you think you are kidding? Did you forget that you don’t believe “actual truth” actually exists?

Did any more of your herd wander off over the weekend?

Did you figure out what a fundamentalist is over the weekend?

Why don't you give us your definition of fundamentalism?

RCofield,

"Obviously so."

Obviously?

"Anything to avoid conceding that you are wrong at any turn."

I am wrong at any turn?

"The “fundamentalist” accusation is a case-in-point."

Accusation?

"I do indeed."

Indeed?

"You have demonstrated that on a number of occasions."

I have?

"Why would I be “envious”?"

Yes, why indeed?

"Are you covetous of your anonymity?"

Why would I be covetous?

"Indeed I did, as did you."

Did I?

"And you chose anonymity, which would indicate that you want to avoid having your name attached to your asinine posts."

My asinine posts?

"Of course, that’s understandable given the nature of your posts and that you have owned that even you do not believe your own opinions."

I don't believe my own opinions?

"Wrong again on two counts."

Two counts?

"I receive no financial support whatsoever from my congregation."

None whatsoever?

"I earn my living with the work of my own hands."

Your own hands?

"And I don’t tell people how I believe they should live their lives;..."

Well then, what do you tell them?

"I tell them what the Word of God says about how we all should live our lives."

But, that is simply your interpretation of what you believe that your imaginary "god" wrote in your imaginary magic bible, right?

"Obviously you feel threatened by that and are misdirecting your angst."

I obviously feel threatened and am misdirecting my angst?

"You are aware that you merely labeling the truth superstitious and nonsensical does not make the truth superstitious and nonsensical, aren’t you?"

You are aware that believing that you know the truth does not make your superstitious nonsensical beliefs the actual truth, aren't you?

Did any more of your herd wander off over the weekend?

PEREGRINE,

Will I?

Obviously so. Anything to avoid conceding that you are wrong at any turn. The “fundamentalist” accusation is a case-in-point.

So, you believe that I lack "integrity"?

I do indeed. You have demonstrated that on a number of occasions.

Are you also envious of my anonymity? Isn't that a "sin"?

Why would I be “envious”?

Are you covetous of your anonymity?

Bear in mind that you are the one who chose your washingtonpost.com User ID.

Indeed I did, as did you. And you chose anonymity, which would indicate that you want to avoid having your name attached to your asinine posts. Of course, that’s understandable given the nature of your posts and that you have owned that even you do not believe your own opinions.

You are the one who chose to make money by telling other people how you believe they should live their lives.

Wrong again on two counts. I receive no financial support whatsoever from my congregation. I earn my living with the work of my own hands.

And I don’t tell people how I believe they should live their lives; I tell them what the Word of God says about how we all should live our lives.

Obviously you feel threatened by that and are misdirecting your angst.

You are the one who chooses every day to believe in superstitions that simply don't make any sense.

You are aware that you merely labeling the truth superstitious and nonsensical does not make the truth superstitious and nonsensical, aren’t you?

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, back in November and December of 2010 we had here in Southern California an unusually long period of rain. Normally we get only trace amounts during those months, but we received a whole season’s worth during that period. And during one of those storms, we received the blessing of the voice of thunder, and I became very interested in getting some of that thunder on tape. But as circumstances unfolded, the thunder was largely gone before I could get my recorder set up. And to my disappointment, I only managed to capture one thunder event, way in the distance, and quite faint. From that point on I was intent on capturing a good thunder event, and I had my recorder always at the ready. But there followed a long dry spell with no rain, no storms. And then sometime in January we got a little bit more rain, and I set my recorder out, but there was no thunder. And the same at the beginning of February. No thunder accompanied that storm either."

Riveting.

"Finally this last storm arrived, which will help to keep the grass on the valley hillsides green for some time to come. And as I witnessed to you, when I sat down to work on a response to you, I heard the first thunderclap of not just this storm, but of the year. It was close by and loud. And so, I eagerly set out my recorder to see if I could catch another one on tape. And lo, indeed, another giant thunder clap sounded while I was still working on the response to you."

Fascinating.

"And so, you can better understand why I took these thunder claps to mean so much."

No, actually, I can't.

"As I was, for a matter of months, strongly desirous of capturing a good thunder event on tape, yet nothing came, until that point where I was working on the response to you."

Do you believe that I am magical?

"Wherein, I stopped for a moment to set up the recorder outside the office door. And I returned to work on the response to you. And I finally got my recording, with a second thunder clap, while I was till working on my response to you."

Do you believe that I am your imaginary god?

"Two strong thunder claps occuring during my work on the response to you."

Well, I'm just gobsmacked.

"And so, you can better understand why I took these thunder claps to be not just for me, but for you as well."

No, actually, I can't.

(fin)

RCofield,

"Riiiiight....you'll post anything necessary to try to dismiss clear evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about, won't you?"

Will I?

"That is what happens when the absence of integrity meets with anonymity, "Peregrine.""

So, you believe that I lack "integrity"?

Are you also envious of my anonymity?

Isn't that a "sin"?

Bear in mind that you are the one who chose your washingtonpost.com User ID.

You are the one who chose to make money by telling other people how you believe they should live their lives.

You are the one who chooses every day to believe in superstitions that simply don't make any sense.

Thunder Background

Psolus, back in November and December of 2010 we had here in Southern California an unusually long period of rain. Normally we get only trace amounts during those months, but we received a whole season’s worth during that period. And during one of those storms, we received the blessing of the voice of thunder, and I became very interested in getting some of that thunder on tape. But as circumstances unfolded, the thunder was largely gone before I could get my recorder set up. And to my disappointment, I only managed to capture one thunder event, way in the distance, and quite faint. From that point on I was intent on capturing a good thunder event, and I had my recorder always at the ready. But there followed a long dry spell with no rain, no storms. And then sometime in January we got a little bit more rain, and I set my recorder out, but there was no thunder. And the same at the beginning of February. No thunder accompanied that storm either.

Finally this last storm arrived, which will help to keep the grass on the valley hillsides green for some time to come. And as I witnessed to you, when I sat down to work on a response to you, I heard the first thunderclap of not just this storm, but of the year. It was close by and loud. And so, I eagerly set out my recorder to see if I could catch another one on tape. And lo, indeed, another giant thunder clap sounded while I was still working on the response to you.

And so, you can better understand why I took these thunder claps to mean so much. As I was, for a matter of months, strongly desirous of capturing a good thunder event on tape, yet nothing came, until that point where I was working on the response to you. Wherein, I stopped for a moment to set up the recorder outside the office door. And I returned to work on the response to you. And I finally got my recording, with a second thunder clap, while I was till working on my response to you.

Two strong thunder claps occuring during my work on the response to you.

And so, you can better understand why I took these thunder claps to be not just for me, but for you as well.

PEREGRINE,

Go figure indeed; even the members of your own herd don't believe what you are shoveling them.

Riiiiight....you'll post anything necessary to try to dismiss clear evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about, won't you?

That is what happens when the absence of integrity meets with anonymity, "Peregrine."

WALTER,

rco,
it's time to get specific about "why yahweh?" instead of any of the other 1000s of "first causes of everything we see" supposed by the ancients.

Been rather busy this weekend. Will post to you on this in the next couple of days. Don't get all hot and bothered though. We still have along way to go before we get to "specifics" about "why Yahweh.

In the meantime....I think you may be overlooking the fact that we have already eliminated the vast majority of the "gods of the ancients" with the elements you have agree to on the first-cause argument.

On that note, why don't you post a list of....oh, say...a dozen ancient gods who were viewed by their followers as "the first cause of everything we see."

That shouldn't be too hard...if there are "1,000s"...

GoldenEagles,

"Who is "we"? (no need to answer that, I know)"

You have no idea, do you?

"And the next question would be, what are YOU afraid of, that you will not even listen to a clap of thunder meant to reach your own ears?"

Oh, I am in mortal terror of your imaginary thunder coming to get me.

"And moreover, I am wondering, in all honesty, how can you support the contention that this thunder is imaginary?"

How can you support the contention that your imaginary thunder is not imaginary?

"Especially if you have not listened to it."

Why don't you go listen to it a few more times.

"If 10,000 people listened to that recording, 10,000 people would say that it is a recording of real thunder."

I don't care.

"By calling that thunder "imaginary", and then using the same word "imaginary" to refer to God, then I think we must reach the conclusion that you have more respect for the Reality of God than you let on."

Do not confuse "thinking" with "believing"; you do not think - you simply believe.

"Keep in mind Psolus, that during this whole storm here in imaginary southern California, the home of Hollywood after all, there were only two (2) claps of thunder."

How many?

"Only two."

Only two?

Can you be more specific?

"One clap of thunder came at the beginning of writing my response to you (February 19, 2011 6:59 PM)."

That must have been a truly magical clap of thunder.

Did you wet your pants when you heard it?

What about the second magical clap of imaginary thunder?

"The second and last clap of thunder (which I caught on tape) came when writing the last part of that response to you.

That must have been an even more magical clap of imaginary thunder than the first.

Did you soil your pants when you heard it?

"There was no thunder either before that, or after that."

Huh?

What about the first truly magical clap of imaginary thunder?

"Correction - In my post dated February 18, 2011 2:08 AM - I see that the subject of thunder came up there first (Kentucky Thunder)."

Are you sure that it wasn't Tennessee imaginary thunder?

"Was that a coincidence?"

Was what a coincidence?

(fin)

Psolus says, "We are not listening to your imaginary thunder."

Who is "we"? (no need to answer that, I know)

And the next question would be, what are YOU afraid of, that you will not even listen to a clap of thunder meant to reach your own ears?

And moreover, I am wondering, in all honesty, how can you support the contention that this thunder is imaginary? Especially if you have not listened to it. If 10,000 people listened to that recording, 10,000 people would say that it is a recording of real thunder.

By calling that thunder "imaginary", and then using the same word "imaginary" to refer to God, then I think we must reach the conclusion that you have more respect for the Reality of God than you let on.

Keep in mind Psolus, that during this whole storm here in imaginary southern California, the home of Hollywood after all, there were only two (2) claps of thunder. Only two.

One clap of thunder came at the beginning of writing my response to you (February 19, 2011 6:59 PM). The second and last clap of thunder (which I caught on tape) came when writing the last part of that response to you.

There was no thunder either before that, or after that.

Correction - In my post dated February 18, 2011 2:08 AM - I see that the subject of thunder came up there first (Kentucky Thunder). Was that a coincidence?

GoldenEagles,

"For a moment, Psolus, you have abandoned any and all attempts to make people "laugh.""

What makes you believe that?

And, what makes you believe that people have stopped laughing at you?

"I wonder if we should read anything into that."

One is free to read anything into anything one wants, as you well know, and do.

"For example, one might speculate that your response indicates the attitude of one backed into a corner, with no where to go."

Yes. I am backed into a corner. I am so frightened. Where am I to go? Oh, woe is me.

"Did you at least listen to the [link to fundamentalist Website expurgated]?"

No; did you stupidly believe that I would?

I do not navigate to, nor provide links for, fundamentalist Websites.

"(Which I posted to MY website)."

Yes, your fundamentalist Website.

"And if so, how did you feel being so close to an expression of God that was clearly pointed in your own direction?"

You're just not getting this, are you?

"As we listen to this thunder,... [superstitious claptrap (haven't used that word in a while) expurgated]"

We are not listening to your imaginary thunder.

"Does not thunder break, for a moment, the suffocataing chains of human pride, allowing the heart to soar into the domain of awe and appreciation even if it is only for a moment or two?"

No.

(fin)

Psolus says, "No, I shouldn't."

Psolus says, "No, it wasn't."

Psolus says, "No, it didn't."

Psolus says, "No, you didn't."

For a moment, Psolus, you have abandoned any and all attempts to make people "laugh." I wonder if we should read anything into that. For example, one might speculate that your response indicates the attitude of one backed into a corner, with no where to go.

Did you at least listen to the THUNDER? (Which I posted to MY website). And if so, how did you feel being so close to an expression of God that was clearly pointed in your own direction?

As we listen to this thunder, we need to keep in mind that God our Father is consciously under the control of the behavior of all atoms and electrons that were involved in this awesome display and expression, from the buildup of the electron charge in the atmosphere, to the release and discharge of that electron charge through the atmosphere, to the brilliantly white release of photons traveling out in all directions, entering the eyes of those fortunate enough to have them open and pointing in the right direction, allowing for the creation of the awesome and dramatic image in the their consciousness, to the resonate waves of sound traveling through the air to many ears such as our own, impressing thereupon the geometry of divine power. Truly what a miracle of dynamic energy patterns within which we are given to live.

Does not thunder break, for a moment, the suffocataing chains of human pride, allowing the heart to soar into the domain of awe and appreciation even if it is only for a moment or two?

rco,
it's time to get specific about "why yahweh?" instead of any of the other 1000s of "first causes of everything we see" supposed by the ancients.

GoldenEagles,

"Psolus, you should have more faith in my witness."

No, I shouldn't.

"This was for your benefit - [link to fundamentalist Website expurgated]"

No, it wasn't.

"The second clap of thunder that resounded throughout the valley as I worked on that last reply to you,..."

No, it didn't.

"...I caught it in a crystal goblet for you to savor for the rest of your life."

No, you didn't.

Your beliefs, and your "witness", are meaningless to anyone but yourself.

Enjoy.

(fin)

Two crashes of thunder adorned
the valley with the Voice of God.

Responding to my witness that "I caught the second one on tape."

Psolus responds, “No, you didn't; you just believe that you did.”

Psolus, you should have more faith in my witness.

This was for your benefit - THUNDER

The second clap of thunder that resounded throughout the valley as I worked on that last reply to you, I caught it in a crystal goblet for you to savor for the rest of your life.

GoldenEagles,

"I will translate. Psolus is saying to MrMeaner,..."

[mindless translation expurgated]

"Yes a FRAUDULENT appeal to MrMeaner’s conscience for speaking the truth, a truth you needed to hear."

Again, you have failed at recognizing sarcasm.

Congratulations.

"As you know, the forces of evil, as you are well aware, often hide behind the mask of humor. It is a mechanism of self-deception."

I'm sure that you believe that.

Be my guest.

"For a moment, MrMeaner served as an instrument of truth, to rip the mask away, that you might see what is really there, and perhaps begin the process of turning your ship around before it sails off the edge of the earth."

Ships cannot sail of the edge of the earth; your flat-earth belief is, as are most of your beliefs, incorrect.

"Two crashes of thunder adorned the valley with the Voice of God."

I didn't hear anything.

"I caught the second one on tape."

No, you didn't; you just believe that you did.

(fin)

Regarding my statement to MrMeaner, ”Given his response, I believe it fair to say you stung his conscience where it counts.”

Psolus responds, “I'm guessing that you would need to believe that irrespective of my actual response.”

The last line of your response tells the story. Psolus asks MrMeaner,

“Would your "jebus" have written your comment?”

I will translate. Psolus is saying to MrMeaner, “For a moment, MrMeaner, the mirror you placed in my hand, I looked in it, quickly, and I saw my own face clearly, a monster of vapidity, and I was ashamed. And I was stung to the core. MrMeaner, How cruel of you to show me the truth. Is that what your “jebus” is all about, cruelty?”

Yes a FRAUDULENT appeal to MrMeaner’s conscience for speaking the truth, a truth you needed to hear.

As you know, the forces of evil, as you are well aware, often hide behind the mask of humor. It is a mechanism of self-deception.

For a moment, MrMeaner served as an instrument of truth, to rip the mask away, that you might see what is really there, and perhaps begin the process of turning your ship around before it sails off the edge of the earth.

Two crashes of thunder adorned the valley with the Voice of God.

I caught the second one on tape.

Vanka,
the idea that POLYGAMIST mormons would support proposition 8 (the "california marriage protection act") on the grounds that same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage is just so laughable it could be an article in "the onion".

ROM8,

Please specify exactly what I have written that is "deceptive" (untrue, inaccurate, wrong).

Anyone who researches it will find I have written only the truth, in context, accurately portrayed.

But YOU try to divert the point (we call that using "red herring" arguments).

My arguments showed clearly and factually that:

1) Mormon leaders will "lie for the Lord" (as demonstrated by their false report to congress regarding the practice of polygamy)

2) Mormon leaders will violate their own sacred scriptures (D&C 134) to mix religious influence with civil government in a way that denies other citizens of their equal rights under the law (Proposition 8). It is well-documented that the LDS Church was the deciding factor in Prop 8.

3) Mormon leaders have such cultish power over the members of their Church that they can (and did for Prop8) "command" their followers to deprive others of civil rights, and it is written clearly in their Temple oaths and covenants that members are expected to give all their possessions and use all their positions and opportunities ("everything with which the Lord has blessed you or may bless you") for the building up of the LDS Church. This includes oaths to give one's life for the building up of the LDS Church. That is an explicit oath regarding a willingness to "give one's life" (suicide) for the Church.

4) The LDS Temple ceremonies at the time Mitt Romney was "endowed" included graphic depictions of cutting one's throat, disembowling oneself, and other acts of suicide as a penalty for revealing the secret oaths and failing to be faithful to them.

These are not lies. These are facts. These are not taken out of context. They are true, accurate, and reliable.

As such, your unsupported assertion that "nothing about Mormon beliefs in general, or Mormon temple ceremonies in particular, that would cause a Mormon public official to violate his or her oath of office" is just not true.

As I have shown, Mitt Romney and other temple Mormons have made explicit oaths and covenants of allegiance to their "Prophet" that take priority over their political responsibilities, civil government, civil law ("the philosophies of men" and "the evil world"), ethics, and common sense.

Finally, you (ignorantly) wrote: "I do give you credit for finally identifying your real motive..."

Nothing I wrote indicated I am a "proponent of same-sex marriage". That is your false assumption. My personal beliefs are irrelevant. What IS relevant is that you have provided NO arguments to counter anything I have reported about Mormonism and Mitt Romney.

GoldenEagles,

"Don’t be too quick, MrMeaner, to sell short some of your most penetrating insights."

No, one should never be too quick to sell short any of one's most penetrating insights.

"Given his response, I believe it fair to say you stung his conscience where it counts.'

I'm guessing that you would need to believe that irrespective of my actual response.

"For a moment, he could see his own face in the mirror you held up."

Again, I'm guessing that you actually need to believe that.

"Your statement is of such high quality, that I think Psolus should carve that in stone, and hang it on the wall of his living room."

And risk my damage deposit?

Not on your life.

"Truly a memorable query that goes to the heart of the matter."

You have to believe that, don't you?

"Stone carving chisels are not too expensive, and one can come by a good slab of granite at a local mortuary."

But, you have failed to address the problem of the damage deposit.

(fin)

MrMeaner asks of Psolus, "Why do you exist? What purpose do you serve? Are you just an indistinguishable meat-sack, with no direction, no motivation, nothing significant to offer your fellow man? Are vapid, meaningless one-liners the extent of your communication skills?"

Don’t be too quick, MrMeaner, to sell short some of your most penetrating insights. Given his response, I believe it fair to say you stung his conscience where it counts. For a moment, he could see his own face in the mirror you held up.

Your statement is of such high quality, that I think Psolus should carve that in stone, and hang it on the wall of his living room. Truly a memorable query that goes to the heart of the matter. Stone carving chisels are not too expensive, and one can come by a good slab of granite at a local mortuary.

MrMeaner,

"I take it all back, Psolus."

You do?

"I'm not sure what this is that you do, but you're obviously the best in the world at it."

I doubt that I'm "the best in the world"; probably just the best that you've seen so far.

I'm sure there are some who are much better than I am out there.

But, thanks anyway.

I take it all back, Psolus.

I'm not sure what this is that you do, but you're obviously the best in the world at it.

MrMeaner,

"hmm. Are you entertained by your own simplicity?"

Yes.

"I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because if you're here to cast aspersions, you really suck at it."

I'm not surprised; I didn't even know what "casting aspersions" meant until you mentioned it, and I Googled it.

I'll try to do better in the future.

"Because I assumed that your pleasure in lfe isn't demonstrating your ineptitude."

You may be wrong to assume that.

"Maybe I was wrong."

Yeah, as I said.

"It presents a quandary."

What sort of a quandary?

"Is it possible that some people have so little in their lives, they choose to devote their time making inneffective digs at Christians on web site comment sections?"

Well, that certainly sounds possible...

"It's really a sad commentary on your life."

Do you really think so?

"Why do you exist?"

Gee, I don't know; I guess I exist simply because I do exist; if I didn't exist, well, then I wouldn't exist.

"What purpose do you serve?"

Well, I do make people laugh.

"Are you just an indistinguishable meat-sack, with no direction, no motivation, nothiong significant to offer your fellow man?"

Well, now that you mention it...

"Are vapid, meaningless one-liners the extent of your communication skills?"

I'm not sure...

Would your "jebus" have written your comment?

"Because it is fun, and, it is easy."

hmm. Are you entertained by your own simplicity?

"What makes you believe that I am compelled to understand what you believe?"

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because if you're here to cast aspersions, you really suck at it.

"How do you know that?"

Because I assumed that your pleasure in lfe isn't demonstrating your ineptitude.
Maybe I was wrong.

"If I'm so bad at it, what's the problem?"

It presents a quandary. Is it possible that some people have so little in their lives, they choose to devote their time making inneffective digs at Christians on web site comment sections?
It's really a sad commentary on your life.

"Why do you ask?"

Why do you exist? What purpose do you serve?
Are you just an indistinguishable meat-sack, with no direction, no motivation, nothiong significant to offer your fellow man?
Are vapid, meaningless one-liners the extent of your communication skills?

MrMeaner.

"Why do you mock Christians,..."

Because it is fun, and, it is easy.

"...yet are compelled to understand what we believe?"

What makes you believe that I am compelled to understand what you believe?

"Surely you aren't here to verbally persecute anyone,.."

How do you know that?

"...because you're so bad at it."

If I'm so bad at it, what's the problem?

Why do you respond?

"Is there a part of you that wants to be convinced,..,"

About your superstitious beliefs?

No.

"...or are you REALLY bored?"

I wouldn't say "REALLY" bored - maybe "a little" bored, or "somewhat" bored - but not "REALLY" bored.

Why do you ask?

Psolus,

Why do you mock Christians, yet are compelled to understand what we believe?
Surely you aren't here to verbally persecute anyone, because you're so bad at it.
Is there a part of you that wants to be convinced, or are you REALLY bored?

lol........no, wait..............
...............Bwaaaaahahahaha, MAN, you are so lame.

MrMeaner,

"It wasn't useless at all."

To me, it was completely useless.

"It gave me a hearty chuckle."

Yeah, well, you sound like a real wild man.

"Amusement?...yes"

Sure you are; if you believe it hard enough, it will be like it is true.

"Yes. Yes I do."

Well, good for you.

"How, you ask?"

No, I don't ask; I also don't care.

"Well, actually this video explains a lot."

[link to potential fundamentalist video expurgated]

As I wrote: I don't ask; I also don't care.

"That was 1996."

What was 1996?

"Haven't you gotten over your trauma by now?"

What trauma?

i find the word "jebus" extremely amusing.

"Well, that is a non-interesting bit of useless information."

It wasn't useless at all. It gave me a hearty chuckle.

"You seem to be just full of it, don't you."

Amusement?...yes

"So, you do know to whom I am referring when I write "jebus", don't you?"

Yes. Yes I do.

How, you ask?

Well, actually this video explains a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVwCYJj4THQ

That was 1996. Haven't you gotten over your trauma by now?

MrMeaner,

"Does anyone else find it ironic that Psolus keeps using the term "jebus"?"

Apparently not.

"Pslous,
Jebus was the name of the city that is known today as Jerusalem."

Well, that is a non-interesting bit of useless information.

"Jebus also means threshing-floor, where is where the chaff ends up after harvest."

You seem to be just full of it, don't you.

"Jebus is calling for you, Psolus"

So, you do know to whom I am referring when I write "jebus", don't you?

Did RCofield tell you? Did you tell him?

"lol"

Do you own a "Hello Kitty" backpack?

RCofield,

"That's interesting."

What's interesting?

"I recently had a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist member leave the church where I pastor because, as he so angrily put it, my preaching and teaching were too "anti-fundamentalism.""

That's not interesting.

That's freaking funny.

"Go figure."

Go figure indeed; even the members of your own herd don't believe what you are shoveling them.

Bad herdsmanship.

Does anyone else find it ironic that Psolus keeps using the term "jebus"?

Pslous,
Jebus was the name of the city that is known today as Jerusalem.

Jebus also means threshing-floor, where is where the chaff ends up after harvest.

Jebus is calling for you, Psolus

lol

PEREGRINE,

Your fundamentalism is showing, as usual.

That's interesting. I recently had a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist member leave the church where I pastor because, as he so angrily put it, my preaching and teaching were too "anti-fundamentalism."

Go figure.

RC

"So, to summarize, you are contending that before Christ's final return--Israel (or maybe just Judah) will be re-gathered as a nation, the Solomonic Temple will be physically reconstructed yet again, and the OT sacrificial system will be re-instituted as the official religion of Israel/Judah, and the kings of the earth will lay siege to Jerusalem.
Is that correct? "

You're getting warmer, but no
I would say that Judah is already semi-gathered, and that gathering, symbolized as the cursed fig tree that would re-sprout forth, marks the beginning of the generation that would not pass away until all things are fulfillrd. Those things include the rise of a world empire, with a king who will establish a global religion. The act of "causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease", indicates that he will be received as the promised messiah. At Christ's return, the abomination will be overthrown in the fiery slendor that signifies the end of this age. The house of Israel will be re-gathered with the house of Judah, and Christ will be their king
As far as the temple, you have to remember that at Christ's return, a temple made of stone and wood, would have very little value in a spiritual kingdom.

"You've made several such references to the "foreknowledge" of God.
"Are you contending that God's election of individuals unto salvation is based on his "foresight" of their good works?"

I was paraphrasing Romans 8:28-33

RCofield,

"Just as I thought. Not even in the ball park. That's your Catholic background still influencing you."

Is your imaginary "god" proud of you now?

How does basking in vain-glory feel?

It feels kind of good, doesn't it?

Maybe that's why you were told to believe that it's a "sin".

"I know that you earlier stated that you don't believe your own opinions. Your philosophical skepticism leaves you no other choice."

Can you inform me of other things that leave me no choice?

"Yes, but that is just your opinion, and even you don't believe your opinions."

Can you inform me of other things that are just my opinion, and whether or not I "believe" my opinions?

Whatever did I do without your keen insights?

"Yes, but you're confused about the genre."

Oh, it's the "genre" now; I think I'll have another glass of Chardonnay and some more of that heavenly smoked Gouda.

"Actually you're wildly inconsistent on that one."

Do tell.

"For example you label the bible “superstitious” even though you obviously understand nothing about the bible."

Oh, my.

"That's pretending to understand something that you do not understand."

Did you win your wings with that one?

"Kinda like a nose; its there whether you hang on to it or not."

Tell me about it, preacher.

"Your Catholicism is showing again."

Your fundamentalism is showing, as usual.

"Is see that you are as confused about that term as you are about your soul."

As I have previously stated, I am confused about all things superstitious.

That's just one more way of recognizing superstition.

PEREGRINE,

Oh, you know; Gift from your imaginary "god", riddled with "sin" and "guilt" upon receipt, must be "cleansed" by your imaginary "god" in order to be "saved", immortal, goes to "heaven" for "eternity" if one is good, goes to "hell" for "eternity" if one is "not saved", accumulated "black marks" for every "sin" that is committed; you can fill in the rest, it's your superstitious concept, not mine.

Just as I thought. Not even in the ball park. That's your Catholic background still influencing you.

Do you really know that?

I know that you earlier stated that you don't believe your own opinions. Your philosophical skepticism leaves you no other choice.

Second, we do not share the common experience of having "souls"; you believe that you have a "soul", I do not believe that I have a "soul'.

Yes, but that is just your opinion, and even you don't believe your opinions.

I was writing about all the various "bibles".

Yes, but you're confused about the genre.

What you should have noticed is that I don't pretend to have an understanding of things that I do not understand.

Actually you're wildly inconsistent on that one. For example you label the bible “superstitious” even though you obviously understand nothing about the bible. That's pretending to understand something that you do not understand.

Can't seem to let go of that monkey on your back can you?

Kinda like a nose; its there whether you hang on to it or not.

Don't you have a 12-step program that addresses that?

Your Catholicism is showing again.

Nothing more than that it is among other superstitious terms that you have used in the past.

Is see that you are as confused about that term as you are about your soul.

MRMEANER,

(I would say they were chosen by God's foreknowledge of the individual)

You've made several such references to the "foreknowledge" of God.

Are you contending that God's election of individuals unto salvation is based on his "foresight" of their good works?

MRMEANER,

In part.
I think the best way to simplify it would be to say that the elect will be those who do and teach the law, the prophets, and the gospel, in truth. They are those who Christ spoke of as being called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, to summarize, you are contending that before Christ's final return--Israel (or maybe just Judah) will be re-gathered as a nation, the Solomonic Temple will be physically reconstructed yet again, and the OT sacrificial system will be re-instituted as the official religion of Israel/Judah, and the kings of the earth will lay siege to Jerusalem.

Is that correct?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Are you bearing witness, Rcofield, that my sense of God’s Reality conforms to scripture?

In the post referred to, yes.

Calling Psolus in interstellar space, calling Psolus in interstellar space, calling Psolus in interstellar space. Come in please. I am sending to you, over the vast expanse of interstellar space, more evidence for the Reality of God.

Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky Thunder
with Del McCoury Band - Rawhide

...

Psolus says, "Is it 42?"

A matrix of imagination that purports to postulate that God is imaginary, even as God is holding together, in real time, all of the atomic structures that comprises the human body, and even the very structure of the mind that has constructed this very matrix of imagination, represents a point of delusion that is separated from the domain of truth by unimaginably vast distances. Distances so vast, that I have tried to characterize this distance using the unit of measurement known as light-years.

Psolus says, "Is it 42?"

One light-year represents the distance light travels in one year. Given that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, in one year, light will travel about 5.9 trillion miles.

Psolus says, "Please let it be 42."

42 light-years, the distance traveled by light over the span of 42 years, represents 246.4 trillion miles.

Psolus says, "Please let it be 42."

A point of delusion that is separated from the domain of truth by 246.4 trillion miles, is truly at a VAST distance from the truth.

If the soul lives inside of that delusion, inside what amounts to a sealed oil drum drifting in interstellar space, the sunlight of truth being at such a vast distance away, I hope you can understand Psolus, why it is that the light of truth does not register on your soul. You are simply too far away. You need to come closer to the warmth of the sun.

Psolus says, "Praise the 'lord'?"

Is this sarcasm? Or your thrusters igniting? Or perhaps a little bit of both?

Rcofield quotes, [Hebrews 1:3]

Are you bearing witness, Rcofield, that my sense of God’s Reality conforms to scripture?

PH

Did you read Jer 4?

What did you think of the details of that event?

Didn't you find it odd that God gives an account of a destruction that left "no man", that destroyed all of the cities at the presence of the LORD, and placed the Earth in a condition much like the one descibed at the beginning of Genesis?

Whether or not it's an example meant to be understood by the people at the time, in relation to another historical event, the fact remains that he did bring up this event as an example.

"So you're agreeing that when Paul says all Israel will be saved he is not referring to the entirety of ethnic Israel but to the remnant chosen by grace?"

In part.
I think the best way to simplify it would be to say that the elect will be those who do and teach the law, the prophets, and the gospel, in truth. They are those who Christ spoke of as being called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(I would say they were chosen by God's foreknowledge of the individual)

But it does clearly say that Israel's sins will be forgiven, at the return of Christ as redeemer

(

GoldenEagles,

"If God our Father withdrew his attention and conscious will from you, Psolus, what you consider yourself to be, would instantly fall into a pile of rubble."

Well, that explains why I am currently a pile of rubble.

"Yes, what you are, is only held together by the Conscious Will of God."

Well, I'll be damned; get it?

"Using the above fact as a benchmark for reality, we can accurately gauge the distance, measured in light-years, between the domain of truth, and the content of your mind wherein you have your imagination telling you that God is "imaginary"."

Is it 42?

Please let it be 42.

"This is not so much different than hiking across the Golden Gate Bridge, and believing you are walking on air."

Well, it does kind of bounce when big trucks go by.

"That would not be a very accurate sense of reality either."

If you say so.

"This can be a new source of thanksgiving for all of us, as we remember to Thank God, each day, each hour, each minute, for holding us together."

Praise the "lord"?

(fin)

Hi MrMeaner,

Let me try my earlier post again.

You said:

There are other scriptural references that I believe to give a basic account of the things that might have led up to the Earth becoming (or being rendered)void and without form (which by the way, means empty, and completely destroyed) –MrM

You are taking one of the meanings of the word to mean destroyed, but in the context I don't think that fits.

I think that an empty or uninhabited, chaotic or unordered earth fits more the context of formless and void in verse 2. In verse 4 onwards we begin to see how God puts order and structure into this former void world and universe.

As Robert Reymond cites in his Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p.393,

"1. The word 'day' (yom), in the singular, dual and plural, occurs some 2,225 times in the Old Testament with the overwhelming preponderance of these occurrences designating the ordinary daily cycle....
Moses records in Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and on the Sabbath day and made it holy.""

Furthermore Robert Reymond states:

"2. The recurring phrase, 'evening and morning [taken together] constituted one day, etc.' (1:5, 8, 13, 23, 31), suggests
as much. The qualifying words, 'evening and morning,' attached here to each of these recurring statements occur together outside of Genesis in 37 verses (eg., Exod. 18:13; 27:21). In each instance these words are employed to describe an ordinary day.
3. In the hundreds of other cases in the Old Testament where yom stands in conjunction with an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.), eg., Exodus 12:15...Leviticus 12:3, it never means anything other than a normal, literal day."

Then Reymond goes on to list a number of other reasons for treating Genesis 1-3 as a plain interpretation of Scripture. Some of those reasons are the genealogies, Jesus' teaching, especially the two verses on Adam and Eve that dates man to the beginning of God's creation (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9), as well as treating the accounts of Noah and others as literal, historical happenings.

You can also glean the same from Paul's writings in Romans 1:19-20; 8:20 and others. The fact that death was introduced into the world by the sin of Adam is another example that suggests taking the passages plainly.

An error is to complicate the matter by taking the authority of philosophical science as your starting point rather than that which is greater - the word of God.

As RCofield mentioned today, origins is not repeatable science. It is a onetime occurrence that we have to interpret.

For three hundred plus years now science has been tunnel visioned into looking at things from an evolutionary framework. Phil Johnston has written on the indoctrination against ID with numerous books.

MRMEANER,

Again, the first chapter of Hosea makes it pretty clear. Otherwise, I would start reading in Isaiah, around Ch.42, through the next several chapters. You’ll find that the theme of Israel falling away, ultimately to be redeemed repeated over and over and over

So you're agreeing that when Paul says all Israel will be saved he is not referring to the entirety of ethnic Israel but to the remnant chosen by grace?

GOLDENEAGLES,

RE: "Thank you O God for Holding Us Together"

Heb 1:3 (Christ) Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Thankyou O God for
Holding Us Together

Our meditation on the Divine Source of all atomic and electronic behavior and existence, leads us further into the contemplation of another dramatic area of truth. If God our Father withdrew his attention and conscious will from you, Psolus, what you consider yourself to be, would instantly fall into a pile of rubble.

Yes, what you are, is only held together by the Conscious Will of God.

Using the above fact as a benchmark for reality, we can accurately gauge the distance, measured in light-years, between the domain of truth, and the content of your mind wherein you have your imagination telling you that God is "imaginary".

This is not so much different than hiking across the Golden Gate Bridge, and believing you are walking on air. That would not be a very accurate sense of reality either.

This can be a new source of thanksgiving for all of us, as we remember to Thank God, each day, each hour, each minute, for holding us together.

"You are taking one of the meanings of the word to mean destroyed, but in the context I don't think that fits."

I did post that it meant destroyed. I still think that is what is implied, though "to lie waste" would have been more accurate.

The only other time the phrase void and without form is used is in Jer. Ch.4:20-28. The meaning should be clear in that passage.

And I'm not advocating ID.
I am an old-earth creationist.

I do use some of their arguments that refute Darwinism, but that's about all we have in common.

PH

"Do you think Jesus made that distinction? "

Yes. He referred to them as the offspring (sperma in Greek) of vipers.
He accused them of being responsible for the blood of people who were killed before Israel even existed.
Those are pretty big clues, there.

"His physical lineage can be traced through Abraham, just as the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah can."

But are you sure that the same can be said for those in the prieshood, and the scribes?

______________________________
RC

"I'm sorry. Am I boring you?

Not you, perticularly. This whole line of discussion is getting boring.

“I Thought you were setting up a back-door six-literal-days creation argument. Obviously you weren't.”

No. I just thought I’d throw that out there. It does offer one explanation for a literal six day creation, but only if someone is open to that possibility. I kind of doubted that would be the case, so I figured I would just offer it as a side note

"RE: Ro. 11:25, 26--Could you elaborate a bit on what you take Ro. 11:26 to mean when Paul says “so all Israel shall be saved”?

Again, the first chapter of Hosea makes it pretty clear. Otherwise, I would start reading in Isaiah, around Ch.42, through the next several chapters. You’ll find that the theme of Israel falling away, ultimately to be redeemed repeated over and over and over

RCofield,

"And what, precisely, is my “superstitious concept of 'soul'”?"

Oh, you know; Gift from your imaginary "god", riddled with "sin" and "guilt" upon receipt, must be "cleansed" by your imaginary "god" in order to be "saved", immortal, goes to "heaven" for "eternity" if one is good, goes to "hell" for "eternity" if one is "not saved", accumulated "black marks" for every "sin" that is committed; you can fill in the rest, it's your superstitious concept, not mine.

"Please tell me, because I'm just dying to know."

Why don't you ask your imaginary "god"?

"I think you are so accustomed to “dodging” that you can hardly make the distinction."

Do you really believe that?

"If you'll go back and look you answered all three questions in the affirmative."

Did you "believe" me?

"That's OK, Peregrine."

Yes, that's OK.

"That's just your opinion, and we both know that even you don't believe your own opinions."

Do you really know that?

"Bwaaahahaahaaa."

Well crafted.

"Now, Peregrine, when you state “I don't have a soul,” are you absolutely certain of that or is that just your opinion?"

Whichever you choose to believe is fine with me.

"(You know why I have to ask that.)"

Actually, I don't.

"Just pointing out that if you indeed did not have a soul, as you so foolishly contend, you would be an inanimate object."

How did you come to believe that bit of superstitious nonsense?

"(You seem to repeat yourself a great deal when you are unsure of yourself."

Do you really believe that?

I understand how that may be a comforting belief for you.

"Do you stutter blusteringly as well?)"

Do you want to believe that I de?

Will you find it comforting to believe that?

Be my guest.

"Why, because we are “fellow travelers” who share the common experience of having souls, Peregrine."

First, we are not "fellow travelers; you may be thinking of your comment chorus.

Second, we do not share the common experience of having "souls"; you believe that you have a "soul", I do not believe that I have a "soul'.

"Well, I think “fixate” is a little strong, don't you?"

No, I don't.

"You are aware that this is a discussion forum, aren't you?"

Yes, I am.

"But don't get me wrong, you are special, Peregrine."

You'll never know.

"You really are."

Really, you'll never know.

"Yes, you've shared that with me before. But you were talking about the bible."

I was writing about all the various "bibles".

"I've noticed that you often seem to have little understanding of many things that are not superstitious."

What you should have noticed is that I don't pretend to have an understanding of things that I do not understand.

"Perhaps you should get out a bit more or perhaps read a bit more."

Perhaps; perhaps not.

"You're really selling yourself short."

I'm not selling myself; long or short.

More...

More:

"Maybe now that you've discovered that you have a soul you'll do better."

Can't seem to let go of that monkey on your back can you?

Don't you have a 12-step program that addresses that?

"Is this “judas” character in some way related to this “jebus” character you keep referring to?"

Perhaps.

"Thank you."

You're welcome.

"I did."

Actually, you didn't.

"So what do you mean by your use of the term?"

Nothing more than that it is among other superstitious terms that you have used in the past.

(fin)

WALTER,

hahahaha... no.. that's just regular old science. you'll find regular scientists with ALL KINDS of religious and non-religious beliefs. but, the ONLY scientists who see the evidence as supporting a young earth w/no evolution are religious... and almost all judeochrislamic at that.... hhhmmm.....

Isn't that remarkable? All "regular old" (evolution-based) science/scientists are as motiveless and pure as the driven snow. But any science/scientist that disagrees with the "regular old" (evolution-based) science must be driven by sinsiter religious motives.

That sound about right to you?

rco,
"evolution-committed science",/i>

hahahaha... no.. that's just regular old science. you'll find regular scientists with ALL KINDS of religious and non-religious beliefs. but, the ONLY scientists who see the evidence as supporting a young earth w/no evolution are religious... and almost all judeochrislamic at that.... hhhmmm.....

anyway, we're getting way ahead of ourselves here. please present your next step in the case for yahweh.

MrMeaner,
i wasn't really looking for a discussion on evidence for/against evolution. i was just wondering whether you believe it happened.

Hi MrMeaner,

I don't want to add to our current discussion by compounding a discussion on Genesis 1-3. But I want to make at least one comment for now and then put the issue on the back-burner.

You said:

There are other scriptural references that I believe to give a basic account of the things that might have led up to the Earth becoming (or being rendered)void and without form (which by the way, means empty, and completely destroyed) -MrM

You are taking one of the meanings of the word to mean destroyed, but in the context I don't think that fits.

I think that an empty or uninhabited, chaotic or unordered earth fits more the context of formless and void in verse 2. In verse 4 onwards we begin to see how God puts order and structure into this former void world and universe.

As Robert Reymond cites in his Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p.393,

1. The word 'day' (yom), in the singular, dual and plural, occurs some 2,225 times in the Old Testament with the overwhelming preponderance of these occurrences designating the ordinary daily cycle....

Moses records in Exodus 20:11, "For in six daysthe LORD made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and on the sabbath day and made it holy."

Furthermore Robert Reymond states:

2. The recurring phrase, 'evening and morning [taken together] constituted one day, etc.' (1:5, 8, 13, 23, 31), suggests
as much. The qualifying words, 'evening and morning,' attached here to each of these recurring statements occur together outside of Genesis in 37 verses (eg., Exod. 18:13; 27:21). In each instance these words are employed to describe an ordinary day.

3. In the hundreds of other cases in the Old Testament where yom stands in conjunction with an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.), eg., Exodus 12:15...Leviticus 12:3, it never means anything other than a normal, literal day.

Then Reymond goes on to list a number of other reasons for treating Genesis 1-3 as a plain interpretation of Scripture. Some of those reasons are the genealogies, Jesus' teaching, especially the two verses on Adam and Eve that dates man to the beginning of God's creation (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9), as well as treating the accounts of Noah and others as literal, historical happenings. You can also glean the same from Paul's writings in Romans 1:19-20; 8:20 and others. The fact that death was introduced into the world by the sin of Adam is another example that suggests taking the passages plainly.

An error is to complicate the matter by taking the authority of philosophical science as your starting point rather than that which is greater - the word of God. As RCofield mentioned today, origins is not repeatable science. It is a one time occurrence that we have to interpret.

For three hundred plus years now science has been tunnel visioned into looking at things from an evolutionary framework. Phil Johnston has written on the indoctrination against ID with numerous books.

One more thing before I head back to work, How do you explain the fact that genetic mutations result in a loss of information?

Wrong question. Walter has already pointed you to the evolution-committed science that is coming up with all sorts of minutia to try and create the illusion that mutations actually increase information by default (a complete joke).

The proper question is this: Where do they come up with enough mutated new genetic information to accomplish speciation--the evolution from one species to another?

That, my friend, is beyond mathematically impossible.

The vast majority of mutations produce compromised information--that's why we call the result a "mutant."

[Typo correction: The structure of life on earth, as we know it, was consciously created, by God, to express this basic principle, that it is impossible to create something out of nothing, as a check against the propensity of the human imagination to jump off the edge of the cliff (of reason) without a parachute.]

MrMeaner says, "Only created has a meaning that implies something was made from nothing. The other words suggest procurement, or creation from existing material."

God always uses pre-existing material to create something. It is not possible to create something out of "nothing."

For example, when he created the soul, he created it out of his own existing body.

When he created the universe, he created it out of the substance of light, which is again, out of the substance of his own body.

The structure of life on earth, as we know it, was consciously created, by God, to express this basic principle (that something can be created out of nothing), as a check against the propensity of the human imagination to jump off the edge of the cliff (of reason) without a parachute.

Look around. All things are created out of existing material. As above, so below.

This truth will always connect us to God, each one of us, including Psolus, in a real time operational manner.

MRMEANER,

I would have yesterday, but frankly, I found Walter's questions to be more interesting.

I'm sorry. Am I boring you?

Would you mind explaining the "slick one" I pulled? I haven't the slightest idea what you mean.

Thought you were setting up a back-door six-literal-days creation argument. Obviously you weren't.

Regarding Combustion Chambers, Psolus asks, ”Who, exactly, are you trying to convince?”

Everyone benefits when they make the effort to train their attention to go in the direction of the truth.

MrMeaner,
i don't explain how mutations can only result in a loss of information - because that is a (common) misconception.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

One more thing before I head back to work, How do you explain the fact that genetic mutations result in a loss of information?

Walter,

I don't have much lunch time left, but let me just say that there is a difference between "created", "made", and "let there be"

Only created has a meaning that implies something was made from nothing. The other words suggest procurement, or creation from existing material

RC

I'll get to your questions this evening when I get home from work.
I would have yesterday, but frankly, I found Walter's questions to be more interesting.

Would you mind explaining the "slick one" I pulled?
I haven't the slightest idea what you mean.

I simply described what was reported on a TV show I saw recently.

rco,
you referenced MrMeaner's post in a post to me. that's why i directed my answer to you. you implied that MrMeaner had pulled a fast one or pulled the wool over my eyes or something. i was just explaining to you why i just let that crazy "gap" or "trillion times" theory he mentioned pass. also, he wasn't saying he subscribed to that theory, just that it exists, and that the math trick was "neat" or similar.

i'm not really planning an extended discussion w/them - just asking for their views on some basic science questions.

so...what's next in our discussion?

we're pondering an out-of-space-and-time first cause about to "poof" the universe in existence? i can't wait to see how do you get from there to the 6-day creation week.

------------
btw, sculpture update: i was able to snap this just before the serpent vanished under water.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/

it's 67 degrees here now, but long-range models and forcasters are beginning to make noises about a possible snow storm here early on tuesday. i'm very excited. i give it about a 10% chance of delivering.

WALTER,

rco,
i don't find that stuff about the math games people play to reconcile the 6-day creation week of the bible with he scientific "creation account" very convincing. i find those math games create as many problems as they solve. what? the biblical time scale is off by a factor of a trillion?! uh...ok... that's a serious error.

Ummmm...Walter, that wasn't my post. MRMEANER posted that.

I was just pointing out something he said that seemed to have been overlooked in your response to him.

...scientists think life started in the water and remained there for most of it's existence.

Right. They "think." And that is always subject to change, because they weren't there to observe it and apply the scientific method to their observations. In other words, they're speculating.

The whole argument you are setting up with MRMEANER, GOLDENEAGLES, etc. really boils down to one very simple point: Who do you accept as your ultimate and final authority?

Until that issue is resolved your discussion is doomed to circularity.

Peace.

rco,
i don't find that stuff about the math games people play to reconcile the 6-day creation week of the bible with he scientific "creation account" very convincing. i find those math games create as many problems as they solve. what? the biblical time scale is off by a factor of a trillion?! uh...ok... that's a serious error.

just one of the many problems which are not even time scale problems, but sequence problems. the bible has the earth being created before "light" - but that's plainly NOT the scientific view.

gen1 has "lights in the sky" (stars, moon, sun) created well after earth - not the scientific story.

gen1 has "seed-bearing trees and plants" appear "on land", whereas scientists think life started in the water and remained there for most of it's existence.

etc...

i wish religious people who accept the realities of modern science wouldn't try to contort the bible into "matching" the scientific account. it's better (i.e., more faithful to science and the bible) to just call genesis an allegory or metaphor or whatever.

PEREGRINE,

No, you asked three questions that had no relation to your superstitious concept of "soul".

And what, precisely, is my “superstitious concept of 'soul'”? Please tell me, because I'm just dying to know.

No, actually, I dodged the questions, and you didn't seem to notice.

I think you are so accustomed to “dodging” that you can hardly make the distinction. If you'll go back and look you answered all three questions in the affirmative.

No, the concept of a "soul" renders itself to be a superstitious concept.

That's OK, Peregrine. That's just your opinion, and we both know that even you don't believe your own opinions. Bwaaahahaahaaa.

Your getting your knockers in a twist when I state that I don't have a "soul" is simply icing on the cake for me.

Now, Peregrine, when you state “I don't have a soul,” are you absolutely certain of that or is that just your opinion? (You know why I have to ask that.)

What's that got to do with me, and whether I share your superstitious beliefs?
What's that got to do with me, and whether I share your superstitious beliefs?
What's that got to do with me, and whether I share your superstitious beliefs?

Just pointing out that if you indeed did not have a soul, as you so foolishly contend, you would be an inanimate object. (You seem to repeat yourself a great deal when you are unsure of yourself. Do you stutter blusteringly as well?)

Why is that important to you?

Why, because we are “fellow travelers” who share the common experience of having souls, Peregrine.

What is so special about me that you have to fixate on what I think?

Well, I think “fixate” is a little strong, don't you? You are aware that this is a discussion forum, aren't you?

But don't get me wrong, you are special, Peregrine. You really are.

How observant; you know that I do not read superstitious fiction.

Yes, you've shared that with me before. But you were talking about the bible.

I have little understanding of all things superstitious; that is your belief-world, not mine.

I've noticed that you often seem to have little understanding of many things that are not superstitious. Perhaps you should get out a bit more or perhaps read a bit more. You're really selling yourself short. Maybe now that you've discovered that you have a soul you'll do better.

Why, you little judas!

Is this “judas” character in some way related to this “jebus” character you keep referring to?

You may.

Thank you. I did. So what do you mean by your use of the term?

RCofield,

"Do you always use run-on sentences when you feel threatened?"

Do you always ask leading questions when you feel trapped by your superstitious beliefs?

"No “trickeration” here¸ Peregrine. I simply asked you 3 straightforward questions relative to the definition of the concept of the soul."

No, you asked three questions that had no relation to your superstitious concept of "soul".

"You affirmed that you possessed all 3 of these elements which animate every living human."

No, actually, I dodged the questions, and you didn't seem to notice.

"The bare fact that you don’t understand what the soul actually is does not, by default, render it a “superstitious concept.”"

No, the concept of a "soul" renders itself to be a superstitious concept.

Your getting your knockers in a twist when I state that I don't have a "soul" is simply icing on the cake for me.

"Perhaps because I am of the opinion that possessing a mind whereby one can assimilate and analyze information is a good thing;..."

What's that got to do with me, and whether I share your superstitious beliefs?

"...and that having a will whereby one can act upon said information is a good thing."

What's that got to do with me, and whether I share your superstitious beliefs?

"And perhaps because I consider emotions/affections rather useful in analyzing the motions of one’s mind and the actions resulting from one’s will."

What's that got to do with me, and whether I share your superstitious beliefs?

"Such things are unimportant to you?"

Why is that important to you?

What is so special about me that you have to fixate on what I think?

"Not at all. Though you have only recently affirmed that you have a soul I was aware that you had one all along."

No, you believe that I have a "soul", but you appear to be so threatened by my stating that I do not have a "soul" that you are going to unhealthy lengths to try to make it appear that I admit that I have a "soul".

Why is that so important to you?

Is your belief weakening?

"Are you of the opinion that my “beliefs” are “failing me”?"

You tell me; they're your beliefs, not mine.

"Your lack of familiarity with the bible is showing again."

How observant; you know that I do not read superstitious fiction.

"That question further demonstrates your oft-evidenced misunderstanding of the nature of faith."

I have little understanding of all things superstitious; that is your belief-world, not mine.

"Who is this “jebus” character you keep referring to?"

Why, you little judas!

"And may I ask what you mean by your use of the term “save”?"

You may.

WALTER,

MrMeaner,
i so appreciate your answering my question. most scientists put earth's age at 4,500,000,000 years. most put the universe's age at around 14,500,000,000 (others at 13,500,000,000) or so.

..... :-) .... Take a closer look at MRMEANER's post @ February 16, 2011 7:02 PM, especially the last 2 paragraphs.

He pulled a pretty slick one there that I don't think anyone has picked up on yet.

MRMEANER,

"RE: Ro. 11:25, 26--Could you elaborate a bit on what you take Ro. 11:26 to mean when Paul says “so all Israel shall be saved”? Given the context (chapters 9-11) I take this to mean all of “elect” Israel, all of the “remnant” that God has always preserved and kept from apostasy—the “true circumcision, the true Israel of God”—will be saved. (Php. 3:3, Ga. 6:16)."--RCO

I just now noticed this part of your comment, RC. Let mw stew on your comment, and the one above from RC, and get back to you guys tomorrow evening.--MRMEANER

I think my above question and statement is pretty relevant to much of what has been discussed here.

Have you had a chance to "stew on" it yet?

PEREGRINE,

That statement appears to have threatened you to such an extent that you attempted to "trick" me into writing something that you could use, via application of your belief-logic, to somehow indicate that I may have actually admitted to having a "soul", even though I have already stated that I don't have a "soul", because "soul" is a superstitious concept, and I am not a superstitious person.

Do you always use run-on sentences when you feel threatened?

No “trickeration” here¸ Peregrine. I simply asked you 3 straightforward questions relative to the definition of the concept of the soul. You affirmed that you possessed all 3 of these elements which animate every living human. The bare fact that you don’t understand what the soul actually is does not, by default, render it a “superstitious concept.”

Why is my having a "soul" so important to you?

Perhaps because I am of the opinion that possessing a mind whereby one can assimilate and analyze information is a good thing; and that having a will whereby one can act upon said information is a good thing. And perhaps because I consider emotions/affections rather useful in analyzing the motions of one’s mind and the actions resulting from one’s will.

Such things are unimportant to you?

Do you fear that I have no "soul", then you may not have a "soul" either?

Not at all. Though you have only recently affirmed that you have a soul I was aware that you had one all along.

Are your "beliefs" failing you?

Are you of the opinion that my “beliefs” are “failing me”?

Isn't there a loop-hole in your bible that you could use to say that even though I don't have a "soul", it is perfectly "believable" for you to have a "soul"?

Your lack of familiarity with the bible is showing again.

Are you sure?

Quite.

Is "convinced" the same as having "faith"?

That question further demonstrates your oft-evidenced misunderstanding of the nature of faith.

Will your "jebus" save you if you are only "convinced"?

Who is this “jebus” character you keep referring to?

And may I ask what you mean by your use of the term “save”?

Hi MrMeaner,

I should make this the last post tonight.

I'm saying there's a distinction between those who pierced him and who you are calling "Jews", that I've made allusion to in scriptual references regarding genealogies. -MrM

Do you think Jesus made that distinction?

His physical lineage can be traced through Abraham, just as the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah can.

"The word earth can just as easily be translated land and when you look at Zech. 12:10 which speaks of the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the clans or tribes it makes sense. So, with this consideration, the translation of land instead of earth seems more appropriate. So I think you can make the same case for Zech. 14"

But what about the references to the mount of Olives, etc?

Hi MrMeaner,

I agree with all of that, PH. Even though we are free to choose what we do, he already knows the choices we are going to make. But, we are free to make them. -MrM

But the point I made yesterday was that in Adam's inheritance and outside of Christ we are not free. In Adam we always choose what our sinful natures desire. It takes God to rescue us from that bondage, as I pointed out with various verses last night. We are free in the sense that we will make our own choices, have our own volition, but we are dead in our transgressions, dead to God. This means in ourselves, in our bondage, we are not capable of choosing God without His mercy and the wooing of His Spirit through His word of truth. So we are not free to choose Him. What can a dead person do? We need to be born anew of His Spirit.

Our old nature in Adam is always influencing us. Our human pride and self gets in the way of us having freedom. It wants to be in control and have its own desires met. That can only change in Christ. Many people will go to their graves resisting God with every dying breath. They don't have the freedom to choose Him. Their nature will not bend the knee to Him because it means giving up self, giving up what they prefer, admitting they are wrong, admitting He is deserving of worship and majesty. They are not free to humble themselves before Him, not free to admit that He is good, because that in turn would mean that they have fallen short of His glory. They are not free to admit that they cannot earn their salvation apart from Christ. Some will even allow a synergistic effort on their part and God's part, but not God alone in saving them.

"Are you saying Zechariah 14 is speaking of the final coming rather than Christ’s second coming in judgment to those who pierced Him?"

I'm saying there's a distinction between those who pierced him and who you are calling "Jews", that I've made allusion to in scriptual references regarding genealogies.
I'm not willing to completely "go there" right now, but if you'll investigate the priesthood of Judah, from the time of Ezra through the time of Christ, I think you'll find enough information to understand my perspective

MrMeaner,

"What holy city are the Gentiles trampling on for 42 months in verse two?" - Me

Jerusalem - MrM

Correct, but when? -Me

The final time will be while this is happening [as you quote Zechariah 14:1-9] –MrM

Are you saying Zechariah 14 is speaking of the final coming rather than Christ’s second coming in judgment to those who pierced Him? The NIV translated Revelation 1:7 in reference to Zech. 12:10 “even those who pierced Him: and all the people of the earth will mourn because of Him.” The word earth can just as easily be translated land and when you look at Zech. 12:10 which speaks of the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the clans or tribes it makes sense. So, with this consideration, the translation of land instead of earth seems more appropriate. So I think you can make the same case for Zech. 14 also in regards to Christ’s coming in the clouds of judgment on those who pierced Him rather than at the final coming. By and large the NT is Christ’s coming to His own and His own rejecting Him which opens the way for the Gentiles, because of the hardness of their hearts.

Now come on, surely you have to admit that that hasn't happened –MrM,/blockquote>

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=zec&chapter=014

Since we're in Zechariah, what about all of the prophecies there dealing with the house of Israel , and separately, the house of Judah. –MrM

Israel was a united land under King David. It was not until later that it split into the two divided kingdoms with King Solomon’s sons Rehoboam and Jeroboam. According to Adam Clarke, a Methodist preacher, after the Jews returned from Babylon and the Temple had been rebuilt, the distinction was no longer used of Israel and Judah. (But the fulfillment of unity is ultimately in Christ.)

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ho&chapter=001

I agree with all of that, PH.
Even though we are free to choose what we do, he already knows the choices we are going to make.
But, we are free to make them.
It's a very deep thing to contemplate, but it all works in the fulfillment of God's plan...and, our individual paths to fulfil our roles to bring it about, wittingly or not

Hi MrMeaner,

Why would he allow those he knew would be evil to be born, if it wasn't so they could make amends, by committing acts of their own free will that God would find acceptable? If God determines the outcome of every flesh existence, why not just allow what he has determined to be good, to exist on Earth? – MrM

He planned it that way. If He did not give us our own volition all we would be is zombies, robots, automatons. But in doing so He knew the consequences that man would choose to do his own evil thing. Man would discover evil in being disobedient to God and inventing his own ‘good.’ Ravi Zacharias wrote a book titles, ‘Can Man Live without God.’ It is a testament to man’s attempt to do that very thing.

But the plan from before the foundations of the world was to save a people for Himself that He would bring to the revelation of His goodness and love so that we could 'enjoy' and worship Him in His majesty forevermore. We are compelled by the love of Christ to tell others the good news in the hope that they as well will have ears to hear His voice speaking to them.

"most put the universe's age at around 14,500,000,000 (others at 13,500,000,000) or so"

Oh yeah, that's right.
That's the element of the formula that astrophysicist used.
Thanks for the clarification.
My memory isn't as sharp as it used to be

"evolution, yes or no"

No
At least not the way it is understood.

There is an emerging school of thought among evolution advocates, that I believe to be compatible with the interpretation of the creation narrative I described earlier.

http://www.evolutionaryleaps.com/Disputing_Darwin.htm

Basically, it suggests that the only eras of noticable variation in the fossil record occur immediately following extinction events. It also notes that there are no "transitional creatures, just the sudden emergence of completely new creatures, which to me suggests creation. (or maybe multiple creations/destructions)

Of course some would attribute it to mutations from the unfiltered cosmic rays that would accompany such an event. I have trouble accepting that, on the basis that mutations always result in a loss of genetic information, which in my mind, makes any kind of "transitional" adaptation impossible.
In order for evolution to work the way it is taught, we would have to be in a constant state of regression.
In other words, it's all crap.

Regarding the Age of the Earth ...

walter-in-fallschurch asks, “how old, approximately, do you think the earth is?”

My intuition tells me that the earth is very old. I believe the technique that scientists currently use, radiometric age dating, which calculates the age of rocks from known decay rates of certain atomic elements, points us in generally the right direction. I don’t have any problem with the approximately 5 billion year figure. When geologists find older rocks, then you will get a revision in that value.

I understand that the behavior of all atomic elements is directly controlled by God our Father, and he makes sure that their behavior remains absolutely and perfectly consistent over time. When scientists can accurately observe a particular behavior of a particular element over time, I believe they are looking at a Divine Truth in this respect, in as much as God directly created the behavior they are looking at, and controls that behavior in real time. If this behavior can be properly isolated and measured, to derive time and age information of various rock samples, I am comfortable with that. In this regard, I think they are reading and interpreting information which God our Father himself has essentially “spoken” in the language of a particular element’s behavior.

I would further note, that the ALARM built into my truth/error sensor does not go off in the presence of the 5 billion year figure. It remains quiet.

However, in the presence of the 6,000 year figure, this ALARM sounds with a deafening roar, indicating an error of ghastly proportions. When I go to the control panel, and check the truth/error readout, I see it flashing only the “I” word.

So, if we can reasonably consider that:

A) The universe probably had a first and moving cause…and
B) Time is probably not infinite…and
C) That the cause of the universe therefore probably existed apart from the space/time continuum of the universe…

can we reasonably consider that the cause of the universe is probably without beginning?

Peace, brother.

Posted by: RCofield | February 14, 2011 10:15 PM
-------------------------

i'm having a really hard time saying "probably" to all those. "possibly", sure, but "probably" is too confident unless maybe you mean 51% on each step. nonetheless, this is a totally possible, nay plausible "A,B,C" belief system you've laid out so far. i'm curious as to where it goes off track. please proceed.

btw, yeah, funny about my "big but" - but it is a big but.

MrMeaner,
i so appreciate your answering my question. most scientists put earth's age at 4,500,000,000 years. most put the universe's age at around 14,500,000,000 (others at 13,500,000,000) or so.

so, the next question is: evolution, yes or no?

correction:

(which by the way, means empty, and completely destroyed)

not completely correct, after re-checking

empty, and to lie waste.
That would have been more accurate

RCofield,

"Just pointing out that you do, by your own admission, have a soul."

No, I stated that I have no "soul".

That statement appears to have threatened you to such an extent that you attempted to "trick" me into writing something that you could use, via application of your belief-logic, to somehow indicate that I may have actually admitted to having a "soul", even though I have already stated that I don't have a "soul", because "soul" is a superstitious concept, and I am not a superstitious person.

Why is my having a "soul" so important to you?

Do you fear that I have no "soul", then you may not have a "soul" either?

Are your "beliefs" failing you?

Isn't there a loop-hole in your bible that you could use to say that even though I don't have a "soul", it is perfectly "believable" for you to have a "soul"?

"I'm already "convinced," so flip a coin."

Are you sure?

Is "convinced" the same as having "faith"?

Will your "jebus" save you if you are only "convinced"?

"goldeeagles, MrMeaner,
how old, approximately, do you think the earth is? (i assume rco thinks 6000+/-?) "

Now we're talking.
Way to bring it to the table, bud.

Actually, my position on that, may help explain my other opinions.

I believe the Earth is very old.
The latest estimate I've heard is 15 billion years.
There is a misunderstanding, IMO, of the first two verses in Genesis.
I don't think there were any evil motives behind what I believe to be a major mistranslation in Gen 1:2. It's pretty easy to understand why it translated the way it is. But there are things in the Bible that can not be explained without accepting that there are billions of years between Gen 1:1, and the event recorded in Gen 1:2

"[2] And the earth WAS without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

That word translated "was" is the Hebrew word pronounced "hayah". It can not be used as a passive verb.
Most of time this word is used, it is translated in to English as "became" or "came to pass".

There are other scriptural references that I believe to give a basic account of the things that might have led up to the Earth becoming (or being rendered)void and without form
(which by the way, means empty, and completely destroyed)

This is why it isn't hard for me to imagine that there are reasons that we exist in this age, that have to do with the distant past.

Interestingly, I recently watched an episode of The Naked Archeologist, where an astrophysicist named Gerry Schroeder has developed a formula for determining the age of the universe, from the perspective of it's origin.

If I remember correctly, he took the estimated age of the Earth, and divided that number by the dilation of time, which I believe was determined to expand at a factor of one trillion.

His calculations, show that from the perspective of the origin of the universe, the amount of time that has passed between "the big bang" and the creation of man, is roughly six days.
I thought that was pretty cool

PEREGRINE,

Sounds to me like a lot of belief-logic is at work here.

Just pointing out that you do, by your own admission, have a soul.

Who, exactly, are you trying to convince here; me, or you?

I'm already "convinced," so flip a coin.

RCofield,

"The "soul" is the seat of the mind, will, emotions, affections, etc."

What makes you believe that?

"It appears you may have a soul after all."

No, it appears that you may believe that I have a "soul", just as you may believe that I am a "sinner", just as you may believe that I must be "saved" by your imaginary "jebus", just as you may believe that your "bible" was written by your imaginary "god", and just as you may believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

"Modern psychology is the study of the mind/will/emotions. The term (psychology) is derived from the Latin psyche and Greek psykhe, each referring to the animating principle of the "soul" or "spirit. Hence psychology is literally "soul-study."

Sounds to me like a lot of belief-logic is at work here.

"Can you believe it?"

No, I can't, but I suspect you have no choice but to believe it.

"..... :-) ...."

Whatever.

Who, exactly, are you trying to convince here; me, or you?

Vanka,

It is you who is being deceptive. You are the one taking Mormon beliefs out of context in order to portray the Mormon church as the boogey-man. You clearly know enough about the Mormon church to know that the Mormon eschatalogical belief structure is not material different that any number of other Christian faiths. Like many others traditions, the Mormon faith holds that the resurrected Jesus will return, and when he does all will know that Jesus was and is the Christ.

There is nothing about Mormon beliefs in general, or Mormon temple ceremonies in particular, that would cause a Mormon public official to violate his or her oath of office.

You say the the Mormons practiced polygamy for an additional 10 years after it was officially ended by their church. Even if that is true, it still ended more than a century ago.

When you quote peoples beliefs out of context in an attempt to imply an inaccurate conclusion you are still lying. Fortunately, anyone who has taken the time to get to know a real Mormon knows it.

I do give you credit for finally identifying your real motive. It is no secret that proponents of same-sex marriage are trying to delegitimize those who support traditional marriage by emphasizing Mormon involvement in Prop 8. The widespread ignorance of the Mormon faith tradition makes them an easy boogey man.

But your argument is simply inaccurate. It is not the Mormons or the millions of other religious Americans that supported Prop 8 that are trying to impose their religious beliefs. They are not the ones who have, time and again, used their allies on the courts of this country to create by fiat rights that don't exist in the Constitution. Likewise, they are not the ones using the courts to elevate those imaginary rights above the explicit constitutional protections of religious freedom.

I might add that they are not the ones on comment boards across the internet intentionally lying about other peoples' beliefs.

It is true that Mormons do have some peculiar aspects of their theology that differentiate them from many of the other Christian faith tranditions. But there is nothing secret about it. Mormons across the world are more than happy to tell you about what they believe. (In fact, you might have seen a few of them, they send out a whole bunch of young people in name tags.)

PEREGRINE,

1) As far as I know, yes. (mind)
2) Probably, in one form or another. (will)
3) I've been known to. (emotions)

The "soul" is the seat of the mind, will, emotions, affections, etc.

It appears you may have a soul after all.

Modern psychology is the study of the mind/will/emotions. The term (psychology) is derived from the Latin psyche and Greek psykhe, each referring to the animating principle of the "soul" or "spirit." Hence psychology is literally "soul-study."

Can you believe it?..... :-) ....

RCofield,

"You said earlier, if I recall correctly, that you do not have a soul."

I indeed wrote that.

"A couple (or 3) questions:
1) Do you have a mind?
2) Do you have a will? (not the kind to be read at your death)
3) Do you experience emotions?"

1) As far as I know, yes. (Others may disagree.)

2) Probably, in one form or another.

3) I've been known to. (Again, others may disagree.)

ROM08,

Please cease the deception. You know very well I did not attack Mormons for what they USED TO believe. I explicitly pointed out the stuff that was PAST and that which is CURRENT.

The CURRENT temple oaths that I cited are oaths that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman make in their temples every time they visit
TODAY.

Those oaths don't just promise to build up the generic "kingdom of God" - they are specific oaths to give all possessions and even one's life to the LDS Church!

As for your quotes from LDS scriptures, that is no comfort. We know from history that Mormons believe the word of their living leaders above scripture.

Case in point: The Mormon Church leader told all Mormons to "do all you can" to fight against same-sex marriage (Prop 8 in California). This despite the fact that LDS scriptures clearly state:

"It is NOT JUST for religions to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" (D&C134).

Even polygamy was continued secretly for around 10 years after LDS Church leaders swore to Congress that the practice had ceased in the Church (see Quinn).

So, please, stop the lies. Stop denying what your Church really is: a secretive, elitist, imperialistic cult aspiring to "put an end to all nations", and rule the world for a thousand years when "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" that the Mormon Jesus is in charge!

PEREGRINE,

You said earlier, if I recall correctly, that you do not have a soul.

A couple (or 3) questions:

1) Do you have a mind?
2) Do you have a will? (not the kind to be read at your death)
3) Do you experience emotions?

MRMEANER,

You just don't seem to be understanding what I"m saying.

Probably. That's why I'm probing and asking questions.

Have you read all of the exchanges thus far?

Yes. Every one, without exception.

WALTER,

tempt/test...i really think that's a distinction w/o a difference.

Sure there is a difference. The James passage speaks of tempting to evil and the Genesis passage speaks of the testing of Abraham's faith. You're isolating a single word without considering the surrounding context.

did god "tempt" or "test" adam/eve?

The scripture clearly indicates that Satan/the Serpent tempted them.

I assume you saw my post @ Feb. 14, 10:17 PM?

GoldenEagles,

Who, exactly, are you trying to convince?

PS, sorry for the typos.

Hi Walter,

You said:

if there was something "before" the big bang, then time had alread "started"...by the time it happened. i mean, how could time have started with the big bang, if there was something before the big bang?

Walter, this is puzzling. If something exists outside of time that is eternal, how can it have a start? If that something has no beginning then then how can it be in the realm of time. If you started counting backwards in time to eternity past how would you ever get there?

If the universe of multiverse is eternal then how would we ever arrive at the present? In order for us to arrive at this current point of time, as of today, then there must have been a start in order to get here. To you that start is probably 13.7 billion years ago, or that at least is the current belief by those enlightened by philosophically natural science.

rco,
tempt/test

i really think that's a distinction w/o a difference.

what is "tempting" but a testing of will/resolve?

did god "tempt" or "test" adam/eve?

goldeeagles, MrMeaner,
how old, approximately, do you think the earth is? (i assume rco thinks 6000+/-?)

The Combustion Chamber

Psolus, to begin to get a grasp on just how great God is, when we are driving around in our cars, our attention ought go to the combustion chamber inside of each of the cylinders of our internal combustion engines. Here is an opportunity for us to exercise our attention, and train it, to go in the direction of this important truth, that God our Father is constantly, by an act of conscious will, holding all atoms in the entire universe to an established range of interactional behavior patterns.

Nowhere is this amazing truth on such dramatic display than inside a cylinder of an internal combustion engine while it is running, where the Will of God our Father is consciously exercising his will and power to ensure that all atoms continue to behave according to the rules of behavior he has established when atoms interact with each other.

When the mixture of gas and air inside the cylinder ignites, God our Father is consciously under the control of every aspect of this atomic behavior. Not a single atom involved in this process is allowed to deviate from the script he has set for their interaction even under these high pressure circumstances. God our Father maintains this absolutely perfect and immutable control, even as the engine continues to run, hour after hour, riding herd on an average of 9,000 combustion events each minute (at highway cruising speed).

(Cruising on the highway, engine rpm of 3,000. Standard V-6 (4 stroke) Engine where it takes two revolutions to fire all six pistons. 1,500 x 6 = 9,000 combustion events per minute.)

Of course, God our Father is not simply riding herd on the combustion events in our own engine, but that of millions of cars on the roads all at once. He can do this, and still have infinite power and resources left to ride herd on all the combustion events that are ongoing at the center of our sun, and in every star in the entire universe, which is well into the hundreds of billions. He can do all of this, and do it perfectly, and still have infinite power and resources left to do the same in an infinite array of universes that we are not even aware of.

Contemplating such vast intelligence and power may tend towards the explosion of our own brains, trying to grasp the how of it, yet all of this is as nothing to God. This is simply a very EASY thing for him to do, and always will be.

"RE: Ro. 11:25, 26--Could you elaborate a bit on what you take Ro. 11:26 to mean when Paul says “so all Israel shall be saved”? Given the context (chapters 9-11) I take this to mean all of “elect” Israel, all of the “remnant” that God has always preserved and kept from apostasy—the “true circumcision, the true Israel of God”—will be saved. (Php. 3:3, Ga. 6:16)."

I just now noticed this part of your comment, RC.

PH

Let mw stew on your comment, and the one above from RC, and get back to you guys tomorrow evening.

Continuing MrMeaner,

Romans 1:18-19 sums up our fallen nature very well.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth in their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."

They exchange the truth of God for their own truth. They are dead in their hearts to Him.

That sinful nature is dead to God. It always put self before God and will not submit. Paul put it this way, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air; the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following it desires and thoughts. Like the rest we were objects of wrath.” (Eph. 2:1-3)

It requires the mercy and grace of God to escape that and rescue us, free us, from this bondage.

Hi MrMeaner,

You said,

PH, I agree with the reasoning for authorship, but, as you can probably imagine, I disagree with his analysis of the content. -MrM

Really. The content is all about showing the Hebrew's who had made a profession of faith in Christ and were tempted to turn back to the law and work's righteousness the all sufficiency of Jesus Christ.

Here is the content:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews.htm

What are you objecting to?

On the Westminster Confession: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; "

I would have to disagree. It doesn't make sense to me that God would create man, and not give him free will to make choices that God would prefer that he not make. If that was true, what was the point of creation? Why create people, if you already know everything they're going to do. –MrM

You missed the part that says,
"yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

There is no violence offered to the will of the creature man. Second causes are not what God does directly, but rather what the creature does of his own volition.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]

This is an important point. Since God transcends time He sees all of it before Him in the eternal now. He is the great I AM. The future is present before Him. He sees all things, therefore He does not need to foresee in the respect that many people use the term.

There is no doubt that we all have a will, volition to choose, but that volition is not free. It is influenced and controlled by all kinds of things.

In Adam was free will before the Fall as our representative before God. In everyone else, with the exception of Jesus Christ, there is a bondage of the will and sinful nature that needs rescuing. We have inherited that sinful nature; that will to be the masters of our own fate, to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. Since the Fall we now understand what evil is. It is man’s propensity to act on his own without the guidance and leadership of God. In fact he will resist God at every turn.

Our natures are no longer free until they find that freedom in Christ. They are in bondage to whatever has hold of us, what influences us, all our preferences and desires to self, to protect self. In protecting self and the ‘right’ of self they are at enmity to God. As Paul put it, “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s laws, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8) That nature is dead to God.

I apologize for my impatience, RC

Let me try to answer as follows:

"But (and please correct me if I am wrong) aren’t you interpreting many of the end time prophecies with the reconstitution of national Israel,"
The reconstitution of Judah, who was cursed in the parable of the fig tree, but has since resprouted forth. My estimation is that Israel is scattered among the nations, and largely have no idea they are of Jacob. (Deut 32:26)

"rebuilding of the Temple,"

that has already been discussed

" reinstitution of the sacrificial system in view? "

That's been discussed as well, but maybe I can expound further;

Even though that system is still in practice by some orthodox sects, the real meaning, IMO, as related in Daniel, for example, is that when the future "king" takes control of the Holy land, he will cause those rituals to cease. Because the only religion allowed will be the one that seeks,(and aquires) global domination.

"Ro. 11:26 to mean when Paul says “so all Israel shall be saved”?
Please read the first chapter of Hosea

RC I"ve answered almost all of those questions. You just don't seem to be understanding what I"m saying.

Have you read all of the exchanges thus far?

PH

I agree with the reasoning for authorship, but, as you can probably imagine, I disagree with his analysis of the content.

MRMEANER

But that staement is based on qualifiers in vs.4,5.

How, precisely, is “all things” qualified by verses 4 & 5? Does not Eph. 1:11 square nicely with (among many other passages) Is. Isa 46:10-11 in which God reveals himself as the God who is

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Do you believe there are any events/circumstances/persons/nations, etc. that are outside of the control of God’s counsel and will?

My rebuttal to that was in a quotation from the Hosea passage cited in Romans 9:23-26

Not following your line of reasoning there. Could you expand on that a little?

"National" Israel doesn't receive all of the promises.

But (and please correct me if I am wrong) aren’t you interpreting many of the end time prophecies with the reconstitution of national Israel, rebuilding of the Temple, and reinstitution of the sacrificial system in view?

RE: Ro. 11:25, 26--Could you elaborate a bit on what you take Ro. 11:26 to mean when Paul says “so all Israel shall be saved”? Given the context (chapters 9-11) I take this to mean all of “elect” Israel, all of the “remnant” that God has always preserved and kept from apostasy—the “true circumcision, the true Israel of God”—will be saved. (Php. 3:3, Ga. 6:16).

WALTER,

guys,
you quoted james:
"...for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
but then there's gen:
22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

The word "tempted" in this passage is translated from the Hebrew nacah, meaning to test, try, prove.

The word "tempt" originated around the 13th century A.D., and was taken from the Latin temptare, meaning to feel, try out, test. Hence the older English translations used "tempted" or "did tempt" in this passage.

Taken in context it is obvious that what follows is not a situation of God "tempting" Abraham to evil, but rather a "testing" or "proving" of Abraham's faith.

Other translations of this passage:

Ge 22:1 ¶ After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I”--ESV

Ge 22:1 ¶ Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."--NKJV

Ge 22:1 ¶ After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."--RSV

Ge 22:1 ¶ And it cometh to pass after these things that God hath tried Abraham, and saith unto him, ‘Abraham;’ and he saith, ‘Here [am] I.’--(Young's Literal Translation)

Hi RCofield, MrMeaner,

A.W. Pink makes a good case for Paul here,

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_002.htm

RC

"The verse (Eph. 1:11) says God works all things (no exceptions) according to the counsel of His will. That is a comprehensive statement. Many more passages can be provided if necessary."

But that staement is based on qualifiers in vs.4,5.

[4] According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

which is much in line with Romans 8

[28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
[29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(and on through vs 33)

"Precisely. Which is a leading indicator that many of God's promises to Israel were not to “national” Israel but to “elect” (in Christ) Israel (the “remnant”). This is Paul's entire argument in Romans chapters 9-11 (see especially 9:5-8 ff):"

My rebuttal to that was in a quotation from the Hosea passage cited in Romans 9:23-26

"The dispensational view of "national" Israel receiving all of the promises of the OT at some point in the future does not comport with Paul's argument in Ro. chapters 9-11 (and many other passages in the NT)."

"National" Israel doesn't receive all of the promises.
Galatians Ch.3
[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The true church is the wild olive tree grafted in among the broken branches, and WITH THEM, patakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree. (based on Rom11:17)

Rom 11:25
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
[27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

__________________
And if any of the NT authors were responsible for Hebrews, it had to be Paul.
The manner of speech is the same. The way the narratives are structured, the metaphors, the esoteric nature of the writings all are characteristics of Paul's method, in my opinion.
Even Peter had a difficult time understanding what it was that Paul was saying, on occasion

@Vanka,

Well, first of all, the Mormon temple ceremonies can't be all that secret, now can they? I mean, people are all over the internet and television (and now this board) claiming to know their contents.

But more importantly, why is it that you and others on this board can only attack Mormons for what they used to do or believe? Let me make a suggestion. All you have to do is make friends with a Mormon and they will tell you what they really believe. Then you can let go of all of your silly misconceptions.

It is true that committing oneself to the building up of the Kingdom of God is an important part of Mormonism (and the rest of biblical Christianity). However, you may rest assured that religious pluralism and self-determination are just as important.

the Mormon's 11th Article of Faith states that:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

As for the presidential oath of office, a President need only pledge to faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States. Of that Constitution, Mormon scripture has this to say:

Doctrine and Covenants 101:77

"the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

Doctrine and Covenants 109:54

"Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever."

So a Mormon President, at least as much as any other religous person, can uphold his oath of office without violating any other commitments he made to the Kingdom of God.

I'm sure you are relieved to here it.

Mormons who go into the Mormon temples are "endowed". In order to become endowed, Mormons have to pass an interview (like a catechism for Catholics). The endowment ritual includes many things Mormons are not allowed to talk about outside of the Temples. These secret ("sacred") things include special promises and covenants Mormons make to the Church and to God. One of these "oaths" promises total and complete loyalty to the LDS Church and its leaders, including being willing to give all your possessions to the Church if needed.

The oath is something like this:

"Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, ...that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

Mitt Romney has made this oath, and repeats this oath each time he returns to an LDS Temple.

For a POTUS to have made such a secret oath violates the oath of office of the POTUS. The POTUS must not have ANY higher loyalty than to the United States of America and Constitution.

"Endowed" Mormons should be automatically disqualified because of their secret oaths in their temples that place their loyalty to the LDS Church above their loyalty to the United States of America.

guys,
you quoted james:
"...for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

but then there's gen:
22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

carry on.

It is interesting to me that such an intelligent and articulate view as that expressed here by Welton Gaddy should generate so many comments that ignore or miss the point. Differences of opinion on the issue of faith are such an inescapable part of the American political discourse that the founders made the protection of freedom of religion part of the very first amendment to the Constitution. This principle is at the very foundation of what we believe, and yet it is misunderstood or misapplied by far too many in our society.

There are those who claim to believe in freedom of religion, by which they mean they don't want anyone to interfere with their practices, while they hold other religious traditions, or lack thereof, in much lower regard.

Others seem to believe more in freedom from religion, wanting to be protected from all expressions of belief in the public arena.

The reality is that the constitution protects both freedom of religion (in the free exercise clause) and freedom from religion (in the establishment clause). Those who truly believe in the First Amendment must work to protect the rights of ALL, including believers of every kind and non-believers as well. Anyone who is not fully committed to this principle is not qualified to be president.

If Mitt Romney wants to be president, he should be able to fully practice his religion just like any other citizen. But he should also be prepared to defend everyone else's right to be free from the influence of that religion, just like any other president. He must be prepared to separate private devotion from public duty. If he can, then his religious beliefs should be no impediment to his election.

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist.

The Good Words were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These
Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion.

Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

MRMEANER,

You (Paul [He. 67:17]) just made my point as well as I possibly could have.

That's interesting. You think Paul wrote the book of Hebrews?

I agree completely, but few today are convinced of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

Seems to me he was far and away the most qualified to write it.

MRMEANER,

That (Eph. 1:11) refers to the elect. Not all of mankind.

The verse says God works all things (no exceptions) according to the counsel of His will. That is a comprehensive statement. Many more passages can be provided if necessary.

I agree, and it's a nice statement (Ro. 11:33), but it doesn't mean that "his ways" aren't allowing people to exercise free will, and aid in influencing them to make the right decisions.

Passage speaks to the profound mystery of the determining counsel of the will of God in all things. The article states that He does so in a way that “violence (is not) offered to the will of the creatures.” People do what they choose (you're calling this "free-will"). The problem lies in the sin-nature of all men (Ro. 3:10-18), and unless God graciously intervenes and influences men to do good, we only choose do that which is evil. Simply put, the will of all mankind is in irreversible bondage to sin unless and until the regenerating grace of God changes our wills.

Thank you for that (He. 6:17). You (Paul) just made made my point as well as I possibly could have.
"the immutability of his counsel" Immutability="ametathetos", in Greek. It means UNCHANGABLE
You've just proven that God did not renege on his promises, because his counsel (purpose, in Greek) is unchangable....because, as it clearly says in the very next verse, it is impossible for God to lie. His promises will be honored.

Precisely. Which is a leading indicator that many of God's promises to Israel were not to “national” Israel but to “elect” (in Christ) Israel (the “remnant”). This is Paul's entire argument in Romans chapters 9-11 (see especially 9:5-8 ff):

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.  6 Not as though the word (promises) of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (not all of the promises are made to “national” Israel): 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The dispensational view of "national" Israel receiving all of the promises of the OT at some point in the future does not comport with Paul's argument in Ro. chapters 9-11 (and many other passages in the NT).

"I say there should be a religious litmus test."
Posted by: hrobert02
-------------------------------------
As an atheist I have to agree with you. Not a test as to which religion, I don't think that should matter. But a test of how much you affects your thoughts and decisions when dealing with people of other religions. Are you able to think outside of it, etc. Which religion a candidate follows privately is not the issue, but rather can that candidate accept that not everyone shares those specific convictions nor wants to live by them (that being the most important bit)

"[1] EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."

That refers to the elect. Not all of mankind.

"ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

I agree, and it's a nice statement, but it doesn't mean that "his ways" aren't allowing people to exercise free will, and aid in influencing them to make the right decisions.

"HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath."

Thank you for that.
You (Paul) just made mde my point as well as I possibly could have.

"the immutability of his counsel"

Immutability="ametathetos", in Greek. It means UNCHANGABLE

You've just proven that God did not renege on his promises, because his counsel (purpose, in Greek) is unchangable....because, as it clearly says in the very next verse, it is impossible for God to lie. His promises will be honored.

Hi MrMeaner,

Let me digest what you have said today for a couple of days. Things are getting busy again.

Thanks!

Hi RCofield,

Excellent link to Philip Mauro's work. That may be the best "undressing" of dispensationalism I have ever read. -RCO

It does raise some serious questions, doesn't it?

I think people thought about issues on the whole more deeply before TV and fifteen minute segments. (^8

John Owens, one of your favorite author's is a prime example. According to R.C. Sproul, he was a postmillennialist.

He even calls attention to the arrogance of this "system" in that it ignores the work of numberless luminaries of bygone years--a caution I raised with MRC - RCO

R.C. Sproul, in his book, 'The Last Days According to Jesus' compiled a list of some of the outstanding scholars and their different camps on Eschatology. Postmillennialists, in my mind, form an impressive group of great thinkers such as Athanasius, Augustine, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Eusebius, John Murray, John Owen, Augustus H. Strong, B.B. Warfield, to name but some.

But more importantly is how does their thinking line up with God's word?

There are still some points that I find hard to tie up. But our conversations with MrMeaner and others tend to press the points at times, like separating Christ's final coming from His first century coming, especially with OT verses, and when the prophecy pointed to because of the language involved. It also helps to have a clear understanding of the history of the period and if the Bible gives any indication that a particular prophecy has been fulfilled.

Concerning the Westminster Confession of Faith

Part 1 of 2

PeterHuff quoted the 1646 Westminster Confession of faith as follows:

"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; "

To which MRMEANER responded:

I would have to disagree.

Following are Westminster articles I & II of chapter 3 with scriptural evidences:

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

[1] EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

[2] JAM 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

[3] ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. MAT 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ACT 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. JOH 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. PRO 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.

Concerning the Westminster Confession of Faith

Part 2 of 2

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]

[4] ACT 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 1SA 23:11 Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. 12 Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up. MAT 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

[5] ROM 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

it's funny because we all know how scrupulous politicians have been - even with the unofficial "must be judeochristian" litmus test...

Politicians (or anyone else) who profess Christ with their lips but live in obvious disobedience to His commandments are, for all intents and purposes, living as if there is no God—they are practicing atheists. Unscrupulous politicians who claim to be Christians are not an indictment of Christianity—they are just further evidence of the natural depravity of the human heart.

yes.

……. :-) …..”yes”…..”but”…..The scientific community has its “Big Bang” and “Big Crunch,” and you have your “Big But.” (I’m sorry, but you gotta admit that is funny.)

(but it really doesn't make sense to me. like with the "time thing": if there was something "before" the big bang, then time had alread "started"...by the time it happened. i mean, how could time have started with the big bang, if there was something before the big bang? "before" indicates a sequence of time... anyway, i'm probably thinking of "time" in the old pre-einstein sense.

I understand. I think this concept is difficult for us to wrap our minds around because we are bound by space and time. But obviously, if the universe had a first cause and time began with the beginning of the universe—then reason demands that the cause of the universe must necessarily have existed prior to and apart from the universe it caused.

i'd have the same "disconnect" with the idea of something existing "outside" the "space" of the universe. if i imagine something exists "outside" of the universe, then it's not really "outside" of, but part of, the universe...

But again, if the universe has a first cause it stands to reason that said cause must have existed before the universe, and therefore it must have existed without or apart from the universe. No?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

similarly, i have trouble imagining what something like a "parallel universe" or "other dimensions" are. sure as a concept, but to actually think another me is living somewhere or whatever, that seems like gobbledygook.

I’m with you on the “parallel universes” thing. God help us if there are two (or more) walters-in-falls-church and RCofields out there. :-0

and of course as soon as i imagine this first cause hanging around before the beginning of time getting ready to make the universe, i wonder, "where'd THAT come from?!" it is indeed an infinite self-referential regression.)

Again, I understand. But this leads to another point I have inserted into this discussion on several occasions. Reason demands, does it not, that all which has a beginning is the effect of a prior cause--otherwise it is possible for something to cause itself to exist…before it exists. That seems to be self-evidently impossible, at least to me.

Conversely, though, if something (say the cause of the universe) is without beginning, then it is truly the first and ultimate cause. Otherwise there is only the infinite regression of causes, and just as it is impossible to traverse an infinite series of time it is equally impossible to traverse an infinite series of causes. In other words, if time is infinite it would be impossible to ever reach the present moment in time—likewise if there is an infinite regression of causes it would be impossible to ever reach the cause of the universe.

nonetheless, yes. a way out of this infinite regression is supposing an out-of-time, out-of-space first cause. so, yes, lets consider that.

Thank you.

So, if we can reasonably consider that:

A) The universe probably had a first and moving cause…and
B) Time is probably not infinite…and
C) That the cause of the universe therefore probably existed apart from the space/time continuum of the universe…

can we reasonably consider that the cause of the universe is probably without beginning?

Peace, brother.

GOLDENEAGLES,

It sounds like you are asking me if I have ever assuaged my thirst by drinking from a poisoned water hole.

How so?

Exhibit A - Truly There is a
God and That God is GREAT - Part 1

On Sunday evening, Psolus, having an unusual expanse of spare time, I had an opportunity to watch one of my favorite DVD’s “The Mask of Zorro” starring Antonio Banderas, Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

While this movie has many virtues, like a crown with many jewels, it is primarily the beauty of Catherine Zeta-Jones for which this movie serves as a most opulent setting. And surely, the chemistry between Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones drives the experience forward like the power of a beautiful Montana river.

The movie opens as Zorro (Anthony Hopkins) appears in the crowded city square to save the lives of three innocent peasants, selected at random from the angry crowd, who are about to be executed by firing squad at the order of the Spanish Governor, who is, at that very moment, making swift preparations for getting out of town before the arrival of the Army of Mexican General Santa Ana, who is nearly at the city gates.

(In afore times, Spain had colonized and claimed the California territories. But at this point in history, as the movie opens, Mexico’s Army is about to take it back.)

After Zorro saves the three peasants from the unjust execution order hatched by the evil Spanish governor, he jumps up onto the palace balcony and confronts the evil governor, and carves a “z” on his neck as a departing gift, and bids him farewell.

Thus, having completed what he believes to be his last mission on behalf of truth and justice, Zorro rides off into the setting sun, a beautiful departure framed against the highest cross- adorned dome of the town’s Cathredral, returning home to his well heeled hacienda, and his civilian identity as a wealthy land owner, Don Diego de la Vega, and to his beautiful wife Esperanza, and his beautiful daughter Elena, who we see is but a small child, still in the crib, perhaps no more than six to eight months old.

After recounting to his infant daughter Elena, who lies spell bound in her crib, eyes flashing, concerning the heroic events of his most recent adventure with the evil governor, his beautiful wife enters, and they embrace, and they are mutually happy about the departure of the evil Spanish Governor.

Unfortunately, at that point, the evil governor enters unannounced, having got a whiff of Zorro’s true identity in the latest confrontation. A sword fight ensues, where one of the accompanying soldiers, attempting to put an end to the life of Zorro via a musket ball, accidently shoots dead Zorro’s wife instead. This is not a small matter, because the evil governor was in love with Zorro’s wife, and had always wanted this woman to be his own, and moreover, believed with his whole evil heart, that Esperanza’s daughter, Elena, by the fatherhood of Zorro, should have rightfully been his own daughter, not Zorro’s.

(more)

Exhibit A - Truly There is a
God and That God is GREAT - Part 2

Now, I think one could surmise that it was the evil governor’s intent, as his last act as Spanish Governor of the California territory, after exposing and arresting Zorro, either killing him on the spot, or sending him to prison, was to take this beautiful wife, and daughter, which he had always believed were his anyway, back to Spain, even that very night, and to live happily ever after with this stolen human booty.

As it stood, however, circumstances denied him the company of the Zorro’s beautiful wife, in as much as she now lay dead at his feet, with Zorro holding her limp body in his arms. At that moment, even as the hacienda is beginning to burn down from a candle knocked over in the sword fight, we hear the wailing cry of the infant Elena.

Zorro, battered, but yet functional, jumps to his feet, calling to his daughter, obviously intent on saving her from the flames, and moving quickly in her direction, oblivious to everything else, at which point the evil governor bangs him on the head with the butt end of his sword, knocking him down, momentarily senseless, giving the soldiers the opportunity to grab him and cart him off to a waiting iron-barred prison wagon.

The last Zorro saw of his daughter, was the infant child, wrapped in blanket, in the arms of the evil governor, who had walked up to the prison wagon to make sure Zorro understood what had happened, and what was about to happen. Zorro was to be taken to a dirty prison for the rest of his life, to be kept alive, and tortured by this fact, that the evil governor was going to take this child back to Spain, and raise Elena as his own daughter. So cruel. But that is what evil is all about.

Now the movie jumps 20 years forward, and we are quickly introduced to who will become the new Zorro, the young and dashing Antonio Banderas, who we first meet as a common thief, and regarding him, no purpose would be served, as this moment, to say more.

Here, at this point 20 years in the future, most importantly, we see the evil governor comes back on the scene. We see that he is returning to California, 20 years the older, on a mission to grab the California territory back from the Army of Santa Ana. His first order of business is to make sure that Zorro, his lifelong nemesis, was not going to get in the way. He visits the prison, with the intent of finding him, and we surmise, if Zorro is still alive, of finally killing him, but fortune would have it, that Zorro evades detection, and the evil governor leaves the prison (falsely) believing that Zorro had died there.

But it turns out that this very visit by the evil governor to the prison, actually created the opportunity for Zorro to finally escape. Yes, after 20 years, on that very night, Zorro would gain his freedom.

(more)

Exhibit A - Truly There is a
God and That God is GREAT - Part 3

And thus, the next day, on a sunny California beach, where crowds of peasants were gathered to officially meet the returning evil governor, we see Zorro, in the crowd, looking very much like one of those peasants, and he has a sharp knife, and his intent is clear. He is going to assassinate the evil governor right there on the spot. 20 years in prison has made him bitter and hateful.

But he will be saved from these evil and uncharacteristic impulses as you will see.

The evil governor gives his speech to the peasants about his grand plan to create an independent nation out of California, that will benefit everybody, of course it is a fraud, but the crowd cheers anyway, as crowds are want to do when politicians tell them what they want to hear. And the hand of Zorro goes to his knife, and he moves in the direction of the evil governor.

And like a clear bell ringing in the distance, an angelic voice cries out, saying “Father!”

Zorro stops in his tracks, and looks up. And he sees HIS daughter, at 20 years of age. A goddess of beauty running to the side of the evil governor, who she believes is her father, having no reason to belief otherwise, at that point, and standing in the shining California sun, her beauty shining more brightly than the sun itself.

The movie goes on. And it is wonderful in every respect. You couldn’t have a better DVD in your library than this. But I will stop here, in my description of events, because this is the point where we can all understand how Great is God.

At this illuminating point in the story line, where we stand breath-taken at Elena’s Beauty, and we are awe struck to the core, in regards to her beauty, our minds are taken back in the story line where we last saw her, automatically, our minds go right there, with no effort, and clearly we have before our mind’s eye, the infant child in the crib, juxtaposed directly to this beautiful goddess that stands before us now in the sunlight, and seeing this before-and-after picture so clearly, the realization bursts forth from our hearts, allowing us to know for sure, that only an infinitely powerful God, the complete master of all creative arts, could have directed the expansion and transformation of that child, into the form of the beautiful goddess we see before us standing in the sunlight.

If you watch the movie, and come to this point, you will see what I mean. You will be face to face with the REALITY OF GOD at that point.

And what is true for one child, is true for all children.

GOD ALONE is the DOER when it comes to every aspect of human growth. To stop that process of growth at any point along is established continuum, is to commit a crime against the creative power of God himself.

“The Mask of Zorro”, is one of the most powerful pro-life movies ever made. Even the soundtrack is exceptional, from beginning to end.

(end)

PH

I'm going to have to respond to these a bit at a time, as I'm tied up for a few days, it appears.

"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; "

I would have to disagree. It doesn't make sense to me that God would create man, and not give him free will to make choices that God would prefer that he not make. If that was true, what was the point of creation? Why create people, if you already know everything they're going to do. Why would he allow those he knew would be evil to be born, if it wasn't so they could make amends, by committing acts of their own free will that God would find acceptable?
If God determines the outcome of every flesh existence, why not just allow what he has determined to be good, to exist on Earth?
And how does that fall in line with the thought that God "gave up" Israel?
To be consistent, you would have to believe that God chose a man, built him in to a nation, which involved killing lots of Philistines and Canaanites, knowing that he would reject those same people he chose from among all peoples.

"Because the true Israel of God are all those in Christ, those grafted into the true branch as well as those of the natural branch in Christ"

More from Romans Ch.9
[23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
[24] Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
[25] As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
[26] And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Here are the references from Hosea Ch.1

[2] The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of wh*redoms and children of wh*redoms: for the land hath committed great wh*redom, departing from the LORD.
[3] So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
[4] And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
[5] And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.

part 1

notice that the name of the son is Jezreel, meaning "God will sow (or plant), which is exactly what happened to Israel, they were/are scattered among the nations

[6] And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

[7] But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

This is not referring to Israel. This was Judah, or "the Jews". Of course we know that they fell away, and became guilty of the same idolatry that plagued Israel, and were taken captive by The Babylonians, but not at this point.

[8] Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
[9] Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

We've seen that Israel is refeered to as Lo-ruhamah-(not mercy), and Lo-Ammi-(not my people), but then, there is a promise

[10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
[11] Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
We know for a fact that up to the time of Christ, Israel and Judah had not been rejoined. I would maintain that they still haven't, although I'm sure there are some who would tie that event to modern-day Israel

"For not all who are descendant from Israel are Israel." (Romans 9:6b)

I hope that excerpt from Josephus helped explain that.

""When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, He said of him, 'Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.'"

I always took that as a compliment to Nathanael, for speaking his mind, even when it could have been offensive to someone from Nazareth

""But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away...And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing." (2 Corinth. 3:14-17; 4:3)"

I just understand that to be referring to those who trust in the rituals of the law, rather than understanding that those sacrifices and rituals were a forerunner (typologies, if you will) to God's own sacrifice he would offer. It's like being blind to the meaning behind Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Issac, knowing that "God would provide himself a lamb."

part 2

""What holy city are the Gentiles trampling on for 42 months in verse two?"
Jerusalem - MrM
Correct, but when?
The final time will be while this is happening;

Zech Ch 14

[1] Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
[2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
[3] Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
[4] And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
[5] And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
[6] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
[7] But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
[8] And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
[9] And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Now come on, surely you have to admit that that hasn't happened

Since we're in Zechariah, what about all of the prophecies there dealing with the house of Israel , and separately, the house of Judah.
For example
8:13
[12] For the seed shall be prosperous; the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.
[13] And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.
[14] For thus saith the LORD of hosts; As I thought to punish you, when your fathers provoked me to wrath, saith the LORD of hosts, and I repented not:
[15] So again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not.
[16] These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates:

And this was written after the book of Hosea.

end

rco,
no doubt GE blames luther for the whole "protestant" thing. GE calling luther "poison" illustrates the problem non-christians have in running for public office: judeochrislam teaches that people of other religions are doomed to hell, deceived by demons, and w/o a sense of morals. (and re luther: GE is thinking those horrible things about other christians... yikes!)

it's funny because we all know how scrupulous politicians have been - even with the unofficial "must be judeochristian" litmus test...
--------------------

rco, you asked,
"do you accept the probability that the cause of the universe exists outside of the time/space continuum of the universe?"

yes.

(but it really doesn't make sense to me. like with the "time thing": if there was something "before" the big bang, then time had alread "started"...by the time it happened. i mean, how could time have started with the big bang, if there was something before the big bang? "before" indicates a sequence of time... anyway, i'm probably thinking of "time" in the old pre-einstein sense.

i'd have the same "disconnect" with the idea of something existing "outside" the "space" of the universe. if i imagine something exists "outside" of the universe, then it's not really "outside" of, but part of, the universe... similarly, i have trouble imagining what something like a "parallel universe" or "other dimensions" are. sure as a concept, but to actually think another me is living somewhere or whatever, that seems like gobbledygook.

and of course as soon as i imagine this first cause hanging around before the beginning of time getting ready to make the universe, i wonder, "where'd THAT come from?!" it is indeed an infinite self-referential regression.)

nonetheless, yes. a way out of this infinite regression is supposing an out-of-time, out-of-space first cause. so, yes, lets consider that.

Well, that's the precise problem, really: the Right in America is seeking to impose its own particular religious agenda: frankly, when we have right-wing candidates from *any* proselytizing religion, talking about imposing their religious "values" on everyone else regardless of our own beliefs or logic or reason, then the religion becomes and issue, of course, because they've *made* it one.

Of course the most intolerant among the religious Right will single out the Mormons for being *different,* but to me, the issue is, they look the *same.*

WALTER,

Picking up on our former discussion:

If you accept:

A) The probability of the universe having a first and moving cause.

B) The probability that time (as we understand it) began with the universe (Big Bang).

do you accept the probability that the cause of the universe exists outside of the time/space continuum of the universe?

GOLDENEAGLES,

It sounds like you are asking me if I have ever assuaged my thirst by drinking from a poisoned water hole.

How so?

GE, you said,
"That is why an (open) Atheist would never be elected to a seat in congress..."

well, never say never.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

of course your main point is correct: for the most part, religious people are scared to vote for people not of their own religion... that's why we're even having this discussion about romney and huntsman - 'cause christians aren't sure they're christian enough...

Rcofield asks, “Have you ever read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or Jonathan Edward's "On The Freedom of the Will"?”

It sounds like you are asking me if I have ever assuaged my thirst by drinking from a poisoned water hole. The answer is No and No.

However, I will be happy to consider what you have to say on the matter.

GOLDENEAGLES,

RE: Concerning the Eternal Omnipotence of God

Have you ever read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will"

http://www.reformedreader.org/bow.htm

or Jonathan Edward's "On The Freedom of the Will"?

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/edwards/fowindex.htm

PETER,

Excellent link to Philip Mauro's work. That may be the best "undressing" of dispensationalism I have ever read.

He even calls attention to the arrogance of this "system" in that it ignores the work of numberless luminaries of bygone years--a caution I raised with MRMEANER earlier.

Brilliant.

GoldenEagles,

"Concerning the Eternal
Omnipotence of God - Part 1"

"One of the most obvious examples of God’s Omnipotence, is found in the rising, and the setting of the sun. Mankind has no power at all to stop the rising and setting of the sun."

Do you believe that sun revolves around the earth, or the earth around the sun?

"However,... This scenario must sound eerily familiar to you, Psolus."

No, it doesn't.

[remaining superstitious gibberish expurgated]

"Concerning the Eternal
Omnipotence of God - Part 2"

[still more superstitious gibberish expurgated]

"Apparently, Psolus, you are an example of such an individual."

No, I'm not.

[even more superstitious gibberish expurgated]

"It is very foolish therefore, Psolus, to do a mindless jig of defiance,..."

It is never foolish to do a mindless jig of defiance.

[a final bit of superstitious gibberish expurgated]

MRMEANER,

As far as my February 5 comment, I'm sorry I didn't specify that the entire concept you are espousing is insane. It would have prevented you from picking out the only two paragraphs of your three-part post that wasn't insane, and attached my reply out of context, in order to make it seem as though I made some claim, the reversed myself.

Given that the two paragraphs to which you agreed (totally) were a summary of that entire 3 part post you either didn't understand my post or you are having problems in the area of integrity.

Hi FredJ,

You quote:

"...This is not an indictment of Faith itself, but of the illogic of Blind Faith. Faith, when it is based on experience and conforms to logic can be a powerful force for good in the world. But when Faith is based on what is written in an ancient document written in a time when science and logical thinking was not applied, and was written entirely by men who had a sexist view of the world, and was written with other similar flaws, then Blind Faith leads only to irrational thought."

The Christian faith is neither blind, illogical nor irrational.

Hi MrMeaner,

I should have added that my understanding is that the temple won't be built in this age. In fact, it is written that the Lord God and the Lamb are the temple. (I take that to mean temple in a metaphysical sense...much in the way that the true church makes up the body of Christ) –MrM

That does not explain if indeed as Dispensationalists agree, how you can have the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place if there is no temple to stand in and desecrate??? (Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-6)

“Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gather to Him….Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed…He will oppose everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (vs. 1a, 3a, 4)

Where is this temple going to be that he stands in, or are we to talk this all metaphorically too? If so, what does it mean? Where is your biblical evidence? In Daniel 9:24-27; Matt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14, a scene you believe refers to a future generation, but Daniel says in 9:24-27 that this person that sets himself up in the temple will also abolish the daily sacrifices. What sacrifices is he talking about?

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/Bible_NT/Matthew/matthew_24-15.html

http://www.restorationgj.com/id134.htm

Concerning the Eternal
Omnipotence of God - Part 1

Psolus says, “All you have done is show how impotent your imaginary god is against mere "liberal" humans.”

One of the most obvious examples of God’s Omnipotence, is found in the rising, and the setting of the sun. Mankind has no power at all to stop the rising and setting of the sun.

However, mankind has freewill. He can choose to dig a tunnel into the dark earth, and blast the entrance, where it totally collapses, and blocks all further evidence of the light. This scenario must sound eerily familiar to you, Psolus. In the impenetrable darkness, such individuals can live then comfortably within their delusion that there is no such thing as light, nor is there a rising and setting of the sun. As far as they are concerned, they have surrounded themselves with incontrovertible evidence to this effect.

God our Father, does not, and cannot control the freewill of man. If He could control freewill, it would not be freewill. Having been made in the image of God, we can understand why it is so, that mankind’s freewill is of infinite proportions. That means that there is no entry point for the Will of God, unless the soul creates the entry point through a freewill expression of consent. Like hearing a knock on the door, looking through the peep hole, liking what you see, and then freely opening the door.

Because mankind’s freewill is infinite, his digging in the earth, in order to escape the evidence of God’s reality, has been described as a bottomless pit.

Of course, God desires to have the freewill of man in alignment with His Will. This is the foundation of harmony and peace that must be associated with the Heavenly Kingdom.

In bringing the freewill of man into alignment with His Will, God our Father relies on two levels of persuasion.

(more)

Hi MrMeaner,

PART 2

I can't think of a better example than the parable of the fig tree. Jesus cursed it (The city fell at the hands of Titus), but then he promised that when the fig tree would begin to re-sprout forth, that generation would not pass away before all things are fulfilled. –MrM

This is lame. You are putting a break in the narrative that is not there.
The parable is sandwiched between two verses in Luke that suggest a link. After talking about the destruction of the temple and city in reference to the disciples questions for 21 verses he gives the lesson of the fig tree and likens it to ‘these things happening’ in the verse above as to knowing that the kingdom of God is near. Then He links that with, I tell you the truth, this generation [that see these things happen] will certainly not pass away until they are fulfilled.

In Luke 19:41-44, in reference to Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple He says, “The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and your children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” [Again, this speaks of judgment]

That puts it in the first century.

Galatians 4:4 says: “But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.”

As far as Darby is concerned, I don't agree with much that I know from his teachings, but I do agree with the gap theory….And the fact that the Messiah is said to be "cut off", at 62 weeks, with seven years (or days)remaining, the seventieth being his return, seems to bolster my argument. –MrM

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/Bible_OT/Daniel/daniel_09_24-27.html

"While you are at it please could you point out to me why the destruction of the city and Temple have not been mentioned in any of the letters/epistles. Why is Scripture silent on such a catastrophic event, the end of the Jewish system of worship?" –Me

You tell me. I'm the one saying that the destruction of the temple isn't the subject of these questionable prophecies. Also, the Jewish system of worship hasn't ended. It may not be practiced by many, but it still exists. –MrM

Okay, the reason I contend that Scripture is silent on the destruction of the city and temple is because all of the canonical Scriptures give evidence they were written before 70AD and the fall of Jerusalem. There is no mention of such a significant event, but a deep foreboding that something dreadful is close at hand.

Bad use of terms perhaps in the Jewish system of worship, because what I was meaning was the temple worship and sacrificial system.

Concerning the Eternal
Omnipotence of God - Part 2

First, God employs the persuasive power of Reason, concerning which, it has been said, that a word to the wise is sufficient. The Living Words of His Prophets and Messengers in particular times and places, and the recording of these words in scripture represents God's primary effort to reason with mankind.

However, in some people, reason has no persuasive power. Apparently, Psolus, you are an example of such an individual. This situation comes into play when a soul allows demonic forces to lean upon the feeling world, where THEIR Hatred of God is radiated therein, deceiving the victim into believing that this hatred is their own hatred, allowing the victim to feel thoroughly and sincerely justified in rejecting all entreaties to reason. This is a condition of manipulation and bondage. Indeed a condition of slavery.

Second, God employs the persuasive power of consequences. This comes into play when reason has no impact upon the mind for the reason just stated. The persuasive power of consequences derives from the fact that onerous consequences can give birth to a candle flame of reason in minds of men where darkness heretofore ruled exclusively.

For example, as economic conditions become more and more chaotic and desperate in this nation, something that the people of this nation will have no power of their own to turn around, the people will have a new thirst for understanding. In the midst of this new thirst for understanding, they can be reminded as to what has been taught of old concerning rebellion against God, and the consequences associated thereto. In many, a candle flame of realization will flare up, and they will then understand the wisdom associated with choosing to be obedient to the Laws of God. They can then change their ways, and the promise of God, make in II Chronicles 7:14 will then become their new reality.

II Chronicles 7:14 - “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

When it comes to discerning where the Omnipotence of God comes into play in any scenario where you have man rebelling against God, it will always be in this area of consequences. When God decides when the time is right for the people to suffer the consequences, there is nothing mankind can do to escape it.

It is very foolish therefore, Psolus, to do a mindless jig of defiance, such as you have done here, during a temporary phase where the mercy of God is still operative, where God our Father is giving his (fallen) children an opportunity to change their ways.

(end)

GoldenEagles,

"It is the Democrat Party, which
Leads the People of this Nation
in Rebellion Against God - Part 1"

"It is the Democrat Party, which
Leads the People of this Nation
in Rebellion Against God - Part 2'

All you have done is show how impotent your imaginary god is against mere "liberal" humans.

Worthy of a second read: (from poster CClaxton)

"...This is not an indictment of Faith itself, but of the illogic of Blind Faith. Faith, when it is based on experience and conforms to logic can be a powerful force for good in the world. But when Faith is based on what is written in an ancient document written in a time when science and logical thinking was not applied, and was written entirely by men who had a sexist view of the world, and was written with other similar flaws, then Blind Faith leads only to irrational thought."

It is the Democrat Party, which
Leads the People of this Nation
in Rebellion Against God - Part 1

pwlohse says, “I am LDS but I would not vote for either candidate because I think that the Republican agenda is damaging the United States. The pitiful state the country is in is largely due to poor governance during Republican presidencies.”

Actually, Pwlohse, you have it nearly exactly backwards. The Democrat Party, leading the people in the ways of Rebellion against God, is the primary cause of the nation’s decline in all areas.

As a Christian, you have a responsibility to evaluate the flow of events according to Biblical principles.

The Prophets and the Teachings of the Lord Christ tell us, that as a nation steers itself in the direction of Rebellion Against God, that the Hand of Divine Providence is withdrawn, the energies of human chaos control more and more of the nation’s life, where you see a degrading quality of life in every area. The basic principle was given to us by the Lord God to Solomon, as recorded in II Chronicles 7:1-22. Excerpting ...

II Chronicles 7:14 - “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

II Chronicles 7:19 “But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them;”

II Chronicles 7:20 “Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.”

Slavery Supported by the Democrat Party - As you know, the Democrat Party was the primary supporter of slavery in the South. The Democrat Party carries this baggage with them wherever they go. It remains part of their institutional moral conscience, which is outpictured in everything they do. Indeed, in leading the people in Rebellion against God, they lead the whole nation into chaos, dissolution, and slavery.

(more)

It is the Democrat Party, which
Leads the People of this Nation
in Rebellion Against God - Part 2

School Prayer Ban Supported By Democrat Party - When the U.S. Supreme Court declared School Prayer unconstitutional in 1962, it was the Democrat Party that has, from the very onset, blocked all attempts to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse this audacious slap in the very face of God.

Legal Abortion Supported by Democrat Party - When the U.S. Supreme Court declared all efforts by the States to guard and protect the life of the unborn, as unconstitutional, legalizing abortion in all 50 states in 1973, it was again the Democrat Party that stood in the way of the passage of any constitutional amendment to overturn this legalization of the murder of the innocent. And it has been the Democrat Party always leading the parade in the direction of the expansion of this practice of murdering the innocent children in the womb.

Rampant Homosexuality Support by Democrat Party - And again, it has been the Democrat Party, at the forefront, in leading the nation in rebellion against another Law of God, declared to the people through the Prophet Moses, which from ancient times placed homosexuality into the category of those things which were an abomination in the Sight of God, and a crime against the natural and moral order so egregious, that it required the death penalty as punishment. Their latest efforts have been to raise homosexuality into the status of a national virtue, alongside the virtues of military courage and honor.

God Responds to the People's Rebellion - All of these are egregious departures from the pathway of obedience unto God, and because of the rebellion of the people, led by the Democrat Party, we see that the promise set before us in II Chronicles 7:19-20 (as quoted above) is being slowly executed upon this nation. All degradations of life that we suffer, including in the economic area, is traceable to our rebellion against God. And this rebellion is led, chiefly by the Democrat Party.

Remember the substantial economic crisis which came upon this nation in 2008, came only after the American people made it clear that they were going to elect Barrack Obama into the Highest Office in the land, who would be the most zealous cheerleader unto rebellion against God the nation has yet seen.

(end)

walter-in-fallschurch,

"were i to apply the standard of not voting for people with crazy religious beliefs, i couldn't vote for anybody...!"

Bingo!

Hi MrMeaner,

I woke up this morning, and water was pouring out from under my house. I guess the last freeze was too much for my water pipes. I've been busy trying to rig some temporary water, but I will review your links, and try to get back yo you this evening, if possible - MrM

I understand. I'm working Monday and Tuesday so take your time. I am hoping however that when you get some free time that you will address some of my concerns. I also realize, since I am in the same boat that you are, that family time/time with our wives, is something that should not be neglected. That is usually why I burn the midnight oil and neglect my sleep (not a wise move either).

I've got one more post of yours to work on, then I'm all caught up.

oldiesfan1,
fair enough. so what would concern you is if someone had beliefs that were not "normal" or "mainstream". well, to romney, it's "normal" to have his mormon beliefs. he just inherited those beliefs from his parents (just the way most people inherit their religious beliefs). those are probably the beliefs of most of his childhood friends and all his relatives etc...

romney's crazy mormon beliefs would not stop me from voting for him. were i to apply the standard of not voting for people with crazy religious beliefs, i couldn't vote for anybody...!

oldiesfan1 says, “So, yes, if I think if a specific candidate adheres to a religion that I think is wacko, he won't get my vote, because If he's not grounded in reality in that aspect of his life...”

That is perfectly reasonable. The constitutional prohibition against religious tests applies to the federal government, specifically forbidding Congress to attach religious tests to the list of qualifications for any federal office or job.

As far as the American people go, in exercising their voting rights, they must vote for a candidate based on the dictates of their conscience. That is why an (open) Atheist would never be elected to a seat in congress, or to any other federal post that requires the
electoral consent of the people.

As far as my February 5 comment, I'm sorry I didn't specify that the entire concept you are espousing is insane. It would have prevented you from picking out the only two paragraphs of your three-part post that wasn't insane, and attached my reply out of context, in order to make it seem as though I made some claim, the reversed myself.

Pretty shameless RC.

Even for you

Walter-in_Falls Church continued the interrogation:
Questions about God the Father being mortal, then:

Would you vote for someone who was atheist? or agnostic? or deist? are those beliefs "wacko enough" to call into question a politician's "grounding in reality" on other issues?

It is "normal" Christian belief that God the father was always "God" and that God the Son was both mortal and God at the same time. The belief that we can all some day be "gods" and that "our" God was at one time mortal is not.

Atheist, Agnostic, Deist are really mainstream belief (or lack-of-belief) systems. But, your questions does make me think - if you are an atheist, what really motivates you?

This thread, though, isn't about which beliefs are wacko are which aren't. It's about would you, indeed, vote for a presidential candidate who you thought had wacko religious beliefs, and my answer is NO! Which beliefs I think are wacko is secondary to the first question.

PH
I woke up this morning, and water was pouring out from under my house.
I guess the last freeze was too much for my water pipes.
I've been busy trying to rig some temporary water, but I will review your links, and try to get back yo you this evening, if possible

oldiesfan1, you said,
But, since you asked, a belief that we can become Gods and have our own spirit children and that God the Father was once a mortal man is right up there with believing in a space alien named Xenu.

i agree that those are "wacko" beliefs. but, are you making a distinction between "god the father" and "god the son" having been once mortal - and calling one belief wacko and the other not? interesting.... how 'bout "triune"? is that wacko?

would you vote for someone who was atheist? or agnostic? or deist? are those beliefs "wacko enough" to call into question a politician's "grounding in reality" on other issues?

MrMeaner,

Here is an except from the Introduction for you:

"Finally it is appropriate in these introductory remarks to call attention (as I shall have occasion to do once and again in the pages that follow) to the striking and immensely significant fact that the entire system of "dispensational teaching" is modernistic in the strictest sense; for it first came into existence within the memory of persons now living; and was altogether unknown even in their younger days. It is more recent than Darwinism.

Think what it means that an elaborate, ramified and comprehensive system, which embraces radical teachings concerning such vital subjects as the preaching and ministry of Jesus Christ, the character and "dispensational place" of the four Gospels, the nature and era of the Kingdom of God, the Sermon on the Mount, the Gospel of the Kingdom, and other Bible topics of first importance, a system of doctrine that contradicts what has been held and taught by every Christian expositor and every minister of Christ from the very beginning of the Christian era, should have suddenly made its appearance in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and have been accepted by many who are prominent amongst the most professedly orthodox groups of Christians! It is an amazing phenomenon indeed. For the fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a "Bible" of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God. Ample proof of this will be given in the pages that follow.

Nevertheless, what I now urge in view thereof is only:--

First, that we have in these historical facts a most cogent reason why we should, each for himself, scrutinize this modern system most carefully in the light of Scripture; and second, that the above stated fact, of the very recent origin of the system, raises the presumption that dispensationalism is not in accord with the truth of God, and is not to be accepted except upon clear and ample proof.

In concluding these introductory remarks I would point out that this modern system of "dispensational teaching" is a cause of division and controversy between those followers of Christ who ought to be, at this time of crisis, solidly united against the mighty forces of unbelief and apostasy; and further that it tends to bring the vital truth of our Lord's second coming into discredit with many, because it associates that great Bible doctrine with various speculative details for which no scriptural support can be found."

Let me try that last link again,

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1927_mauro_gospel-kingdom.html

Hi MrMeaner,

Here is another link that you may find useful in understanding the system of Dispensationalism that is currently the majority view of the church. This gentleman actually addresses your question of 'all Israel will be saved' later in the book, but I recommend reading the whole, because as he says, he was once a Dispensationalist himself, just like I was. I read Grant Jeffery's, Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, John Haggie, etc., way back when in which modern Israel is 'this generation' that will experience the great tribulation.

http://www.preteristarchive/Books/1927_mauro_gospel-kingdom.html

Hi MrMeaner,

Taking off from earlier this morning, what do you make of the term, "Israel of God" in relationship to our discussion on all Israel being saved?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/gal6-16.html

Walter-in-Falls_Church asked me:
oldiesfan1,
which religions do you consider "wacko"? which ones are "sane"?

------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter; wacko belief is subjective. Obviously these people don't think they are wackos.

But, since you asked, a belief that we can become Gods and have our own spirit children and that God the Father was once a mortal man is right up there with believing in a space alien named Xenu.

Welton,
I am a big supporter of the Interfaith Alliance, and I support the good work the Alliance does in teaching tolerance...for all faiths and non-faiths.

But I have to disagree on the idea that Faith should be kept out of the decision to choose our leaders. We live in a pluralistic society, and we should be choosing leaders that are rational and tolerant and can make good decisions for us all.

The problem is that anyone who subscribes to the irrational circular logic of Faith (Faith is based on knowlege of God/Jesus/Mohammed/Krishna/etc., which is based on ancient documents, which is based on ...Faith) cannot be trusted to make rational decisions for a pluralistic society.

This is not an indictment of Faith itself, but of the illogic of Blind Faith. Faith, when it is based on experience and conforms to logic can be a powerful force for good in the world. But when Faith is based on what is written in an ancient document written in a time when science and logical thinking was not applied, and was written entirely by men who had a sexist view of the world, and was written with other similar flaws, then Blind Faith leads only to irrational thought.

If we can get commitments from those running for office that they will set aside their Faith and make decisions based on logic and the common good of our pluralistic society, then I can support that as long as they are not deceiving us. (Yes, there are candidates that are secretly fundamentalist, and run as centrists, but have radical agendas, and they "rationalize" their lies by Faith in their God/prophet.)

But do keep up the good works at Interfaith Alliance.

MRMEANER,

In one of your last posts to me you accused me of lying concerning your reversal on my initial post to you on eschatology.

I gave evidence of your "flip-flop" in my response @ February 10, 8:45 PM.

Do you intend to own your reversal or not?

I am LDS but I would not vote for either candidate because I think that the Republican agenda is damaging the United States. The pitiful state the country is in is largely due to poor governance during Republican presidencies.

oldiesfan1,
which religions do you consider "wacko"? which ones are "sane"?

I certainly take beliefs into account.

If a candidate holds a wacko view on anything, be it God, the economy, education, I won't vote for them.

So, yes, if I think if a specific candidate adheres to a religion that I think is wacko, he won't get my vote, because If he's not grounded in reality in that aspect of his life...

Hi MrMeaner,

You have me going now.

"What holy city are the Gentiles trampling on for 42 months in verse two?"

Jerusalem - MrM

Correct, but when?

As for the temple, my best guess is that the temple, as reported in the final chapters of Ezekiel, refer to the millennial temple, which is an actual temple, albeit a spiritual one, inasmuch as we will have already been "changed". (I Cor 15:51,52) At the end, after the final judgment, and death and hell, and those not found in the book of life have been blotted out, we receive the new heaven and a new earth...and a new existence, I presume. It must be a more spiritual existence, where the reference citing the Father and Son as being the temple of the kingdom, probably won't be as symbolic as we in flesh can only imagine. -MrM

Here we are in Revelation 11 and the new Jerusalem is only revealed in Revelation 21, and there is no temple, for as you correctly said the Lord God Almighty and Christ are its temple. So how do you measure it?

I think you look for the most far fetching reasons to make your interpretation stick, especially since Josephus tells us in his accounts that the temple (in historic 67-70AD) was trampled on by the Gentiles. As a Jew he recognized the significance of this, for he wrote about it.

If Christ had not been nailed to that cross, where would that leave us? -MrM

Is this a rhetorical question? Dead in our sins, guilty before God.

It had to happen, It was prophesied to happen. It accomplished the victory that man has awaited since the fall of Adam. How can the accomplishment of that act bring about wrath from God? - MrM

They rejected the one means that God provided that could atone for all their sins. Will the holy, righteous, pure, just God not punish what is wrong? If He turns a blind eye on evil then how could He be just or holy or pure or righteous? Christ came to meet that purity for us and to offer Himself and His sacrifice in our place so that we would not have to offer our own filthy sacrifice. He took the wrath that was ours upon Himself and paid the debt. He was willing to take the wrath that was Israels, yet many of His own would not receive Him. But even more than that He came to change and transform us into the image of Himself by giving us a new nature, one that is open to His Spirit and leading. It all points to Him.

GE

I agree that even in the fulfillment of that act, there were sins committed by individuals.
I cringed as soon as posted my comment to PH, where I stated "...he also preordained the destinies of those...". It would have been better stated as "he foreknew the intentions of those".
In my thoughts,there has to be some predisposition of the souls involved with the negative act that resulted in that ultimatly positive outcome.
I'm reminded of the OT prophecies dealing with Judas and his thirty pieces of silver.
Maybe we can pick all of this up tomorrow

I'm down for the evening, folks

have a good one

Hi MrMeaner,

Let me finish up for the night.

"In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." (Romans 9:6-8)" - Me

Then why does Paul report that all Israel will be saved? - MrM

Because the true Israel of God are all those in Christ, those grafted into the true branch as well as those of the natural branch in Christ, those of the promise, the elect, those who are saved, those chosen by grace, chosen by God, those who have had their sins taken away, the ones who have ears to hear.

"The promise was spoken to Abraham and to his Seed. The Scriptures does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your Seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ." (Gal. 3:16)

"God did not reject His people whom He foreknew." (Romans 11:2a)

"For not all who are descendant from Israel are Israel." (Romans 9:6b)

"When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, He said of him, 'Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.'" (John 1:47)

" contend that the promise land is Christ, for all God's promises are yes in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The Israel of God is Christ. He is the king of the eternal kingdom and in Him is the eternal covenant put in place that was established with the destruction of the city, temple and Old Covenant" -Me

Israel is Israel. If you want to know what God thinks about Israel and Jerusalem, her sins, God's anguish, the punishment she received, and her redemption in the end, read Ezekiel Ch. 16. If that doesn't prove to you that Israel is still Israel, nothing will - MrM

Yes, the covenant is in Christ. Those who are in Christ are part of the new covenant. Those apart from Christ are not.

"But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away...And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing." (2 Corinth. 3:14-17; 4:3)

"He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor a human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:11-13)

MrMeaner asks, "How can the accomplishment of that act bring about wrath from God?"

Doesn't this principle answer this question, at least in part?

Matthew 18:7 - "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

PH

If Christ had not been nailed to that cross, where would that leave us?

It had to happen, It was prophesied to happen. It accomplished the victory that man has awaited since the fall of Adam.

How can the accomplishment of that act bring about wrath from God?

Hi MrMeaner,

That brings another question to mind. If Christ's crucifixion was a pre-ordained directive, prophesied throughout the OT, why would God bring about a judgment against a nation, for being the place where his own plan came to fruition? And if he preordained the crucifixion, wouldn't it be likely that he also preordained the destinies of those who carried out the act? - MrM

Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, cites the Westminster Confession:

"In the Westminster Confession, which sets forth the beliefs of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches and which is the most perfect expression of the Reformed Faith, we read: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." And further, "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

Violence was not offered to the will of the creature, so in other words, they voluntarily did this. They killed the Author of Life. They were asked, 'Choose this day who you will serve.' God put before them blessings and curses; they chose curses. God was patient with them through the ages and they were a stiff-necked people. They were warned over and over again and still did not heed God. He sent them prophets to warn them. They did not heed them. So He sent His Son. They did not heed Him, but nailed Him to a cross. Finally judgment.

PH

Some of those questions are a bit cryptic. You may have to elaborate.

"What holy city are the Gentiles trampling on for 42 months in verse two?"

Jerusalem

As for the temple, my best guess is that the temple, as reported in the final chapters of Ezekiel, refer to the millennial temple, which is an actual temple, albeit a spiritual one, inasmuch as we will have already been "changed". (I Cor 15:51,52)
At the end, after the final judgment, and death and hell, and those not found in the book of life have been blotted out, we receive the new heaven and a new earth...and a new existence, I presume.
It must be a more spiritual existence, where the reference citing the Father and Son as being the temple of the kingdom, probably won't be as symbolic as we in flesh can only imagine.

'The land upon the mountains of Israel?'
'King to them all?'

Again, a bit cryptic. You'll have to go into more detail.

"In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." (Romans 9:6-8)"

Then why does Paul report that all Israel will be saved?

" contend that the promise land is Christ, for all God's promises are yes in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The Israel of God is Christ. He is the king of the eternal kingdom and in Him is the eternal covenant put in place that was established with the destruction of the city, temple and Old Covenant"

Israel is Israel.
If you want to know what God thinks about Israel and Jerusalem, her sins, God's anguish, the punishment she received, and her redemption in the end, read Ezekiel Ch. 16.
If that doesn't prove to you that Israel is still Israel, nothing will

Hi MrMeaner,

Are you absolutely certain which people are responsible for Christ's crucifixion....which in itself, was a necessary fulfillment of prophecy? -MrM

Yes, and if you accept God's word as our highest authority then the matter is settled. If not then whose do you accept as final, ultimate?

"Men of Israel, listen to this....This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge, and you, with the help of wicked men, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross." (Acts 2:22-23)

"Men of Israel...You handed Him over to be killed, and you disowned Him before Pilate, though he had decided to let Him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One...You killed the author of life." (Acts 3:12b,13b, 14-15)

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers and elders of the people...then know this, you and ALL the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified..." (Acts 4:8,10)

"But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed....They all answered, 'Crucify Him!'...All the people answered, 'Let His blood be on us and our children!'" (Matthew 27:20a, 22b, 25).

Talk about judgment.

"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have have betrayed and murdered Him - you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it." (Acts 7:51-53)

"For you brothers, became imitators of God's church in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limits. The wrath of God has come on them at last." (1 Thess. 2:14-16)

Notice 'the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus Christ.'

Again speaking of the judgment that 'has' come upon them and is shortly to be carried out with the destruction of the temple and city.

Hi MrMeaner,

"Where in the NT are we told of the rebuilding of the Temple?" - Me

answered on February 9, 2011 4:18 PM, and 4:38PM - MrM

So then you believe that Revelation 11:1 "Go and measure the temple of God" refers to...what? How do you measure God? What holy city are the Gentiles trampling on for 42 months in verse two?

After all, the temple was destroyed along with the city in 70AD. The temple has not been rebuilt, so either there is another temple that will be built, the temple they are referring to is the temple that existed before its destruction in 70AD, or as you say the temple they are measuring in Revelation is a metaphor about God and Jesus Christ. So explain.

"Where are we told that Israel will become a nation again in the last days?" -Me

The most obvious place, the one where the duality in interpretation is probably the most obvious, is Ezek. Ch 37,- MrM

[22] And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

'The land upon the mountains of Israel?'
'King to them all?'

"For not all who are descendants from Israel are Israel...On the contrary, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.'
In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." (Romans 9:6-8)

I contend that the promise land is Christ, for all God's promises are yes in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The Israel of God is Christ. He is the king of the eternal kingdom and in Him is the eternal covenant put in place that was established with the destruction of the city, temple and Old Covenant.

Remember, the old covenant officially was not put to an end until the temple was destroyed.

"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13)

What would be considered 'soon' by most Hebrews reading this epistle just after it was written?

[23] Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

That can only happen for those in Christ.

[24] And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Again, I believe the reference of David is to Christ (2 Samuel 7:14-17; Acts 2:14-36), just as the reference to king and shepherd are to Christ(John 18:37; 10:11, 14, 16) and this was all fulfilled in the first century.

MrMeaner says, “After further research, I can't determine the original purpose.”

According to the information at the link you have provided, we see that one person, Mr. Henry Wilder Foote, writing the introduction to a 1964 print of the Jeffersonian Bible, believed that Jefferson’s efforts in this area had its roots in his interests in educating the Indians. Partial search results returned on this book, gives us the impression (p.23) that Jefferson mentioned the Indians on the first form of his compilation. Though Foote notes that this purpose was never consummated. Given this new information, I see that it is more than plausible that this interest could have sparked the idea for this compilation of the sayings of Jesus. So I would not be surprised, from this point forward, to find a more specific reference in one of his letters to support the idea.

Nevertheless, reading the whole of the letter, Jefferson to Adams, October 13, 1813, we see that in this instance, this origin is not mentioned or implied in the context. Though there is a lot of other good stuff in there, and is worth reading in its entirety.

For example, he says, Jefferson writing to Adams,

“An expression in your letter of September the 14th, that "human understanding is a revelation from its maker," gives the best solution that I believe can be given the question, "what did Socrates mean by his Daemon?" He was too wise to believe, and too honest to pretend, that he had a real and familiar converse with a superior and invisible being. He probably considered the suggestions of his conscience, or reason, as revelations or inspirations from the Supreme mind, bestowed, on important occasions, by a special superintending Providence.” [pp. 391-392]

Here we see an expressed belief on the part of Jefferson, that God can illuminate the Mind of Man, when He so chooses. And this goes beyond simple Deism. Jefferson must have often wondered why he was so smart, as compared to the minds of other men, and here we see part of his internally generated answer, which helped him to remain basically a very humble individual.

And he must have also made the connection between this belief, and the saying of Jesus, that no man can come unto the Father except through his interecession, which was certainly part of the compiled sayings, giving us a sense that Jefferson had a more than ordinary inner connection to the Master Jesus Christ.

....which in itself, was a necessary fulfillment of prophecy?

That brings another question to mind.
If Christ's crucifixion was a pre-ordained directive, prophesied throughout the OT, why would God bring about a judgment against a nation, for being the place where his own plan came to fruition?

And if he preordained the crucifixion, wouldn't it be likely that he also preordained the destinies of those who carried out the act?

PH

Let's just say you're right.
At the time of Christ, most Jews were dispersed among the nations.
In fact, it can be documented in those same works of Josephus, that many in the land at that time were in fact, Edomites, or Idumeans who had converted to Judaism.
(Antiquties 13-9-257, 258)

One of the footnotes in that sections contains a quote from Ammonius, a grammarian:

"The Judeans are such by nature, and form the beginning, whist the Idumeans were not Judeans from the beginning, but Phoenicians and Syrians; but being afterward subdued by the Judeans and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Judeans."

Also in the same set of footnotes, Dio says:

"That country is also called Judea, and the people Judeans; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion, though of other nations."

I've already provided a scriptural reference documenting that the scribes were not Israelites, from the beginning.

Are you absolutely certain which people are responsible for Christ's crucifixion....which in itself, was a necessary fulfillment of prophecy?

GE

There's so much information out there, it's hard to tell what is real, and what isn't.

After further research, I can't determine the original purpose.

There are some indications that it was intended for the indians, but it's hard to be sure

http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/indian_evangelization.htm

GoldenEagles,

"I take it, then, that you were never a member of the Boy Scouts."

What makes you believe that?

"I have always enjoyed hiking in the wilderness areas, I just wondered whether we had that common ground to share."

Don't you already believe everything that you need to believe about me?

"Have you lived in a big city your whole life?"

Do you believe that I have?

"I will adjust my wilderness reference then."

Are you changing the reference to conform with your new beliefs?

I can't wait to see what your new beliefs are.

"Next time you watch your favorite nature show on the national geographic channel, Psolus,..."

What makes you believe that I get cable?

"...perhaps one showing the beauty of one of your favorite national parks,..."

What makes you believe that I have a favorite national park?

"...consider this truth..."

What "truth"?

"...[that God made all of this],..."

What makes you believe that that is a "truth"?

"...and Nature’s God..."

You imaginary "nature's god"?

"...will affirm it for you as you are taken on a walk, via the miracle of video technology, through the woods, along the creeks and streams, and up the sides of the mountains, and even to the top of Everest."

What makes you believe that that will ever happen?

(fin)

Psolus says, "What makes you believe that I will be going out for a hike, either in the near future, or any time in the future?"

I take it, then, that you were never a member of the Boy Scouts. I have always enjoyed hiking in the wilderness areas, I just wondered whether we had that common ground to share. Have you lived in a big city your whole life?

I will adjust my wilderness reference then.

Next time you watch your favorite nature show on the national geographic channel, Psolus, perhaps one showing the beauty of one of your favorite national parks, consider this truth [that God made all of this], and Nature’s God will affirm it for you as you are taken on a walk, via the miracle of video technology, through the woods, along the creeks and streams, and up the sides of the mountains, and even to the top of Everest.

MrMeaner says, “The Jeffersonian Bible was created for the indians.”

I admit that I am not an expert on Thomas Jefferson. But I have read several books about him, numbering perhaps no more than five. From this reading, my sense of his compilation of the sayings of Jesus Christ, was for his own use. This work might have been put to other uses after the fact, but initially it was intended for his own edification.

The fact that it was for his own edification tells us that he had a connection to the Master Jesus Christ, which is also, as you know, a communication channel unto the Father. Though I don’t know if he understood that.

This Wikipedia Article on the subject of the Jeffersonian Bible, has an excerpt from one of his letters at the top of the page, which supports this general view.

Actually, this excerpt is quite revealing, indicating the degree of hostility he had for priests. The Priesthood was his enemy in the effort to separate church from state in Virginia. And in this battle, he was always on the outlook for arguments to make against them. And perhaps he went overboard from time to time. When you are writing out of an energy forcefield of hostility, one’s viewpoint will depart from objectivity to some extent. That’s why Jesus Christ commanded, Love your Enemies. In that way only will it be assured that your interaction with the adversary stays in the domain of truth.

This excerpt is so interesting, I will just reproduce it here. From a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:

“In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.”

Walter-in-fallschurch says, " when jefferson wrote "natures god", he was not thinking of yahweh.”

Your statement illustrates an agenda driven ideology, divorced from the historic facts.

Jefferson was raised in the Anglican Church. And he understood the Christian traditions adhered to by 99.99% of his countrymen.

When he wrote “Nature’s God” it was a term understood to encompass the belief structure of all Christian Sects. And that is how everyone, at the time, understood it.

Anyone who understands that the Truth of God as Creator is delineated in the Book of Genesis, knows that he is referring to the One God.

There is no distinction between the God that created everything, including every aspect of nature, and Yayweh. There is only One God.

This distinction you are pushing, trying to remove God from nature, is being made popular by Atheists, who in their desire to be free from God completely, deny the reality of God in nature. That appears to be where you are coming from.

This force of feeling that has people mindlessly denying the reality of the One God in nature, has its origin, in the powerful forcefield of evil that leans on the unprotected feeling world of individual’s such as yourself, who make no effort to build up a forcefield of light around your own mind and body, to protect yourself from such influences.

MrMeaner, before I get to Ezekiel 37 please take a perusal of this link, which pits Josephus' writing against the biblical backdrop and the judgment of God on Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple there.

http://preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_theological.html#Book_V,_Chapter_II,_Section_1

GoldenEagles,

"Next time you go out on a hike, Psolus,..."

What makes you believe that I will be going out for a hike, either in the near future, or any time in the future?

How do you even know whether or not I am ambulatory?

This particular belief, like most of your beliefs, is based on assumptions that you are incapable of knowing.

"...in your favorite wilderness area,..."

What makes you believe that I have a favorite wilderness area?

Extrapolate from the above.

"...consider this truth,..."

What "truth"?

"...and Nature’s God..."

Your imaginary "nature's god"?

"...will affirm it for you as you walk through the woods,..."

What makes you believe...?

"...along the creeks ands streams, and up the sides of the mountains."

You believers crack me up.

I can't remember the last time any of you got it right.

(fin)

Walter-in-fallschurch says, " ... to disabuse you of the notion he and the founders were just trying to regulate between one chtistian sect and another:

[quotation from Jefferson autobiography - see below]

I believe this statement is referring to a Virginia State Statute. And therefore has no direct bearing on the meaning of the provision of the federal constitution, which forbids a religious test.

And moreover, Jefferson's interpretation of why the proposed amendment to the statute was rejected, which would have declared Jesus Christ to be the author of our religion, is probably not accurate. I would think that most of the Virginia State Legislators would have rejected the amendment because it embodies a falsehood. Jesus Christ is not the author of the Christian religion. God our Father (the one and only God) is the author of the Christian religion, or least what the religion was intended to be. Jesus Christ was the messenger for that religion, and perhaps even the administrator thereof. Not the author.

Though I will stipulate, that the quote you provide, makes it appear that Jefferson, in his later years, had adopted an agenda that was quite liberal for his time, and like all human beings, will reach back and harvest the honor of those past illuminaries in support of the legitimacy of his current agenda.

Jefferson it should be noted had no role in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, nor in the debates that surrounded its ratification. He was in France the whole time if I remember correctly.

GoldenEagles,
when jefferson wrote "natures god", he was not thinking of yahweh.

Walter-in-fallschurch says, “Nature’s God” is decidedly not the God of Christianity.

Not true. As it is written, the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. The God of the Bible, as we see in the Book of Genesis Created the World, and the entire structure of life systems we find on it, and continues to pour his power and purposeful will into it.

Nature is composed of a magically animated configuration of atoms and electrons, the behavior of which God is in control of at all times. That is how Great God is. God is in control of all the atoms that compose the technology through which you are reading these words. By his WILL alone do these atoms conform to the laws which He has established.

Everywhere on earth where atoms are in motion, and interacting, it is the Will of God that enforces the Law by which they interact. Everywhere in the universe, where atoms are in motion, and interacting, it is the Will of God that enforces the Law by which they interact. That is how Great God is. Everywhere in your own body, where atoms are in motion, and interacting, it is the Will of God that enforces the Law by which they interact. That is how Great God is.

What other than an infinitely powerful and intelligent God could orchestrate the interaction of atomic clouds of galactic mass into the form of a child, and continue to orchestrate this unfolding symphony of life, into the various stages of bodily appearances that we see with our own eyes? Every atom is under the direct control of God. No exceptions.

Next time you go out on a hike, Psolus, in your favorite wilderness area, consider this truth, and Nature’s God will affirm it for you as you walk through the woods, along the creeks ands streams, and up the sides of the mountains.

The Jeffersonian Bible was created for the indians. It was designed to expose them to the Judeo/Christian value system, without encroaching on their own religious practices.

Quite American, I would say

GE
It's the only way I can explain why some people are born already having been "justified" and "chosen", and some (such as Esau) were hated by God himself while still in his mother's womb.

Also, in the NT where the words "eternal" and "everlasting" are used, it is the Greek word "aionios". That word means perpetuity...past and future.
Of course, the root of that word is aion, which we know is usually translated "ages' or "world".

I believe I Cor Ch. 15 attempts to explain the immortal body, also.

golden eagles,
to be sure, thomas jefferson realized most people around him depended on the carrot/stick of heaven/hell to behave.

but jefferson himself was a deist through and through. he thought jesus was just a regular flesh and blood human, certainly not born of a virgin, who offered up some fine philosophy. i'm sure you know about "the jefferson bible" - he tossed out the o.t., and expurgated (thanks psolus!) all the cartoonish miracles and magic messiah nonsense from the n.t. to distill for himself a nice little pamphlet about morals.

as for the "nature's god" and "creator" that he wrote in the declaration of independence, i once wrote this:

The Declaration of Independence (not a legal document) says that America is entitled sovereignty by “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” “Nature’s God” is decidedly not the God of Christianity. In fact, it’s what Christians would call a “pagan god.” To be sure, some Christians wanted to anoint Jesus Christ our National Deity, but Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and even foreigner Thomas Paine wouldn’t let them. The Declaration says our individual rights are endowed by our “Creator.” They could have said, endowed by “Christ” or “Jehovah” or “LORD” or even “God Almighty,” but they didn’t. They said “Creator.” It’s beautiful! It’s so vague it includes everybody’s God(s). It could even be Allah!

and to disabuse you of the notion he and the founders were just trying to regulate between one chtistian sect and another:

You cannot say that “Nature’s God” and “Creator” are code words for “Christ” either. Jefferson and Madison also wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. In his autobiography, Jefferson recalled, “Where the preamble [to the Statue] declares that coercion is ‘a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion,’ an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read, ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.’ The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

"Where in the NT are we told of the rebuilding of the Temple?"

answered on February 9, 2011 4:18 PM, and 4:38PM

"Where are we told that Israel will become a nation again in the last days?"

The most obvious place, the one where the duality in interpretation is probably the most obvious, is Ezek. Ch 37, which includes the following:

[22] And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
[23] Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
[24] And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Kind of hard to make the case that this has happened, is it not?

MrMeaner says, "There is an inner man, with a body that can't die, never grows old, and contains an essence that is of God."

This is a very interesting statement. I am sure that this concept has not been brought up at any time during the full course of this discussion. Please explain this further. Who is this inner man?

PH
I'm not taking them out of context. If anthing, I'm providing more context than is referenced in the original replies.
I just believe that there is a duality (at least) in the messages intended to be received, so as to benefit the readers at different points in time.

"There is a danger of 'private interpretation' if you just read whatever you want to into the Scripture."

I would also add that the same danger exists for those who leave parts out of scripture, or who do away with the things don't fit, by dismissing them as metaphors, or symbolism.

Hi MrMeaner,

I think our difference is that while we can both agree these are actual historical events, I believe they also serve as type examples, featuring events that provide different characteristics of the same future apostasy, that will bring about the final judgment. -MrM

Yes, the narratives do speak of historical events, and typologies in certain events that the NT brings out and makes clearer with certain passages, but the question is when, and in what context is the particular verse(s) brought out? Are they all speaking of the 'same future apostasy' and what 'final judgment' do they signify? Do they speak of the final judgment of Israel or the final judgment of Babylon or some other nation, or all mankind? To take a verse out of context when the Scripture gives no warrant to do so is to make a verse say whatever you want it to say. First you have to show that there is warrant to do so. That is what you are trying to do by merely stating that it is so.

Since so much of the two testaments are historical narrative, in the OT we should look to see if the prophet, another prophet or the NT author(s) list the fulfillment of an earlier prophesy. There is a danger of 'private interpretation' if you just read whatever you want to into the Scripture.

Whether the example is the king of Babylon, The Pharaoh mentioned in Ezek Ch.31, the king and prince of Tyrus in Ezek Ch.28, The Assyrian,in Is.Ch.14, the serpent in the garden, or the antichrist, or many other examples, the messages all have the same outcome, and point the same direction. - MrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_SqsoSKj0Q&feature=related

For those literal interpreters projecting these two chapters way into the future there is the problem of the language. They try to make bows and spears into modern weaponry for starters, so they don't live true to their own literalism. They read into the text things the text does not say.

Where in the NT are we told of the rebuilding of the Temple? Where are we told that Israel will become a nation again in the last days?

Can we really trust Romney or Huntsman not to listen to the current Mormon prophet/"profit" when a lot of their business dealings rely on said "profit" center support for funds?

"What do you take as literal language and what do you take as figurative language in Matthew 24?"

I take all of it as both

"When do you see the prophesy of Ezekiel 38-39 as taking place, modern end time Israel or ancient Israel and what do you take as literal concerning it?"

Again, it depends on the time period.
For example, you could say that it was fulfilled in 2nd Century BC, when the Scythians were defeated by Judas Maccabeaus. And the fact that it was the Sythians, actually provides another type example for another reoccurring theme that will probably be the subject of a future discussion.
But, as I'm sure you know, many believe this is a confederation between the countries listed, and Gog.
One interpretaion I've heard places Gog and Magog as Russia, some as the western nations.
There is another interpretation that uses the meanings of the words to identify them.
Gog means "under the roof"
Magog means "from under the roof".
Some believe that the references to Gog are symbolic of Satan bound, while Magog is Satan loosed.
There are so many opinions, I've given up trying to figure out who Gog and Magog are.
The important part is the league of nations that Gog leads. I recognize all of those, and they're all seeking Israel's extinction, currently

"What do you liken the parable of the wretched tenants to (Matthew 21:33-49)? Or the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt. 22:1-14)?"

You can't blame an entire group of people for the actions of the scribes and Pharisees. I can document that the scribes were not even Israelites, as far back as I Chr.2:55.
Remember, Jesus called them the offspring of vipers. He accused them of being responsible for the blood of Abel. Was that the work of Israelites?

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"--Rom 11:26

not sure how that spacing thing happened.

"I'm with RCofield on this one, once again, that the oracle concerns Babylon. God uses hyperbole and symbolism often to emphasize judgment on both His people and other nations, as He does in Matthew 24, Revelation and elsewhere."

Hello PH
I'm going to just lay a lot of it out there. You deserve to know exactly where I'm coming from, minus the dance typically involved with strategically exacting the
delivery of a message.

I think our difference is that while we can both agree these are actual historical events, I believe they also serve as type examples, featuring events that provide different characteristics of
the same future apostasy, that will bring about the final judgment. Whether the example is the king of Babylon, The Pharaoh mentioned in Ezek Ch.31, the king and prince of Tyrus in Ezek Ch.28, The Assyrian,in Is.Ch.14, the serpent in the garden, or the antichrist, or many other examples,
the messages all have the same outcome, and point the same direction.

That day of judgment is what I understand to be "the day of the LORD".
There is debate as to whether this "day" is a 1000 year period that some (including myelf) would call the millennial reign of Christ, which is followed by a final judgment, to which those who have overcome are not subject.

There is another school of thought that says the "day of the LORD" is one day, the moment of Christ's return. They use the "one day is with the LORD as a thousand years" reference from 2nd Peter as a basis for that line of thought.

These things that sound other-worldly are, unfortunately, taught to be metaphors, by teachers whose opinions are shaped by the ruminations handed down from the scholars, whose opinions are all too often shaped by the higher critics that seem to be intent on minimizing the effect of God's word.

There is an inner man, with a body that can't die, never grows old, and contains an essence that is of God.
The word will never pass away, and those passages that we read today, will have meaning to us,
even in an immortal body.

Hi MrMeaner,

What do you take as literal language and what do you take as figurative language in Matthew 24?

When do you see the prophesy of Ezekiel 38-39 as taking place, modern end time Israel or ancient Israel and what do you take as literal concerning it?

What do you liken the parable of the wretched tenants to (Matthew 21:33-49)? Or the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt. 22:1-14)?

The Heavenly Kingdom Within

Responding to my question regarding why people are not aware that the Kingdom of Heaven is within them, D-0f-G says, "The irony is that this truth is hidden only by the individual's inability to question and investigate, rather than be born into, and persudaded by those who consciously, or unconsciously, perpetuate extant falsities."

Well, isn't this truth also hidden by the people's inability to understand the role the Master Jesus Christ must play in their lives to actually realize the reality of this Heavenly Kingdom within. After all, he did say, the Kingdom of Heaven is within. And he also said, among other things, that no one comes to the Father, which I take to mean, the Heavenly Kingdom, expect through his assistance.

Sort of like saying, you can't get to the pent house, unless you take the elevator. And the Power of Elevation with which God endowed Him, is both the elevator and the elevator operator.

What are the "extant falsities" you refer to? Did I just state one of them?

IamWeaver says, "no one has ever offered up a good reason to include [God] in government, in terms that is beneficial to its citizens who don't share those views."

I will repeat what I said below. If the people do not express Respect for God in their collective institutions, the fountain of Divine Providence will dry up, and the hopes of the people for a better life will slowly, but surely, wither on the vine.

This process is put in slow motion by God, so the people have a chance to understand their error and correct it.

There can be no debate about this fact, that America took a sharp turn into the abyss of moral debauchery when it allowed the 1962 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning school prayer, to stand.

As a result, the people have fallen into such a stupor of moral insensitivity, that they don't bat an eye at the glaring fact that they have allowed 53 million of their own citizens to be slaughtered in the womb since 1973.

Some people like to point to the evil nature of Nazism, which slaughtered by comparison, only 5 or 6 million of its “unwanted” citizens. America has done tens times better in this respect, and people bow before it like an altar of virtue.

Some people like to point to the evil nature of Communism, which has since 1917, inflicted death on about 120 million innocent civilians. America is nearly half way there, and is poised to overtake that ghastly count by the year 2056. There is little likelihood, actually none, that God will allow this nation to continue along that path, for it is said, the He Chastens Those Whom He Loves.

Freedom is essential that is true. But Respect for God, and obedience to His Laws, is the foundation for freedom. Somehow we must find a middle way, between theocracy on the one hand, and unbridled licentiousness in rebellion against God himself on the other.

Hi MrMeaner,

BTW, If you think Is. Ch.13 was completely fulfilled, I suppose you believe that, as recorded in Is.Ch.14, The king of Babylon was Lucifer, and also the Assyrian, because, as made clear, they are all referring to the same entity. Get a clue, then get back to me. -MrM

I'm with RCofield on this one, once again, that the oracle concerns Babylon. God uses hyperbole and symbolism often to emphasize judgment on both His people and other nations, as He does in Matthew 24, Revelation and elsewhere.

'The day of the LORD' is a day of judgment on Babylon, just as it is on Israel during the NT times, as well as a day of rejoicing for those who are His.

As I said before, it is a day of judgment on Israel and the Old Covenant by bringing it to a close and replacing it with the New Covenant.

As Paul says to the brothers in the church at Corinth,

"Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:7-8)

He keeps His people, the Christians at Corinth, blameless so that they escape the coming judgment and wrath of God on Israel for rejecting the Son and 'heaping up their sins to the fullest.'

Paul, to the church at Thessalonia,

"Now, brothers, about times and dates, we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape." (1 Thess. 5:1-3)

Now read this passage and tell me to whom is Paul addressing? Is he addressing people thousands of years in the future or are you reading something into your system of belief that is not there? Please be honest with yourself concerning what the text actually says.

Notice again, that it speaks of judgment/destruction. These people, these Jews, who are outside of Christ 'will not escape.' Only those who are in Christ are spared.

At the time of writing, the Jewish system of economy and sacrifice that has proved over and over again to be inept will disappear like a thief in the night, like the destruction of the heavens by fire, in which the elements of this system melt away in the heat of judgment and God ushers in the new heavens and new earth, 'the home of righteousness' for His people, for they are new creations in Christ Jesus. (see 2 Peter 3:10-13) regarding 'that' day.

You have skipped answering many of my questions. In Matthew 28 we see that Jesus has been given all power and authority, as I mentioned we are given witness to in both Daniel 7:13-14 and Revelation 5:6-14 or even Philippians 2:10.

So does Jesus have all power and authority in heaven and on earth now or not, as He said in Matt. 28 that He had?

IamWeaver says, "Thomas Jefferson's ... world was certainly not entirely Christian."

The "world" in which Jefferson lived and worked, the people he dealt with in all of his various pursuits, were 99.99% Christian. That's the way the civilized world was at the time.

As far as his relationship to the Islamic World, this was the world of the foreign adversary generally. It was not his world.

Taking the .01 percent that was not Christian, of which he was aware through his wide ranging reading, and trying to blow that up into some kind of significant factor in the thinking of Thomas Jefferson, is known as making a mountain out of a molehill, and populating it with vast pine forests to boot.

The imagination moves with the desires of the individual. If one's desires are not tied into reality, the imagination is not checked, and can soar into all manner of distortions.

The desire to keep God out of government is not a desire of light, but a desire of darkness, and from this, we see where your distortions in the domain of imagination come from. You feel an emotional need to keep God out of government, and this feeling stretches the fabric of your imagination to match the needs of your agenda.

There is a middle ground that is required for the survival of the nation. The nation must express a collective respect for God, in its institutions, or the Fountain of Divine Providence will dry up, and the hopes of the people for a better life will wither on the vine, as we see happening all around us in America today.

IamWeaver says, TJ owned and read the Koran.

That may be so. But Anti-Communists also own and read the works of Karl Marx.

IamWeaver refers to Thomas Jefferson as a Deist.

That is very simplistic. His reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence tells us he was more than a Deist.

Moreover, his extensive study and reverence for the sayings of Jesus Christ, tells us he was more than a Deist.

Yes, He had problems with the various doctrines promulgated by those who were his foes in the church/state battle. Because those views were expressed in a political battle, they cannot be taken as an accurate rendition of what he really felt, concerning his own personal relationship to God.

I am sure that Thomas Jefferson felt the Guiding Hand of God in his life, and that makes him much more than a Deist.

Iamweaver refers to Thomas Paine as an agnostic.

No. That is not true. I have read every book that Thomas Paine wrote. I can assure you that Thomas Paine believed in God in a very strong manner.

Though again, he was involved in the struggle against the established church and its totalitarian priesthood, and in his writings, he may have come across as anti-religious at times. But I can assure you, he believed in God profoundly.

Mormons don't have to worry about being discriminated against, since most Americans are completely ignorant of religion. All they know is that if they pretend to believe in one of them they can claim to be better than someone else. Plus, it's an opportunity to cheat somebody by pretending to have ethical values. Mormans have traditionally excelled at this sort of thing.

"Surprising to me is that the issue of a politiician's religion has again emerged."

When did it ever go away in regard to Obama?
Teabaggers and Huckabees have been harping on it for well over three years now. Where have you been?

Surprising to me is that the issue of a politiician's religion has again emerged. Of course being a Mormon matters not in the least. The problem for Mormons is that Mr. Romney made religion an issue by saying he would never hire a Muslim staff member. Then, please remember, persons started suggesting Mormons were not real Christians. The ones suggesting this were honestly putting forward their beliefs, which would have had not the slightest mention but for Mr. Romney's bringing religion up. These prayer breakfasts should be eliminated unless the full panoply of religion is included; specifically a canaballist from New Guinea should say grace over the meal.

I think you learned some skewed history, Goldeneagles. Those *are* Thomas Jefferson's words - and his world was certainly not entirely Christian. In fact, a number of 18th century intellectuals weren't Christians; they were either Deists (like TJ himself) or agnostics like Thomas Paine. TJ owned and read the Koran. He was familiar with "hindoo" philosophy. There was a small Muslim community in Boston.

The political world in the turn of the 19th century was as varied as it is today, in most respects. There were conservatives, liberals, libertarians and authoritarians. So - yes, there were undoubtedly some of the founding fathers who were thinking that the world would always be a Christian one. But certainly not all.

There's a huge amount of space in the private arena for personal and organized religion. But lets keep our government secular, thanks.

For me though, the most telling thing is - no one has ever offered up a good reason to include it in government, in terms that is beneficial to its citizens who don't share those views. Personally, I loved all of the Christmas hoo-hah done by our town government as a kid. But I'm a Christian...

Amen to all of the above. But it's far worse today than when JFK ran for office.

In America today, religion trumps everything.

Posted by: GoldenEagles,

D-0f-G quotes the Apocryphal Texts of St. Thomas:
"The kingdom of heaven is in you and all around you"
Why are not people aware of this? Please explain.
-------------------------------------
The short answer is that when any individual does not cultivate any original thinking, personal revelation, or epiphany, he tends to be little more than a pack animal, waiting to be led by an alpha-male, or a dogma validated only by the weight of its "numbers"-the pack. The world, presently, is still a world ruled by "external controls" that are advanced by collective consent. However, the problem with these "controlling agents" via the dogmas of science and religion, is that they have purposely left of one glaring truth that, if understood by the masses, would call into question all of that which we, thus far, "believe". The irony is that this truth is hidden only by the individual's inability to question and investigate, rather than be born into, and persudaded by those who consciously, or unconsciously, perpetuate extant falsities. In fact, the movie: "Stigmata" highlighted this very truth, relevant to the Gospel of St. Thomas. And yet, such an illustration is just an ember compared to the raging flood of our collective ignorance.

In the Christian bible it is sated that God is the "Alpha and the Omega". Is this profound rhetoric? No! This is a concept that can be expressed in geometric terms. And the only geometric shape that expresses this concept is the "circle", and more succinctly-the "sphere"-the "divine paradigm"- an expression with no beginning, nor ending! Thus, an existence that cannot be explained! That's why our current cultural paradigm hinges on a "beginning"; for beginnings will always have a need for a narrative. And a narrative will always need explanations: and thus, those to follow them!

This knowledge goes all the way back to Amenhotep IV aka Akhenaten-the first king to establish monotheism, until his death by the PRIESTHOOD! To get a glimpse of that history see the movie "The Egyptian", or research the many books that are just out there ready to be discovered.

rco,
nah, not unsettling. people still believe all kinds of superstitious things like numerology, homeopathic medicine, astrology, talismans, and, in your view all OTHER religions, and on and on and on. given that belief in the christian superstition (supposedly) earns* one eternal life, i guess it's not surprising people want to hang on to that.

we can come back to this later, if you like, but let's stay focused on the first cause → yahweh discussion.

*i understand "earns" will get your dander up a bit because you think salvation is a gift by god's grace etc, etc, but one HAS TO BELIEVE to be saved, right? so you have to DO SOMETHING (i.e. earn it) to get into heaven.

GoldenEagles,

"Is that sarcasm?"

No.

"Or is that a statement of BELIEF on your part?"

No.

"I take it as a statement of BELIEF on your part."

And, I take your statement as a statement of belief on your part.

"I feel confident therefore, in proclaiming that we have caught Psolus in a statement of BELIEF."

And, I feel confident, therefore, in proclaiming that you have not.

"Regarding this BELIEF,..."

Regarding your belief?

"...Psolus, how do you KNOW that the demon has no control over you?"

How do you know that your imaginary "demon" does have control over me?

"How do you KNOW that?"

How do you know that?

"If you would look at what the agenda of demons are,..."

The imaginary agenda of imaginary "demons"?

"...and look at the words that come out of your mouth in Regards to God, your behavior reflects a close and sympathetic association with the demonic agenda in that area."

Well, imagine that.

"First, they want to be considered imaginary."

Your imaginary "demons" want to be considered imaginary?

"Second, they want people to believe that God is imaginary."

Your imaginary "demons" want people to believe that your imaginary "god" is imaginary?

"Third, they want people to believe that there is no standard for truth."

Your imaginary "demons" want people to believe that there is no imaginary "standard for truth"?

"Fourth, they want people to waste their life opportunity away, in doing this, or that, or that other thing, while ignoring the central purpose that God gives us Life in this realm, and that is to work to have our relationship with Him healed, so that we will feel good about returning home to the heaven world, and he will feel good about having us back home."

So, your imaginary "demons" appear to be behaving exactly as you have imagined them to act.

Imagine that.

(fin)

Iamweaver Says, " ... Given that Thomas Jefferson wanted a country where Jew and Gentile, "Mohamdan" and Pagan could feel comfortable, I think the defining line is pretty obvious ..."

No, you are just overlaying your current agenda (totally detached from historicial reality) over the utterances of Thomas Jefferson for the purpose of enlisting his authority in your current cause of sweeping the mention of God completely out of the public square.

The world of Thomas Jefferson, was a world of total Christianity.

The constitutional prohibition against a religious test, was aimed squarely at denying to those in power, the use of that power, to force people into conformity with a particular Christian doctrine, as had been the case throughout the history of western civilization.

For example,

Baptists did not want Episcopalians to force them to swear allegiance to their doctrine, as a requirement for entering into a particular office in the federal government.

Episcopalians did not want Presbyterians to force them to swear allegiance to their doctrine, as a requirement for entering into a particular office in the federal government.

Presbyterians did not want Congregationalists to force them to swear allegiance to their doctrine, as a requirement for entering into a particular office in the federal government.

Congregationalists did not want Anglicans to force them to swear allegiance to their doctrine, as a requirement for entering into a particular office in the federal government.

Anglicans did not want Catholics to force them to swear allegiance to their doctrine, as a requirement for entering into a particular office in the federal government.

And so forth.

WALTER,

jefferson gave us way too much credit. nearly 200 years later, most still can't see the similarity...[absurd fable equivalency expurgated]

The demise of Christianity has been predicted in every generation for 2,000 years...and counting.

That's a little unsettling for you, isn't it?

Psolus says, "Your imaginary "demon" has no power over me."

Is that sarcasm? Or is that a statement of BELIEF on your part?

I take it as a statement of BELIEF on your part.

I feel confident therefore, in proclaiming that we have caught Psolus in a statement of BELIEF.

Regarding this BELIEF, Psolus, how do you KNOW that the demon has no control over you?

How do you KNOW that?

If you would look at what the agenda of demons are, and look at the words that come out of your mouth in Regards to God, your behavior reflects a close and sympathetic association with the demonic agenda in that area.

First, they want to be considered imaginary.

Second, they want people to believe that God is imaginary.

Third, they want people to believe that there is no standard for truth.

Fourth, they want people to waste their life opportunity away, in doing this, or that, or that other thing, while ignoring the central purpose that God gives us Life in this realm, and that is to work to have our relationship with Him healed, so that we will feel good about returning home to the heaven world, and he will feel good about having us back home.

I doubt it, GoldenEagles. Given that Thomas Jefferson wanted a country where Jew and Gentile, "Mohamdan" and Pagan could feel comfortable, I think the defining line is pretty obvious. It's only some modern Christians who feel the need to push God into government.

Religious dogma and superstition: Mankind's Bane!

(Of course, people who deny evolution won't understand the previous statement)

the only reason this is even close to being an issue is because these romney/huntsman are not mainstream christian. i've heard "mainstream" christians get all bent out of shape when mormons call themselves christian (as romney did in his "JFK speech" during the last election). of course while trying to assure them christians was christian, romney had to also assure them he wouldn't let the mormon part of his christianity affect his decision-making. christians don't mind candidates bringing their religion to bear on decision-making - as long as the candidate is "the right kind" of christian... sigh...

dstreet208,
and of course along those "religion is a private matter" lines jefferson also said:
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” [Notes on Virginia, 1782.]

but if jefferson were to run for president today statements like the one below would come to light, which would immediately knock him out of the race:

“The day will come when the mystical generation [i.e., birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” [Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823]

jefferson gave us way too much credit. nearly 200 years later, most still can't see the similarity between the jupiter fable and the jesus fable. and since most christians today would be offended by jefferson's insight, he could never be elected president today.

GoldenEagles,

"Is that an example of your sarcasm?"

Keep trying, if you try hard enough, you may someday get it.

"Who authors and supports this agenda that has the people believing that the devil is "imaginary"?"

Who authors and supports the agenda that has many people believing that the "devil" is real?

"It is the devil himself."

The imaginary "devil"?

"Think about it."

If I had written that sentence, it could be taken as sarcasm.

Since you wrote that sentence, it can be taken only as irony.

"If a tapeworm had enough sense to protect its interest, the first thing it would try to make the victim believe is that it is imaginary, so the victim would take no action in the direction of its removal, so it could just continue to munch away at your innards in peace."

Are you sure that you're not thinking about Keyser Soze?

"I think that's what RcoField means when he signs his posts with "Peace Brother.""

I'm not following.

The sign of the direct action of the "devil" (a demon on the astral plane leaning on the feeling world of the victim) is in the presence of strong feelings and thoughts that go counter to the Reality of God."

Still not following.

"That would begin with Atheism, the “vast cathedral” of which Psolus stands just upon the threshold, or perhaps he has one foot into the foyer, where the magnetic power of darkness which pours out of the front door, makes it impossible for his mind and feelings to get a positive connection into the Reality of God."

Have you ever been to Chartres?

"WHY cannot Psolus get any connection into the Reality of God, let alone a strong connection?"

Perhaps because PSolus is not superstitious?

"It is because of the controlling presence of the demon."

Your imaginary "demon"?

Your imaginary "demon" has no power over me.

"That is the only explanation."

I think not.

"Truly, the amount of evidence as to the Reality of God is overwhelming."

It is?

I, and many people, don't see it.

"The only thing that can steer the mind and feeling world away from this evidence, is the magnetic power of darkness imposed upon the minds and feelings of the victim by a demonic presence on the astral plane."

Yeah, that must it.

[That, by the way, is sarcasm.]

(fin)

Christocons will no more tolerate a Mormon president than they do a black one.

GOLDENEAGLES,

I think that's what RcoField means when he signs his posts with "Peace Brother."

....munch....munch....munch...

Peace, brother.

.... :-) ....

[Edit Correction - If a tapeworm had enough sense to protect its interest, the first thing it would do, would be to try to make the victim believe that it’s imaginary, so the victim would take no action in the direction of its removal, so it could just continue to munch away at your innards in peace.]

dstreet208 quotes Thomas Jefferson [see below].

People commit a grievous error when they make too much out of Thomas Jefferson's statements on religion.

Thomas Jefferson grew up in a world where the state apparatus and religion where intertwined, and he was a leader of the effort which tried to unravel that, especially in the state of Virginia. Everything that he says publically about religion is in the direction of this goal.

That context does not apply to us.

For us the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and in a very extreme manner, and it is the Atheists that are now quoting Thomas Jefferson to justify plucking every green shoot of common sense from the desert floor of God-Rejection which they have succeeded in creating in this nation.

D-0f-G quotes the Apocryphal Texts of St. Thomas:

"The kingdom of heaven is in you and all around you"

Why are not people aware of this? Please explain.

Psolus says, "He's not kidding, folks; he actually accused me of selling my "soul" to his imaginary "devil"."

Is that an example of your sarcasm?

Who authors and supports this agenda that has the people believing that the devil is "imaginary"?

It is the devil himself.

Think about it.

If a tapeworm had enough sense to protect its interest, the first thing it would try to make the victim believe is that it is imaginary, so the victim would take no action in the direction of its removal, so it could just continue to munch away at your innards in peace.

I think that's what RcoField means when he signs his posts with "Peace Brother."

The sign of the direct action of the "devil" (a demon on the astral plane leaning on the feeling world of the victim) is in the presence of strong feelings and thoughts that go counter to the Reality of God.

That would begin with Atheism, the “vast cathedral” of which Psolus stands just upon the threshold, or perhaps he has one foot into the foyer, where the magnetic power of darkness which pours out of the front door, makes it impossible for his mind and feelings to get a positive connection into the Reality of God.

WHY cannot Psolus get any connection into the Reality of God, let alone a strong connection? It is because of the controlling presence of the demon. That is the only explanation.

Truly, the amount of evidence as to the Reality of God is overwhelming. The only thing that can steer the mind and feeling world away from this evidence, is the magnetic power of darkness imposed upon the minds and feelings of the victim by a demonic presence on the astral plane.

This subject matter is just another illustration of what keeps us divided as a nation. It also illustrates the prepetuation of deep seated ignorance by all expresssions of Christian dogma that, by its very nature, maintains the status quo of misrepresentation, fear, and prejudice that has no relevance to any arcane understanding of the Christian God concept. Even the very use of the word "faith" is indicative of the distance between what can be actually known by self discovery vs. this idea that God is somewhere "out there", and all we have to do is "believe"(by some other lost person's direction) for the rest of our lives for something that can be found and tested in our own lives RIGHT NOW!

The fact is that despite our pretension that there should be a bright line between church and state, we still pretend other wise, which illustrates that the state, AS IT HAS ALWAYS DONE, no matter the system, or point in history has used religion in sysbiosis as a mechanism of cultural control. We are just still evolving our consciousness as a species, not understanding that, ultimately, NO man can be "teacher of Man"!

"The kingdom of heaven is in you and all around you"! fr-The Apocryphal Texts of St. Thomas

Thomas Jefferson - On religion

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803.

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814.

stevie7,

"One could easily replace 'mormon' with 'catholic' and have the exact same argument."

Are you sure?

Aren't most catholics "cafeteria catholics"?

"Why the focus on mormonism?"

How many mormons, do you think, are "cafeteria mormons?
POSTED BY: PSOLUS
-------------------

I guess I was focusing more on the religious-institution-as-a-business analogy

stevie7,

"One could easily replace 'mormon' with 'catholic' and have the exact same argument."

Are you sure?

Aren't most catholics "cafeteria catholics"?

"Why the focus on mormonism?"

How many mormons, do you think, are "cafeteria mormons?

Considering that Mormonism is more of a business than a religion, how can a Mormon businessman become president when said Mormon businesses have/get contracts with the federal government? And how do we keep Mormon-paid "missionaries" from working for Romney or Huntsman during their campaigns??

POSTED BY: RAMBOLLINI-1

---------------------

One could easily replace 'mormon' with 'catholic' and have the exact same argument. Why the focus on mormonism?

I agree, JCKDOORS. It's really difficult to translate success in any hierarchical structured power model into the realm of politics - whether business, military, etc. The best that one can do is look for "earmarks": has the person shown flexibility, an interest in learning new things, the ability build solid teams, a willingness to compromise with their fellow businessmen/general officers, etc.?

But to be on-topic: I won't lie. I'm not 100% religion color-blind when it comes to candidates. But their religious preference sits at the bottom my list of priorities - after shared goals, competency, moral rectitude and political experience.

Considering that Mormonism is more of a business than a religion, how can a Mormon businessman become president when said Mormon businesses have/get contracts with the federal government? And how do we keep Mormon-paid "missionaries" from working for Romney or Huntsman during their campaigns??

Frei writes:
"Mr. Gaddy, this particular faith IS important! Members are required to "sustain the Authorities" meaning mormon church leaders, who are considered divinely inspired. "Sustaining" means that even if one is a US president, one MUST obey the Authorities and their counsel. Does that not worry you?"
----------------------------------------------------

This same argument arose when JFK, as a Catholic, ran for president. It's a good intellectual exercise that seems to be, historically, trumped by practice (as can be shown by Mitt Romney's voting record, for one).

One can always assume that a presidential hopeful is some sort of Manchurian Candidate (just look at current innuendos surrounding Obama), but the majority of the electorate seems willing to assume that world-wide conspiracies are best found in comic books.

The very fact that this article was written shows there will never be a time politicians will not separate the two.

And to those who love to say a person is qualified to be Prez because that person is a succesful businessperson: NO. Running a business is nothing like a government. When you're a CEO, people have to listen to you. In government, you are not the "boss".You are working for the people, you have to put up with the upstarts in Congress, etc. Apples and oranges.

WALTER,

Thank you!

I know that was difficult for you. :-)

I'll move on to the next level of argument sometime this weekend.

Peace.

Religion doesn't necessarily equal faith.
Faith is well and good but,...... what about tolerance ?

holy moly rco,
i said, "probably finite". (sorry my parenthetical expression caused so much confusion. i was merely indicating that i would have picked whichever one you wanted me to...) my REAL answer is "i don't know", but since i HAVE TO pick an answer to get you to move on, and i think the answer you want is "probably finite", and "probably finite" comports w/current BB theory, i'm saying "probably finite". again, the answer i'm giving is "probably finite".

given only "probably finite" and "probably infinite" as possible answers, i reluctantly GUESS "probably finite". i am very weakly committed to my answer (which is "probably finite") as i see the question as being way beyond the scope of my (and possibly anyone's) knowledge and understanding.

so, in summation, my answer, which i accord about the same certainty as my standard guess of "tails" on a coin toss, is "probably finite".

(but it really would not "rock my world" if someday we found out time, and matter/energy for that matter, was infinite.)

possibly the only more unelectable demographic than mormon would be "muslim", or, god-forbid, "atheist". heck, in this shallow day and age thomas jefferson would be unelectable.

If the "Prophet" of the LDS church has a revelation, then all members are supposed to follow that revelation, no matter what it is.

So what would Romney or Huntsman do if that revelation was directly in opposition to the rights of the general public?

WALTER,

I'm confused. I asked: "Do you mean this?"

nonetheless, i'd be willing to circle "probably finite" (or "probably infinite"...) if it would let us continue.

As you mention both finite and infinite, I still don't know which of the two you consider more probable.

MRMEANER,

You're like the Barney Fife of Bible scholars.
You talk a big game
You use a lot of jargon
You probably even wear a little suit and collar
But you have no idea how to wield your weapon, nor can you be trusted with actual ammunition.

That means a great deal coming from the Hal Lindsay of eschatology. Perhaps I am not a bible "scholar" and "Christian warrior" on-par with your eminent self?

Has it ever occurred to you that you should spend more time "wielding your weapon" and less trying to be a comedian? I figured the "burden of proof" thing on Isaiah 13 would be more than you could bear. You're just smoke and mirrors.

As it seems you have no intention of owning your "flip-flop," I guess we can see how deep your integrity runs (or doesn't run).

May the road rise up to met you.

psolus,
GE lives in a dark, (imaginary) demon-infested world. anyway, that list you seek would be shorter if you just asked for a list of those who haven't sold their (imaginary) souls to the (imaginary) devil.

LOL
RCofield
You're like the Barney Fife of Bible scholars.
You talk a big game
You use a lot of jargon
You probably even wear a little suit and collar
But you have no idea how to wield your weapon, nor can you be trusted with actual ammunition.

I find myself pitying you this morning.
Thank God the roads are clear, and I don't have to spend another day reading your drivel

GoldenEagles,

"Moreover, in my discussion with Psolus, the subject of selling one’s soul to the devil came up."

He's not kidding, folks; he actually accused me of selling my "soul" to his imaginary "devil".

"And I think this provides us with a principle by which we can evaluate the degree of wisdom that would be contained in any decision to vote for Romney."

Wisdom, indeed.

"Just as Psolus has done, Romney sold his soul to the devil, in the advocacy of abortion rights, and homosexual rights, in his quest for the governorship of Massachusetts."

Dude, can you provide a list of all of the people who have sold their "souls" to the "devil"?

Thank you in advance for this important public service.

(fin)

MRMEANER,

BTW, If you think Is. Ch.13 was completely fulfilled, I suppose you believe that, as recorded in Is.Ch.14, The king of Babylon was Lucifer, and also the Assyrian, because, as made clear, they are all referring to the same entity.
Get a clue, then get back to me

Lol. Get a clue? If you think Isaiah 13 means something other than what it actually says, the burden of proof rests on you.

On the Subject of Trump and Romney

DcDinnell says, "Romney has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, created more private sector jobs and saved more private sector businesses (Domino’s Pizza & Staples, a few of many) than any other candidate. He knows and understands world economics."

If you are going to vote for someone on that basis, that constituency would go to Donald Trump. Romney couldn’t hold a “candle” to Trump on the issue of business and economic acumen. If Trump enters the race, the small puddle of votes that might have gone to Romney, would get sucked up by that giant sponge that Trump carries in his back pocket wherever he goes.

Moreover, in my discussion with Psolus, the subject of selling one’s soul to the devil came up. And I think this provides us with a principle by which we can evaluate the degree of wisdom that would be contained in any decision to vote for Romney. Just as Psolus has done, Romney sold his soul to the devil, in the advocacy of abortion rights, and homosexual rights, in his quest for the governorship of Massachusetts.

Once you sell your soul to the devil, the contract is BINDING. As least for a given lifetime. You can’t go back on the deal. Why? Because the only way you can get out of the deal, is if the Holy Angels cut you free. They won’t do that until you pay the price for your betrayal. This is what it means to sell your soul for a mess of pottage. You get the pottage. Ok. But the devil gets the jewel. Which is basically a slave. And so, Romney has a hidden partner, and if you vote for Romney, you are going to get that partner too, who will steer Romney in the way of expanding the slavery of the American people, just like Obama is doing.

Of course, Trump has a similar problem. He sold his soul to the devil, in terms of his advocacy of gambling, and the big profits associated with it. Talk about a Golden Calf. His feelings of affection for Bill Clinton, and Saddam Hussein, and his hatred for George W. Bush, tells you where his heart really is. Trump would be a disaster for America too.

MRMEANER,

I have not. You lie.

I “lie”? Wow. I’ll assume you just haven’t been paying attention. Your response to what follows should tell the tale.

On February 5, 2011 9:40 PM I posted a 3 part post. At the end, I summarized with the following 2 points:

POINT #1: In short, there is an “already/not yet” aspect to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is already inaugurated, but it is not yet consummated. It has been inaugurated by the finished work of Christ on the cross. It has been confirmed by His resurrection from the dead. The Kingdom has a present King, Jesus Christ, who rules His Kingdom now, having been given all power and authority and having been given a name that is above every name.--RCO

POINT #2: And this Kingdom is moving inexorably toward the great consummation depicted in Revelation 21 & 22. Yes, it is suffering violence, just as it did in the days of John the Baptist and Jesus. Yes, it will suffer more, even increasing violence as we draw near to its consummation. But rejoice, brother. The Kingdom of heaven is here, and it is in us as the children of God.--RCO

On February 5, 2011 10:01 PM you responded thus:

I'm sorry, but that's insanity. If I were in the kingdom of heaven, I would be in an immortal body.
Flesh and blood CAN NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven. Your thinking, that a heavenly kingdom can be established by man on Earth, is an abomination. It is the great apostasy. If you believe you can establish God's kingdom on Earth, you are no better than those who thought they could get to heaven by building the tower of Babylon. The harlot says: I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

After I challenged you to revisit that 3 part post, you did so (Feb. 9, 3:33 PM) and responded to the above two summary points as follows:

Point #1: “I would agree. But this Earth is currently under the authority described in Eph.2:2.”

Point #2: “I totally agree.”

That’s a reversal. And one that is quite relevant given your recent posturing about the nature of my engagement in this discussion.

I guess we'll see now what your integrity looks like. I hope it's more substantial than your posts today have indicated.

Figure it out, RC.

I'm going to spend the rest of this day doing something worthwhile.
Have an enlightening evening, all.

Why do you continue to flail about wildly?

"Except, of course, the fact that you completely reversed yourself"

I have not. You lie.

BTW, If you think Is. Ch.13 was completely fulfilled, I suppose you believe that, as recorded in Is.Ch.14, The king of Babylon was Lucifer, and also the Assyrian, because, as made clear, they are all referring to the same entity.

Get a clue, then get back to me

MRMEANER,

I won't deny that people like you bring out the worst in me.

I think your confession that you can’t control you temper, coupled with your seeming inability to avoid adolescent name-calling pretty much says all that needs to be said.

Except, of course, the fact that you completely reversed yourself and “agreed totally” with my position after labeling it “insanity,” “an abomination,” and “apostasy”—a point which you are now avoiding like the plague in your attempt to cast as much dispersion on me as possible.

You present yourself as some kind of authority…

Where, precisely, have I presented myself as “some kind of authority”?

….by regurgitating others' opinions…

Where, exactly, have I “regurgitated others’ opinions”?

….and dressing it up with a bunch of theological terminology…

Have I used terminology with which you are unfamiliar? If so, where?

…to obfuscate the actual debate.

Where, precisely, have I “obfuscated” the actual debate?

You then instigate a debate over the terminology.

What debate have I instigated over “terminology”?

That in itself is maddening for someone actually wanting to discuss doctrine on a meaningful, respectful level, as has been the case in the discussion with PH.

Respectful? Are you kidding me? The only one who has been “respectful” in your exchange with Peter is Peter.

But, unlike PH, when your assertions are challenged, you then resort to condescension.

Peter has the patience of Job. I don’t. And “condescension”? Do you ever read your own posts?

When rebuffed, you react by insulating yourself, mentally placing yourself "above the fray", in a superiority move that fools no one.

No superiority here. I was trying to avoid a pissing match. You responded by mounting a personal attack. Hardly the tactics of a mature Christian.

As for the wh0re remark, I never compared you to anything. I merely reported the characteristics of the Harlot of Babylon. If you found similarity with your doctrine, that's not my problem.

You really didn’t improve your position with that amateurish spin-job.

RE: Isaiah 13

Isa 13:1 The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw…..17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them,…19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the splendor and pomp of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them.

“End times” prophecy??....Good grief.

See RC?
That is an honest observation from someone who obviously wants to learn more about his Father, and his kingdom.
It was delivered with no malice toward my opposing opinion. As such, it will be treated with the respect it deserves.
It is a response worthy of deep consideration.
Thank you, PH for bringing some substance to this debate. I've been snow-bound for two days, and this discussion about nothing is killing me.
I will process that question for a while, so I can give you the thought-out response that kind of observation deserves.

Hi MrMeaner, Rcofield,

I agree with you whole heartedly RCofield, on the following point.

You're kidding, right? Did he not tell his disciples in Mt. 28 that all authority has been given to him in heaven and earth? Do not other passages speak to the fact that God is now, in the present time, placing all of Christ's enemies under his feet? Is not the gospel of the Kingdom being preached and received in more places and by more people than at any other time in history? - RCO

And we see this fulfillment in of power and authority received in Revelation 5 and Daniel 7 where Christ goes up to the Ancient of Days in the heavenly realms and receives all power and authority and dominion and glory, and this power an authority is present in the hearts and lives of believers here on earth while Jesus continues to make His enemies His footstool and expand His kingdom presence, until as you say, one day He will consummate it.

We see a multitude in heaven that no man can count, all purchased by the blood of the Lamb, by His sacrifice on their behalf.

Sorry, I would like to expand on this but I'm off to work.

Mr. Gaddy, this particular faith IS important! Members are required to "sustain the Authorities" meaning mormon church leaders, who are considered divinely inspired. "Sustaining" means that even if one is a US president, one MUST obey the Authorities and their counsel. Does that not worry you?

This is not just a Sunday church; it runs most aspects of its members' lives. You will see many positive faces of mormonism put forth. That is what is called "the milk beofre the meat" and some really are positive. But don't mistake the mormon church as a just a kindly bystander. It is hugely wealthy and powerful, primarily behind the scenes. The hold on a member's decision making makes even a president unable to make his or her decisions freely--for us, vs. for the church.
That will be denied, but I for one would not vote for a church as president, which I believe would be the case with a mormon.

(I am a longtime Salt Lake City resident with a number of mormon family members.)

"Completely apart from the fact that I posted similarly before, your response is a categorical accusation typical of someone who is only looking for a fuss."

I won't deny that people like you bring out the worst in me.
You present yourself as some kind of authority by regurgitating others' opinions, and dressing it up with a bunch of theological terminology to obfuscate the actual debate.
You then instigate a debate over the terminology.
That in itself is maddening for someone actually wanting to discuss doctrine on a meaningful, respectful level, as has been the case in the discussion with PH.
But, unlike PH, when your assertions are challenged, you then resort to condescension. When rebuffed, you react by insulating yourself, mentally placing your self "above the fray", in a superiority move that fools no one.

As for the wh0re remark, I never compared you to anything. I merely reported the characteristics of the Harlot of Babylon. If you found similarity with your doctrine, that's not my problem.

Ah
My actual spelling of wh0re seems to be at the root of the problem.

It's a shame. I thought it was a pretty good response, but I'm not sure reposting is worth the effort.

Well, since my last comment is "being held for review", I'll assume that the same thing is happening to everyone, and not suspect the worst.

I'll try this one:

"[3] I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness."

Ah, that's easy. It must be talking about the church, surely...but why are we supposed to be angry? Oh gosh!!

"[4]The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle"

hmmm
kingdoms of nations, eh?. Definitely not referring to Titus.
Must make conform...must make conform...
Ah!
Obviously this is referring to WWII, or maybe I?
I mean, this surely has happened. There can be no other way.

"[5] They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land."

uh-oh
They come from a "far country", "even heaven", "even the LORD"
hmmm, could the US be heaven?..nah...That can't be it.
Must make conform

"[6] Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

OK. That's definitely talking about the Jews...except for that "kingdom of nations part" from vs.4
Oww. My brain hurts

"[7] Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:
[8] And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames."

OK, maybe we're still talking about the Jews, here. But obviously the analogy of a woman in travail, is referring to the birth of a new age. So, in this case, the Day of the Lord occurred at Christ's crucifixion, and again forty years later, when the Jews were judged.
I think I've got it now

"[9] Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

That's denitely referring to the Jews, because we know that God destroys nations because of the actions of it's religious and political leaders.

I'm glad I worked that out

yes

MRMEANER,

Then why do you post as if you do?

Completely apart from the fact that I posted similarly before, your response is a categorical accusation typical of someone who is only looking for a fuss.

I seem to recall that your last response to my replies was in effect, "you're wrong, read it again"

Actually, what I said was:

Now, if you will apply the last two summary points of my 3 part post (you agreed with both) to the passages you have been hashing over with Peter, I guarantee you they will read differently for you.--RCO

You find it offensive that I try to advance points to which you have agreed?

I've already acknowledged that my opinions are just that.

Yet you deemed my initial foray with you into eschatology “insanity”, “an abomination”, “apostasy” and then insinuated I was aligned with the wh0re of Babylon. Don't you think that's a little over the top if you are just positing “opinions”?

And I'll point out again, that which you initially deemed “insanity,” after I challenged you to take a closer look at what I said, you agreed to--”totally” to use your own word. (See post @ February 9, 2011 8:05 PM)

The worst thing is, this discussion is about as meaningless as a Bible discussion could possibly be.
We're actually debating terminology.

The mere fact that Peter and I have not agreed with you at every point does not equate to this being a “meaningless” discussion.

Whatever form of existence you want to place on the current kingdom, the fact is my point is being unaddressed, and danced around.

I don't think you have done a very good job making your point. You insinuate a great deal and ask a lot of questions that come across as sarcastic, but that is hardly “making a point.”

If Biblical justice hasn't been meted out on Earth, (and it hasn't, as shown in all of these unfulfilled references I've posted, throughout this discussion) and evil is still rampant, and increasing on this Earth, how can our human existence be under the absolute dominion of the kingdom of God?

Because the unregenerate (the majority of the world's population) are not under the dominion of the Kingdom of God. Believers are. I have, at no point, contended that the entire earth is under the “absolute dominion of the Kingdom of God.” You're assuming things I have not said.

I thought you said you had encountered my position “hundreds of times.”

If you can approach this debate as a participant, rather than as one exercising your own dominion, we can continue.

My remaining carnal nature wants to respond to that statement with extreme sarcasm. Down, boy.

We'll see.

Isaiah Ch.13
[3] I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
[4] The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.
[5] They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.
[6] Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
[7] Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:
[8] And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
[9] Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

If the Day of the LORD has already dawned on Earth, why isn't the idiot who posted below me a smoking ember?

Keep religion out the campaign and service; end the ridiculous "faith" based opinions and actions on reality and scientific facts; indicate that a candidate is actually capable of rational, fact based thinking.... and I'll forget about a candidates religion! Until then, anyone wearing magic underwear, following a convicted hustler and conman, thinks their founder found some gold tablets in his back yard from the lost tribe of Israel is not and can not be considered a viable leader of America! And that goes for those simpletons who don't believe in evolution, think the world is 6000 years old, don't see human caused global climate change, think that killing prebirth fetuses is murder while Jesus murders millions and is just oh well, who think packing six-guns is providing safety and security as well!

WALTER,

February 10, 2011 11:20 AM

You mean this?:

nonetheless, i'd be willing to circle "probably finite" (or "probably infinite"...) if it would let us continue.

And there is a correct answer to that question that you would probably find acceptable, if you would allow yourself to see it.

"Look, I readily admit that I don't have eschatology completely figured out."

Then why do you post as if you do?

I seem to recall that your last response to my replies was in effect, "you're wrong, read it again".
Or maybe you haven't been reading the exchanges between PH and myself, where I have addressed the bulk of your criticisms against my interpretation.
What you haven't done is answer those simple questions I've asked you, that call in to question your interpretation.
Your attempts have only been repeats of PH's argument that have already been addressed.

"Neither do you."

I've already acknowledged that my opinions are just that.

The worst thing is, this discussion is about as meaningless as a Bible discussion could possibly be.
We're actually debating terminology.
Whatever form of existence you want to place on the current kingdom, the fact is my point is being unaddressed, and danced around.
If Biblical justice hasn't been meted out on Earth,
(and it hasn't, as shown in all of these unfulfilled references I've posted, throughout this discussion)
and evil is still rampant, and increasing on this Earth, how can our human existence be under the absolute dominion of the kingdom of God?

If you can approach this debate as a participant, rather than as one exercising your own dominion, we can continue

rco, you asked,
"I'm sorry. I must have missed it. Where did you say that?"

February 10, 2011 11:20 AM

i was just talking about the "probably finite" part.

WALTER,

i said, "probably finite" - as that comports with the notion that time "began" with the big bang.

I'm sorry. I must have missed it. Where did you say that?

MrMeaner,

"Those question could form the basis of a debate between Rcofield and yourself, that would probably last through two threads, at least."

You think?

"It should be riveting."

Perhaps; I guess that depends on your idea of "riveting".

"This is exactly the kind of discussion that Rcofield appaerntly lives for."

Are you guys getting a divorce?

What's going to happen to me?

MRMEANER,

Why don't you respond to those references I mentioned, rather than retreating with your tail between your legs?

Well, I see you've recovered from you initial tantrum and are now performing a sophomoric victory dance.

Look, I readily admit that I don't have eschatology completely figured out. Neither do you. More learned men than you or I ever will be also readily admit they don't have it all figured out.

What I do know is that the dispensational view does not square with large portions of scripture. I also know that much of what you have posted does square with dispensationalism and does not square with large portions of scripture.

I also know that when my initial foray into eschatology with you was met with your knee-jerk reaction "that's insanity" and "that's an abomination" and "that's apostasy" I was not dealing with a person who was interested in a rational discussion of the issues. I should have pulled out then.

I'll not perpetuate my mistake.

You'll find PeterHuff more than a competent opponent on this issue. I leave it to you guys.

So, dance to your heart's content.

Keep the focus on candidates' capabilities, not their faith
----

HAHA! Where do you think we live, Europe?

rco, you said,
"That's OK. Maybe every civilization existing today will record their version of your epic sculpture in the annals of their literature and pass it down to future generations..."

hopefully! that would be so cool. and since there's really nothing there, they would invent thousands of different, mutually exclusive, locally-attuned versions of what they saw...which future generations would take as the gospel.

rco,
i said, "probably finite" - as that comports with the notion that time "began" with the big bang.

Some Christian warrior you are, RCofield

And funny

Come on, Mr. leader of the pack.

Why don't you respond to those references I mentioned, rather than retreating with your tail between your legs?

Those question could form the basis of a debate between Rcofield and yourself, that would probably last through two threads, at least. It should be riveting. This is exactly the kind of discussion that Rcofield appaerntly lives for.--MRMEANER

Classy.

WALTER,

Thanks for posting our previous thread. I always forget to do that.

nonetheless, i'd be willing to circle "probably finite" (or "probably infinite"...) if it would let us continue.

Were only talking probability here, so why not screw up your courage and circle one or the other?

anyway, here in falls church, we got 12" of invisible snow, from which i've made a biblical scene worthy of cecile b. demille showing all the animals entering the ark two-by-two. there are even invisible birds flying around! being invisible, it doesn't photograph very well, so you'll have to take my word for it.

That's OK. Maybe every civilization existing today will record their version of your epic sculpture in the annals of their literature and pass it down to future generations.... ;-)

"So, while I, as a sentient being, am free to choose to not be a believer, I, as a sentient being, am not free to choose to believe nothing?"

"Are you saying that I am free to choose to not be a believer, but only as long as I also choose, or allow myself to be forced, to believe in something?"

Psolus;
Those question could form the basis of a debate between Rcofield and yourself, that would probably last through two threads, at least.
It should be riveting. This is exactly the kind of discussion that Rcofield appaerntly lives for.

I tremble.

rco,
thanks for scouting again. our old thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2011/01/guaranteed_freedoms_sometimes_come_into_conflict.html

--------------
Time: Probably infinite or probably finite.

Circle one.

I'll assume no new snow-sculpting photos.

Peace.

Posted by: RCofield | February 9, 2011 1:39 PM
-----------------

well, like i said, i don't know. if there was something "before" the big bang that caused it, then it must have existed in time. i mean, my small little mind can't conceive of something existing "outside of" time. sorry if that answer frustrates your attempts at making an air-tight case for yahweh as the first cause.

nonetheless, i'd be willing to circle "probably finite" (or "probably infinite"...) if it would let us continue.
--------

we just had a storm pass SOUTH of us again (the one that may have given you lots of rain yesterday) last night dropping snow in southern va and north carolina....

anyway, here in falls church, we got 12" of invisible snow, from which i've made a biblical scene worthy of cecile b. demille showing all the animals entering the ark two-by-two. there are even invisible birds flying around! being invisible, it doesn't photograph very well, so you'll have to take my word for it.

weather experts around here are calling for about a two-week warm-up period, which really kills me because, surprisingly, most of our biggest storms here come in feb/mar (when there's more moisture available). anyway, there's always a chance for something after that, but many are now "calling it" for snow for this year. we'll see.

"Find someone else"

Oh, but I've taken such a liking to you. I don't think I'm going to be able to let you off the hook.

I would make sure that your statements are compliant with Biblical doctrine, because you're going to be hearing from me a lot, if they're not

You are cutting your losses, because you know that you can't challenge what is written.
That may be the only way to salvage what little crediblitity you have left.
Good luck finding fools

You're looking for blind squirrels to follow your nuttiness.

I ewould also say that it is the growth of the church, and the infiltration of those who destroy truth with happier sounding lies, that brings to pass the act of Christ's enemies being made his footstool.
The chaff separates itself from the wheat, making them easier to bundle for the fire.

WALTER,

Don't know if you've jumped here yet, but if so did you see my post to you @ February 9, 1:39 PM?

MRMEANER,

You're not looking for a civil debate, you're looking for a pissing contest.

Find someone else.

"I think you're failing to make the distinction (to which you agreed) between the Kingdom having been inaugurated here on earth in the people of God by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and the Kingdom being consummated in its fullness at His return."

You're arguing over nothing.
I've already acknowledged that that difference exists in a post to PH, on February 6, 2011 3:16 PM

"Not at all. Your interpretation of the “fowls of heaven” in no way detracts from the parable speaking of the Kingdom having small beginnings and progressively growing to large proportion. So my question still stands: Where to do you find that happening in scripture if Christ did not inaugurate the Kingdom during His first Advent?"

So, what you're saying is regardless of whether the growth of the church brings in "the fowls of heaven", who devour seed as soon as it's sown, before any can take root, (Luke 8:5--which is what you're doing now) it's a good thing, because it is done under the authority of the kingdom?

"And Christ's Kingdom being established in the hearts of His people “means absolutely zero”? Consider the words of Hebrews 12:

So now we've gone from established on Earth, to "established in the hearts"
Whatever
I prefer to debate things of substance

"You're kidding, right? Did he not tell his disciples in Mt. 28 that all authority has been given to him in heaven and earth?"

OK. Then I guess your position is that Christ must be responsible for the evil on Earth, if he is in authority

" Do not other passages speak to the fact that God is now, in the present time, placing all of Christ's enemies under his feet?"

"Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool"
You think this is an example of Christ exercising authority on Earth?

" Is not the gospel of the Kingdom being preached and received in more places and by more people than at any other time in history?"

which means what, exactly?

"Well, did you try it?"

Do you think I just fell off a turnip truck on top of a Bible?
I've been studying Bible doctrine for thirty years. I've debated people in forums accross the religious spectrum, all over the internet. I've heard your position argued a hundred times.

"Peace, brother."

maybe. we'll see

"PS. I am going to try to maintain a tone of civility here. I trust that you will reciprocate."

You first.
I would start by dropping some of the condescension

MRMEANER,

Compare these passages:

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

And:

Hebrews 12:26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken (TAKING PLACE PRESENTLY), as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.(THE COMING CONSUMMATED KINGDOM) 28 Wherefore we, receiving a kingdom (again, present tense) which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29For our God is a consuming fire.

Per the prophecy of Daniel and this passage in Hebrews, Christ set up His Kingdom during His first Advent. Those who belong to Christ are the citizens of that Kingdom, and are being presently built into a spiritual temple and are kings and priests unto our God Consider:

I Pe. 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built (present tense) up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
I Pe. 2:9 But ye are (present tense) a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Now compare I Pe. 2:9 with Rev. 1:

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. (PRESENTLY SO!) Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests (PAST TENSE!) unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

And:

Rev. 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: (PAST TENSE) and we shall reign on the earth.

This is, again, clear Kingdom language that places the Kingdom of God having already been inaugurated here on earth and moving toward the great consummation. Kingdoms have kings and priests. By God's grace we have been made such.

Peace, brother.

MRMEANER,

Part 1 of 2

I cite verses highlighting interaction between people and the kingdom, that can only happen upon Christ's return, and you say it doesn't prove that the kingdom has yet to be established?

I think you're failing to make the distinction (to which you agreed) between the Kingdom having been inaugurated here on earth in the people of God by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and the Kingdom being consummated in its fullness at His return.

You're so stuck on whether or not the kingdom has been "established", (which means absolutely zero, since we all know we're here reading this, and not in the city of God worshiping before the throne) you don't even care that you were just shown something in scripture you've never heard before.

Not at all. Your interpretation of the “fowls of heaven” in no way detracts from the parable speaking of the Kingdom having small beginnings and progressively growing to large proportion. So my question still stands: Where to do you find that happening in scripture if Christ did not inaugurate the Kingdom during His first Advent?

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 2

And Christ's Kingdom being established in the hearts of His people “means absolutely zero”? Consider the words of Hebrews 12:

22 But ye are come (present tense) unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28Wherefore we, receiving a kingdom (again, present tense) which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29For our God is a consuming fire.

That is clear Kingdom language, and the writer states that we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved. That is not future. The Kingdom has been inaugurated and it is growing, just as Christ portrayed in the mustard seed parable.

Yes, but obviously Christ isn't exercising authority upon the Earth. If he is, he's not doing very well.

You're kidding, right? Did he not tell his disciples in Mt. 28 that all authority has been given to him in heaven and earth? Do not other passages speak to the fact that God is now, in the present time, placing all of Christ's enemies under his feet? Is not the gospel of the Kingdom being preached and received in more places and by more people than at any other time in history?

And you called me arrogant.

Well, did you try it?

Peace, brother.

PS. I am going to try to maintain a tone of civility here. I trust that you will reciprocate.

GoldenEagles,

"Perhaps you should learn something here Psolus, that sarcasm only works as a communication strategy when you use it sparingly, where you provide a distinct contrast between what is straightforward and honest, and you throw in a bit of sarcasm, and it is the contrast that makes the sarcasm bite."

Perhaps you should learn to recognize sarcasm before you presume to preach to others about it.

"I guess you are saying that you are always sarcastic,..."

No, you choose to believe I am saying that; I am not responsible for your beliefs, you are.

"...and since there is no contrast, I think everyone here takes it as a uniform pattern of dodging and weaving."

It is a mistake to judge others according to your own limitations.

"If you use it all the time, its a lot like the boy who called wolf over and over. Pretty soon you put the people to sleep regarding your true intent."

I don't care.

"Now, if you would simply answer the question in a straightforward manner,..."

Why don't you simply stop asking inane questions?

"...we can move on."

I've already moved on; what anyone else does is up to them.

"You have a Catholic History."

How do you know that?

"You have placed that on the record."

No, you simply believe that I have.

"And you have a streak of stubborn defiance in the direction of God, which goes beyond just "attitude", which makes it likely that the priests and nuns would believe there is something extra operating in your world, and they might therefore consider you a candidate for an exorcism."

Again, that is simply something that you believe; you alone are responsible for your beliefs.

"And my question is simply this, did the priests and nuns you had contact with recommend you for an exorcism, or try to perform one on you without your consent?"

And my answer is simply this: Are you completely out of your mind?

"Just give me a straight answer if you please."

Good luck with that.

(fin)

Despite political diatribe by the uneducated…

Romney has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, created more private sector jobs and saved more private sector businesses (Domino’s Pizza & Staples, a few of many) than any other candidate. He knows and understands world economics.

He has succeeded at every job he has had. Yes, that’s right, he is not a “Career” Politician.

Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Again, he has not been a “Career” Politician.

Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who would do that!?

MA had a huge deficit when he started, and he left MA with a surplus and balanced budget without raising taxes at the end of his term. Who has done that? He can't help it if they screwed up after he left.

Since states have their own rights as to how they operate, “Romneycare” never has been the same as “Obamacare”! MA’s super Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. Romney, a republican, worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance (what state allows you to legally drive without insurance?). It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. Romney wanted the requirement that everyone should pay something towards it with no exceptions, and it was within projected budget, until Romney left and the state super Democrat controlled government made changes to the program and now it is costing them.

He compromised on some things in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.

He turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who would do that!?

He is against federalization & big government. Believes in state’s rights.

He lives the example and believes in the importance of family.

He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.

The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.

I say there should be a religious litmus test.

When we have a president that claimed he sought the Father for advice and not his own father who had been president and knew much about Middle East politics, we are in trouble.

Add to all of this "speaking with God" talk the fact that a huge number of the U.S. population believes in the Rapture coming soon (which could easily mean a presidential candidate believing this too)then we had better get all of the cards out on the table before we start voting!