The BIG one

Numbers 23:19 is properly Numbers 23: 13-26. You did not give context, but context does not disagree with your interpretation I must point out. In the case of this passage, it is speaking of God speaking, then acting, promising, then fullfilling. This particular passage IS talking about unwaveringness.

Course, then I ask, what then do we do with passages, and they litter the Bible (quoted a few already), that say "if you do this, I will bless you" and "If you do not, you will be cursed". Then even furthr, "if you do this, you will be cursed" however "if you repent and turn to me, I will relent"?

Is it that God never changes His mind and relents, which contradicts several passages, or is it that God's personality never changes, His MOTIVES never change. God's will is for good. If God saw fit to bless me, but I went out into the street and started murdering the next day, I would probably never recieve said blessing. Did God then change? Certainly not, no doubt it was I whom changed, not God. His intent was to reward a faithful servant, but I was unfaithful, so I was not rewarded.

In human terms, when a man goes to the alter and says till death, he means it. But then he finds her unfaithful and that she longs for another man's bed. If the husband sends her away like the harlot she is, is it fair to say he changed? Ah yes, his mind did change, on an immediate level, but he never meant to commit to such a creature. Her deeds are not his fault, so then HIS committment is not flawed. She fell, not him.

You know I'm not making that up. Go ahead, if you have the notion, I doubt you do, but if you ever get it, plow through the passages, they're still there, post 18. One who claims to know the Bible so well should be eager to read it.

Do I not prove that I read almost every passage you give, especially before challenging your usage of it? Tell me some specifics that I should know that there is any point in this. This is silly, to discuss with you a passage I believe you don't understand, because you haven't READ it.

_________________________

Baptistbeliever

Thankyou for defending me.

I hesitate to say this, because I hate name calling, but it's time to point this out.

DHK, when someone differs from you on a matter that does not take away from the Soveriegnty of God, nor do his actions show disrespect to God, then you claim that said individual has blasphemed for disagreeing with you, then you yourself, have blasphemed. You have claimed that disagreeing with you is like disagreeing with God, THAT is blasphemy.

I tire of this bickering. However what should I say? You've never even explained your words, which sound a lot more like blasphemy than anything I've said.

I haven't blasphemed ONCE and everyone here knows it, INCLUDING YOU I'M SURE. So why have you accused me of it? Blasphemy is to claim God's authority or worse yet, authority over Him. I have claimed nothing of the sort, nor have I claimed any beings of such nature.

I serve nothing next to or beside God and have said so more than once. I say this because there is NOTHING next to or beside God. I am His servant and a seeker of His truth. Such is not blasphemy.

To missunderstand is not blasphemy. If I am mistaken, I am not a blasphemer for such.



I forgive you. I know I should, so I do. There is no reason we should hold grudges. But some of your words need to be explained to more than just me.

 

And the language can't be expressive? Isn't it naturally? That's my point. When someone says "I NEVER change!" they're usually being expressive of the idea that their intentions never change. They don't actually mean they never change their minds. I see no reason why I should believe this is literal here.

I will admit this is good usage though, so my compliments, but in light of what is written, and in light of other passages, I don't see that it is literal, sorry.

Rather shouldn't I say, "hyper literal"?

"That rock can't be moved!" moans little Jimmy about digging a ditch and he's just struck a small stone. No he's not being literal. Absolute phrases like this are normally expressive, however such is NOT the opposite of literal. He means he's having a very hard time moving it with a flat shovel. He could say "this tool is rediculous for this job" but really its the same thing and its generally accepted as such.

Hyper literal means that there is no way period for the stone to be moved, by any tool or force of nature. Why the earth itself could blow up and that stone would stay in place. Hyper literal is rare and usually quite rediculous even to assume in cases like this.

"Flap your arms hard as you like, it can't move you" says a frustrated teacher to her student trying to fly. He's five, what do you expect. Is she being literal? Absolutely. However, I could say "actually ma'ma, if he get up to about 500 beats per second he might succeed". Of course that's so rediculous it's almost funny. Given reasonable assumptions, she's speaking literally, however throw in the rediculous and things stop making sense... hence why its called rediculous.

"I don't know anything about math!" You mean you can't add two plus two?

"I can't find it!" sure you can, you're just not looking in the right places.

"This is impossible" no it's not.

"You can't out run an olimpic athlete" with enough adrenaline, why not?

In proverbs 20:

8 When a king sits on his throne to judge,
he winnows out all evil with his eyes.

The Bible to uses absolutes in expressive manners.

In Psalm 8 (psalm 8 context)

6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:

Speaking of men.

The actual meaning of an "expressive term", is defined by it's context. Your Numbers passages means that God isn't wishy-washy, changing with the winds. However that it means that God, never changes His mind no matter what circumstance arises, is hard to prove.

"He is absolutely stubborn" oh come now ma'am, I'm sure your husband CAN change his mind.




The terms I've giving are not so expressive however and there's little reason to believe they are. Genesis shows God negotiating the fate of Soddom and Gomorrah. It doesn't say it happened expressively and it's not telling a parable. It's speaking of a converstation that actually took place.

This:

7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

Jeremiah 18:7-8 (context Jeremiah 18: 1-17)

Doesn't sound expressive in the least. It literally says, if God plans to curse you and you repent, He will not curse you.

5 Then the prophet Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and to the leaders of Judah who had assembled in Jerusalem for fear of Shishak, and he said to them, "This is what the LORD says, 'You have abandoned me; therefore, I now abandon you to Shishak.' "
6 The leaders of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, "The LORD is just."
7 When the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the LORD came to Shemaiah: "Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak. 8 They will, however, become subject to him, so that they may learn the difference between serving me and serving the kings of other lands."


2 Cronicles 12: 5-8 (2 Cronicles 12: 1-12 in context)



Sound expressive to you?

The one I brought up to examine separately in post 30 and have been trying to get you to look at ever since. Read Genesis 18:22-23 (context Genesis 18-19:29)

 

This has nothing to do with what I want. I don't want to believe in hell, but I still do.

So you've said but have yet to prove so it seems you are taking attacks on you and saying they are on God.

I see. So since I disagree and think the Bible does not say God is those things, I'm blaspheming. Keep going my friend, you're making my case for me.

Worse than claiming the position of God, or claiming divine support for ones views?

I once quoted a guy on my website who said God wouldn't even stand for it, my reply:

No, I'll be blunt. I mean you need to apologize to God.

Character? So now unless God has special Soveriengty, He can't be a good God?

I have never said God is not sovereign. Only denied your definition of it. If God is not omniscient, it does not compliment Him to say He is.




Since God Himself says He changes His mind, and you say He doesn't do so, aren't you calling Him a liar? I suppose then I could accuse YOU of blasphemy based on my interpretation and your definition of the word. It wouldn't go anywhere and I would look just as silly as you, but I could do it.

Notice everyone, a strong arguer like DHK makes accusations and never has quotes to back them up.




You mean insults like this:

Or maybe this:

Quote:
OR have you just asked the question "CAN God make a rock soooo big HE can not move it"??

________________________

Didn't I already say?

Blasphemy according to Dictionary.com

3.Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

Hate to break it to you, but yes, it is.

Actually the direct theological accusation of blasphemy means exactly what I said.

No I hold no grudges against God...

Hey DHK there's this awsome arguement style where you take someone else's quote, don't actually read it but for the last few words or so, then try to throw it back at them, making yourself look like you have no idea what's going on... oh wait, you seem to be a master of it already.

 

I would hardely call this one thread a "crusade". However, if you must know why I dispise the belief so much, for starters, it's wrong.



Years ago, I was as dogmatic as DHK, only difference is, I believed very firmly that human logic was a gift from God, not something to be dispised. As a result, I always had a system of believing first, and then questioning to understand. As I grew as a boy and a christian, I started to understand, it wasn't doctrine I should put my faith in, rather God and His written word. There were so many doctrines it was utterly rediculous to have faith in any of them, but rather turn to the Bible and believe in it alone.

As a child the doctrine of special soveriegnty was always something I held to, not because I could understand or prove it, if asked, but because... well my parents believed. Finally, there did come a time when my human understanding started leading me to one conflict after another with the Bible. I finally broke down and cried to the Lord as to why nothing ever made sense. I know its sounds odd, but I believe He answered. He said, He wanted me to examine His word again, but just that, just His word, not put doctrines with it. He wanted me to finally read the books in order and study them in the logical manner I knew was never used in church (as in, read a whole passage instead of just one verse, never knowing where its from). I went home that day and started. What I found staggered me.

I want everyone to understand, I am NOT a prophet nor do I claim divine authority or right of any kind. What God said to me was for ME, not anyone else. As such, I do NOT believe my words are to be taken as doctrine, but to be taken and examined, as I do with any Bible theory I recieve.

The doctrines of special soveriegnty were the first ones that seemed out of place. They had seemed out of place for a while to me, because, I, like many others, had recognized before the many times the Bible refered to God more like a person than an overlord being. When I was told such conflicting passages were just figurative, my problem was... well they're not. That's the thing. Most people can see and understand that they aren't.

Then, when I began to study the Bible a new, I did begin to wonder about this issue. What if those passages were the literal ones, as literal as they sound, and the others were figurative? Would things make more sense? Yes. Would the Bible still flow? Yes, much better in fact. Would I lose my faith in God if I lost this concept of special soveriengty? No. God is just as real to me now as He ever was.

Understand, again, this is my testimony, take it or leave it, it is NOT a divine revelation. I am NOT claiming authority for it, beyond my own. I believe this is one of the things God wanted me to see, however, I'm not about to say this is God's revelation, "believe it or be damned". Instead, all I want is a fair hearing about it. If I'm right, lets put away these burdensome beliefs. If I am wrong, let me see how and I will gladely come back into the common fold, and rejoin the mass belief.

What actually happens when I discuss this usually though, is I get very weak arguements and people like DHK, whoes only real purpose in the arguement is to attack me and make people hate me as a person. Such arguements make me believe more and more firmly that I am right, but question that I must have gone wrong somewhere. Is all this blind anger and outrage without purpose or reason?

I get stronger arguements at times, understand, these aren't logical ideas I'm arguing against, so I don't expect the theory to be very good, but the scripture is sometimes, though not often, sound. The Bible I find both my strongest reference for my arguements, and my biggest anti arguement. At the moment, the score... you guys aren't winning. I've examined many passages supposidely proving special soveriegnty. Few of them ever even speak to the issue, but are taken completely out of context and slapped around with total disregard for what they actually mean. I suppose I did come to my conclusions over night, but I didn't maintain them without careful study.

Now, as to the clincher, are they just wrong? Need I really even waste my breath?

These doctrines are more than wrong. They're a burden to the faith.

Why must I accept that Jesus exists everywhere in every space time and way of existence? It seems completely illogical and there's no concievable reason why He would need to be.

Why do I need to believe that God knows everything without exception? There are so many things He doesn't even need to bother with, just knowing endless trivia is of no use.

Why must I believe in Omnipotence? Here's the real sticky one. If I believe there is NOTHING God cannot do, then how can I ever truely answer, "why is there suffering and evil" with anything but a terrible accusation: "God wants it"? Course, I know that accusation is not true so, what then? What is the truth? What can I say to the question of "why did Jesus die"? The answer should be "to save us from our sins" but if He didn't need to do such for such, nay indeed, didn't NEED to do anything for anything He wanted to come to pass, then the real answer is "He just wanted to".

I always had a problem with these doctrines because of one prime thing I always knew "I do not serve a God whom just does whatever He wants", dare I say "I wouldn't choose to, period". Just like I wouldn't serve a God who hated me and wanted nothing about me, there would be no purpose, neither will I ever, nor have I ever, believed in a God of whims. I have always believed in a God of purpose. But as far as I can reason, purpose has TWO origins. Desire and NEED.

NEED, is contradictory to the idea of total omnipotence.

I suppose yes, I do NEED, so it would seem, to believe this way. It is true and MUST be true, or so I see it. I know I can be wrong, and am a fillable man, but I must ask, when all the evidence points in ONE direction... shouldn't I go that way?

It is not God in whom I have lost faith. Rather, it is the church with whom I am dissallusioned. That is another issue entirely though. I could revive my old thread about respecting scripture, if need be.


As to, am I afraid God is not sufficient? No. The God whom created the universe so grand and magnificient in six days? What problem could I possibly have compared to that? The Son of God that was crucified in a painful and unrelenting manner full of betrayal and even false pitty and bore the evil of all the world on His shoulders... how can a man like me say He can't empathize, that my problems are worse than He ever experienced?

Nay, now my faith in God is stronger. I didn't understand then, and so questioned always wondering, even hating myself for the questions I had to ask. Now, not so much.

The world is real. The answers you were taught in Sunday school, to the questions... the answers like, "why did Jesus die?" "for our sins" "can God help me" "His power is sufficient" "why is there so much evil" "because God is working all for the best, however these things must occur for the best to come"... they're real. They really are the answers. There's no huge theological puzzel to solve. The answers are there. God is REAL, man is REAL and this world is REAL.

So perhaps it seems I am then weak. That I must put limits on God in order to believe in Him. You be the judge. Am I weak? Are my conclusions unfounded and foolish? Or have I found something?










When he gets off this name calling/hate mongering stint, I'll talk to DHK again, right now he's just being a troll. All he's doing is discrediting his side of the debate by making HIMSELF, look like a fool. I don't want to win by default, rather by logic and scripture.

 

I do not see DHK's previous posts as reasonable with resolve to attacks and name calling, however, I must admit, sometimes he is capable of putting out some good points. Here's a pat on the back, I'll actually have to THINK about how to answer his points this time. Well that and he wrote so much... this will take a while and a few posts to answer. Understand... I know it will probably dissapoint you, but I most likely have answers.

Unfortuanately that's just how these things end up going and in the end, we will attribute eachother blindness for why we did not win. All I or you can hope for really, is to make an effect on others reading, and on the individaul in the future upon reflection. With that in mind... can I take a minute?

You want that impression and reflection to be good. If you spent you're time throwing out insults and trying to impress on every one the ultimate evil you believed to be on display, sorry, but the impression of you will not get any points across. Jesus Himself used anger and even violence, but only in their place.

Rather, examine what I've said again. Indeed I've accused the doctrines of special soveriegnty of much. Not making any sense, having little to no real Biblical basis, taking away from the faith and even that they call God evil. Those aren't small accusations. I am indeed, in truth, calling these ideas evil. But rather than shouting that point over and over or attempting to force the extreme view of hatred for the ideas I have, I've tried to sound more on the diffensive. If I were to come here saying these doctrines were flat out baisless, wrong and evil, how far would I have gotten (okay, so not totally baiseless)? So how far do any of you think it goes when its said about my beliefs to people who have them? Now that you have seen how my conclusions are so, and that we aren't total enemies and that I'm not trying to insult or attack, I can say what I truely think, and I guess at the very least be pittied for being so lost. Well, being pittied is better than being ignored, because listening is listening. Understand, how you guys feel towards me, is how I feel towards you mostly. I don't see you as enemies. But as servants of God, like myself, just a little lost. (Yea, I know, I'm a little lost too, I don't think I know everything.)




Now, back on subject, first, let me reassure, I believe firmly, every bit of the Bible is true, however, largely missinterpreted. I feel like I am Luther, pointing out the many rediculous ideas put out by tradition ("we have the graves of all 14 apostles!" when refering to artifact collecting). I'm not denying the Bible, I'm denying traditional belief, there's a very big difference. I do NOT believe the Bible contradicts.

Yes, I've see the sceptics annotated Bible site. Have a look anyone who likes. It was probably written and maintianed by a twelve-year-old and contiuing through his teens. The format has no single degree of professionalism, it's loaded with bias and the research is feeble at best, at least last time I saw it, I couldn't get past even a few pages, without laughing myself to tears at anyone who would take it seriously as a source. The Bible has NO contradictions, most attempts to prove it does, are like taking a sentence out of chapter 12 of Moby Dick and comparing it to a sentence from chapther 2 and saying there are problems. Let's see, NO context, NO relivence between sentences, NO consideration of intent, NO honest research or reading, NO... brains used... you get the idea. Most study of historical books is made with an effort to see the way in which they make the most logical sense and flow the best. These studies have to be made giving the writers a degree of credibility, that they understood and knew how to write logically. They also have to be made considering that old ideas don't always translate the same today as they did then. Skeptics annotated obviously started with the assumption that the Bible was flawed, and went from there. They don't respect it or it's writers at all, instead set out on a witch hunt to find "errors". As a result, the majority of the errors on the site are with how the site itself was written, and with the lack of intelligence of its writers.

The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It has no flaws, it does not contradict.

Let's also calm down and understand something here. There are so many doctrines (doctrines as in, teaching steming from the Bible-says nothing about how they end up-) that they cannot all be right. In fact, the grand majority are wrong. That means, in reality, whatever you believe, you have to accept that you too, believe that the grand overwhelming majority of Christians are... dead wrong. Maybe not "damned wrong" as the old catholics always thought, but flat out, not even close. My accusations of you aren't far from yours of others. My point: popularity, or lack there of, proves NOTHING.

I do NOT believe there are errors in the Bible, or passages to be ignored. As I stated, I believe what you say is expressive is literal, and what you say is literal, is expressive. Expressive of VERY important concepts yes, and therefore, NO, they are NOT to be ignored and NO I do not ignore them.

You all also rely on your study, so understand if I rely on mine. It's all I can reasonably be expected to do.

Well all this is neither here nor there and I just got off a twelve hour shift again so I'm tired, mind if I cut off here and pick up again another day?