Conference...
Sarah Sense
weekend? If so, where?
Thanks,
Sarah
Steve
Jeff Shirton
news:rtlja.10887$J8....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Does anyone know if Conference will be available
> over the internet this weekend? If so, where?
www.lds.org offers live audio, but no longer
offers live video (only video archives).
> Sarah
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
charles
General Conference
The 173rd Annual General Conference of the Church will be held
Saturday and Sunday, 5–6 April 2003, at the Conference Center in Salt
Lake City. The conference will feature inspirational messages from
members of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,
and other General Authorities and general officers of the Church. All
of the sessions except the general priesthood meeting will be
broadcast live over the Internet (www.lds.org).
John Lemings
Conferences are also broadcast on BYU TV. Check your local
tv listings as well. If you live in a predominant Mormon
community, chances are a local station may pick up the
signal. I know here in AZ channel 61 (Cox 6) carries it.
Jeff Shirton
be earned." -- GC, April 5, 2003
Did he *really* say that?!
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"The Holy Ghost is a gift that must constantly
be earned." -- GC, April 5, 2003
Jeff Shirton
"It is good to see your child reading the Book of Mormon
every night."
Not, "reading the Scriptures", not "reading the Bible",
but "reading the Book of Mormon".
Critics often criticize LDS (and rightly so, IMO) for
ignoring the Bible, and over-emphasizing the Book of
Mormon. LDS always claim, "No, the Bible is part of
our Scriptures too, in fact we dedicate 2 years out of
4 in studying just the Bible."
But actions speak louder than words.
I think that LDS have simply desensitized themselves
as to what is really happening, what LDS are saying,
what LDS are doing.
Perhaps little Billy should be reading the *Bible*
every night, to learn the *first* testament of Jesus
Christ, before he starts reading "another testament
of Jesus Christ".
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>Critics often criticize LDS (and rightly so, IMO) for
>ignoring the Bible, and over-emphasizing the Book of
>Mormon. LDS always claim, "No, the Bible is part of
>our Scriptures too, in fact we dedicate 2 years out of
>4 in studying just the Bible."
>
>But actions speak louder than words.
>
>I think that LDS have simply desensitized themselves
>as to what is really happening, what LDS are saying,
>what LDS are doing.
>
>Perhaps little Billy should be reading the *Bible*
>every night, to learn the *first* testament of Jesus
>Christ, before he starts reading "another testament
>of Jesus Christ".
>
>--
>Jeff Shirton
Actually, little Billy should be reading Calvin's commentaries instead.
Otherwise he might accidentally become an Arminian and believe that God likes
people.
Raleigh
"Who is going to say anything?
The international community?
The hell with the international community!
Who listens to them?"
--Iraqi General ordering gassing of 250 Kurdish villages
Tape on 20/20, 03/28/03
Jeff Shirton
news:20030406145828...@mb-cj.news.cs.com...
> >Perhaps little Billy should be reading the *Bible*
> >every night, to learn the *first* testament of Jesus
> >Christ, before he starts reading "another testament
> >of Jesus Christ".
> Actually, little Billy should be reading Calvin's
> commentaries instead.
I disagree, of course.
As I already observed, little Billy should be reading
the *BIBLE*.
(Why would you make such a ludicrous suggestion
that a Mormon child should read Calvin's Commentaries, Raleigh?
What are you smoking, anyway?)
> Otherwise he might accidentally become an Arminian and
> believe that God likes people.
Actually, that's one of the beliefs that Arminians have right.
God *does* like people. Loves them, even. The limitless
measure of that love is shown in my signature quote, even.
Why would you think or state otherwise, Raleigh?
What *are* you smoking, anyway?
> Raleigh
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton
at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"The grace of God is love freely shown towards guilty sinners contrary to
their merit and indeed in defiance to their demerit. It is God showing
goodness to persons who deserve only severity, and had no reason
to expect anything but severity." -- J.I. Packer, _Knowing_God_
grouch
>From: grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345)
>Date: 4/6/2003 11:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030406145828...@mb-cj.news.cs.com>
>
>> "Jeff Shirton" jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca
>
>wrote:
>
>>Critics often criticize LDS (and rightly so, IMO) for
>>ignoring the Bible, and over-emphasizing the Book of
>>Mormon. LDS always claim, "No, the Bible is part of
>>our Scriptures too, in fact we dedicate 2 years out of
>>4 in studying just the Bible."
>>
>>But actions speak louder than words.
>>
>>I think that LDS have simply desensitized themselves
>>as to what is really happening, what LDS are saying,
>>what LDS are doing.
>>
>>Perhaps little Billy should be reading the *Bible*
>>every night, to learn the *first* testament of Jesus
>>Christ, before he starts reading "another testament
>>of Jesus Christ".
>>
>>--
>>Jeff Shirton
>
> Actually, little Billy should be reading Calvin's commentaries instead.
>Otherwise he might accidentally become an Arminian and believe that God likes
>people.
>
> Raleigh
A rather timely response based on previous posts. ;-)) G
grouch
>From: "Jeff Shirton" jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca
>Date: 4/6/2003 12:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gU_ja.405$Jl.2...@read2.cgocable.net>
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030406145828...@mb-cj.news.cs.com...
>
>> >Perhaps little Billy should be reading the *Bible*
>> >every night, to learn the *first* testament of Jesus
>> >Christ, before he starts reading "another testament
>> >of Jesus Christ".
>
>> Actually, little Billy should be reading Calvin's
>> commentaries instead.
>
>I disagree, of course.
>As I already observed, little Billy should be reading
>the *BIBLE*.
>
>(Why would you make such a ludicrous suggestion
>that a Mormon child should read Calvin's Commentaries, Raleigh?
>What are you smoking, anyway?)
>
>> Otherwise he might accidentally become an Arminian and
>> believe that God likes people.
>
>Actually, that's one of the beliefs that Arminians have right.
>God *does* like people. Loves them, even. The limitless
>measure of that love is shown in my signature quote, even.
>
>Why would you think or state otherwise, Raleigh?
>What *are* you smoking, anyway?
>
>> Raleigh
Maybe he was smoking the same thing as the author who claimed that God kills
children. G
GRaleigh345
wrote:
You should be careful. I never drink, but one of ARM's resident alcoholics
who disagreed with me posted "Raleigh has had one too many beers." If you keep
up the "smoking" thread, I will suspect you of being in similar straits.
>
>> Otherwise he might accidentally become an Arminian and
>> believe that God likes people.
>
>Actually, that's one of the beliefs that Arminians have right.
>God *does* like people. Loves them, even. The limitless
>measure of that love is shown in my signature quote, even.
The doctrine of election belies that idea, Jeff. If God sits down with
Moses, as in the Apocalypse of Moses at the beginning of the Joseph Smith
Translation and reviews the list of preexistant human souls, who exist at least
in blueprint form at that moment, and arbitarily decided who he is going to
pick to be saved and who isn't, obviously he either does not like the ones he
doesn't pick, or he is selecting the ones he does pick by flipping a coin--in
which case he is pretty apathetic about the mass of humanity altogether.
Little Billy should be reading the Book of Mormon, if he is a Mormon. The
Book of Mormon is the world's "most perfect book" (not perfect, just most
perfect), meaning that to a Mormon, it is the sine qua non of the good news of
Jesus Christ. Contrary to the claims of the Community of Christ, to the
Restoration, the Bible (excepting the JST) is auxilliary scripture to the BoM
rather than the Book of Mormon being auxilliary to the Bible. If the latter
were true, there would be no reason for the existence of Mormons in the first
place, or for the BoM for that matter.
If either the LDS or Community of Christ show apologetic tendencies to claim
kinship with apostolic tradition as understood by orthodox Christian and
kinship with mainline Christianity, it is an open proclamation that Mormonism
never had anything to offer in the beginning.
As the Tanners (but seldom LDS) quoted Orson Pratt as saying, "If the Book
of Mormon is true, then it is impossible to be saved and not accept it. If it
is not true, then it is impossible to be saved and accept it." If little
Billy's parents tell him not to read the Book of Mormon, and hide it in a trunk
because they are ashamed to have him read it, they may as well resign their
membership, kiss their tithing money good-bye, and join a Presbyterian Church,
or whatever other denomination strikes their fancy.
>Actually, that's one of the beliefs that Arminians have right.
>God *does* like people. Loves them, even. The limitless
>measure of that love is shown in my signature quote, even.
What your signature quote does not point out, and seriously lacks from a
Calvinist point of view, is that God offers this unmerited grace to everyone,
but only the "elect" are programmed to accept it, thus he discriminates.
>
>Why would you think or state otherwise, Raleigh?
Had I not learned about Calvinism from you here on the newsgroup, Jeff, I
would never have supposed that God dislikes anyone, other than Satan. But your
posts indicate otherwise.
>What *are* you smoking, anyway?
As I said above, take care. The adulterer suspects his wife of committing
adultery. The embezzler suspects his staff of stealing from him. The alcoholic
thinks everyone else is drunk, and the pothead says, "Everybody does it."
If you smelled smoke, it would be different. One can smell the "smoke" of
an intellectual proposition on the newsgroup, but usually personal conversation
is necessary to "smoke out" a dope fiend or alcoholic.
Raleigh
>
>--
>Jeff Shirton jshirton
>at cogeco dot ca
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> "The grace of God is love freely shown towards guilty sinners contrary to
> their merit and indeed in defiance to their demerit. It is God showing
> goodness to persons who deserve only severity, and had no reason
> to expect anything but severity." -- J.I. Packer, _Knowing_God_
"Who is going to say anything?
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>
>A rather timely response based on previous posts. ;-)) G
>
But Jeff has already replied and denied that he has ever indicated that God
plays favorites, or stands by while children die. Yet he has summed up Calvin
as stating that brats deserve no better by the luck of the draw, if they are
not "elect."
Harry Denman used to give away his overcoat to a hobo on the side of the
road when the limo taking him away from the Methodist Conference was on the way
back to the airport. That was a lucky hobo. However, if Denman had an infinite
number of overcoats, yet only gave away one coat to a single hobo, it would
raise the question of what was different about that hobo as opposed to the
other 25,000 in the city.
Raleigh
Jeff Shirton
> But Jeff has already replied and denied that he has ever
> indicated that God plays favorites,
I have stated that "God is no respecter of persons".
Do you want me to quote chapter and verse?
> or stands by while children die.
???
Where have I ever claimed that?
CFR.
>Yet he has summed up Calvin as stating that brats deserve
> no better by the luck of the draw, if they are not "elect."
"summed up Calvin"?!
What on earth are you talking about, Raleigh?
What *ARE* you smoking?
I don't use Calvin to support my beliefs.
I use the *Bible* to support my beliefs.
> Raleigh
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Who
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> wrote in
message news:5g6ka.1011$h%2.14...@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> I have stated that "God is no respecter of persons".
> Do you want me to quote chapter and verse?
>
It's probably not couth to quote oneself, especially when lifting from
a post which has not yet been responded to, but I'm a risk taker.
Having noticed that Jeff Shirton is fixated on the concept that God
is not a "respecter of persons", I posted the following
on soc.religion.mormon:
>[snip] That you misunderstand this key concept is apparent from your
repeated
>mentions that God is not a "respecter of persons"--which you apparently
>interpret to mean that God does not distinguish between those who try to
>live according to his word and those who do not.
>
>Reading the scriptures as a whole, one will eventually conclude that the
>complete "respecter of persons" concept is stated "God is not a 'respecter
>of persons' without a valid reason." No one will have an advantage because
>of whom s/he knows, for example. However, as is abundantly clear, God
>*will* judge us according to our attempted faithfulness (though he knows we
>will all fall far short of the mark).
>1 Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons
>judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning
here
>in fear.
Something tells me that Jeff would have chosen a different, less complete
iteration of 'respecter of persons' in choosing from where to
"quote chapter and verse."
--
dem2NO&%^!SP...@lvcm.com
Remove you-know-what to reply
Iconoclast
Curious. Do you say God loves the ones He sentences to endless torment,
including the babies? - Pigmy
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>I have stated that "God is no respecter of persons".
>Do you want me to quote chapter and verse?
Oh, I will agree that your theology has God not respecting any persons. He
picks and chooses whom he is going to save the way a child picks up rocks along
the road.
>> or stands by while children die.
>
>???
>Where have I ever claimed that?
>CFR.
An Almighty God could prevent anyone from dying, if he chose. If you do
not believe that God is almighty, I beg your pardon.
>
>I don't use Calvin to support my beliefs.
>I use the *Bible* to support my beliefs.
Not quite the same. However, you state that Calvin's teachings are so
biblical that nobody can read the Bible properly without reinventing them (or
preinventing them, as in the case of your claim for Augustine, etc.)
The LDS claim that their religion is completely biblical as well. However, if
they were totally biblical, they wouldn't be Mormons, nor would there be such a
thing as Calvinism if Calvinism were based on the Bible. Both of these groups
would simply be called "Biblical Christians."
I do note in your favor that you never claimed that Jesus was a Calvinist.
Raleigh
Clovis Lark
> God *does* like people. Loves them, even. - Jeff Shirton
> Curious. Do you say God loves the ones He sentences to endless torment,
You mean even the basketball coaches?
grouch
>From: grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345)
>Message-id: <20030406231603...@mb-fb.news.cs.com>
I was agreeing with your previous post. G
Jeff Shirton
> >I have stated that "God is no respecter of persons".
> >Do you want me to quote chapter and verse?
>
> Oh, I will agree that your theology has God not respecting any persons.
Which makes my theology *Biblical*
(Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9).
I consider it bordering on dishonesty on your part that you
refer to "[my] theology", as if my theology were separate
or different from what the Bible teaches.
> He picks and chooses whom he is going to save the way
> a child picks up rocks along the road.
I certainly don't know that to be true.
God hasn't made known to us how He chooses the elect.
Why would you suggest such an arbitrary selection?
> >> or stands by while children die.
> >
> >???
> >Where have I ever claimed that?
> >CFR.
>
> An Almighty God could prevent anyone from dying, if he chose.
Yes, that's true.
It's also just as valid a criticism of the God of Arminianism
("hmm, Esau made a stupid choice, too bad for him, I 'love'
him but I'll torture him anyway")
*and* the God of Mormonism (& the Sons of Perdition).
One wonders why you direct your criticism of this to me
and my beliefs personally?
> Raleigh
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Aurelius Augustine was a Calvinist. So was Thomas Aquinas.
All Calvin did was make it popular.
GRaleigh345
<jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030407083926...@mb-fl.news.cs.com...
>
>> >I have stated that "God is no respecter of persons".
>> >Do you want me to quote chapter and verse?
>>
>> Oh, I will agree that your theology has God not respecting any persons.
>
>Which makes my theology *Biblical*
>(Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9).
Polygamy is "Biblical," too. So is marrying your sister-in-law and keeping
slaves. One can pretty much justify anything one wants to believe from the
Bible. The curious thing is that what one ends up justifying is so postive to
one's own self-interest. I have seen a lot of people with "biblical" theologies
that say others except themselves are damned. I have never met anyone who
believed that, biblically, they themselves were damned.
>
>I consider it bordering on dishonesty on your part that you
>refer to "[my] theology", as if my theology were separate
>or different from what the Bible teaches.
The Bible is a piece of meat. One cannot eat it raw. It is theology that
turns it into cuisine. Biblical theology runs the gamut from quasi-vegetarian
dishes with meat powder sprinkled on it, all the way to the "all meat diet."
Add to that the fact that the quality of the meat varies from a Catholic
carneceria to a Baptist butchershop, and results *do* vary.
>
>> He picks and chooses whom he is going to save the way
>> a child picks up rocks along the road.
>
>I certainly don't know that to be true.
>God hasn't made known to us how He chooses the elect.
>Why would you suggest such an arbitrary selection?
If God has not revealed this, then how does anyone know he meets the
qualifications? Yet, once again, anyone who believes that there is such a thing
as "the Elect," always is convinced that he is a member of it. But other than
self-interest, he has no logical reason for believing it, according to you.
>
>> >> or stands by while children die.
>> >
>> >???
>> >Where have I ever claimed that?
>> >CFR.
O.K., which is it? Do children not die? Or is God not omnipotent? Or does
he simply not have legs to stand on while this is happening? Or does he stand
on top of them?
>>
>> An Almighty God could prevent anyone from dying, if he chose.
>
>Yes, that's true.
>It's also just as valid a criticism of the God of Arminianism
>("hmm, Esau made a stupid choice, too bad for him, I 'love'
>him but I'll torture him anyway")
>*and* the God of Mormonism (& the Sons of Perdition).
The God of Mormonism accurately reflects the primitive Yahweh presented in
Genesis. Yahweh gives instructions that are to be obeyed, and also declares the
penalty for disobedience to them. If the commandment is broken, the miscreant
is given an opportunity to repent and turn state's evidence. If he does, he
gets probation. If he doesn't, he get punished. The system reserves the right
to delay punishment pending further consideration, or mitigation of the
punishment, but when justice is delayed, the honor, authority, and consistency
of God is upheld. LIkewise, the recipient of Yahweh's mercy is expected to
refrain from breaking other commandments during the period of his probation.
Attitude counts--if the subject honestly loves God and tries to please him,
failure to carry out the law to the letter is not held against him.
Other chefs take the Bible and serve up a Santa Claus God who hardly even
knows what it going on, but when one of his charges reveals that he has
deliberately gone potty on the dinner table, with dinner on it, Santa chuckles
and pats him on the head and tells him that it's o.k.
Others serve up a God who is rather like Huckleberry Finn's father. One
never knows what He is going to do next, and sits paralyzed with terror,
fearful of making a false move. One moment, if you speak to Pap, he will slap
you and tell you to shut up. Another moment, if you remain respectfully silent,
he will box your ears and tell you to speak up.
One is entitled to whatever cuisine he prefers. However, one does not
have the right to tell someone else that the other faces certain death merely
because he boiled the meat rather than fried it.
>
>One wonders why you direct your criticism of this to me
>and my beliefs personally?
Perhaps because of the way you present them and the place you choose to
present them. Also, you, like many others, reveal personal things about
yourself by
what you accuse or suspect others of, like the suggestion you made that I smoke
something or other.
>Aurelius Augustine was a Calvinist. So was Thomas Aquinas.
>All Calvin did was make it popular.
>
Well, that gives me assurance that I am not a Calvinist, Aquinian, or
Augustinian. What did Jesus make popular? Anything lasting?
dan_s
> In article <HDlka.1098$h%2.16...@read1.cgocable.net>, "Jeff Shirton"
> <jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
> >
> >> He picks and chooses whom he is going to save the way
> >> a child picks up rocks along the road.
> >
> >I certainly don't know that to be true.
> >God hasn't made known to us how He chooses the elect.
> >Why would you suggest such an arbitrary selection?
>
> If God has not revealed this, then how does anyone know he meets the
> qualifications? Yet, once again, anyone who believes that there is such a thing
> as "the Elect," always is convinced that he is a member of it. But other than
> self-interest, he has no logical reason for believing it, according to you.
>
Quite true. You may be entertained by a very funny exchange Jeff had
with a poster named John on this:
***
[John]
> > What if you have spent all this time loving God, loving your
> > neighbour, doing good things for other people, studying the Bible,
> > praying to God, going to church, etc, and you are in the group that
> > God doesn't want?
>
[Jeff]
> No problem.
> The reason I do all those things you list above, is *not* out
> of some hopes of "earning salvation", but out of love for God.
> So since I don't believe God "owes" me anything, then if by
> chance I find myself one of the reprobate, I won't be disappointed.
[John]
> > What if you die and get cast into the lake of fire?
>
[Jeff]
> Then I'll have gotten exactly what I deserved, haven't I?
> I'm a sinner, and the wages of sin is death.
>
> Of course, I tend to think that those whom God has given
> such an understanding of His ways, are exactly those whom
> He has saved.
[John, with a great line. Too bad the reference is a bit obscure for
most people]
Oh... so you are a gnostic, then.
***
There is no answer Calvinists can make on this issue, not even
speculative. The only thing that makes any sense is some sort of
merit system for choosing the Elect, otherwise God is unjust. But as
soon as they say so, they turn into Arminians.
And one can only imagine Jeff's feelings if he was burning in the lake
of fire for eternity, but the selection method was based on something
other that worthiness.
God to Jeff Shirton: "The Good News is that your theology was correct.
The Bad News is that the salvation criterion is being a good party
hound. [Jeff freefalls into Hell, thinking 'I deserve this. I
think.']"
GRaleigh345
rune...@hotmail.com (dan_s) writes:
>
>There is no answer Calvinists can make on this issue, not even
>speculative. The only thing that makes any sense is some sort of
>merit system for choosing the Elect, otherwise God is unjust. But as
>soon as they say so, they turn into Arminians.
>
>And one can only imagine Jeff's feelings if he was burning in the lake
>of fire for eternity, but the selection method was based on something
>other that worthiness.
>
>God to Jeff Shirton: "The Good News is that your theology was correct.
>The Bad News is that the salvation criterion is being a good party
>hound. [Jeff freefalls into Hell, thinking 'I deserve this. I
>think.']"
>
>
>
The good news in all of this is that Jeff does have a biblical faith of
sorts.
NJB Daniel 3:14 Nebuchadnezzar addressed
them, `Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego,
is it true that you do not serve my
gods, and that you refuse to worship the
golden statue I have set up?
NJB Daniel 3:15 When you hear the sound
of horn, pipe, lyre, zither, harp,
bagpipe and every other kind of
instrument, are you prepared to
prostrate yourselves and worship the
statue I have made? If you refuse to
worship it, you will be thrown forthwith
into the burning fiery furnace; then
which of the gods could save you from my
power?'
NJB Daniel 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach and
Abed-Nego replied to King
Nebuchadnezzar, `Your question needs no
answer from us:
NJB Daniel 3:17 if our God, the one we
serve, is able to save us from the ("unable" as in not able to
justify
burning fiery furnace and from your saving them based on unrevealed
power, Your Majesty, he will save us; "election" criteria)
NJB Daniel 3:18 and even if he does not,
then you must know, Your Majesty, that
we will not serve your god or worship
the statue you have set up.'
NJB Daniel 3:19 This infuriated King
Nebuchadnezzar; his expression was
changed now as he looked at Shadrach,
Meshach and Abed-Nego. He gave orders
for the furnace to be made seven times
hotter than usual....
Azariah and his pals admitted that the destruction of Jerusalem and the
exile of the Jewish people was right and good because they had offended God.
And they also said that they would be faithful to him whether he offered them
temporal salvation or not.
Although Mormonism suggests that more than a temporal salvation was known to
the Jews at this time, more historically it appears that temporal salvation was
all they knew about. Thus, when Azariah says he will be faithful to God whether
God saves him or not, he is merely doing what the saints have done for
millenia.
Azariah, however, is not into being a know-it-all; he does not presume to
speak about the conditions of salvation for humanity in general, or anyone
other than himself and his immediate fellows.
Jeff Shirton
news:d4046839.0304...@posting.google.com...
> grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
news:<20030407232101...@mb-ci.news.cs.com>...
> > >I certainly don't know that to be true.
> > >God hasn't made known to us how He chooses the elect.
> > >Why would you suggest such an arbitrary selection?
> >
> > If God has not revealed this, then how does anyone know
> > he meets the qualifications?
You speak of "God" and meeting "the qualifications" as if they
were somehow distinct and separate from one another. God
*made* the qualifications. If you want place yourself in
a position of presuming to judge God, then you have to answer
Paul's objections in Scripture in Rom. 9:14-24)
> > Yet, once again, anyone who believes that there is such
> > a thing as "the Elect," always is convinced that he is a
> > member of it. But other than self-interest, he has no
> > logical reason for believing it, according to you.
Sure there is logical reason to believe one is part of the elect.
There is the divine faith and understanding of God's theological
plan of election that God has given to some, as well as God
working good works in man (the "fruit" of salvation).
> [John]
(When did Obadiah Freeman change his name?)
> > > What if you have spent all this time loving God, loving your
> > > neighbour, doing good things for other people, studying the Bible,
> > > praying to God, going to church, etc, and you are in the group that
> > > God doesn't want?
> >
> [Jeff]
> > No problem.
> > The reason I do all those things you list above, is *not* out
> > of some hopes of "earning salvation", but out of love for God.
> > So since I don't believe God "owes" me anything, then if by
> > chance I find myself one of the reprobate, I won't be disappointed.
I guess I either didn't notice, or didn't have time to comment
on the contradiction that "John" wrote about. It's a very common
straw-man argument used against Calvinism that someone
"loves God" but ("what if?") finds himself not among the elect.
People can only truly love God *because* they are of the elect
(cf. Rom. 5:8, 1 John 4:19, compare Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, Rom. 3:10-12).
> There is no answer Calvinists can make on this issue,
> not even speculative.
That's right. (1 Cor. 13:12).
Why is this a criticism?
Why are you trying to criticize Calvinists for denying omniscience
of themselves? Why do you make the unreasonable demand that
we must have *all* the answers, in direct contradiction to 1 Cor.
13:12?
> The only thing that makes any sense
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
> is some sort of merit system for choosing the Elect,
The Bible *denies* any "sort of merit system"
(Rom. 9:11-13, Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, John 1:13,
Eph. 1:3-6, etc. etc.)
You don't seem to realize that "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6)
don't "merit" anything.
> otherwise God is unjust.
That doesn't follow.
But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
And you haven't demonstrated that it is in any way
"unjust" for God to choose people to save.
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
GRaleigh345
>Message-id: <qmFka.696$Jl.3...@read2.cgocable.net>
>
>"dan_s" <rune...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d4046839.0304...@posting.google.com...
>
>> grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
>news:<20030407232101...@mb-ci.news.cs.com>...
>
>> > >I certainly don't know that to be true.
>> > >God hasn't made known to us how He chooses the elect.
>> > >Why would you suggest such an arbitrary selection?
>> >
>> > If God has not revealed this, then how does anyone know
>> > he meets the qualifications?
>
>You speak of "God" and meeting "the qualifications" as if they
>were somehow distinct and separate from one another. God
>*made* the qualifications. If you want place yourself in
>a position of presuming to judge God, then you have to answer
>Paul's objections in Scripture in Rom. 9:14-24)
Merely noting that a logical God *must* have some criteria for deciding who
is elect and who isn't is not tantamount to "judging" God.
>
>> > Yet, once again, anyone who believes that there is such
>> > a thing as "the Elect," always is convinced that he is a
>> > member of it. But other than self-interest, he has no
>> > logical reason for believing it, according to you.
>
>Sure there is logical reason to believe one is part of the elect.
>There is the divine faith and understanding of God's theological
>plan of election that God has given to some, as well as God
>working good works in man (the "fruit" of salvation).
These are very vague benchmarks, like the "burning in the bosom," or
"feeling your heart strangely warmed." I think the chief reason that people
are convinced that they are saved is sort of a knock-off of the Ontological
Proof of God's existence. All the Ontological Proof actually demonstrates is
not that God must exist because he is perfect, but that it is impossible to
imagine a perfect God who lacks the characteristic of existence. Likewise,
those who believe in a saving God find it impossible to believe that he has not
saved them. They see no need in wasting intellectual and emotional energy
imagining a God who can't or won't do them any good. Occasionally they add to
this self-aggrandizement by imagining that the God who has saved them has
damned a lot of other folks whom they find despicable. Associating these
fantasies with the God of the Bible is easier than inventing a suitable God
from scratch; that is why they do it.
Perhaps it is because that, despite the fact that Calvinists claim that
they are not omniscient, they always know when someone else is wrong.
(If a man says something about theology out in the woods, and a Calvinist is
not there to hear what he says, is he still wrong?)
>
>> The only thing that makes any sense
>
>Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
> but the end thereof are the ways of death.
>
>Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
> neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Same problem. Nobody can understand God, but lots of people are convinced
they understand God *better* than other people do.
>
>> is some sort of merit system for choosing the Elect,
>
>The Bible *denies* any "sort of merit system"
>(Rom. 9:11-13, Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, John 1:13,
>Eph. 1:3-6, etc. etc.)
>
>You don't seem to realize that "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6)
>don't "merit" anything.
>
>> otherwise God is unjust.
>
>That doesn't follow.
>
>But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
>critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
>
>And you haven't demonstrated that it is in any way
>"unjust" for God to choose people to save.
Actually, it is offensive to human morals. One can imagine why Superman
has to decide whether to chase the nuclear cruise missle headed for Hackensack,
or the one headed for Los Angeles. Nobody in either city has done anything to
merit his favor--he just saves people as a vocation. However, because he is not
omnipotent, he can't intercept both missiles simultaneously--he is forced to
choose. If anyone dies as a result, it is not laid at his feet, simply because
he is not omnipotent.
There is no such argument in the case of the Almighty God of the Bible. The
Gospel of Luke (3:38) says that Adam was the "son of God."
Most nonpsychotic human beings do not have children they know ahead of time
that they are going to destroy. Why would God?
Jesus preached that God was father to mankind, and that if lousy humans knew
how to treat their children well, God could do better. The idea of arbitrary
election flies in the face of this whole idea.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for
one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good
gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which
is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
The only way I can make sense of this is that God only saves those who *ask*
him to save them. Thus election would depend upon some voluntary action of the
saved, even if it is only to recognize God and call upon his name.
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do
to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
So, Jeff, as I interpret the Bible, a man cannot be saved by doing nothing
at all. He can't earn salvation by merit, but he certainly cannot be saved by
doing nothing at all. Verse 31 does not offer the option of salvation by doing
nothing at all, which is the reductio ad absurdum of the "grace only" position.
Raleigh
Raleigh
dan_s
[snip]
>
> > There is no answer Calvinists can make on this issue,
> > not even speculative.
>
> That's right. (1 Cor. 13:12).
> Why is this a criticism?
People want to know why God sends people to Heaven or Hell, Jeff. I
know you don't care about "why," but others do.
> Why are you trying to criticize Calvinists for denying omniscience
> of themselves? Why do you make the unreasonable demand that
> we must have *all* the answers, in direct contradiction to 1 Cor.
> 13:12?
If you're going to posit a theology and argue your position, people
will challenge you about various issues that arise. Far from demanding
omniscience, I'm simply asking for some answers. The grounds for
eternal afterlife seem like a rather basic issue.
> > The only thing that makes any sense
>
> Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
> but the end thereof are the ways of death.
>
> Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
> neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
>
> > is some sort of merit system for choosing the Elect,
Interesting that you engage in intellectual debate by denying
God-given intellect, reason, and ethics with a couple verses. If
reason is as futile as you say, Jeff, you have been posting messages
for no reason whatsoever.
This is weak. "We just can't comprehend God's ways because we're
inferior rags" is the argument of a man who has run out of arguments.
I think God wants us to use our hearts and minds. But when you lack an
answer, you scamper off the field.
> The Bible *denies* any "sort of merit system"
> (Rom. 9:11-13, Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, John 1:13,
> Eph. 1:3-6, etc. etc.)
>
> You don't seem to realize that "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6)
> don't "merit" anything.
>
> > otherwise God is unjust.
>
> That doesn't follow.
Of course it does. You turn away from your God-given Logic in order to
support a debate position. You say God chooses who goes to Heaven...
which means he also chooses who goes to Hell, as He is the only
agency. If God makes such decisions -- which affect us for eternity --
without regard to merit, it is unjust on the face of it. If God
chooses based on hair color, would you be nodding your head in
agreement?
>
> But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
> critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
Nonsense. Calvinists cherry pick certain verses, often Paul's, to
support their ideas about salvation. There are also many verses that
go against Calvinism. How about the words of Jesus? He's a pretty
good authority, right? Jesus directly addresses the question of
salvation one time in the Gospels. Let's see what the Savior says,
shall we?
***
Matt 19:16-22: "And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" (17) "And he
said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One
there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the
commandments." (18) "He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou
shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness," (19) "Honor thy father and mother;
and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (20) "The young man
saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?"
(21) "Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that
which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come, follow me." (ASV)
***
Summary: A man asks how he can attain eternal life. Jesus answered
that one must keep at least 6 of the commandments, give their
possessions to the poor, and join his group. Repentance, baptism and
faith are not mentioned. Good works in the form of generosity to the
needy and keeping most of the commandments
will assure salvation.
It seems you need to convince Jesus of Calvinism as well. Jesus speaks
of works when asked about salvation.
[snip rest]
Jeff Shirton
> >*made* the qualifications. If you want place yourself in
> >a position of presuming to judge God, then you have to answer
> >Paul's objections in Scripture in Rom. 9:14-24)
>
> Merely noting that a logical God *must* have some criteria
> for deciding who is elect and who isn't is not tantamount
> to "judging" God.
But you have done more than "note the idea".
You have jumped to the conclusion that there *is* no
(valid) criteria. You have presumed to make a judgment
without knowing all the facts.
That's why we can't judge God.
We aren't in a position to. We don't know the whole story.
> >Why are you trying to criticize Calvinists for denying omniscience
> >of themselves? Why do you make the unreasonable demand that
> >we must have *all* the answers, in direct contradiction to 1 Cor.
> >13:12?
>
> Perhaps it is because that, despite the fact that Calvinists
> claim that they are not omniscient, they always know when someone
> else is wrong.
The same can be said of Arminians, and Mormons.
So once again I ask, why do you limit your criticism to
Calvinists, when it is applicable across the board
(even to you)?
> >But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
> >critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
> >
> >And you haven't demonstrated that it is in any way
> >"unjust" for God to choose people to save.
>
> Actually, it is offensive to human morals.
Then perhaps "human morals" are wrong.
Jeff Shirton
> > > There is no answer Calvinists can make on this issue,
> > > not even speculative.
> >
> > That's right. (1 Cor. 13:12).
> > Why is this a criticism?
>
> People want to know why God sends people to Heaven
> or Hell, Jeff. I know you don't care about "why,"
> but others do.
I've never said I "don't care about why".
I've simply resolved to the fact that God hasn't
seen fit (nor is it any of my business) to know
the reason why God makes the choice that He does.
As to "why God sends people to Heaven or Hell",
the answer is very simple, and very Biblical:
1) God sends people to Hell because they have sinned.
2) God sends people to Heaven because He is merciful
to them.
> > Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
> > but the end thereof are the ways of death.
> >
> > Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
> > neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
> >
> > > is some sort of merit system for choosing the Elect,
>
> Interesting that you engage in intellectual debate by denying
> God-given intellect, reason, and ethics with a couple verses.
I don't "deny" any such thing.
> If reason is as futile as you say, Jeff, you have been
> posting messages for no reason whatsoever.
God has commanded us to preach the gospel to the world.
God has ordained that the gospel be the means by which
the elect come to Him.
I appreciate your concern for my efficiency and time,
but I suggest you refrain from jumping to conclusions
about things you don't understand.
> > You don't seem to realize that "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6)
> > don't "merit" anything.
> >
> > > otherwise God is unjust.
> >
> > That doesn't follow.
>
> Of course it does.
Those who are sent to hell are sent to hell for the sins
they freely commit.
Please tell me what is in any way "unjust" about that.
Stop avoiding the issue.
> > But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
> > critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
>
> Nonsense. Calvinists cherry pick certain verses,
Not at all.
*ALL* of the Bible teaches Calvinism.
For Calvin taught the Bible.
(The careful reader will see the connection.)
> There are also many verses that go against Calvinism.
I've read through the entire Bible and have yet
to find any.
> How about the words of Jesus?
Jesus taught "Calvinism" as well.
Check out John 6:37-65.
> good authority, right? Jesus directly addresses the question of
> salvation one time in the Gospels. Let's see what the Savior says,
> shall we?
>
> Matt 19:16-22:
Jesus' teachings must be understood in their *totality*.
Paul repeatedly teaches us that the purpose of the Law
was *not* to save us, but to instead humble us and convict
us of our sin, and thereby lead us to Christ. Until
one is humbled by the law and convicted as sinners,
one cannot be saved. Matt. 19:16ff, was simply the
first step in the process.
Note that Jesus gave a number of commandments from
the Torah, and the Jew claimed to have followed them
all, yet Jesus didn't reward him with salvation.
Why? Because the Jew *hadn't* kept the law, he
was still unwilling to accept the fact that he was
a sinner.
> It seems you need to convince Jesus of Calvinism as well.
Nope. Jesus already convinced Calvin of Calvinism,
John 6:37-65.
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Jeff Shirton
grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message news:<20030408232110...@mb-ca.news.cs.com>...
> >You don't seem to realize that "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6)
> >don't "merit" anything.
> >
> >> otherwise God is unjust.
> >
> >That doesn't follow.
> >
> >But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
> >critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
> >
> >And you haven't demonstrated that it is in any way
> >"unjust" for God to choose people to save.
>
> Actually, it is offensive to human morals.
It may very well be offensive to your morals.
But the claim was that it was "unjust".
You have not demonstrated, in an OBJECTIVE,
tangible way, that it is "unjust", you have
simply handwaved to a vague, undefined idea of
"human morals", which amounts to nothing but
an appeal to emotionalism.
> One can imagine why Superman has to decide whether
> to chase the nuclear cruise missle headed for Hackensack,
> or the one headed for Los Angeles. Nobody in either
> city has done anything to merit his favor--he just
> saves people as a vocation.
There are a number of flaws in your analogy which
invalidate it. Let's look at them:
- the citizens of Hackensack are allegedly "innocent",
and have not merited the consequence of the missle.
The Hellbound have sinned, and their punishment is
a direct consequence to their sin.
- the citizens of L.A. are likewise presumably
"innocent". Same objection applies.
- Superman is simply the "innocent bystander",
the "good samaritan", while in truth it was
God (your "superman") who *sent* the missles
in the first place, in order to *maintain*
"justice".
So let's change your analogy to make it more
accurate to the Biblical example.
Hackensack is now the Death Row at Leavenworth
prison (I just got the connection to the name!),
and L.A. is now the (reopened) Alcatraz Prison
death row. The National Warden is Superman's
Father, and He is the one who has sent the
missles, in order to carry out the many death
sentences (to uphold justice). Because Superman
is always trying to save people, the Warden has
place a gigantic amount of Kryptonite in each
missle. The Warden has decided to spare some
of the death row inmates (the ones at Leavenworth),
but in order to uphold justice, he can't simply
not launch the missle, there has to be a
substitutionary death. The Warden then asks
his son, Superman, to intercept the missle
headed for Leavenworth, knowing the Kryptonite
in it will kill him. Superman accepts his
father's request, and His fate.
Meanwhile, the death row inmates at Alcatraz
are still killed by their missle. Where is
the "injustice"? It was justice which *sent*
the missle to them in the first place.
> There is no such argument in the case of the
> Almighty God of the Bible. The Gospel of
> Luke (3:38) says that Adam was the "son of God."
Genesis teaches that Adam was *created* by God.
So does Isa. 64:8.
The Bible tells us that God only has one
"natural" ("begotten") Son, that being Jesus
(John 3:16). Those others who are "sons of
God" are only sons by *adoption* (Gal. 4:4-6,
Eph. 1:3-5).
> Most nonpsychotic human beings do not have children
> they know ahead of time that they are going to
> destroy. Why would God?
He doesn't.
Those God sends to Hell are not His children.
He didn't adopt them. He created them, they
sinned, He sent them to hell. Again I note that
you are trying to appeal to emotionalism rather
than appealing to Biblical truth.
> Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do
> to be saved?
> Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
> thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 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.
Note the order, and the cause-and-effect relationship.
> Raleigh
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Cinqueport
Leavenworth), but in order to uphold justice, he can't simply not launch the
missle, there has to be a substitutionary death. The Warden then asks his
son, Superman, to intercept the missle headed for Leavenworth, knowing the
It is unjust to exchange an innocent life for a guilty, and cruel of your
foolish warden. - Pigmy
Cinqueport
A god powerless to save any sinners, except when He is being partial to
some. - Pigmy
God sends people to Heaven because He is merciful to them. - Jeff Shirton
A god who is a respecter of some persons, while an enemy of others. - Pigmy
Cinqueport
Sins you say they are unable to avoid because of the sin-crippled
environment God sends them into. - Pigmy
AnthonyPaul
>From: "Cinqueport" pill...@cableone.com
>Date: 4/9/03 5:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <v995rf9...@corp.supernews.com>
WOW!! Cliff notes ....
Anthony
GRaleigh345
j_sh...@yahoo.com (Jeff Shirton) writes:
>
>grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
>news:<20030408232110...@mb-ca.news.cs.com>...
>
>> >*made* the qualifications. If you want place yourself in
>> >a position of presuming to judge God, then you have to answer
>> >Paul's objections in Scripture in Rom. 9:14-24)
>>
>> Merely noting that a logical God *must* have some criteria
>> for deciding who is elect and who isn't is not tantamount
>> to "judging" God.
>
>But you have done more than "note the idea".
>You have jumped to the conclusion that there *is* no
>(valid) criteria. You have presumed to make a judgment
>without knowing all the facts.
>
>That's why we can't judge God.
>We aren't in a position to. We don't know the whole story.
An agnostic could make that claim. But a person who believes in the God of
the Bible, and believes that the Bible reveals God, should know enough about
God to figure something out. From the Bible God we are supposed to be rather
familiar with him, as familiar as with our own father.
>
>> >Why are you trying to criticize Calvinists for denying omniscience
>> >of themselves? Why do you make the unreasonable demand that
>> >we must have *all* the answers, in direct contradiction to 1 Cor.
>> >13:12?
>>
>> Perhaps it is because that, despite the fact that Calvinists
>> claim that they are not omniscient, they always know when someone
>> else is wrong.
>
>The same can be said of Arminians, and Mormons.
>So once again I ask, why do you limit your criticism to
>Calvinists, when it is applicable across the board
>(even to you)?
I do not know whether Trinitarians or Arians are wrong. Do you? If I
claim to know only about God what is in the Bible, I cannot "judge" as you
might say. In fact, Unitarians might not be wrong, but if they are, I know
absolutely squat about salvation.
>
>> >But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
>> >critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
>> >
>> >And you haven't demonstrated that it is in any way
>> >"unjust" for God to choose people to save.
>>
>> Actually, it is offensive to human morals.
>
>Then perhaps "human morals" are wrong.
Human morals are the *only* objection to polygamy, when it is commanded by
an omnipotent God, who owns the universe and runs it as his own personal
fiefdom. One may say that the Bible contradicts this notion, but since the
Bible is incomplete, and leaves us with such an incomplete knowledge of God as
to be unable to judge any of his actions, how could polygamy be condemned any
more than predestination to damnation?
The rest of your post is missing. I'll wait for the rest.
xyibae
> rune...@hotmail.com (dan_s) wrote in message news:<d4046839.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > > There is no answer Calvinists can make on this issue,
> > > > not even speculative.
> > >
> > > That's right. (1 Cor. 13:12).
> > > Why is this a criticism?
> >
> > People want to know why God sends people to Heaven
> > or Hell, Jeff. I know you don't care about "why,"
> > but others do.
>
> I've never said I "don't care about why".
> I've simply resolved to the fact that God hasn't
> seen fit (nor is it any of my business) to know
> the reason why God makes the choice that He does.
>
> As to "why God sends people to Heaven or Hell",
> the answer is very simple, and very Biblical:
>
> 1) God sends people to Hell because they have sinned.
>
> 2) God sends people to Heaven because He is merciful
> to them.
With this reasoning God would be even more merciful if he sends
everyone to Heaven. Infinitely gracious, infinitely merciful... To
suggest some get sent to Hell is to undermine the extent of Christ's
atonement and is blasphemous.
Another point:
Suppose there are those of us He sends to Hell, we will like and
appreciate it because we know and realize that it was God's, our
Creator's, decision to put us there...and it is the best place for us
because God decreed it.
-so whatever, if I end up in Hell, thank God...if I end up in Heaven,
thank God... either place will be the best place for me personally.
[snip rest]
Cinqueport
Heaven. Infinitely gracious, infinitely merciful... To suggest some get sent
to Hell is to undermine the extent of Christ's atonement and is
Some gods see inflicting endless torment on some of their children as
magnifying their glory in the eyes of the others. The true God condemns such
gods: "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and
needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked."
(Psalm 82) - Pigmy
Jeff Shirton
> >That's why we can't judge God.
> >We aren't in a position to. We don't know the whole story.
>
> An agnostic could make that claim. But a person who believes
> in the God of the Bible, and believes that the Bible reveals
> God, should know enough about God to figure something out.
I'm sorry you reject the Bible
(1 Cor. 13:12, Prov. 14:12, Isa. 55:8, etc.)
> From the Bible God we are supposed to be rather
> familiar with him, as familiar as with our own father.
Yes, I don't know a great many of my (earthly) father's
thoughts either. I'm not a mind-reader. Are you?
> >The same can be said of Arminians, and Mormons.
> >So once again I ask, why do you limit your criticism to
> >Calvinists, when it is applicable across the board
> >(even to you)?
>
> I do not know whether Trinitarians or Arians are wrong. Do you?
Since you asked, yes, I do know.
> If I claim to know only about God what is in the Bible,
> I cannot "judge" as you might say.
We are not to judge the salvation of others, but we are
*certainly* to judge the truth of doctrine.
> >Then perhaps "human morals" are wrong.
>
> Human morals are the *only* objection to polygamy,
Not at all.
Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
> when it is commanded by an omnipotent God, who owns
> the universe and runs it as his own personal fiefdom.
God never "commanded" polygamy.
(Maybe you've been hanging around Mormons too much...)
> One may say that the Bible contradicts this notion, but
> since the Bible is incomplete,
False premise, the Bible *isn't* "incomplete".
You *definitely* have been hanging around with the
Mormons too much.
> and leaves us with such an incomplete knowledge
> of God as to be unable to judge any of his actions,
It's not our *business* to judge God.
(Isa. 29:16, Rom. 9:11-24, etc.)
> Raleigh
GRaleigh345
j_sh...@yahoo.com (Jeff Shirton) writes:
>grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
>news:<20030409201416...@mb-fh.news.cs.com>...
>
>> >That's why we can't judge God.
>> >We aren't in a position to. We don't know the whole story.
>>
>> An agnostic could make that claim. But a person who believes
>> in the God of the Bible, and believes that the Bible reveals
>> God, should know enough about God to figure something out.
>
>I'm sorry you reject the Bible
>(1 Cor. 13:12, Prov. 14:12, Isa. 55:8, etc.)
The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent whole that is not
self-contradictory. However, thorough study of it will show that to avoid
contradiction, we must suppose that the earlier authors knew much less about
the subject than the later ones. This plays into the hands of evil men, because
Pope Sixtus can say that in his enlightened age, he knows a hell of a lot more
about salvation than St. Paul. However, to say that there was no evolution in
thought from page one to page 1237, we are back to the internal contradictions.
>> From the Bible God we are supposed to be rather
>> familiar with him, as familiar as with our own father.
>
>Yes, I don't know a great many of my (earthly) father's
>thoughts either. I'm not a mind-reader. Are you?
No. But I would at any time have a certain idea of what my father would do
about anything important. If I called my father at 8am and told him that I
needed $1400 so that my wife could have a C-section, I know what he would say.
I would not find myself in an argument with my brother about whether Dad would
do thus and so, or would not. But that is what the Biblical certainty about our
Biblical Father is like. I say Father would provide the money, and my brother
says that my wife is a disgusting bitch and my Father wouldn't feel obligated
to go into hock for her.
>
>> >The same can be said of Arminians, and Mormons.
>> >So once again I ask, why do you limit your criticism to
>> >Calvinists, when it is applicable across the board
>> >(even to you)?
>>
>> I do not know whether Trinitarians or Arians are wrong. Do you?
>
>Since you asked, yes, I do know.
This knowledge just depends upon your your dipswitches are set, Jeff. (I
don't consider than an insult, just an analogy.)
>
>> If I claim to know only about God what is in the Bible,
>> I cannot "judge" as you might say.
>
>We are not to judge the salvation of others, but we are
>*certainly* to judge the truth of doctrine.
Yes. I can see that stories about Zeus cavorting with young virgins
represents him as being an immoral and worthless deity. However, when Yahweh
goes around murdering people, suddenly human morals don't apply to deity.
>
>> >Then perhaps "human morals" are wrong.
>>
>> Human morals are the *only* objection to polygamy,
>
>Not at all.
>Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not. In order to make
polygamy forbidden, you must arbitrarily declare it to be adultery. My take on
Joseph Smith's method of practicing polygamy during his lifetime is that under
Texas law, it would be considered statutory rape.
>
>> when it is commanded by an omnipotent God, who owns
>> the universe and runs it as his own personal fiefdom.
>
>God never "commanded" polygamy.
>(Maybe you've been hanging around Mormons too much...)
>
This is all hypothetical. I find polygamy as offensive as having Saddam
Hussein in charge of the universe, but those two concepts are offensive only to
emotional humans with morals, and have no bearing on "Biblical Truth" according
to you.
>> One may say that the Bible contradicts this notion, but
>> since the Bible is incomplete,
>
>False premise, the Bible *isn't* "incomplete".
>You *definitely* have been hanging around with the
>Mormons too much.
The Bible is incomplete. Otherwise we wouldn't have to appeal to emotional
human morals to discover that polygamy is wrong. Nowhere in the Bible is the
having of more than one wife condemned as adultery. In fact, that lack was one
of the reasons the Book of Mormon condemns it--to take up the slack.
>
>> and leaves us with such an incomplete knowledge
>> of God as to be unable to judge any of his actions,
>
>It's not our *business* to judge God.
>(Isa. 29:16, Rom. 9:11-24, etc.)
But the word "judge" in KJV English means a lot more than sitting on the
bench (which has more than one meaning in modern English). I am able to do my
job because I can judge distances in the millimeter range. Although you don't
care for the JST, Moses in Genesis told Satan that he (Moses) could judge
between Satan and God, which means no more than Moses saying, "I wasn't born
yesterday! You don't think I can see the difference between you and God?"
And that is the crux of the matter here. You have presented to me a
"Biblical God" who is in fact one of the personnae of Satan, who quite often
resorts to quoting scripture to prove his point, even when it is obviously
wrong.
>
>> Raleigh
>
>Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
> but that God became a man." -- James White
>
Just a spin on the Adam-god doctrine, Jeff. Brigham Young said that God
was the First Adam, and orthodox doctrine says that God was Jesus, the second
Adam.
GRaleigh345
>Subject: Re: Conference...
>From: j_sh...@yahoo.com (Jeff Shirton)
>Date: 9 Apr 2003 13:58:42 -0700
>
>(Sorry folks, Silly Google posted my first draft prematurely...)
>
>grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
>news:<20030408232110...@mb-ca.news.cs.com>...
>
>> >You don't seem to realize that "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6)
>> >don't "merit" anything.
>> >
>> >> otherwise God is unjust.
>> >
>> >That doesn't follow.
>> >
>> >But once again, we're back to Rom. 9:14-24, which
>> >critics of Calvinism never have an answer for.
>> >
>> >And you haven't demonstrated that it is in any way
>> >"unjust" for God to choose people to save.
>>
>> Actually, it is offensive to human morals.
>
>It may very well be offensive to your morals.
>But the claim was that it was "unjust".
>You have not demonstrated, in an OBJECTIVE,
>tangible way, that it is "unjust", you have
>simply handwaved to a vague, undefined idea of
>"human morals", which amounts to nothing but
>an appeal to emotionalism.
If there is no room for emotionalism here, I guess it would be
inappropriate to say that a God of this sort is someone more to be afraid of
than love.
>
>> One can imagine why Superman has to decide whether
>> to chase the nuclear cruise missle headed for Hackensack,
>> or the one headed for Los Angeles. Nobody in either
>> city has done anything to merit his favor--he just
>> saves people as a vocation.
>
>There are a number of flaws in your analogy which
>invalidate it. Let's look at them:
>
>- the citizens of Hackensack are allegedly "innocent",
>and have not merited the consequence of the missle.
>The Hellbound have sinned, and their punishment is
>a direct consequence to their sin.
Unfortunately, no human analogy can meet this, Jeff, because human beings
don't put babies on death row--unless they are abortionists.
>
>- the citizens of L.A. are likewise presumably
> "innocent". Same objection applies.
>
>- Superman is simply the "innocent bystander",
> the "good samaritan", while in truth it was
> God (your "superman") who *sent* the missles
> in the first place, in order to *maintain*
> "justice".
>
God as Lex Luthor. Interesting. I think the scenario you are coming up
with looks more like the recent invention "Lionel Luther" and his son Lex. When
brings us back to wondering what the "father's" ulterior motive is here.
>So let's change your analogy to make it more
>accurate to the Biblical example.
>
>Hackensack is now the Death Row at Leavenworth
>prison (I just got the connection to the name!),
>and L.A. is now the (reopened) Alcatraz Prison
>death row. The National Warden is Superman's
>Father, and He is the one who has sent the
>missles, in order to carry out the many death
>sentences (to uphold justice). Because Superman
>is always trying to save people, the Warden has
>place a gigantic amount of Kryptonite in each
>missle.
The analogy fails on this account, also, because Jesus never had saved
anybody prior to Calvary, and has not saved anyone since, either, since the job
is over and done with forever. The Warden would have no reason to put
Kryptonite in the missiles because it would be in doubt as to whether Kal-El
would decide to intercept either of them. Remember, I used the example of
Superman as what would happen in the case of a benevolent God who is not
omnipotent. There is no way to change the analogy to make it work in the manner
that an omnipotent God would.
The Warden has decided to spare some
>of the death row inmates (the ones at Leavenworth),
>but in order to uphold justice, he can't simply
>not launch the missle, there has to be a
>substitutionary death.
The Warden has no right to spare anyone, unless is Saddam's nephew. In the
US, the warden can't make this decision, and in a country run by Saddam, there
is no justice, period.
The Warden then asks
>his son, Superman, to intercept the missle
>headed for Leavenworth, knowing the Kryptonite
>in it will kill him. Superman accepts his
>father's request, and His fate.
This situation is as insane as the Adam God doctrine, in which the Father
agrees to go to earth, sin, and have his son come and save him.
>
>Meanwhile, the death row inmates at Alcatraz
>are still killed by their missle. Where is
>the "injustice"? It was justice which *sent*
>the missile to them in the first place.
>
>> There is no such argument in the case of the
>> Almighty God of the Bible. The Gospel of
>> Luke (3:38) says that Adam was the "son of God."
>
>Genesis teaches that Adam was *created* by God.
>So does Isa. 64:8.
The New Testament disagrees. The genealogy of God's natural son was
traced back to Adam, to God Almighty, therefore justifying Jesus' claim to
being the "son of God." Unless, of course, the appellation "son" is not
literal.
>
>The Bible tells us that God only has one
>"natural" ("begotten") Son, that being Jesus
>(John 3:16). Those others who are "sons of
>God" are only sons by *adoption* (Gal. 4:4-6,
>Eph. 1:3-5).
But, of course, the fact of Jesus being God's "son" is merely an analogy,
since God is a self-existent spirit and can't reproduce.
>
>> Most nonpsychotic human beings do not have children
>> they know ahead of time that they are going to
>> destroy. Why would God?
>
>He doesn't.
You spend most of your time telling us he does, Jeff, unless you don't
realize the import of your arguments.
>
>Those God sends to Hell are not His children.
>He didn't adopt them. He created them, they
>sinned, He sent them to hell. Again I note that
>you are trying to appeal to emotionalism rather
>than appealing to Biblical truth.
There is a certain amount of slippage in the Bible between Genesis and the New
Testament. The folks in Genesis believed that God would forgive their sins if
they set fire to a dead animal (because God thought this smelled good.) Later,
they decided that God did not like the way burning animal flesh smelled unless
it was on top of the temple mount. By the end of the Old Testament the prophets
(who were crazy radicals out of step with everybody else) said that God didn't
really like to smell dead animals burning and really wanted the people to
behave instead. When one tries to appeal to absolute Biblical truth, one is
dealing with such a situation. It is like fining someone for not having a
pedestrian walk in front of the horseless carriage and shoot fireworks at each
intersection to warn cross traffic on account of the fact that in 1907 the law
said this was required, and then fining the guy for not having a cyclops
brake-light, that was not ordered until 1986. To use the Bible as a sort of
geometrical "proof text" of absolute truth runs afoul of the evolutionary
nature of the Bible and the religious understanding of the authors.
>> Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do
>> to be saved?
>> Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
>> thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Jeff, you fail to realize that this is a twist in the story worthy of
Cecil B. DeMill. In the TEN COMMANDMENTS, you recall that the old man died in
Heston's arms dejected because he had not lived to see "the deliverer," who, of
course, was Charleton Heston at a later date. The jailer asked for temporal
salvation, and the apostles cleverly turn the question to another plane. The
jailer is merely asking how to get out of the jail alive, since the escape of
any prisoners will doom him to physical death at the hands of the authorities,
if the earthquake itself doesn't kill him. The Bible is a novelization of
history.
>
>Act 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.
>
>Note the order, and the cause-and-effect relationship.
>
>> Raleigh
>
JST67 Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles
heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of the Lord; and as
many as believed were ordained unto
eternal life.
That is why Mormonism is becoming more popular in some areas, Jeff. The
Bible really is only true insofar as correctly compiled, transcribed,
translated, and understood.
dan_s
> > People want to know why God sends people to Heaven
> > or Hell, Jeff. I know you don't care about "why,"
> > but others do.
>
> I've never said I "don't care about why".
> I've simply resolved to the fact that God hasn't
> seen fit (nor is it any of my business) to know
> the reason why God makes the choice that He does.
If a just God is going to give us eternal punishment or paradise, I'd
think he'd tell us why. Just me I guess.
>
> As to "why God sends people to Heaven or Hell",
> the answer is very simple, and very Biblical:
>
> 1) God sends people to Hell because they have sinned.
Weakly dancing around again, I see. The saved are also sinners.
Perhaps even more sinful.
>
> 2) God sends people to Heaven because He is merciful
> to them.
Again, no answer for "why." You answers have no substance.
> > > Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
> > > but the end thereof are the ways of death.
> > >
> > > Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
> > > neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
> > >
> > > > is some sort of merit system for choosing the Elect,
> >
> > Interesting that you engage in intellectual debate by denying
> > God-given intellect, reason, and ethics with a couple verses.
>
> I don't "deny" any such thing.
Of course you do. When you have no answer, you simply say "It's in
God's hands and it's none of my business." Anti-intellectualism in an
intellectual arena.
> > If reason is as futile as you say, Jeff, you have been
> > posting messages for no reason whatsoever.
>
> God has commanded us to preach the gospel to the world.
> God has ordained that the gospel be the means by which
> the elect come to Him.
You preach a "gospel" of a cruel God who does not love His people.
>
> I appreciate your concern for my efficiency and time,
> but I suggest you refrain from jumping to conclusions
> about things you don't understand.
Ooooh, you've gone to playground reasoning on me. Um... no, I'm right
and YOU'RE wrong! LOL.
[snip]
.
>
> Those who are sent to hell are sent to hell for the sins
> they freely commit.
>
> Please tell me what is in any way "unjust" about that.
>
> Stop avoiding the issue.
Same thing, different day. You don't see any problem with people
getting eternal paradise or pain for unknown reasons, but reasons
which have nothing to do with merit. No concept of Justice.
[snip]
> Not at all.
> *ALL* of the Bible teaches Calvinism.
> For Calvin taught the Bible.
> (The careful reader will see the connection.)
>
> > There are also many verses that go against Calvinism.
>
> I've read through the entire Bible and have yet
> to find any.
Well, when you snip out the passage -- without even showing the snip
-- I guess you might not find any.
>
> > How about the words of Jesus?
>
> Jesus taught "Calvinism" as well.
> Check out John 6:37-65.
Jesus talks about those believing in Him getting eternal life in John,
though he's more indirect. For that matter, he also talks about
communion, and there are also passages implying baptism is necessary.
It doesn't change the fact that Jesus is asked directly about Eternal
Life exactly once, and his answer is "works."
>
> > good authority, right? Jesus directly addresses the question of
> > salvation one time in the Gospels. Let's see what the Savior says,
> > shall we?
> >
> > Matt 19:16-22:
Nice snip here, Jeff.
>
> Jesus' teachings must be understood in their *totality*.
> Paul repeatedly teaches us that the purpose of the Law
> was *not* to save us, but to instead humble us and convict
> us of our sin, and thereby lead us to Christ. Until
> one is humbled by the law and convicted as sinners,
> one cannot be saved. Matt. 19:16ff, was simply the
> first step in the process.
Oh, come on. The guy asks about eternal life, and Jesus answers. You
are a spin doctor at heart.
> Note that Jesus gave a number of commandments from
> the Torah, and the Jew claimed to have followed them
> all, yet Jesus didn't reward him with salvation.
Incorrect. Jesus makes no comment on his salvation. The man asks what
else he must do, and Jesus says "If you would be perfect, give your
stuff to charity and follow me." The man despairs because he doesn't
want to give up his worldly goods, so he cannot be perfect.
One could convincingly argue that the man earned salvation just be
following the commandments, which was Jesus's initial answer. He just
could not live the life of a saint.
But even if charity is also necessary, IT IS ALL WORKS! Follow the
commandments, give to charity, and follow Jesus. Your salvation
status is in your hands to change with your thoughts and actions. How
much more plain could this be?
[snip]
Jeff Shirton
> The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent whole that is not
> self-contradictory. However, thorough study of it will show that
> to avoid contradiction, we must suppose that the earlier authors
> knew much less about the subject than the later ones. This plays
> into the hands of evil men, because Pope Sixtus can say that in
> his enlightened age, he knows a hell of a lot more about salvation
> than St. Paul. However, to say that there was no evolution in
> thought from page one to page 1237, we are back to the internal
> contradictions.
I disagree with your rhetoric and emotionalism.
I believe the Bible to be the word of God.
You obviously do not.
Simply announcing your utter contempt for it and
rationalizations for not believing it isn't going
to change my view.
We obviously come from drastically different methodologies
to come up with our respective concepts of God's truth.
I turn to the Bible, God's revealed word to mankind, and
you apparently rely on emotionalism and humanism.
> This knowledge just depends upon your your dipswitches
> are set, Jeff. (I don't consider than an insult, just an analogy.)
My dipswitches are set according to God's Reference Manual.
Thanks for asking, but I check them every day.
> >We are not to judge the salvation of others, but we are
> >*certainly* to judge the truth of doctrine.
>
> Yes. I can see that stories about Zeus cavorting with
> young virgins represents him as being an immoral and
> worthless deity.
Zeus is immoral, therefore Yahweh (also a god) must also
be immoral. Guilt by association. I'm sure you're knowledgeable
enough to know that guilt by association is a logical fallacy.
It's bad argumentation. Invalid. Unsound. Worthless.
> However, when Yahweh goes around murdering people,
> suddenly human morals don't apply to deity.
I've never see anything about Yahweh "murdering" people.
In order to substantiate such a charge, you would have
to demonstrate that God unlawfully killed innocent people.
Good luck with that attempt (Rom. 3:10-12, 23, etc.)
But again, you're using rhetoric and appealing to
emotionalism, by your self-serving choice of the term,
"murdering".
> >Not at all.
> >Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
>
> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
Certainly it is.
The Bible teaches that man is to have only up to *one* wife.
The Bible also teaches that having sex with someone who
is not your wife is adultery. Since you can't marry a "second"
or "third" wife, sex with these women falls under the normal
definition of adultery.
> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must arbitrarily
> declare it to be adultery.
More rhetoric on your part. There is nothing "arbitrary"
about the definition, it is the standard definition.
> The Bible is incomplete. Otherwise we wouldn't have
> to appeal to emotional human morals to discover that
> polygamy is wrong.
You are *never* going to convince me of your preconceived
views simply by repeating them over and over, especially since
God has told me that the Bible *is* complete. Further, if
*YOU* have to "appeal to human morals" to understand why
polygamy is wrong, that's *YOUR* problem. As for me,
the *BIBLE* teaches that polygamy is an abomination to
God, and so no amount of gainsaying on your part is going
to change that.
> And that is the crux of the matter here. You have presented
> to me a "Biblical God" who is in fact one of the personnae of
> Satan, who quite often resorts to quoting scripture to prove
> his point, even when it is obviously wrong.
<sigh> More emotionally-loaded rhetoric.
*Jesus* "resorted to quoting scripture".
Are you claiming He's a personna of Satan?
*Paul* "resorted to quoting scripture".
Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
*Matthew* "resorted to quoting scripture".
Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
*John* "resorted to quoting scripture".
Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
*Simon* *Peter* "resorted to quoting scripture".
Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
> >"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
> > but that God became a man." -- James White
>
> Just a spin on the Adam-god doctrine, Jeff. Brigham
> Young said that God was the First Adam, and orthodox
> doctrine says that God was Jesus, the second Adam.
Brigham Young was wrong.
> Raleigh
--
Jeff Shirton
> >- the citizens of Hackensack are allegedly "innocent",
> >and have not merited the consequence of the missle.
> >The Hellbound have sinned, and their punishment is
> >a direct consequence to their sin.
>
> Unfortunately, no human analogy can meet this, Jeff,
> because human beings don't put babies on death row
>--unless they are abortionists.
Again, you are appealing to emotionalism, as people
think of babies as "innocent". You compare my God
to an abortionist... Should I start comparing Joseph
Smith to Hitler?
Is that the level of "discussion" you're interested in,
Raleigh?
Your analogy is faulty because the Bible teaches
that *ALL* have sinned, and fall short of the glory
of God (Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, Rom. 3:10-12, 23).
And since the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23),
then the just punishment for all is death.
Now you apparen't don't believe the Bible well
enough to agree with that, so we can only agree
to disagree here. But it is dishonest on your part
to criticize others for their beliefs based on *YOUR*
beliefs which you incorporate into theirs, which
they don't even accept.
If God (as per the Bible) is wrong about all mankind
being sinners, then the deaths of those who have
never sinned will be something He will have to
"live with". Either way, whether right or wrong,
it's really not your concern, is it?
> >but in order to uphold justice, he can't simply
> >not launch the missle, there has to be a
> >substitutionary death.
>
> The Warden has no right to spare anyone,
But God has the right to spare anyone, or condemn anyone
for their sins.
> >headed for Leavenworth, knowing the Kryptonite
> >in it will kill him. Superman accepts his
> >father's request, and His fate.
>
> This situation is as insane as the Adam God doctrine,
> in which the Father agrees to go to earth, sin, and
> have his son come and save him.
All I can say is that I don't accept your evaluation.
I'm sorry that you reject the gospel.
> >Genesis teaches that Adam was *created* by God.
> >So does Isa. 64:8.
>
> The New Testament disagrees.
No, it doesn't.
> The genealogy of God's natural son was traced back to Adam,
> to God Almighty, therefore justifying Jesus' claim to
> being the "son of God."
Wrong.
Jesus' claim to be the son of God comes from the virgin birth.
Jesus' genealogy was a legal point to establish His legal
right and claim to the throne of David, to be King of the
Jews.
> >> Most nonpsychotic human beings do not have children
> >> they know ahead of time that they are going to
> >> destroy. Why would God?
> >
> >He doesn't.
>
> You spend most of your time telling us he does, Jeff,
No, I don't.
*YOU* are the one who keeps claiming that the hell-bound
reprobate are God's "children".
I keep pointing out that God doesn't adopt those creations
which He destroys. He only adopts the elect.
> unless you don't realize the import of your arguments.
It must be a truly amazing thing for you to be so
arrogant as to think you understand everyone's beliefs
better than they do themselves.
[ Insulting and condescending description of the Bible
and Chrisitianity snipped for lack of worth.]
Suffice it to say I don't share your negative view of the
Bible, Raleigh. And being insulting isn't really the
best way to convince someone, or to "show" that they
are "wrong".
> >Act 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.
> >
> >Note the order, and the cause-and-effect relationship.
>
> JST67 Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles
> heard this, they were glad, and
> glorified the word of the Lord; and as
> many as believed were ordained unto
> eternal life.
>
> That is why Mormonism is becoming more popular in
> some areas, Jeff.
Exactly. People don't like truth, and so they change it
(as Joseph Smith changed the Bible here, Rom. 4:5,
and elsewhere) to make it compatible with their
pre-conceived beliefs. A perfect example of men
creating "god" in their own image, complete with
your own "human morality".
I'm not interested in what's "popular", Raleigh.
I'm interested in what's *TRUE*.
Your priorities are screwed up.
Get off the bandwagon already, and start
following *God*.
> The Bible really is only true insofar as correctly
> compiled, transcribed, translated, and understood.
Right.
A perfect excuse for Mormons to have lipservice
to the Bible and say "we believe the Bible to be
the word of God (as far as it is translated accurately),
given them free reign and unlimited opportunity to
either rewrite or completely ignore any and all
parts they don't particularly happen to like.
Again, not exactly the best way to get right with God.
As to your claim, Acts 13:48 as I quoted it from the
KJV is *correctly* translated, as can be demonstrated
by checking the Greek, and confirmed by the other
translations which translate it correctly, such as the
NIV, NASB, RSV, etc. etc. etc.
The JST, OTOH, has absolutely *ZERO* textual
justification, and is simply a doctrinally-biased "re-write".
grouch
>Message-id: <68ila.6551$h%2.32...@read1.cgocable.net>
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030410093605...@mb-fw.news.cs.com...
>
>> >- the citizens of Hackensack are allegedly "innocent",
>> >and have not merited the consequence of the missle.
>> >The Hellbound have sinned, and their punishment is
>> >a direct consequence to their sin.
>>
>> Unfortunately, no human analogy can meet this, Jeff,
>> because human beings don't put babies on death row
>>--unless they are abortionists.
>
>Again, you are appealing to emotionalism, as people
>think of babies as "innocent". You compare my God
>to an abortionist... Should I start comparing Joseph
>Smith to Hitler?
No, but one could compare many of God's henchmen, A.K.A. prophets, to Hitler.
Moses comes to mind. G
grouch
>Message-id: <fQhla.8$b67....@read2.cgocable.net>
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030410093601...@mb-fw.news.cs.com...
>
>> The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent whole that is not
>> self-contradictory. However, thorough study of it will show that
>> to avoid contradiction, we must suppose that the earlier authors
>> knew much less about the subject than the later ones. This plays
>> into the hands of evil men, because Pope Sixtus can say that in
>> his enlightened age, he knows a hell of a lot more about salvation
>> than St. Paul. However, to say that there was no evolution in
>> thought from page one to page 1237, we are back to the internal
>> contradictions.
>
>I disagree with your rhetoric and emotionalism.
>I believe the Bible to be the word of God.
>You obviously do not.
>Simply announcing your utter contempt for it and
>rationalizations for not believing it isn't going
>to change my view.
>
>We obviously come from drastically different methodologies
>to come up with our respective concepts of God's truth.
>I turn to the Bible, God's revealed word to mankind, and
>you apparently rely on emotionalism and humanism.
Just thought I would insert some of God's truth to help you out Jeff. It shows
God's love for humanity.
Numbers 15:32
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man
that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
Numbers 15:33
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron,
and unto all the congregation.
Numbers 15:34
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done
to him.
Numbers 15:35
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the
congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
Numbers 15:36
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
G
grouch
>From: xyi...@netscape.net (xyibae)
>Date: 4/9/2003 9:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <de643ffa.03040...@posting.google.com>
Is there anyone on this N.G. that agrees with Shirton's view of God? G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
GRaleigh345
(grouch) writes:
>
>Numbers 15:36
> 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him
>with
>stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
>
>G
>
>
But, Grouch, you don't understand. The killing was in cold blood, and nobody
got "emotional" about it.
GRaleigh345
<jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
>Subject: Re: Conference...
>From: "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca>
>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:28:10 -0400
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030410093601...@mb-fw.news.cs.com...
>
>> The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent whole that is not
>> self-contradictory. However, thorough study of it will show that
>> to avoid contradiction, we must suppose that the earlier authors
>> knew much less about the subject than the later ones. This plays
>> into the hands of evil men, because Pope Sixtus can say that in
>> his enlightened age, he knows a hell of a lot more about salvation
>> than St. Paul. However, to say that there was no evolution in
>> thought from page one to page 1237, we are back to the internal
>> contradictions.
>
>I disagree with your rhetoric and emotionalism.
>I believe the Bible to be the word of God.
>You obviously do not.
>Simply announcing your utter contempt for it and
>rationalizations for not believing it isn't going
>to change my view.
For a twenty-first century man to say that God wrote every word in the
Bible as it stands, and that the English version is merely an exact translation
of whatever it was God said in whatever language originally is the equivalent
of tacitly announcing one's contempt for God. One of the projects Jesus had to
undertake was "restoration" of the Jewish religion--getting them to start
thinking about what they had been told and what was in the scriptures plus what
they had previously been told that it meant. We know that the story of Jonah
and the cetacean cannot be true. Is Jesus a fool because he uses it for an
illustration?
>
>We obviously come from drastically different methodologies
>to come up with our respective concepts of God's truth.
>I turn to the Bible, God's revealed word to mankind, and
>you apparently rely on emotionalism and humanism.
>
>> This knowledge just depends upon your your dipswitches
>> are set, Jeff. (I don't consider than an insult, just an analogy.)
>
>My dipswitches are set according to God's Reference Manual.
>Thanks for asking, but I check them every day.
Is your Reference manual a signed first edition, or are you merely taking
someone else's word that it is the one that came in the box?
>
>> >We are not to judge the salvation of others, but we are
>> >*certainly* to judge the truth of doctrine.
>>
>> Yes. I can see that stories about Zeus cavorting with
>> young virgins represents him as being an immoral and
>> worthless deity.
>
>Zeus is immoral, therefore Yahweh (also a god) must also
>be immoral. Guilt by association. I'm sure you're knowledgeable
>enough to know that guilt by association is a logical fallacy.
>It's bad argumentation. Invalid. Unsound. Worthless.
I do not judge Zeus by Yahweh's behavior nor vice versa. Most of the
Greeks in Jesus day had rejected the Olympian pantheon merely on account of the
ridiculousness of it--including the God's behavior. If God acts like a horny
man--Zeus, or acts like an angry psychotic one--Yahweh, how can we say that God
is qualitatively different from a man?
>
>> However, when Yahweh goes around murdering people,
>> suddenly human morals don't apply to deity.
>
>I've never see anything about Yahweh "murdering" people.
>In order to substantiate such a charge, you would have
>to demonstrate that God unlawfully killed innocent people.
>Good luck with that attempt (Rom. 3:10-12, 23, etc.)
Yes, it would be rather like proving that Iraq was not a dictatorship.
After all, everybody voted for Saddam every election.
>
>But again, you're using rhetoric and appealing to
>emotionalism, by your self-serving choice of the term,
>"murdering".
>
>> >Not at all.
>> >Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
>>
>> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
>
>Certainly it is.
>The Bible teaches that man is to have only up to *one* wife.
Jesus says that in the beginning (before the fall), it was intended that
man have only one wife. However, Moses approved at the least serial polygamy,
allowing a man to divorce his first wife and take another--presumably to keep
him from ridding himself of the first by beating her to death. Nathan the
prophet condemned David the king for committing adultery with Bathsheba. There
was no mention of the other wives. Did each and every one of them also lose
their first child to punish David's (according to you) adultery?
>The Bible also teaches that having sex with someone who
>is not your wife is adultery. Since you can't marry a "second"
>or "third" wife, sex with these women falls under the normal
>definition of adultery.
Citation, please. I could easily quote the law of Moses to prove you are
wrong, but you are required to prove yourself right here. Chapter and verse,
please. Jesus said that to be perfect a man must have only one wife, but if one
was not perfect to leave other people alone about their problems.
>
>> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must arbitrarily
>> declare it to be adultery.
>
>More rhetoric on your part. There is nothing "arbitrary"
>about the definition, it is the standard definition.
Adultery is sex with someone who is not your wife. That does not address
the definition of wife. You realize that I am a nonpolygamist, and find it
offensive, but your argument is so bad that I find myself defending polygamy
because itself is not as bad as your theology.
>
>> The Bible is incomplete. Otherwise we wouldn't have
>> to appeal to emotional human morals to discover that
>> polygamy is wrong.
>
>You are *never* going to convince me of your preconceived
>views simply by repeating them over and over, especially since
>God has told me that the Bible *is* complete.
Citation, please. Send MP3 file of the Divine voice.
Further, if
>*YOU* have to "appeal to human morals" to understand why
>polygamy is wrong, that's *YOUR* problem. As for me,
>the *BIBLE* teaches that polygamy is an abomination to
>God, and so no amount of gainsaying on your part is going
>to change that.
Actually, the Bible teaches no such thing. The Book of Mormon does. That is
one of the very few startlingly original doctrines in the BoM.
>
>> And that is the crux of the matter here. You have presented
>> to me a "Biblical God" who is in fact one of the personnae of
>> Satan, who quite often resorts to quoting scripture to prove
>> his point, even when it is obviously wrong.
>
><sigh> More emotionally-loaded rhetoric.
I'm not being emotional. Bad theology that makes God indistinguishable
from Satan is nothing to get emotional about, nor is pointing out that it does.
>
>*Jesus* "resorted to quoting scripture".
>Are you claiming He's a personna of Satan?
You will note that Jesus spoke "as a prophet." He often contradicted
rabbinical teachings on merely his own inspired say-so, with no quotes.
However, it was usually Diabolos who tried to bait Jesus with scripture quotes
to prove all manner of nonsense, in which case Jesus generally quoted more
scripture to show that Diabolos' pretended scriptural knowledge was nothing
more than rote memorization of the parts Diabolos liked the best, rather than a
comprehensive understanding of the whole.
>
>*Paul* "resorted to quoting scripture".
>Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
Didn't occur to me, but he did claim that he had seen Jesus in blinding
light, long after the resurrection. Rather like Joseph Smith without plates.
>
>*Matthew* "resorted to quoting scripture".
>Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
No. I never claimed that Matthew represented the nature of God, either.
>
>*John* "resorted to quoting scripture".
>Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
Same for John--never claimed that John's person and character accurately
reflected the divine nature.
>
>*Simon* *Peter* "resorted to quoting scripture".
>Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
See above. I have stated that the character of God as you present it is
Satanic. I fail to see how you manage to drag into it the few apostles whose
names you remember offhand.
>
>> >"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
>> > but that God became a man." -- James White
>>
>> Just a spin on the Adam-god doctrine, Jeff. Brigham
>> Young said that God was the First Adam, and orthodox
>> doctrine says that God was Jesus, the second Adam.
>
>Brigham Young was wrong.
>
Apparently he was only off by one generation. Elohim begot Jesus, and Jesus
(contrary to known biology) had arms and legs and a body, unlike his father.
GRaleigh345
<jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
>Subject: Re: Conference...
>From: "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca>
>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:44:57 -0400
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030410093605...@mb-fw.news.cs.com...
>
>> >- the citizens of Hackensack are allegedly "innocent",
>> >and have not merited the consequence of the missle.
>> >The Hellbound have sinned, and their punishment is
>> >a direct consequence to their sin.
>>
>> Unfortunately, no human analogy can meet this, Jeff,
>> because human beings don't put babies on death row
>>--unless they are abortionists.
>
>Again, you are appealing to emotionalism, as people
>think of babies as "innocent". You compare my God
>to an abortionist...
The death penalty is merely retroactive abortion. That is why I can't
understand why liberals object to it so.
Should I start comparing Joseph
>Smith to Hitler?
I don't know. How many people has Joseph Smith (I assume Jr.) killed
compared to Hitler or Jehovah?
>
>Is that the level of "discussion" you're interested in,
>Raleigh?
I guess since I'm talking to you, that is the discussion I'm doomed to
have, regardless of what I intended.
>
>Your analogy is faulty because the Bible teaches
>that *ALL* have sinned, and fall short of the glory
>of God (Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, Rom. 3:10-12, 23).
>And since the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23),
>then the just punishment for all is death.
>
>Now you apparen't don't believe the Bible well
>enough to agree with that, so we can only agree
>to disagree here. But it is dishonest on your part
>to criticize others for their beliefs based on *YOUR*
>beliefs which you incorporate into theirs, which
>they don't even accept.
I agree with these basic biblical doctrines. However, presupposing that God
foredamned certain people is not contained in the above statement.
>
>If God (as per the Bible) is wrong about all mankind
>being sinners, then the deaths of those who have
>never sinned will be something He will have to
>"live with". Either way, whether right or wrong,
>it's really not your concern, is it?
I think you take too absolute a view of the world as we know it to be,
Jeff. If I did that, I'd be all in favor of executing homosexuals.
>
>> >but in order to uphold justice, he can't simply
>> >not launch the missle, there has to be a
>> >substitutionary death.
>>
>> The Warden has no right to spare anyone,
>
>But God has the right to spare anyone, or condemn anyone
>for their sins.
That is why the analogy, as amended, is bad.
>
>> >headed for Leavenworth, knowing the Kryptonite
>> >in it will kill him. Superman accepts his
>> >father's request, and His fate.
>>
>> This situation is as insane as the Adam God doctrine,
>> in which the Father agrees to go to earth, sin, and
>> have his son come and save him.
>
>All I can say is that I don't accept your evaluation.
>I'm sorry that you reject the gospel.
"Your" gospel. Why should I not be as upset by your teachings as what the
local RLDS preacher calls "our gospel?"
v
>
>> >Genesis teaches that Adam was *created* by God.
>> >So does Isa. 64:8.
>>
>> The New Testament disagrees.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
>> The genealogy of God's natural son was traced back to Adam,
>> to God Almighty, therefore justifying Jesus' claim to
>> being the "son of God."
>
>Wrong.
Check out the Gospel according to Luke while you're at it.
>
>Jesus' claim to be the son of God comes from the virgin birth.
>Jesus' genealogy was a legal point to establish His legal
>right and claim to the throne of David, to be King of the
>Jews.
Then why does Luke trace the genealogy back to Adam? You know, Luke's
genealogy is in the NT, too, despite the fact that few ever see it or care
about it.
>
>> >> Most nonpsychotic human beings do not have children
>> >> they know ahead of time that they are going to
>> >> destroy. Why would God?
>> >
>> >He doesn't.
>>
>> You spend most of your time telling us he does, Jeff,
>
>No, I don't.
>
>*YOU* are the one who keeps claiming that the hell-bound
>reprobate are God's "children".
He made them, same as Adam, great to the 300th power granddad of Jesus.
>
>I keep pointing out that God doesn't adopt those creations
>which He destroys. He only adopts the elect.
I see no scripture citations here.
>
>> unless you don't realize the import of your arguments.
>
>It must be a truly amazing thing for you to be so
>arrogant as to think you understand everyone's beliefs
>better than they do themselves.
After listening to your discussion here, everyone would be in agreement
that you believe as I described.
>
>[ Insulting and condescending description of the Bible
> and Chrisitianity snipped for lack of worth.]
>
>Suffice it to say I don't share your negative view of the
>Bible, Raleigh. And being insulting isn't really the
>best way to convince someone, or to "show" that they
>are "wrong".
The negative views of the Bible are produced by those who abuse it for
their own purposes.
>
>> >Act 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.
>> >
>> >Note the order, and the cause-and-effect relationship.
>>
>> JST67 Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles
>> heard this, they were glad, and
>> glorified the word of the Lord; and as
>> many as believed were ordained unto
>> eternal life.
>>
>> That is why Mormonism is becoming more popular in
>> some areas, Jeff.
>
>Exactly. People don't like truth, and so they change it
>(as Joseph Smith changed the Bible here, Rom. 4:5,
>and elsewhere) to make it compatible with their
>pre-conceived beliefs. A perfect example of men
>creating "god" in their own image, complete with
>your own "human morality".
The Bible is not perfect. Some merely temper its teachings with sense.
Others who have been raised to believe it has to be perfect have to "fix" it
like Joseph. Just two ways of coping with fundamentalist disease.
>
>I'm not interested in what's "popular", Raleigh.
>I'm interested in what's *TRUE*.
Primitive Christianity was popular because it addressed the problems of
1st century man. That's why it sold. Modern Christianity has forgotten whatever
that popularity was generated by.
>
>Your priorities are screwed up.
>Get off the bandwagon already, and start
>following *God*.
I don't see God here in this discussion, nor in your understanding of Him.
>
>> The Bible really is only true insofar as correctly
>> compiled, transcribed, translated, and understood.
>
>Right.
>A perfect excuse for Mormons to have lipservice
>to the Bible and say "we believe the Bible to be
>the word of God (as far as it is translated accurately),
>given them free reign and unlimited opportunity to
>either rewrite or completely ignore any and all
>parts they don't particularly happen to like.
Mental rewriting (ignoring passages that disagree with our faith) like the
Luke genealogy that says Adam (and all his descendants thereby) are God's
children is the same thing. Just because you don't have the guts to put it on
paper like Joseph doesn't change the results.
>
>Again, not exactly the best way to get right with God.
>
>As to your claim, Acts 13:48 as I quoted it from the
>KJV is *correctly* translated, as can be demonstrated
>by checking the Greek, and confirmed by the other
>translations which translate it correctly, such as the
>NIV, NASB, RSV, etc. etc. etc.
>
>The JST, OTOH, has absolutely *ZERO* textual
>justification, and is simply a doctrinally-biased "re-write".
>
Seems like the Bible could use a rewrite, if it is to be considered the
perfect word of a perfect God.
grouch
>From: grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345)
>Date: 4/10/2003 5:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030410200444...@mb-ce.news.cs.com>
But for some reason, He will not tell you why babies are sinners! Come on now,
Jeff. G
grouch
>From: grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345)
>Date: 4/10/2003 5:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>In article <20030410140332...@mb-cv.aol.com>, grou...@aol.com
>(grouch) writes:
>
>>
>>Numbers 15:36
>> 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him
>>with
>>stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
>>
>>G
>>
>>
>
> But, Grouch, you don't understand. The killing was in cold blood, and
>nobody
>got "emotional" about it.
Bless them ancient cold hearted Christians, they had guts, but God spilled a
lot of their guts on the ground. ;-)) G
Jeff Shirton
news:20030410222957...@mb-cm.aol.com...
> Bless them ancient cold hearted Christians, they had guts,
And I suppose we should get our cue of "love" from *you*,
and your:
- contempt;
- disrespect;
- insults;
- ridicule;
- hatred;
- judgmental attitude;
???
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Sorry, no more debate. And yes, idiot, you win."
-- grouch, 9 Dec. '02
grouch
>Message-id: <L_pla.85$b67....@read2.cgocable.net>
>
>"grouch" <grou...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030410222957...@mb-cm.aol.com...
>
>> Bless them ancient cold hearted Christians, they had guts,
>
>And I suppose we should get our cue of "love" from *you*,
>and your:
>
>- contempt;
>- disrespect;
>- insults;
>- ridicule;
>- hatred;
>- judgmental attitude;
>
>???
>
>--
>Jeff Shirton
Let's see now, are you suggesting that you are the example of Christianity? G
Jeff Shirton
> >> Bless them ancient cold hearted Christians, they had guts,
> >
> >And I suppose we should get our cue of "love" from *you*,
> >and your:
> >
> >- contempt;
> >- disrespect;
> >- insults;
> >- ridicule;
> >- hatred;
> >- judgmental attitude;
> >
> >???
>
> Let's see now, are you suggesting that you
> are the example of Christianity? G
Didn't say that at all, did I?
Quite the contrary, I've admitted *countless* times
that I am the chief of sinners, and I stand beside Paul
to that effect, to my humility and shame.
I was simply pointing out that you're not in a position
to judge so-called "cold hearted Christians".
But as usual, you (intentionally? I wonder) don't get
the point.
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Aurelius Augustine was a Calvinist. So was Thomas Aquinas.
All Calvin did was make it popular.
Iconoclast
There is no humility in ranking yourself with famous great sinners, and we
would expect great lying. - Pigmy
grouch
>Message-id: <GEFla.174$b67....@read2.cgocable.net>
>
>"grouch" <grou...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030411124248...@mb-fl.aol.com...
>
>> >> Bless them ancient cold hearted Christians, they had guts,
>> >
>> >And I suppose we should get our cue of "love" from *you*,
>> >and your:
>> >
>> >- contempt;
>> >- disrespect;
>> >- insults;
>> >- ridicule;
>> >- hatred;
>> >- judgmental attitude;
>> >
>> >???
>>
>> Let's see now, are you suggesting that you
>> are the example of Christianity? G
>
>Didn't say that at all, did I?
>Quite the contrary, I've admitted *countless* times
>that I am the chief of sinners, and I stand beside Paul
>to that effect, to my humility and shame.
Then if you are chief of all the sinners, how can you judge others? You see,
Jeff, I am agnostic, that means I neither accept nor reject religious doctrine.
I act like an agnostic. I question and debate all subjects that interest me.
You, on the other hand, being a non-Mormon, and claiming to be a Christian,are
only posting to this Mormon N.G. to criticize, debase and insult Mormons, based
on your past posts. If you are a Christian as you claim, why do you peddle so
much hate? When is your fuzzy little brain going to understand that you add
nothing that is Christian or good to this N.G. I admit I add nothing Christian
to this N.G. because that fuzzy little brain of yours has not grasped the fact
that I am AGNOSTIC, which give me a more honest and less hypocritical approach
to questioning Christianity than you. Some day you will hopefully realize the
harm you have done to Christianity by claiming to be an example of Christianity
by your claim that you have truth because God told you therefore everyone else
is wrong if they disagree with you. Well, I hate to shake up your little
closet world, but you are not the only one that has claimed to talk to God,
there are plenty of nuts around that do that. God hates evil and according to
you, everyone is evil right down to the babies and I have not found one
Christian on this N.G. that agrees with you. So, what's your point? Are you
just posting to practice your typing skills, for you sure are not advancing the
love of God or Christianity in any of your posts. You just don't get it, do you
big guy! G
>
grouch
>From: "Iconoclast" pill...@cableone.com
>Date: 4/11/2003 1:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <v9eb3je...@corp.supernews.com>
I've enjoyed some of your remarks, Pigmy. Don't alway agree, but you do make
me think and that is what I'm here for/ Shirton claims to be a Christian and
all I've seen him do is fight with the Christians. I'm not a Christian but if
I where, I think I would like to hear a message something like the one below,
one I've never heard from Christian Shirton.
"In these turbulent times of change and confusion, we pause to ponder peace.
In all times and places, nothing has been more valued, no goal more worthy.
Since the beginning, men and women have desired peace for their hearts, homes,
communities, and countries. And yet, all the while there are those who thrive
on chaos -- those who seek noise and shun the sounds of silence. Those who
have the "truth" directly from God.
While we may sincerely hope and even strive for a peaceful world, we must first
find peace in our own hearts. For, without ths, nothing else matters. Can we,
in fact, really expect to have peace in the word if the civil wars raging
inside so many individuals do not subside?
These "raqing civil wiars" inside us may be born of selfishness, insecurity,
even jealousy, doubt and envy. We may live in financial prosperity and yet be
spritually impoverished. Or, in poverty, we may sense the need for something
more than money. At the center of our hearts, in our very souls, we may feel
hollow -- like something essential is missing. And what's often missing is the
peace of righteous living. Real peace comes from God.
Now is I were a investigator or agnostic, as I am, I could value a message
like the one above, but this is not the message Christians are posting.
Shirton is no different than Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Oral Roberts, Benny
Hinn, e.g., or any of the other religious folk that hawk they have the truth
directly from God. I put all these folks in the same bag, hypocrits; why,
because they give us nothing positive to live by except their own personal
hatred. G
Iconoclast
first find peace in our own hearts. For, without ths, nothing else matters.
Can we, in fact, really expect to have peace in the word if the civil wars
You are a prophet, Grouch. This is God's word not in any bible, so simple
atheists can agree it's good sense. More or less than this probably cometh
of evil. - Pigmy
grouch
>Message-id: <v9enh17...@corp.supernews.com>
Hey, glad we agree. ;-)) G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
GRaleigh345
<jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
>Didn't say that at all, did I?
>Quite the contrary, I've admitted *countless* times
>that I am the chief of sinners, and I stand beside Paul
>to that effect, to my humility and shame.
>
>I was simply pointing out that you're not in a position
>to judge so-called "cold hearted Christians".
>
>But as usual, you (intentionally? I wonder) don't get
>the point.
It would be helpful, Jeff, if (in your humility) you did not compare
yourself to one of the authors of the Bible. Joseph Smith did the same thing.
One thing that Joseph Smith could never be accused of was humility.
GRaleigh345
(grouch) writes:
That's the problem I have with born-again Christianity, Grouch.
Born-again Christians say that they have no problems with the world because God
makes them love everybody. However, when they find someone who is difficult to
love, that person is told that he is at fault for not being a Christian himself
and taking up the slack.
I get the impression that even the weakest of Christians could cast out
Satan, if Satan wouldn't be such a bad guy and act more Christian.
GRaleigh345
<pill...@cableone.com> writes:
That is the great difficulty with Christians, Pigmy. It is to my great
benefit that they have pronounced me "nonChristian." That permits me to go on
loving and serving Jesus (as best I can) while staying out of the circus.
Brigham Young once commented that no matter if the Gentiles had
cardsharps--the Mormons had their own cardsharps who could beat them all, and
went through the list of pretty much all smarmy crimes of which the children of
"Zion" had the premier examples of.
Born-again Christianity is the same. Once a man has been saved, he is the
spiritual equal of any other man who has been saved, since salvation is not
according to works. Therefore, to re-establish a pecking order in the society
of Christians, the ranking is according to their fitness for damnation prior to
their salvation. Thus, if Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein had been
contemporaries, and had been saved prior to their respective demises, each
would compete with the other by trying to prove that he had out-murdered and
out-raped the other, so as to best demonstrate the power of Christ.
In the social set of Christianity, having murdered 8 million people will
give the newly redeemed sinner a higher ranking than founding a Standard Oil
Monopoly would give a young man in New York society. The young man who was born
into a Christian home, knew about Jesus from age 3, and like Timothy, always
lived a good Christian life is supremely envious of the man who (prior to
finding Jesus) ran three brothels and was an amateur abortionist. That way, one
"has one's cake and eats it too." The man gets enough sampling the wages of sin
long enough to savor it, and on top of that gets to stand up in testimony
meetings or prayer meetings and call himself "the Chief of Sinners." Since
Christians all claim to be sinners, calling oneself "the Chief of Sinners" is
hardly short of claiming to be the son of God and a king.
One endlessly hears of all the nefarious actitivities in sin-dens, sexual
immorality, thievery, murder, fraud, alcoholism, wife-beating. Where else in
mixed company can a man get up and brag about having been laid more times by
more different women than the rest of the men present?
The process is outlined in the Book: Games Christians Play. I don't know
where to get a copy, but perhaps it is available on the internet.
Jeff Shirton
> It would be helpful, Jeff, if (in your humility) you did
> not compare yourself to one of the authors of the Bible.
My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture",
in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
This is why I have no authority on my own, I can't "make"
a point simply by claiming something out of thin air.
What I say is God's truth only insofar as it agrees with
what God has revealed to us in the Bible (which is why
I constantly support my teachings with Biblical citations).
> Raleigh
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Iconoclast
Raleigh
Religions infected by great sinners are not easy to believe. A famous
preacher, whose name rhymes with *braggert* continued spending widows mites
on "working women" even after apologizing on TV for getting caught ("I have
sinned!"). Worse, he never confessed being an inveterate liar. - Pigmy
grouch
>From: grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345)
>Message-id: <20030412174824...@mb-cf.news.cs.com>
I couldn't have said it better. Shirton's claim is he is posting to give us a
gift, the gift of 'truth'. I have a problem with gifts that demand I desert my
conscience or be termed a fool or a sinner. True gifts are freely given and
take the form of kindness and respect. A gift should be without price of
promise of requital. Because the giver of such gifts knows that freely giving
is its own reward, he or she doesn't hang the gift over the receiver's head --
or heart. This is the problem I have with the Biblical God; if you wish the
gift of Heaven. From what I have seen of many of the religious gift givers, I
neither desire nor wish to reside in Heaven or any other place with them. G
Mike W
LOL. There's a neat little shot of the cover page at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Ecbard/BC/GamesChristen.jpg
Mike
grouch
>Message-id: <2m0ma.335$b67.1...@read2.cgocable.net>
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030412174822...@mb-cf.news.cs.com...
>
>> It would be helpful, Jeff, if (in your humility) you did
>> not compare yourself to one of the authors of the Bible.
>
>My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture",
>in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
>
>This is why I have no authority on my own, I can't "make"
>a point simply by claiming something out of thin air.
>What I say is God's truth only insofar as it agrees with
>what God has revealed to us in the Bible (which is why
>I constantly support my teachings with Biblical citations).
As do all other Christians that disagree with you and each other. At least
agnostic are in agreement, they don't claim special relationship with the
creator of the universe but try to live by the combination of logic and faith.
The Bible, in my opinion, is nothing more than heresay. G
Jeff Shirton
> >What I say is God's truth only insofar as it agrees with
> >what God has revealed to us in the Bible (which is why
> >I constantly support my teachings with Biblical citations).
>
> As do all other Christians that disagree with you and each other.
Wrong.
There are many other "Christians" who do not believe the
above, but instead bring their own claimed "revelation",
such as Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-day
Adventists, Roman Catholics, etc. etc.
Besides, the fact that Christians "disagree with each other",
you keep bringin this up OVER AND OVER as if it were
some "new" observation, or whether it meant anything. The
fact that so-called "Christians" *do* disagree with each other
is the reason we have the Bible (Acts 17:11, 2 Tim. 3:16),
so we can check our disagreements against Scriptural truth.
You seem to be over the wrong opinion and the unreasonable
standard that if there is any kind of disagreement, then we cannot
possibly know what the truth is.
If that were true, then we could know "know" the Earth was
spherical, because of the existence of the Flat Earth Society.
We could know "know" that we have landed on the moon, because
of the conspiracy theorists who believe (and teach) that it was
all a hoax.
All it would take would be *one* person to teach "2 + 2 = 5"
and we (according to *you*) could not claim to "know" that
"2 + 2 = 4". because "people disagree with each other".
You hold an unreasonable standard, grouch.
> At least agnostic are in agreement,
<Chuckle>
You really think all agnostics are in universal and identical agreement?
You go on believing that, grouch... <g>
> The Bible, in my opinion, is nothing more than heresay. G
That's okay.
God's truth isn't dependent on your "opinion" <g>
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
GRaleigh345
wrote:
That is very true. I think Swaggart's book against pornography is quite
accurate. It comes from firsthand knowledge.
But I would not classify Jeff Shirton in the same category as Mr. Swaggart.
After all, we know positively what Mr. Swaggart is. We only know of Jeff from
his posts on ARM.
Raleigh
Iconoclast
gift should be without price of promise of requital. Because the giver of
such gifts knows that freely giving is its own reward, he or she doesn't
hang the gift over the receiver's head -- or heart. This is the problem I
True Calvinists would leave you in the hands of the Almighty on the
internet, unless you were flaming them on a Calvinist cyber stronghold.
Calvin himself cautioned against casting pearls before "swine", and warned
that barbs are earned by fools who do so. Jeff knows less of Calvin and
Bible than he pretends. - Pigmy
GRaleigh345
writes:
>I couldn't have said it better. Shirton's claim is he is posting to give us
>a
>gift, the gift of 'truth'. I have a problem with gifts that demand I desert
>my
>conscience or be termed a fool or a sinner. True gifts are freely given and
>take the form of kindness and respect.
Ideally so. A Christian should be able to be a good Samaritan to a Mormon
without expecting that the Mormon will immediately convert to "real"
Christianity on account of being the beneficiary of such kindness. In Jesus'
story of the Good Samaritan, no mention was made of the Jew throwing away his
copies of The Teachings of Moses, the Prophets, and the Scriptures in favor of
a Samaritan "Inspired" Version of the Torah, nor immediately immigrating to
Samaria and changing his venue of worship to Mt. Gerizim.
I know a Muslim man who is not really a great personal friend--he is more
of a professional acquaintance. But if he were in a bind, I would help him out
without expecting him to become a Mormon because of it.
A gift should be without price of
>promise of requital.
True. I have seen very unscrupulous and/or psychotic people deliberately do
things for other people, things that appear to be unselfish, but the
expectation of a payoff in the immediate future is too obvious. Like the
generally inattentive wife who suddenly begins to act "hot" while at the same
time telling her husband that she would want to drag him in the bedroom and do
all kinds of things that interest men in general *if* he will only do this one
little thing that she needs done. In advance cases, the expectation of sexual
favors is all the poor guy is going to get, because once his part is done and
delivered, he has no recourse to collect.
Because the giver of such gifts knows that freely
>giving
>is its own reward, he or she doesn't hang the gift over the receiver's head
>--
>or heart. This is the problem I have with the Biblical God; if you wish the
>gift of Heaven.
I didn't know that God expected anything in particular other than
gratitude. As for being obligated, even the soup kitchen expects a man to drag
his butt down there if he wants a free meal. Some response is necessary.
From what I have seen of many of the religious gift givers,
>I
>neither desire nor wish to reside in Heaven or any other place with them. G
>>
Yes, you, Huck Finn, and I. If I had to live up to the expectations of the
most vocally-expressed Christian I know, I would be ten times more fit for hell
than if I were a pagan.
(To all the orthodox Christians here who think that I am pretty much
already a pagan, if you can find a better descriptive term other than
"cultist," "heretic," or "apostate," I'm open to suggestion.)
Raleigh
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>
>My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture",
>in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
>
>This is why I have no authority on my own, I can't "make"
>a point simply by claiming something out of thin air.
>What I say is God's truth only insofar as it agrees with
>what God has revealed to us in the Bible (which is why
>I constantly support my teachings with Biblical citations).
Where does your claim that "God has told you" that the Bible is true and
inspired fit into this requirement that you support all your sayings with
scripture?
Polygamists support their beliefs with scripture, as do Arians, and just
about everyone else. The difference is merely in which scriptures they choose
to emphasize and which they ignore.
The Trinitarians who claim that there are three persons in the "Godhead"
claim that there is one called "Father" (being the father of Jesus, "Son"
(Jesus), and "Holy Spirit."
To do so, they have to ignore the inspired, God-breathed writings of the
Disciple St. Matthew, who wrote: "This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His
mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to live together, she
was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
Matt 1:18 Jerusalem Bible
Some Trinitarians ridicule Arianists when pointing out that "the bible
says" Thomas spoke "My Lord and my GOD" to Jesus. They are as dismissive of the
verse I quoted above in relation to the Trinity as Witnesses of Jehovah are of
John 20:28. If it doesn't fit the prescribed pattern, it is swept under the
rug.
I point out with no sarcasm that if the Holy Spirit and Mary produced Jesus,
then of whom is the "Father" the father of?
Far from having your "dipswitches" set by the Bible, Jeff, I suspect that
(no blame or praise here) you are no different from the rest of us. Your
dipswitches are set by your family of origin, your upbringing, your church
experiences, your private reading (as interpreted by you), and these settings
are hardwired. Whenever a Biblical contradiction to your CMOS setting pops up,
the phrase "Illegal operation--file not found--program will be shut down" and
that is the end of it.
Raleigh
grouch
>Message-id: <5Z0ma.339$b67.1...@read2.cgocable.net>
>
>"grouch" <grou...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030412184847...@mb-fi.aol.com...
>
>> >What I say is God's truth only insofar as it agrees with
>> >what God has revealed to us in the Bible (which is why
>> >I constantly support my teachings with Biblical citations).
>>
>> As do all other Christians that disagree with you and each other.
>
>Wrong.
>
>There are many other "Christians" who do not believe the
>above, but instead bring their own claimed "revelation",
>such as Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-day
>Adventists, Roman Catholics, etc. etc.
I believe that was my point. Taking religion as a group, there is not
universal standard, only groups applying their specific interpretation of the
Bible. If this were not true, there would be one religion, . . . God's.
>
>Besides, the fact that Christians "disagree with each other",
>you keep bringin this up OVER AND OVER as if it were
>some "new" observation, or whether it meant anything. The
>fact that so-called "Christians" *do* disagree with each other
>is the reason we have the Bible (Acts 17:11, 2 Tim. 3:16),
>so we can check our disagreements against Scriptural truth.
Why do not the many Christian faiths accept these scriptures, if they agreed
with each other, they would.? Nice try though.
>
>You seem to be over the wrong opinion and the unreasonable
>standard that if there is any kind of disagreement, then we cannot
>possibly know what the truth is.
See, Jeff, there you go, "MY wrong opinion and unreasonable standard", never
"YOUR
wrong opinion and unreasonable standard". This is one reason I am not a
Christian.
>If that were true, then we could know "know" the Earth was
>spherical, because of the existence of the Flat Earth Society.
Faith and logic, Jeff, faith and logic; not just heresay and faith.
>
>We could know "know" that we have landed on the moon, because
>of the conspiracy theorists who believe (and teach) that it was
>all a hoax.
Faith and logic, Jeff, faith and logic; not just heresay and faith.
>
>All it would take would be *one* person to teach "2 + 2 = 5"
>and we (according to *you*) could not claim to "know" that
>"2 + 2 = 4". because "people disagree with each other".
Faith and logic, Jeff, faith and logic; not just heresay and faith.
>
>You hold an unreasonable standard, grouch.
And, of course, we all know you do not! You neve stop singing your own
praises, do you Jeff?
>
>> At least agnostic are in agreement,
>
><Chuckle>
>You really think all agnostics are in universal and identical agreement?
We don't have over 2,000 + separate faith similar to religion. Compared to
Christians, we are in agreement, the agreement being we do not know whether God
lives or not.
>You go on believing that, grouch... <g>
Thanks for the permission to do so.
>
>> The Bible, in my opinion, is nothing more than heresay. G
>
>That's okay.
>God's truth isn't dependent on your "opinion" <g>
Nor on yours, thank God, (the real one). G
grouch
>From: grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345)
>Message-id: <20030412193418...@mb-ci.news.cs.com>
Good respone, Raleigh, makes sense. G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
grouch
>Message-id: <v9h78t9...@corp.supernews.com>
Self deception accompaines all other forms of deception. W cannot lie or try
to deceive another person with somehow deceiving ourselves. Shakespear's
wisdom stands the test of time: "This above all; To thine own self be true, And
it must fullow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."
Only as our own best caretaker can we be the kind of caregiver the Savior
describes: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." If Jeff, the Christian,
if following Christ's teachings, then he must hate himself. G
grouch
>From: grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345)
>Message-id: <20030412192206...@mb-ci.news.cs.com>
Thanks Raleigh, well said. I enjoy your posts and read them all. You appear
to be a person that works with logic and faith in living your life. And I
agree with you that, "some response is necessary". Thanks for pointing that
out. G
grouch
>Message-id: <v9h5b5c...@corp.supernews.com>
The man you speak of was a con artist. In his heyday Jimmy Swaggart was
making close to US$140 million a year. The money, which was meant for their
ministry, went to maintain their extravagant lifestyles. Swaggart bought
himself a US$ 1.5 million mansion. In his show of fatherly affection, he bought
another mansion, worth US$700,000 for his son, Donnie. G
Iconoclast
The Bible, whether Jewish or Christian hearsay (or heresy), is a superb
variety of texts to use for religious discussion, as is Shakespeare. Quality
of discussion depends on with what mood and capacity those at the table
come. Credulous literalists are as poorly equipped to discuss the one as the
other. - Pigmy
Iconoclast
After all, we know positively what Mr. Swaggart is. We only know of Jeff
True, but Jeff has posted himself "chief of sinners," so any denial he's at
least in Swaggert's league implies Jeff is a liar. - Pigmy
GRaleigh345
(grouch) writes:
>Good respone, Raleigh, makes sense. G
We humans are all alike. My operating system is strictly Microsoft.
grouch
>Message-id: <v9hgha...@corp.supernews.com>
Works for me. G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lee Paulson
news:fQhla.8$b67....@read2.cgocable.net...
> "GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>
> > The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent snip
>
> I've never see anything about Yahweh "murdering" people.
> In order to substantiate such a charge, you would have
> to demonstrate that God unlawfully killed innocent people.
OH! Gosh! Only guilty people can be murdered! Now I get it.
snip
>
> You are *never* going to convince me of your preconceived
> views simply by repeating them over and over, especially since
> God has told me that the Bible *is* complete. Further, if
> *YOU* have to "appeal to human morals" to understand why
> polygamy is wrong, that's *YOUR* problem. As for me,
> the *BIBLE* teaches that polygamy is an abomination to
> God, and so no amount of gainsaying on your part is going
> to change that.
>
A little emotionalism, Jeff?
> > And that is the crux of the matter here. You have presented
> > to me a "Biblical God" who is in fact one of the personnae of
> > Satan, who quite often resorts to quoting scripture to prove
> > his point, even when it is obviously wrong.
>
> <sigh> More emotionally-loaded rhetoric.
>
> *Jesus* "resorted to quoting scripture".
> Are you claiming He's a personna of Satan?
>
> *Paul* "resorted to quoting scripture".
> Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
>
> *Matthew* "resorted to quoting scripture".
> Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
>
> *John* "resorted to quoting scripture".
> Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
>
> *Simon* *Peter* "resorted to quoting scripture".
> Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
>
Persona, Jeff.
--
Regards,
Lee, The James, uM & GW
Lee Paulson
> >Message-id: <fQhla.8$b67....@read2.cgocable.net>
> >
> >"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
> >news:20030410093601...@mb-fw.news.cs.com...
> >
> >> self-contradictory. However, thorough study of it will show that
> >> to avoid contradiction, we must suppose that the earlier authors
> >> knew much less about the subject than the later ones. This plays
> >> into the hands of evil men, because Pope Sixtus can say that in
> >> his enlightened age, he knows a hell of a lot more about salvation
> >> than St. Paul. However, to say that there was no evolution in
> >> thought from page one to page 1237, we are back to the internal
> >> contradictions.
> >
> >I disagree with your rhetoric and emotionalism.
> >I believe the Bible to be the word of God.
> >You obviously do not.
> >Simply announcing your utter contempt for it and
> >rationalizations for not believing it isn't going
> >to change my view.
> >
> >We obviously come from drastically different methodologies
> >to come up with our respective concepts of God's truth.
> >I turn to the Bible, God's revealed word to mankind, and
> >you apparently rely on emotionalism and humanism.
>
> Just thought I would insert some of God's truth to help you out Jeff. It
shows
> God's love for humanity.
>
> Numbers 15:32
> 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a
man
> that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
>
> Numbers 15:33
> 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and
Aaron,
> and unto all the congregation.
>
> Numbers 15:34
> 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be
done
> to him.
>
> Numbers 15:35
> 35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death:
all the
> congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
>
> Numbers 15:36
> 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him
with
> stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
>
> G
>
Well, Mr. Grouch, it was okay, because the guy was guilty. It's all right
for God to murder guilty people.
Lee Paulson
>
> > >> Bless them ancient cold hearted Christians, they had guts,
> > >
> > >And I suppose we should get our cue of "love" from *you*,
> > >and your:
> > >
> > >- contempt;
> > >- disrespect;
> > >- insults;
> > >- ridicule;
> > >- hatred;
> > >- judgmental attitude;
> > >
> > >???
> >
> > are the example of Christianity? G
>
> that I am the chief of sinners, and I stand beside Paul
> to that effect, to my humility and shame.
>
How humble, equating himself with Paul.
grouch
>From: "Lee Paulson" lrpa...@earthlink.net
>Date: 4/14/2003 5:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b7easu$ue7$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
Not to mentiion all those guilty little babies God has a hankering to kill now
and then. G
grouch
>Message-id: <b7eb76$173j$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
Lucky Mr. Humble wasn't killed as baby like some of the other guilty babies
killed by God. G
Jeff Shirton
> >Not at all.
> >Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
>
> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called
an adulteress:
According to the Bible, "polygamy" = "adultery".
> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must
> arbitrarily declare it to be adultery.
Nothing "arbitrary" about it.
Rom. 7:3.
> Raleigh
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
GRaleigh345
j_sh...@yahoo.com (Jeff Shirton) writes:
>grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
>news:<20030410093601...@mb-fw.news.cs.com>...
>
>> >Not at all.
>> >Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
>>
>> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
>
>Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
> married to another man, she shall be called
> an adulteress:
>
>According to the Bible, "polygamy" = "adultery".
There are several kinds of polygamy, Jeff. (Remember, I am an
antipolygamist, but I have to say this, simply because you are wrong).
Polyandry is the practice of a woman having more than one husband. Polygyny is
the practice of a man having more than one wife. Polygyny is *not* condemned in
the Bible. I have noted that a bishop cannot be a polygynist, but that is not a
condemnation of the practice.
Strict adherence to what the Bible says, means that I will be an adulterer
by the end of the summer, because I am going to be remarried. You notice that
the Mosaic Law permits divorce and remarriage, so the Bible is at war with
itself, if everything in the Bible is "God-breathed." The Mosaic Law only
prohibited a woman from remarrying her first husband after being divorced from
her second. I assume this was to prevent wife-swapping, who knows?
>
>> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must
>> arbitrarily declare it to be adultery.
>
>Nothing "arbitrary" about it.
>Rom. 7:3.
>
Quite arbitrary, actually. That is the hallmark of cultism, Jeff, to take a
single verse of the Bible and build a doctrine around it while ignoring
whatever else the Bible says about it.
You are convinced, unlike me, that the Bible is sufficient for doctrine,
and you, like me are convinced that polygamy is wrong. Thus, you must twist the
Bible into a blanket condemnation of it--otherwise the Bible is an insufficient
guide.
Genesis 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's
wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and
it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he
spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his
brother.
Genesis 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD:
wherefore he slew him also.
Onan married his brother's wife (and this was necessary under Mosaic Law
as well, whether the groom was already married or not). God killed Onan, not
for being married to Tamar, but instead killed him for practicing birth
control. The whole idea of him marrying Tamar was to get the lady pregnant, and
Onan was enjoying polygamous sex without paying the freight.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them
die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry
without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto
her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an
husband's brother unto her.
(No exception provided her for the already married brother-in-law.)
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away
doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the
man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Matthew 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive
this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born
from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were
made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it.
Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her,
and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because
he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a
bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of
his house.
Deuteronomy 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she
may go and be another man's wife.
Deuteronomy 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write
her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth
her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took
her to be his wife;
Deuteronomy 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may
not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for
that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the
land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an
inheritance.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them
die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry
without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto
her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an
husband's brother unto her.
Deuteronomy 25:6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she
beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead,
that his name be not put out of Israel.
No provision here to exempt the married brother from committing adultery
by marrying his brother's widow to obey this law.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.
With fair consideration of all these verses, the Bible becomes not a
book that can be understood by the plowman in the field (as Tyndale claimed),
but a law book that requires Popes and doctors of the law to make sense of.
The only escape from the legalism of this is to suppose one of two
things:
1) the same laws do not apply to everybody, as suggested by Matthew 19. (This
interpretation would suit the LDS and the daughter denominations of practicing
polygamists (rather than speculative polygamists as in the LDS church itself).
or
2) The Hebrew Bible was already corrupted in Jesus day by scribes trying to
rewrite the Mosaic Law and expand upon it to fit the perceived needs of a royal
kingdom instead of a bunch of wandering nomads, and Jesus was trying rather
gently to lead the people along into gradual understanding of this. (This
interpretation would fit the Community of Christ with its rejection of Biblical
absolutes in favor of doing further, but uncanonized, rewrites of Biblical
instruction to suit the needs of a decaying republic.)
Jeff the Bible is a very complicated compilation of materials with varying
degree of accuracy, and varying degree of inspiration. To simply toss out a
verse, as a Muslim might with the Koran, to prove all in all simply does not
work.
Tossing out Romans 7:3 to "prove" your point is rather childlike, Jeff,
especially since John 3:16 says that God loved the world so much that he gave
his only Son to die for it, contrary to your claim that God loves the world,
but hates 90% of the people who live in it.
Raleigh
"Cogito ergo scum." (The heretic's motto.)
GRaleigh345
>grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
>news:<20030410093601...@mb-fw.news.cs.com>...
>
>> >Not at all.
>> >Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
>>
>> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
>
>Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
> married to another man, she shall be called
> an adulteress:
>
>According to the Bible, "polygamy" = "adultery".
There are several kinds of polygamy, Jeff. (Remember, I am an
antipolygamist, but I have to say this, simply because you are wrong).
Polyandry is the practice of a woman having more than one husband. Polygyny is
the practice of a man having more than one wife. Polygyny is *not* condemned in
the Bible. I have noted that a bishop cannot be a polygynist, but that is not a
condemnation of the practice.
Strict adherence to what the Bible says, means that I will be an adulterer
by the end of the summer, because I am going to be remarried. You notice that
the Mosaic Law permits divorce and remarriage, so the Bible is at war with
itself, if everything in the Bible is "God-breathed." The Mosaic Law only
prohibited a woman from remarrying her first husband after being divorced from
her second. I assume this was to prevent wife-swapping, who knows?
>
>> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must
>> arbitrarily declare it to be adultery.
>
>Nothing "arbitrary" about it.
>Rom. 7:3.
>
Quite arbitrary, actually. That is the hallmark of cultism, Jeff, to take a
Jeff Shirton
> >My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture",
> >in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
> Polygamists support their beliefs with scripture,
They say they do.
But nowhere does the Bible say that polygamy is a command
of God. Quite the contrary, in fact (Rom. 7:3, etc.)
> as do Arians,
Jehovah's Witnesses, a good example of Arians, are quite
good at ignoring the Scriptures which teach the deity of
Christ. They do this in two ways:
1) attacking the translation when it teaches the deity of
Christ, even so much as to "rewrite" (without manuscript
support) the Bible to remove this belief (cf. John 1:1,
Col. 1:16-18, etc.)
2) trying to deny Scripture with unsound "logic", by claiming
that since Christ is "Son of God" (which Trinitarians agree),
He cannot also be "God" (I note in passing that we are all
both "man" and "Son of man", no contradiction).
> and just about everyone else. The difference is merely in
> which scriptures they choose to emphasize and which they ignore.
Right.
And Trinitarians emphasize *all* Scripture, and ignore *no* Scripture.
This is clearly seen in that Trinitarians are right in the middle between
Unitarians (who ignore the distinction between the persons of the
Godhead) and Mormons (who ignore the monotheism taught in the
Bible). Each side ignores the other side's Scriptures, while Trinitarians
accept both.
> The Trinitarians who claim that there are three persons in
> the "Godhead" claim that there is one called "Father" (being
> the father of Jesus, "Son" (Jesus), and "Holy Spirit."
That is what the Bible teaches.
> To do so, they have to ignore the inspired, God-breathed
> writings of the Disciple St. Matthew,
That's simply not true.
I see that you wish to turn this into an attack on the Trinity.
That's perfectly okay, I have no problem defending the
faith against those such as yourself (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15)
> who wrote: "This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His
> mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they
> came to live together, she was found to be with child
> through the Holy Spirit." Matt 1:18 Jerusalem Bible
I don't know *ANY* Trinitarian who "ignores", or otherwise
disbelieves Matt. 1:18. Not even Arians such as JW's
bring it up as a "proof-text" against the Trinity, for they
recognize that the verse doesn't trouble the Trinity in any way.
> Some Trinitarians ridicule Arianists when pointing
> out that "the bible says" Thomas spoke "My Lord and my GOD"
> to Jesus.
"Ridicule"?! Aren't you being a little bit melodramatic here?
I've never seen John 20:28 used to "ridicule" Arians.
> They are as dismissive of the verse I quoted above in relation
> to the Trinity as Witnesses of Jehovah are of John 20:28.
If that is actually the case that they are "dismissive" (because
I have never seen it personally), then all that means is that the
Trinitarians you were discussing it with were "bamboozled"
by your double-talk, and didn't realize that the verse poses
exactly no problems for Trinitarians.
> I point out with no sarcasm that if the Holy Spirit and
> Mary produced Jesus, then of whom is the "Father" the father of?
The Father is the Father of Jesus.
The Father impregnated Mary through the Holy Spirit.
You are trying to artificially create a false dichotomy here.
It's not that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary "in contrast
to the Father", but *BECAUSE* of the Father.
> Far from having your "dipswitches" set by the Bible, Jeff,
> I suspect that (no blame or praise here) you are no different
> from the rest of us.
You can "suspect" all you want, you are simply wrong,
and you are simply trying to invent reasons for my beliefs
weak enough that you can reject them in your mind.
> Whenever a Biblical contradiction to your CMOS setting
> pops up, the phrase "Illegal operation--file not found--program
> will be shut down" and that is the end of it.
There *are* no "Biblical contradictions".
Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred posts (do a Google
search of "contradiction" and "Shirton" if you want), and
addressed many, many, many alleged "contradictions". It's
a very sad state of affairs, most Bible bashers who claim
"contradictions" prefer quantity over quality, and no matter
how many *ridiculous* claims they came up with and I
demolished, they would continue with others, and others,
and others, ignoring the fact that their "standards" were
rock-bottom. Even worse, most of their "lists" of alleged
"contradictions" come from volumes of texts were these
alleged problems are in fact *explained*, yet they always
seem to ignore those parts, and hope their opponents aren't
familiar with them.
I have a standard as far as "contradictions" goes. Because
such Bible-bashers (such as yourself, apparently) don't
care about the meagre quality of their claims, and depend
instead on quality, I always say, "give me your best shot".
Give me just *ONE* contradiction, the one you think
is the biggest, the best, the hardest to "explain", and if I
can explain that one, then none of the rest in your bag are
any better. If you'd like to give it a shot, Raleigh, I'm certainly
game. (And it will be humourous if I can address it simply
by citing a past post I've made to the newsgroups.)
> Raleigh
--
Bunge
No, it would be as boring as a Jehovah's Witness arguing against any use of
blood transfusion. - Pigmy
GRaleigh345
<pill...@cableone.com> writes:
Ah yes, "cogito ergo scum"
Because I think, I'm a heretic.
Raleigh
"In short, we do not recommend suicide as a way of life."
--Alfred Hitchcock, 1965
GRaleigh345
<jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030412193418...@mb-ci.news.cs.com...
>
>> >My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture",
>> >in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
>
>> Polygamists support their beliefs with scripture,
>
>They say they do.
>But nowhere does the Bible say that polygamy is a command
>of God. Quite the contrary, in fact (Rom. 7:3, etc.)
There are a lot of etc's in the Bible. Many of them present polygamy as
being of no consequence to Jehovah, or tacitly being permitted by him. The
Bible has examples of a few polygamists, such as Gideon, who were called to
serve him, despite the fact that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy as an
abomination. This is one of the factors that indicates the BoM as
unhistorical--the Old Testament Jehovah called polygamists to serve him, but
never sodomites--the Old Testament calls sodomy the same kind of abomination
that the BoM calls polygamy.
>
>> as do Arians,
>
>Jehovah's Witnesses, a good example of Arians, are quite
>good at ignoring the Scriptures which teach the deity of
>Christ. They do this in two ways:
>
>1) attacking the translation when it teaches the deity of
> Christ, even so much as to "rewrite" (without manuscript
> support) the Bible to remove this belief (cf. John 1:1,
> Col. 1:16-18, etc.)
The Supreme Court publishes a minority opinion. Even the losers have
their say. The Witnesses of Jehovah prefer minority translations of passages
such as John 1:1; however I may accept these minority translations as
acceptable, in the main, the Bible still disagrees with Watchtower doctrine.
>
>2) trying to deny Scripture with unsound "logic", by claiming
> that since Christ is "Son of God" (which Trinitarians agree),
> He cannot also be "God" (I note in passing that we are all
> both "man" and "Son of man", no contradiction).
Never heard that one, but it is as specious as claiming one owes no taxes
because the constitution does not authorize the printing of paper money ('coin
money'), thus one has no income.
>
>> and just about everyone else. The difference is merely in
>> which scriptures they choose to emphasize and which they ignore.
>
>Right.
>And Trinitarians emphasize *all* Scripture, and ignore *no* Scripture.
Actually, Trinitarians ignore scripture that offends them. Unlike the
Watchtower, however, they are not embarrassed at this ignorance, and do not try
to retranslate the passage they ignore. It is Matthew 1:18. Mary was found to
be with child "of the Holy Ghost." If the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary, then
he/it (pick one) is the father of Jesus Christ. That leaves us to wonder just
who the Father is the father of.
>This is clearly seen in that Trinitarians are right in the middle between
>Unitarians (who ignore the distinction between the persons of the
>Godhead) and Mormons (who ignore the monotheism taught in the
>Bible). Each side ignores the other side's Scriptures, while Trinitarians
>accept both.
Nope. As you see from the example above, Trinitarians accept Matthew 1:18
as scripture, they just omit consideration of it when discussing the "Godhead."
In fact, the term "Godhead" had to be manufactured to explain the apparent
polytheism of the Trinity in a sect claiming to be monotheistic.
>
>> The Trinitarians who claim that there are three persons in
>> the "Godhead" claim that there is one called "Father" (being
>> the father of Jesus, "Son" (Jesus), and "Holy Spirit."
>
>That is what the Bible teaches.
>
>> To do so, they have to ignore the inspired, God-breathed
>> writings of the Disciple St. Matthew,
>
>That's simply not true.
>
>I see that you wish to turn this into an attack on the Trinity.
>That's perfectly okay, I have no problem defending the
>faith against those such as yourself (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15)
You have no problem accepting the fact that you must jump into the
crusade. However, you definitely have a problem mounting an effective defense,
due to Matthew 1:18, if nothing else.
>> who wrote: "This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His
>> mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they
>> came to live together, she was found to be with child
>> through the Holy Spirit." Matt 1:18 Jerusalem Bible
>
>I don't know *ANY* Trinitarian who "ignores", or otherwise
>disbelieves Matt. 1:18. Not even Arians such as JW's
>bring it up as a "proof-text" against the Trinity, for they
>recognize that the verse doesn't trouble the Trinity in any way.
No. Most arians today are recruits from Trintarian denominations, thus
they fail to realize the implications of Matthew 1:18. It is called not
thinking for ones self.
>
>> Some Trinitarians ridicule Arianists when pointing
>> out that "the bible says" Thomas spoke "My Lord and my GOD"
>> to Jesus.
>
>"Ridicule"?! Aren't you being a little bit melodramatic here?
>I've never seen John 20:28 used to "ridicule" Arians.
Yes, it has been used, at least the NWT version of the passage. Thomas
falls down before Jesus, saying, "My Lord" and then is expected to have turned
his eyes up to heaven where the throne God the Holy Spirit/Father is and
exclaimed "My God!" The arians offer no explanation for Thomas taking liberties
with taking the divine name in vain. The net effect of the passage in modern
dynamics would be "Oh Shit! It's Jesus!"
>> They are as dismissive of the verse I quoted above in relation
>> to the Trinity as Witnesses of Jehovah are of John 20:28.
>
>If that is actually the case that they are "dismissive" (because
>I have never seen it personally), then all that means is that the
>Trinitarians you were discussing it with were "bamboozled"
>by your double-talk, and didn't realize that the verse poses
>exactly no problems for Trinitarians.
Actually, since Trinitarians learn the trinity from the doctrinal
materials of their church and their Sunday School teacher, very seldom have
they ever read the Bible itself with much comprehension. I can't get polygamy
out of the Book of Mormon, either, but LDS who have spent any time in LDS
educational institutions are convinced it's in there.
>
>> I point out with no sarcasm that if the Holy Spirit and
>> Mary produced Jesus, then of whom is the "Father" the father of?
>
>The Father is the Father of Jesus.
>The Father impregnated Mary through the Holy Spirit.
You mean, the Father is the father of Jesus by proxy, having dispatched
someone else to get the job done, whether spiritually or in the carnal sense.
>
>You are trying to artificially create a false dichotomy here.
>It's not that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary "in contrast
>to the Father", but *BECAUSE* of the Father.
There is no false dichotomy at all. If the Spirit is a person separate
from the Father, it doesn't matter if the Spirit impregnated Mary on his own,
or if the Father (specious title, that) commanded him to do it--either way, the
idea that the "Father" actually is the father is as nonsensical to me as the
Adam God doctrine.
>> Far from having your "dipswitches" set by the Bible, Jeff,
>> I suspect that (no blame or praise here) you are no different
>> from the rest of us.
>
>You can "suspect" all you want, you are simply wrong,
>and you are simply trying to invent reasons for my beliefs
>weak enough that you can reject them in your mind.
No, Jeff. You, of course, may believe as you please. But religious
beliefs, if based upon actual fact drawn from scripture, could be fine-tuned,
and could be changed, even if slightly, were they actually based upon
scripture. Since such beliefs are not changeable in the slightest, it appears
that they are more based upon prejudices inculcated by extrabiblical teachings
rather than from study of the bible itself. That would include my own beliefs
as well. I didn't bring this up to suggest you were brainwashed.
>
>> Whenever a Biblical contradiction to your CMOS setting
>> pops up, the phrase "Illegal operation--file not found--program
>> will be shut down" and that is the end of it.
>
>There *are* no "Biblical contradictions".
>
>Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred posts (do a Google
>search of "contradiction" and "Shirton" if you want), and
>addressed many, many, many alleged "contradictions". It's
>a very sad state of affairs, most Bible bashers who claim
>"contradictions" prefer quantity over quality, and no matter
>how many *ridiculous* claims they came up with and I
>demolished, they would continue with others, and others,
>and others, ignoring the fact that their "standards" were
>rock-bottom. Even worse, most of their "lists" of alleged
>"contradictions" come from volumes of texts were these
>alleged problems are in fact *explained*, yet they always
>seem to ignore those parts, and hope their opponents aren't
>familiar with them.
The Bible is shot through and through with contradictions, beginning with
Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Genesis 1 says that God made mankind on the sixth
day, and that he made the plants on the third day. Genesis 2 says that Jehovah
God made man before making the plants, which would place this creation
somewhere on the third day, if it is to be fitted into the Chapter 1 framework.
This is where the "spiritual creation" doctrine came about in the Inspired
Version--to explain away this contradiction. In fact, my grandfather, who was
never Mormon, explained it the same way--just because God made the plants on
the third day didn't mean that he had stuck them in the ground, yet. He could
have made them anywhere.
>I have a standard as far as "contradictions" goes. Because
>such Bible-bashers (such as yourself, apparently) don't
>care about the meagre quality of their claims, and depend
>instead on quality, I always say, "give me your best shot".
>Give me just *ONE* contradiction, the one you think
>is the biggest, the best, the hardest to "explain", and if I
>can explain that one, then none of the rest in your bag are
>any better. If you'd like to give it a shot, Raleigh, I'm certainly
>game. (And it will be humourous if I can address it simply
>by citing a past post I've made to the newsgroups.)
I just did. But I'm always good for a laugh. This newsgroup is too uptight,
lately, with all the leftist propaganda that has been crossposted by very cross
people. I have a friend from Junior High who regularly sends me a good anecdote
now and then.
Here is the quote, Jeff.
NRSV Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let
the earth put forth vegetation: plants
yielding seed, and fruit trees of every
kind on earth that bear fruit with the
seed in it." And it was so.
NRSV Genesis 1:12 The earth brought
forth vegetation: plants yielding seed
of every kind, and trees of every kind
bearing fruit with the seed in it. And
God saw that it was good.
NRSV Genesis 1:13 And there was evening
and there was morning, ***the third day.***
NRSV Genesis 1:27 So God created
humankind in his image, in the image of
God he created them; male and female he
created them.
NRSV Genesis 1:28 God blessed them, and
God said to them, "Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth and subdue
it; and have dominion over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the air
and over every living thing that moves
upon the earth."
NRSV Genesis 1:29 God said, "See, I have
given you every plant yielding seed that
is upon the face of all the earth, and
every tree with seed in its fruit; you
shall have them for food.
NRSV Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of
the earth, and to every bird of the air,
and to everything that creeps on the
earth, everything that has the breath of
life, I have given every green plant for
food." And it was so.
NRSV Genesis 1:31 God saw everything
that he had made, and indeed, it was
very good. And there was evening and
there was morning, the ***sixth day.***
The relevant passage from Genesis 2 is
NRSV Genesis 2:4 These are the
generations of the heavens and the earth
when they were created.
In the day that the LORD God
made the earth and the heavens,
NRSV Genesis 2:5 when no plant of the
field was yet in the earth and no herb
of the field had yet sprung up--for the
LORD God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth, and there was no one to till
the ground;
NRSV Genesis 2:6 but a stream would rise
from the earth, and water the whole face
of the ground--
NRSV Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God
formed man from the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and the man became a
living being.
The reason why the average reader overlooks this contradiction is:
1.Seldom does anyone read the bible straight through
2. A large number of people still use older translations such as the KJV, the
language of which effectively obscures the meaning of Genesis 2:4-7 by running
2:4a directly into the beginning of the paragraph starting at 2:4b
3. The parenthetical insertion between the dashes in verse 2:5-6 interrupts
the train of thought and successfully obscures the pertinent chronology
factors, because it stops to explain why there were no plants in the earth yet,
and distracts from the stated time of "in the day." In fact, it is the sort of
"intratextual commentary" of which the Book of Mormon overflows.
Matthew 1:18 is not a contradictory passage in the Bible, for it
contradicts only Trinitarian doctrine, not other scriptures.
To claim there are no contradictions in the Bible is to rely upon specious
brain storming to explain away the contradictions, making God look like an
idiot who requires an ambulance-chasing lawyer to explain His imperfections.
You refer to me as a "bible-basher" when in fact I am not. I merely point out
that the lack of inspired revelation in the modern period forces those who do
not have such revelations to substitute the Bible for God, and then they must
defend the Bible as perfect, when such a defense is unnecessary for those
focused on the perfection of God.
You will also note that the NRSV reverts to the
Septuagint/Vulgate/Peshitta reading of Genesis 2:6, saying that the entire
earth was irrigated by a single stream of water in place of rain.
Fundamentalist preachers like to follow the Massoretic text and state that the
"mist" of 2:6 is "dew," and claim a sort of very humid prehistoric environment
that could conceiveably provide global humidification. The NRSV reverts back to
the original idea of the myth, which considers the earth to be a flat space not
too much more than about 500 miles in diameter, small enough to be irrigated by
what the Peshitta describes as "a powerful spring.".
GRaleigh345
Ah yes, "cogito ergo scum"
Because I think, I'm a heretic.
Raleigh
GRaleigh345
<jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
>
>"GRaleigh345" <grale...@cs.comQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20030412193418...@mb-ci.news.cs.com...
>
>> >My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture",
>> >in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
>
>> Polygamists support their beliefs with scripture,
>
>They say they do.
>But nowhere does the Bible say that polygamy is a command
>of God. Quite the contrary, in fact (Rom. 7:3, etc.)
There are a lot of etc's in the Bible. Many of them present polygamy as
being of no consequence to Jehovah, or tacitly being permitted by him. The
Bible has examples of a few polygamists, such as Gideon, who were called to
serve him, despite the fact that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy as an
abomination. This is one of the factors that indicates the BoM as
unhistorical--the Old Testament Jehovah called polygamists to serve him, but
never sodomites--the Old Testament calls sodomy the same kind of abomination
that the BoM calls polygamy.
>
>> as do Arians,
>
>Jehovah's Witnesses, a good example of Arians, are quite
>good at ignoring the Scriptures which teach the deity of
>Christ. They do this in two ways:
>
>1) attacking the translation when it teaches the deity of
> Christ, even so much as to "rewrite" (without manuscript
> support) the Bible to remove this belief (cf. John 1:1,
> Col. 1:16-18, etc.)
The Supreme Court publishes a minority opinion. Even the losers have
their say. The Witnesses of Jehovah prefer minority translations of passages
such as John 1:1; however I may accept these minority translations as
acceptable, in the main, the Bible still disagrees with Watchtower doctrine.
>
>2) trying to deny Scripture with unsound "logic", by claiming
> that since Christ is "Son of God" (which Trinitarians agree),
> He cannot also be "God" (I note in passing that we are all
> both "man" and "Son of man", no contradiction).
Never heard that one, but it is as specious as claiming one owes no taxes
because the constitution does not authorize the printing of paper money ('coin
money'), thus one has no income.
>
>> and just about everyone else. The difference is merely in
>> which scriptures they choose to emphasize and which they ignore.
>
>Right.
>And Trinitarians emphasize *all* Scripture, and ignore *no* Scripture.
Actually, Trinitarians ignore scripture that offends them. Unlike the
Watchtower, however, they are not embarrassed at this ignorance, and do not try
to retranslate the passage they ignore. It is Matthew 1:18. Mary was found to
be with child "of the Holy Ghost." If the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary, then
he/it (pick one) is the father of Jesus Christ. That leaves us to wonder just
who the Father is the father of.
>This is clearly seen in that Trinitarians are right in the middle between
>Unitarians (who ignore the distinction between the persons of the
>Godhead) and Mormons (who ignore the monotheism taught in the
>Bible). Each side ignores the other side's Scriptures, while Trinitarians
>accept both.
Nope. As you see from the example above, Trinitarians accept Matthew 1:18
as scripture, they just omit consideration of it when discussing the "Godhead."
In fact, the term "Godhead" had to be manufactured to explain the apparent
polytheism of the Trinity in a sect claiming to be monotheistic.
>
>> The Trinitarians who claim that there are three persons in
>> the "Godhead" claim that there is one called "Father" (being
>> the father of Jesus, "Son" (Jesus), and "Holy Spirit."
>
>That is what the Bible teaches.
>
>> To do so, they have to ignore the inspired, God-breathed
>> writings of the Disciple St. Matthew,
>
>That's simply not true.
>
>I see that you wish to turn this into an attack on the Trinity.
>That's perfectly okay, I have no problem defending the
>faith against those such as yourself (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15)
You have no problem accepting the fact that you must jump into the
crusade. However, you definitely have a problem mounting an effective defense,
due to Matthew 1:18, if nothing else.
>> who wrote: "This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His
>> mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they
>> came to live together, she was found to be with child
>> through the Holy Spirit." Matt 1:18 Jerusalem Bible
>
>I don't know *ANY* Trinitarian who "ignores", or otherwise
>disbelieves Matt. 1:18. Not even Arians such as JW's
>bring it up as a "proof-text" against the Trinity, for they
>recognize that the verse doesn't trouble the Trinity in any way.
No. Most arians today are recruits from Trintarian denominations, thus
they fail to realize the implications of Matthew 1:18. It is called not
thinking for ones self.
>
>> Some Trinitarians ridicule Arianists when pointing
>> out that "the bible says" Thomas spoke "My Lord and my GOD"
>> to Jesus.
>
>"Ridicule"?! Aren't you being a little bit melodramatic here?
>I've never seen John 20:28 used to "ridicule" Arians.
Yes, it has been used, at least the NWT version of the passage. Thomas
falls down before Jesus, saying, "My Lord" and then is expected to have turned
his eyes up to heaven where the throne God the Holy Spirit/Father is and
exclaimed "My God!" The arians offer no explanation for Thomas taking liberties
with taking the divine name in vain. The net effect of the passage in modern
dynamics would be "Oh Shit! It's Jesus!"
>> They are as dismissive of the verse I quoted above in relation
>> to the Trinity as Witnesses of Jehovah are of John 20:28.
>
>If that is actually the case that they are "dismissive" (because
>I have never seen it personally), then all that means is that the
>Trinitarians you were discussing it with were "bamboozled"
>by your double-talk, and didn't realize that the verse poses
>exactly no problems for Trinitarians.
Actually, since Trinitarians learn the trinity from the doctrinal
materials of their church and their Sunday School teacher, very seldom have
they ever read the Bible itself with much comprehension. I can't get polygamy
out of the Book of Mormon, either, but LDS who have spent any time in LDS
educational institutions are convinced it's in there.
>
>> I point out with no sarcasm that if the Holy Spirit and
>> Mary produced Jesus, then of whom is the "Father" the father of?
>
>The Father is the Father of Jesus.
>The Father impregnated Mary through the Holy Spirit.
You mean, the Father is the father of Jesus by proxy, having dispatched
someone else to get the job done, whether spiritually or in the carnal sense.
>
>You are trying to artificially create a false dichotomy here.
>It's not that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary "in contrast
>to the Father", but *BECAUSE* of the Father.
There is no false dichotomy at all. If the Spirit is a person separate
from the Father, it doesn't matter if the Spirit impregnated Mary on his own,
or if the Father (specious title, that) commanded him to do it--either way, the
idea that the "Father" actually is the father is as nonsensical to me as the
Adam God doctrine.
>> Far from having your "dipswitches" set by the Bible, Jeff,
>> I suspect that (no blame or praise here) you are no different
>> from the rest of us.
>
>You can "suspect" all you want, you are simply wrong,
>and you are simply trying to invent reasons for my beliefs
>weak enough that you can reject them in your mind.
No, Jeff. You, of course, may believe as you please. But religious
beliefs, if based upon actual fact drawn from scripture, could be fine-tuned,
and could be changed, even if slightly, were they actually based upon
scripture. Since such beliefs are not changeable in the slightest, it appears
that they are more based upon prejudices inculcated by extrabiblical teachings
rather than from study of the bible itself. That would include my own beliefs
as well. I didn't bring this up to suggest you were brainwashed.
>
>> Whenever a Biblical contradiction to your CMOS setting
>> pops up, the phrase "Illegal operation--file not found--program
>> will be shut down" and that is the end of it.
>
>There *are* no "Biblical contradictions".
>
>Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred posts (do a Google
>search of "contradiction" and "Shirton" if you want), and
>addressed many, many, many alleged "contradictions". It's
>a very sad state of affairs, most Bible bashers who claim
>"contradictions" prefer quantity over quality, and no matter
>how many *ridiculous* claims they came up with and I
>demolished, they would continue with others, and others,
>and others, ignoring the fact that their "standards" were
>rock-bottom. Even worse, most of their "lists" of alleged
>"contradictions" come from volumes of texts were these
>alleged problems are in fact *explained*, yet they always
>seem to ignore those parts, and hope their opponents aren't
>familiar with them.
The Bible is shot through and through with contradictions, beginning with
Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Genesis 1 says that God made mankind on the sixth
day, and that he made the plants on the third day. Genesis 2 says that Jehovah
God made man before making the plants, which would place this creation
somewhere on the third day, if it is to be fitted into the Chapter 1 framework.
This is where the "spiritual creation" doctrine came about in the Inspired
Version--to explain away this contradiction. In fact, my grandfather, who was
never Mormon, explained it the same way--just because God made the plants on
the third day didn't mean that he had stuck them in the ground, yet. He could
have made them anywhere.
>I have a standard as far as "contradictions" goes. Because
>such Bible-bashers (such as yourself, apparently) don't
>care about the meagre quality of their claims, and depend
>instead on quality, I always say, "give me your best shot".
>Give me just *ONE* contradiction, the one you think
>is the biggest, the best, the hardest to "explain", and if I
>can explain that one, then none of the rest in your bag are
>any better. If you'd like to give it a shot, Raleigh, I'm certainly
>game. (And it will be humourous if I can address it simply
>by citing a past post I've made to the newsgroups.)
Raleigh
John Lemings
> In article <Dvkoa.2263$b67.6...@read2.cgocable.net>, "Jeff Shirton"
> <jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes:
>The Bible is shot through and through with contradictions, beginning
with
> Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Genesis 1 says that God made mankind on the sixth
> day, and that he made the plants on the third day. Genesis 2 says that Jehovah
> God made man before making the plants, which would place this creation
> somewhere on the third day, if it is to be fitted into the Chapter 1 framework.
> This is where the "spiritual creation" doctrine came about in the Inspired
> Version--to explain away this contradiction. In fact, my grandfather, who was
> never Mormon, explained it the same way--just because God made the plants on
> the third day didn't mean that he had stuck them in the ground, yet. He could
> have made them anywhere.
> I just did. But I'm always good for a laugh. This newsgroup is too uptight,
Raleigh, if you don't mind, I would like to throw in here a little
bit. Let me first state that some of your generalizations about
Evangelicals not reading the Bible all they way through are somewhat
unfounded. IMO, it's quite a paintbrush statement and is about as
accurate as me saying that Mormons don't ever read the Bible.
About the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:
While the allegation that there are two conflicting accounts of
creation has ramifications in a number of areas of interpretation,
often in the inerrancy discussion the focus is on the supposed
contradiction between Genesis 1:11-12 which records vegetation
appearing on the third day and Genesis 2:5 which seems to say there
was no vegetation until after Adam was created.
Two things are wrong about such a conclusion. First chapter 2 adds
details to the account of creation in chapter 1, not in contradiction
but in supplementation. For example, we are told that God created man
(generically speaking) male and female (Gen. 1:27), but this does not
mean that the first creature was a male-female combination. The
details of that creation of the male Adam and the female Eve are given
in Geneis 2:18-23. Likewise, Genesis 2:5 adds details about the
creation of vegetation on the third day.
Second, the words use in Genesis 2:5 refer to the kinds of plants that
require cultivation, not to all kinds of green plants.
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the
field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the
earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
(Genesis 2:5)
Plants that required such cultivation either did not appear until Adam
was created and could then cultivate them, or they appeared but did
not grow until Adam was created.
Commentator Leupold said this:
"Verse 4b takes us back into the time of the work of creation, more
particularly to the time before the work of the third day began, and
draws our attention to certain details, could hardly have been
inserted in chapter 1: The fact that certain forms of life, namely
the kinds that require the attentive care of man in greater meausure,
had not sprung up. . . When verdure covered the earth, the sprouting
of these types of vegatation was retarded, so that they might appear
after man was already in full possession of his domain and in a
position to give them their needed care. The fact that not the whole
of vegetation is meant appears from the distinctive terms employed,
neither of which had as yet appeared in the account. . . From all this
it appears sufficiently how absurd the claim is that in this account
(2:4ff) man is made first, then vegetation (H.C. Leupold, Exposition
of Genesis [Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1942] pp. 112-3).
A contradiction and therefore an error, from where I sit, only exists
for those who want it. A good exegesis of the passage shows that
there is no error.
gary0
>
> Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred
> posts (do a Google search of "contradiction"
> and "Shirton" if you want), and addressed
Did search, as recommended.
Google Advanced Groups Search. Used keys as follows:
Author: Jeff Shirton
Must contain the word: contradiction
Came up with 200+ hits.
Didn't recognize what you say you posted. There were a few that
addressed alleged "bible contradictions," but most were along the
line, "your assertion is a direct contradiction of [proof text]."
Would appreciate a more specific reference to your years-ago posts.
Thanks in advance,
gary0
Isaiah 7: Immanuel born circa 700 BCE
Matthew 1: Emmanuel born circa one CE
Jeff Needle
animals.
Why not just accept the possibility that the Documentary Hypothesis has
at least a grain of truth -- that Moses simply didn't write both
accounts, but that the final editor of Genesis didn't give a fig about
such things as inerrancy or consistency, but rather sought to preserve
two distinct scriptural traditions?
Biblical inerrancy just seems, to me, to be an unprovable hypothesis,
and thus of no value.
--
Jeff Needle
jeff....@general.com
GRaleigh345
(John Lemings) writes:
>A contradiction and therefore an error, from where I sit, only exists
>for those who want it. A good exegesis of the passage shows that
>there is no error.
>
Thank you for your exposition. It is very detailed. However, it is very
legalistic in some respects, hinging upon exactitude of the description of the
plants in a very primitive (or rather, simple) language with small vocabulary.
Even if I were to accept your explanation, I would still be left with a
problem, because Tyndale said that in English translation, the plowman in the
fields could understand the Word of God. I am pretty sure my IQ is at least
100, but as you can see, I could not "properly" understand the Word of God
without an explanation.
However, if you believe that the words "of the field" refer to distinctive
plants which require cultivation, you may do so. However, I note that the
"beasts of the field" refer to something that is a little different. If, as I
believe, "beasts of the field refers to wild animals," why are "plants of the
field" horticultural wonders?
I quote Genesis 2:5 from the New Jerusalem Bible.
"At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven there was as yet no wild
bush on the earth nor had any wild plant yet sprung up, for Yahweh God had not
sent rain on the earth, nor was there any man to till the soil. However, a
flood was rising from the earth and watering all the surface of the soil."
It appears that the translators of the NJB believe that the Biblical
narrative is simple and easy to understand, and have translated it so. Since we
are used to a language with a very rich vocabulary, that organizes and groups
concepts, it is easy to suppose that the mere mention in Hebrew of the fact
that primitive men were farmers in juxtaposition with the mention of plants
automatically means the plants were Luther Burbank specials.
I have nothing against evangelicals. It may be that, like the children of
Israel, the evangelicals have a "mixed multitude" following after them who are
not really evangelicals, but so close as to be misidentified from satellite
photos. The High Priest who baptized me into the now-defunct RLDS Church was a
closet evangelical, and preferred the NIV to the Joseph Smith Translation.
As you can see, my interpretation of the text of Genesis as offered up by
the KJV translators, and by modern Catholic scholarship (in the UK), is that
the contradiction remains. That is the origin of my statement: "Man comes to
believe in God because of the Bible, and after he has studied the Bible,
continues to believe in God in spite of the Bible."
Regards,
GRaleigh345
<jeff....@general.com> writes:
>
>Biblical inerrancy just seems, to me, to be an unprovable hypothesis,
>and thus of no value.
>
Hi Jeff, nice to hear from you on the newsgroup.
Jeff Needle
discussions.
--
Jeff Needle
jeff....@general.com