Boop Their Noses – They’re So Cute!
We Voted!
You Get to Donate Monthly
To Help End FReepathons
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each new monthly donor sign up!
FReeper RonC will contribute $25 for each new Dollar-A-Day Club member
Posted on 05/22/2012 5:45:32 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
All very good and excellent points. I find very few people have an understanding that the Old Testament is far more than just a bunch of entertaining stories. It is a window on how God deals with believers and non-believers throughout the ages. Nothing has changed.
Once more people edit my statements to look like they imply other than what they do, and then criticize the result. This was something I thought only liberals do.
I am saying not a word that is not in line with plenary infallible inspiration. However, God intended the point of view of the MEN (show me a WOMAN written scripture) who penned them to figure integrally in the meaning.
I could just as well say you are wrong in “nothing has changed” — in that God had a plan of dealing with men under various covenants which God intended to unfold over what men perceive as time.
Now certainly you will squeal that you were misunderstood and maybe you were — but I want to illustrate that fair’s fair.
Where do you find validation for THAT "insight?"
Sorry to unfix your fix, but God intended the point of view of the author to figure in the meaning. You can’t take a statement born in specific circumstance and turn it blanket like you would want to. You can justify Christian “jihads” that way if you do.
All you need to do is follow the creation account to see it happening at once. Where were the waters being separated from the waters? Way up in God’s heaven? No, it was down here on the earth.
Your would-be manner of interpretation falls to reductio ad absurdum.
There is no scriptural justification for inferences to editorialize scripture.
And no, it is not a justification for Christian jihad. In fact "Hath God Said?" has always been the beginning of twisting God's word.
You don't know that. Ever hear of a "cloud?"
As for my "would-be manner of interpretation," find just one scriptural instance an interpretation of Scripture being dependent on the "circumstances" of the writer.
You write:
It is OUR responsibility as Christians to tell them they need to repent and ask God's forgiveness. And if they do not repent, they continue to be enemies of God and the wrath of God rest on them.
Exactly.
Your post #12, however, makes no sense. You wrote (in response to the admonition "love the sinner hate the sin"):
Not when the sinner is deliberately opposed to God.
Huh? That makes no sense from a Christian perspective, and seems to me to contradict what you wrote in #80.
Now which is more loving 1) to keep quiet and say nothing to "the abortionists, the queers, the socialists, and the mohammedans" hoping that our prayers will do the trick; or 2) to tell them they are living in sin and they need to get right with God?
The answer is "both and", not "either or" ... If prayer is not followed by action, it may rightly be seen as cowardly ... if action is not accompanied by prayer it will not be Godly.
In no case, though, may we hate (that is, desire evil to befall) the abortionists etc.
My apology. I thought he was a Spongian or like that Jack Black commercial. I read the full article after my premature post.
Mohler’s commentary is as insightful as ever.
The 5,000+ comments, on the other hand, just go to show that the comment boxes on major news-site blogs have become pretty much nothing but accumulators of idiocy.
So, in your opinion, is Psalm 139 profitable for the Christian, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness? Or not?
2) God views the unrepentant sinner as wicked and "children of wrath". That is the view we should have.
3) God shows love and grace to those who despise Him. That is what we should do.
> “Yeah, not sure he [Darwin] was mad at God. Hard to be mad at anyone you don’t believe exists, I would think.” [ilovesarah2012]
> “Happens all the time. I guess you [ilovesarah2012] don’t know any atheists of that sort?” [thulldud]
And what’s your evidence that this happens all the time? I don’t believe it ever happens, and have difficulty understanding how it could happen. In fact there’s a wry atheist joke about why God allows so much suffering to exist in the world: “God’s only excuse is that he doesn’t exist.” (This line is often attributed to the French novelist Stendhal — in French “La seule excuse de Dieu, c’est qu’il n’existe pas” — but I can’t find it in his works.)
If you mean that some atheists are hostile toward persons who believe in God, that’s something else. Similarly people in this country can’t really be mad at the God that Al Qaeda members worship (their conception of “Allah”). We’re mad at them for what their delusions are leading them to do.
The unstated premise in this byplay is that the atheist knows good and well that God exists, but refuses to acknowledge that fact.
Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
In the vernacular, what this says is that every man knows God exists, because God has shown it to them in the world around them (the inference is so simple they are without excuse).
BUT, and this is a very big "but,' if they should refuse to acknowledge the obvious, he gives them up to believing (or more properly, being dedicated to) their own excuse.
And yes, that does mean "evolution" for the "modern" excuse.
Your point (1) contradicts itself. You seem confused as to the meaning of the word “love”,
Your point (3) contradicts your point (1).
Your point (1) contradicts itself. You seem confused as to the meaning of the word “love”,
Your point (3) contradicts your point (1).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.