'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

No, faith is a free gift, that is, it is unconditional

Sometimes I think we don't speak the same language, FK. In fact, I am certain we don't. You said "we owe all our faith to God." If something is a gift we owe nothing.

Your distinction between "having" something and being given something makes no sense to me

There is a tremendous difference and I spelled it our in much detail. I really think you missed the point.

No, there are no takebacks with faith

That was not the point either, FK. Givebacks and takebacks are two different things. I never suggested a 'takeback.'

ALL, 100% of the birds God sets free come back to Him. Birds are not more powerful than God either

What does more powerful have to to do with that? If you set something free the only power you are exercising is in freeing something, not controlling it. Sometimes I really don't know where you are coming from, FK.

Kosta: Your grace is independent of your will. It is not a gift.

FK: What does the will have to do with whether something is a gift? Grace is a gift and so is faith. Neither is of ourselves

Grace is a 'state' (like life and death); it's your current condition (like guilt or innosence). You can believe it or not believe it, it is your state regardless of what you think or believe. Your faith is something you can use or not use. You have no control over your state of grace. So grace is not yours. Life is not yours either; God will take it back when the time is up.

There is no leap to make. Paul clearly said that Christ was "speaking" through him...Gal 1:11-12

But of course he would say that, but the fact remains Christ never taught what +Paul preached about circumcision, the Law and the dietary laws, as well as taking the Church to the Gentiles, so whoever was speaking "through" him was not repeating what Christ taught before him.

This is a huge difference between us. Since we use other scripture to interpret, our reliance really IS on the scripture itself

And that would explain the overwhelming 'concordance' of interpretation between 33,000 and growing Protestants sects (and possibly explain the very existence of so many of them).

That sounds nice, but NO ONE can glorify God all the time with bad theology! :)

Theology? I though sola fide is all you need?!

So here is Origen who could get his hands on any number of vastly differing Greek translations of the OT, but he could only find one kind of Hebrew manuscript for the OT

About 150 years after Jamnia, what other forms of Judaism were still extant?

Jesus prayed and taught and read and wrote in Hebrew

Where odes it say that? And what exactly did Christ write?

And when he spoke to Paul from heaven, it was in Hebrew

Is there a verse to that effect?

But you still have to explain away the Hebrew copies of Tobit and Ecclesiasticus found at Qumran

What??? just because something was found at Qumran we're supposed to put it in the canon of scripture. A lot of things were found there, should we put the rules of the religious sect living there in the canon as well???

No, but you can accept the Church's judgement that these books are Scripture, rather than following the lead of Christ-denying rabbis, and peddling the absurd lie that the books were 'added' to the Scriptures by someone (usually the Council of Trent, though how that could be when we Orthodox regard them as Scripture, but regard Trent as an heretical conventicle is quite beyond rational comprehentions), rather than removed by the 'reformers'.

The point is that Qumran lays to rest the false claim that the LXX is somehow inferior to the Masorete, as it confirms that the LXX conforms to the pre-Christian Jewish texts, while the Masorete deviate from them on many points. This very much questions you assertion that the anti-Christian rabbis preserved 'the text God gave them'. They tossed out books that gave too much support to Christian positions. Hardly 'preserving the text God gave them.' The protestant insistence on the shortened canon of the Masorete strikes me quite frankly as a Judaizing heresy.

Also, you are simply wrong that Origen 'composed' the fifth column of his Hexalpa. The LXX translation had been used by Greek speaking Jews from before the time of Christ. The fourth column of Origen's Hexapla was a more recent (c. 130 AD) translation of the now-lost proto-Masorete into Greek, which showed influences from the already extant LXX.

I am curious to know why you would apply 1 Cor 11:28-30 to unbelievers?! That is nonsense. Paul is writing to Christians who are abusing the Eucharist. Catholics STILL do not just invite anyone to the Eucharist. How could Paul be speaking of non-believers who are unworthily taking the Eucharist and dying as a result?

Paul was writing to the Corinthians who, as a group, Paul knew to be less than model Christians. He knew full well that there were pretenders among them. Unlike Catholicism, claiming to be a believer does not make one a believer. Paul knew that and was warning those pretenders to examine themselves and not take the Supper. After an honest self-examination, Paul's hope was that the person would then turn to Christ for real. EVERY Christian church to this day has members/parishioners who are not right with Christ and are not true believers. The Eucharist/Lord's Supper is not for them.

Basically, you are telling me that you have an idea of what God is and what He has revealed, and will tend to agree with ANYONE who agrees with your own preconceived ideas.

I suppose you have fleshed me out. I must admit that I agree with those who agree with me. However, I fail to see the profundity in this.

See, FK, in a revealed religion, it is supposed to be the other way around. God REVEALS HIMSELF to us - WE don't tell God what WE think about Him. Thus, when God reveals Himself through the Church, it is up to us to change our views when necessary. This is the difference between you and the Catholic.

You have it backwards. Reformers say that God reveals Himself to all believers. He changes our hearts to agree with Him, thus it is God who changes our views. This is a truly revealed faith from God. Not so in Catholicism because, contrary to your statement, God does NOT in fact reveal Himself to YOU. Instead, He reveals Himself ONLY to your hierarchy. Then, your hierarchy reveals what it chooses to reveal to you. This is only a revealed faith from men.

You receive the letters from outside, but the meaning you derive from your own ideas, rather than the mind of the Church.

The "mind of the Church" is simply a winner-take-all vote among those men you have decided to follow. I also follow the ideas of certain men. The difference is that mine must pass the test of scripture, whereas yours can say absolutely anything and you are required to follow no matter what.

Well, the Essene canon contains numerous apocalypses not found in the "other" Hebrew canon (or LXX for that matter). I suppose you will dismiss that too. If the Essenes were a sect so were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Along with Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria and Asia Minor, they were all Jewish, they all had different canons, and no sect to the best of my knowledge had any monopoly on what constitutes a "Jewish canon," and that includes the sole-surviving sect of Pharisees who morphed into post-Jamnia Judaism.

The official canon and text rested in the Temple in Jerusalem and was under the perview of the Levitical priests who were given charge of the Tanach. Just when was the responsibility for the Tanach transferred to the Essenes or Alexandria for that matter??? It wasn't.

Do you believe the Apostles would use a 'false' scripture? The crucial question the Protestant side fails to answer is why did the Apostles so overwhemlmingly use the LXX as the source of OT verses, and in fact called it scripture.

Then why doesn't every NT passage match the Septuagint, if that is the case. If it was so overwhelmingly authoritative, then every verse should match the Septuagint verbatim, but the overwhelming majority do not. Why???? And you have to face the fact that those Septuagints may very well be simply quoting from the NT since they were written during the NT period. The writers of the NT would not have been quoting the LXX, but the LXX translators would have taken a short-cut and simply quoted from the Epistles and Gospels.

Jesus prayed and taught and read and wrote in Hebrew Where odes it say that? And what exactly did Christ write?

John 8:6

And when he spoke to Paul from heaven, it was in Hebrew Is there a verse to that effect?

Acts 26:14

The point is that Qumran lays to rest the false claim that the LXX is somehow inferior to the Masorete, as it confirms that the LXX conforms to the pre-Christian Jewish texts

And how do you know that it conforms if you don't have one of those "pre-Christian Jewish tests"? Oh, but wait a minute we do have one. It is the full book of Isaiah found at Qumran and guess what the LXX fails to conform to it.

while the Masorete deviate from them on many points.

Wrong --- the Masoretic text matches this book of Isaiah found at Qumran nearly perfectly but the LXX is way off.

They tossed out books that gave too much support to Christian positions. Hardly 'preserving the text God gave them.' The protestant insistence on the shortened canon of the Masorete strikes me quite frankly as a Judaizing heresy.

The Jews believed that part of the reason for their troubles was all the Greek books that they had brought into the synagogues and temple that were not supposed to be there. So they threw out everything written in Greek or that was not originally written in Greek. Some of these materials may have been what Jesus was referring to when he said: "by your traditions you make the law of God of no effect". They were watering down the scriptures with things that were not scripture.

Also, you are simply wrong that Origen 'composed' the fifth column of his Hexalpa.

Biblical scholars nearly all agree that he was composing and revising it as he went along using the other Greek columns to try to make it match the Hebrew in column one.

The LXX translation had been used by Greek speaking Jews from before the time of Christ.

They might have had good Greek translation of the first five books at most but there was no archetype for any of the others. Anyone who thought they knew enough Hebrew and Greek might have attempted a translation, some passages might have been good, some bad, but there was no fixed archetype before Christ or even up to Origen, merely a multiplicity of Greek translations of the OT that people called by the name "Septuagint". What people have in their hands today and call the "Septuagint" came from the 5th column of Origen which he labelled "LXX".

One question that you cannot answer is that if there actually was a certifiable Septuagint in the hands of the church and it had a long pedigree, then why was Origen revising and rewriting it in his fifth column???? Why did he have to use Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian for his other columns??? Why didn't he put this famous "Septuagint" there in one of those columns??? The reason was that there was no famous fixed Septuagint for him to put there. So he used the nearest thing he could find to match the Hebrew text --- and that Hebrew text had been fixed from atleast the council of Jamnia and there was no other and it was passed on to the Masoretes.

You keep harping on Isaiah, the one book in which every Christian translation until the RSV, those by the classical 'reformers' included, followed the LXX. What about Genesis and 1st and 2nd Samuel?

Of course there are passages where the none of the LXX, the Masorete and the Dead Sea Scroll agree. Even this calls into question the notion that rabbinic Judaism 'preserved the text God gave them,' better than the Christians, simply because they left it in Hebrew. So explain again (maybe I missed it) why Christian should follow non-Christian textual transmission, rather than the Church's judgement.

Your reply to my accusation that favoring the Masorete is a Judaizing heresy is a nonsequitur. Citing the belief of Jews on the matter, tends to confirm that view, at least as applied to your own approach to Scripture, and

Some of these materials may have been what Jesus was referring to when he said: "by your traditions you make the law of God of no effect".

is complete nonsense. The verse has a context: Christ is refering to specific customs of the Pharisees that have no support in the LXX (I've read the entire Orthodox canon of Scripture twice through: 'corban' isn't in there)--the idea that they did not need to support their parents if they dedicated their material goods to God (presumably while still enjoying them until their death, as 'sell all and give to the poor' doesn't leave anything for the support of parents either). Elsewhere, Christ condemns the Pharisaic obsession with ritual washing--again not an item drawn from the LXX.

If you want to claim that Our Lord was condemning a supposed Hellenization of Judaism, cite a specific.

I've come to the conclusion that "Biblical scholars" in your usage means protestant scholars with a short-canon agenda to defend. Can you cite any Orthodox or Latin scholars who agree? Asserting that Origen 'composed' the LXX translation of Psalms (the only part of the Hexalpa we have in fairly complete form) is problematic, given that Our Lord quotes the Psalms from the LXX, even as the Evangelist quotes from the LXX version of Isaiah, "behold a virgin shall conceive. . ." I guess your "Biblical scholars" know more about what constitutes Scripture than the Holy Evangelist Matthew. (St. Matthew, the one Evangelist who does his own textual criticism and often uses the Hebrew!)

Why did Origen do what he did in his Hexalpa? Who knows? Why did he adopt neo-Platonic ideas and hold that we would be resurrected in spherical bodies, when Christ's Glorious Resurrection showed otherwise? Origen had a lively intellectual curiosity, and a fondness for discursive reason. His beliefs and beliefs expressed in actions are not a model for sound spiritual life. The fact that he decided to collect all in one place all available versions of the Scriptures is neither here nor there as to which tradition of textual transmission Christians should follow: the Christian tradition of the Church, or the anti-Christian tradition of rabbinic Judaism.

It might be helpful to our discussions if you would explicitly acknowledge that the protestant claim that the LXX isn't a translation of Hebrew Scripture is unsupportable in view of the Hebrew texts of Tobit and Ecclesiasticus found at Qumran, and formulate precisely the position you, then, are defending as to why Christians should the Masorete to the LXX, and the arguments in favor of it.

I think I have been fairly explicit as to why the LXX is to be prefered. If you think I have been unclear, I can enumerate the points in a subsequent post.

UC: Jesus prayed and taught and read and wrote in Hebrew

Kosta: Where odes it say that? And what exactly did Christ write?

UC: John 8:6

LOL!!!! He wrote in the sand. That's His writing? What did He write, in what language did He write? You are making assumptions...

UC: And when he spoke to Paul from heaven, it was in Hebrew

Kosta: Is there a verse to that effect?

UC: Acts 26:14

Coming from +Paul. Why am I not surprised?

Paul was writing to the Corinthians who, as a group, Paul knew to be less than model Christians. He knew full well that there were pretenders among them. Unlike Catholicism, claiming to be a believer does not make one a believer. Paul knew that and was warning those pretenders to examine themselves and not take the Supper.

Paul is only writing to those who CAN receive the Eucharist. Thus, 1 Cor 11:28-30 CANNOT apply to those who are NOT Christians by Baptism. Paul is telling those who are to receive should examine themselves if they are worthy. In other words, no mortal sin. As to "true-believers", that is a highly subjective term that means nothing to me, because NO ONE knows whether they are a "true-believer". Only the elect are, and we don't know who the elect are, since we haven't had a full life history read to us yet.

I suppose you have fleshed me out. I must admit that I agree with those who agree with me. However, I fail to see the profundity in this.

Profundity? LOL! The point is whether YOU determine what God has revealed or not...Apparently, because you yourself have proclaimed to the world that you are a "true-believer", while "most Catholics" are not, then I suppose God speaks directly through you in all cases...

Reformers say that God reveals Himself to all believers.

AH! So according to your earlier statement, only "true-believers" will receive this knowledge. What is quite funny is that you all claim to be "true-believers", thus, justifying any particular theology that you desire to be as FROM GOD! Thus, the Jehovah Witnesses make the exact same claim you do - and disagree on whether Jesus is God or not. As it turns out, your religion is quite self-serving.

Sorry, I don't believer your self-serving claim. That would require me to believe that God cannot make up His mind on Who He is and what He has revealed, since there are so many "true-believers" out there who make diametrically opposed claims. God is truth. Thus, your claims are not believable. God must reveal Himself differently than you think.

The "mind of the Church" is simply a winner-take-all vote among those men you have decided to follow. I also follow the ideas of certain men. The difference is that mine must pass the test of scripture, whereas yours can say absolutely anything and you are required to follow no matter what.

I will respectfully disagree with you, as it appears you do not know the process of how dogma becomes part of the life of the Church.

Regards

The official canon and text rested in the Temple in Jerusalem and was under the perview of the Levitical priests who were given charge of the Tanach

Negative. The levites in charge of the Temple were Sadducees, whose canon consisted of Torah and not of Tanach (BIG difference!). Five Books of Moses only. That would make your Pharisaical Protestant OT full of "apocrypha."

Extensive research shows that the Septuagint was indeed the basis for OT quotes in the NT. Your theory, on which you and apparently all Protestants reject the LXX, suggests that the Apostles used Christianized (i.e. fraudelent) versions of LXX .

Given their preference for the Septuagint, and the scarcity of NT verses clearly agreeing with the so-called Hebrew text (apparently a total of five), one can only draw a conclusion that some Christians believe the Apostles, although guided by the Holy Spirit, relied on fraudelent and misleading sources.

Assessment of Agreement in Meaning

The New Testament authors show a clear preference for the Septuagint over Masoretic readings. The following table provides a selection of thirty of the more significant New Testament deviations toward the Septuagint. The second column shows the New Testament wording, and the rightmost column has the wording from the Hebrew Old Testament. In each case, the New Testament author is true to the Septuagint. Red is used to highlight differences between Hebrew and Greek. All quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.

New/Old Testament Reference	New Testament/Septuagint	Old Testament/Masoretic Text
Matthew 1.23/ Isaiah 7.14	"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us).	Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matthew 12.21/ Isaiah 42.4	"and in his name will the Gentiles hope."	and the coastlands wait for his law.
Matthew 13.14-15/ Isaiah 6.9-10	"For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed"	Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes
Matthew 15.8-9/ Isaiah 29.13	"in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."	and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote
Matthew 21.16/ Psalm 8.2	"Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise"	by the mouths of babes and infants thou hast founded a bulwark
Luke 3.4-6/ Isaiah 40.3-5	"and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."	and all flesh shall see it together
Luke 4.18-19/ Isaiah 61.1-2	"to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind"	to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound
Acts 7.42-43/ Amos 5.25-27	"And you took up the tent of Moloch, and the star of the god Rephan, the figures which you made to worship"	You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves
Acts 8.32-33/ Isaiah 53.7-8	"In his humiliation justice was denied him, Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth."	By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living
Acts 13.41/ Habakkuk 1.5	"Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish"	Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded
Acts 15.16-17/ Amos 9.11-12	"that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name"	that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name
Romans 2.24/ Isaiah 52.5	"The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."	Their rulers wail, says the LORD, and continually all the day my name is despised
Romans 9.27-28/ Isaiah 10.22-23	Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall be saved"	For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return
Romans 10.20/ Isaiah 65.1	"I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me"	I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me
Romans 11.9-10/ Psalm 69.22	"Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever."	Let their own table before them become a snare; let their sacrificial feasts [Heb. - for security] be a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see; and make their loins tremble continually
Romans 11.26-27/ Isaiah 59.20-21	"The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"	And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression
Romans 11.34/ Isaiah 40.13	"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"	Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as his counsellor instructed him?
Romans 15.12/ Isaiah 11.10	"The root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope."	the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek
Heb 1.6/ Deut. 32.43	"Let all God's angels worship him."	The MT omits this quotation
Heb 2.6-8/ Psalm 8.4-6	"Thou didst make him a little lower than the angels"	thou hast made him a little less than God
Heb 2.13/ Isaiah 8.17	"I will put my trust in him."	I will hope in him
Heb 3.15/ Psalm 95.7-8	"Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."	O that today you would hearken to his voice! Harden not your hearts, as at Meribah
Heb 8.8-12/ Jer. 31.31-34	"for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord"	my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD
Heb 10.5-7/ Psalm 40.6-8	"Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired; but a body hast thou prepared for me"	Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear
Heb 10.37-38/ Hab 2.3-4	"and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him."	Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail [Heb. - is puffed up]
Heb 11.21/ Genesis 47.31	"By faith Jacob ... bowing in worship over the head of his staff."	Then Israel bowed himself upon the head of his bed
Heb 12.5-6/ Prov 3.11-12	"For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."	for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights
James 4.6/ Prov 3.34	"God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."	Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he shows favor
1 Pet 2.22/ Isaiah 53.9	He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips	although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth
1 Pet 4.18/ Prov 11.31	"If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?"	If the righteous is requited on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!

Table 2: Sample New Testament Quotations of the Septuagint

Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah's mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees' traditions (Matthew 15.8-9).

The Septuagint clearly prophesies that Jesus will heal the blind (Luke 4.18-19) - but the Masoretic text is more obscure.

The Septuagint foretold that the Messiah's death would be unjust (Acts 8.32-33) and that the Gentiles would seek the Lord (Acts 15.16-17). The Hebrew has the nations being "possessed" along with Edom.

Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable.

Following the Greek, he knows that the Messiah will conquer his people's sin - not that he would come to those who had already cleansed themselves from sin, as the Hebrew would have it (Romans 11.26-27).

Paul's thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12). The author of the book of Hebrews - to prove the deity of Christ - proclaims the truth that Jesus is worshipped by all the angels of God (Hebrews 1.6).

But the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain that verse.

Also on the basis of the Greek Old Testament, that author asserts that the incarnation was prophecied (Hebrews 10.5-7) - that Jesus would have a body, which he would offer for our sanctification (Hebrews 10.10).

The Masoretic text at this point stresses auditory capability. Finally, where the Masoretic text described a nonviolent suffering servant, the Septuagint prophesied a sinless Messiah (1 Peter 2.22).

From The Septuagint in the New Testament

I think it's an eye opener how many parallels there are between the old Jewish religious hierarchy and the RCC and EO.

Good observation.

A translation is supposed to be faithful to the original text. It is not supposed to correct it. or change it. or revise it. or take precedence over it. It is supposed to follow it and carry its meaning over from one language to another.

The LXX is fine as long as it follows the Hebrew text --- after all it is only a translation, right?? The OT was originally written in Hebrew not Greek, right???.

LOL!!!! He wrote in the sand.

And what makes you think that that same finger was not used to write those 10 Commandments on tables of stone??? hmmm. And when John refers to Him as the Word of God --- that must have been the Hebrew Word of God, right??? or are you going to try to tell us that he was Greek???

Coming from +Paul. Why am I not surprised?

So are you now questioning the Greek New Testament as well???

And what makes you think that that same finger was not used to write those 10 Commandments on tables of stone??? God was not Incarnate at that time, Uncle Chip. I don't think it was the same finger.

And when John refers to Him as the Word of God

The Word of God Saint John refers to is not the Bible. The Word is the second Hypostasis of the triune God.

So are you now questioning the Greek New Testament as well/

No, not at all. Saint Paul saved the Church from extinction in Israel. It was an extraordinary feat that required and extraordinary man and extraordinary means, one must admit.

FK: "[God] did not instill in me the same responsibility for all the children of the world."

Because they are not your children. Your children are those that you fathered, i.e. the ones who are your human creation. God created all the people in the world; every one of us was given a soul by God. God is not partial.

I did not "create" my children. God did. I was appointed to be their earthly father and take care of them etc. Similarly, God is the self-appointed spiritual Father of His children, the elect. If all people are God's children, then God is a terrible Father. In fact, since MOST of the children would be lost, God Himself would be unfit to be a bishop in His own Church:

Titus 1:6 : 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. KJV

1 Tim 3:4-5 : 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) KJV

---------------

FK: "If all people are God's children, then you would have God standing at the street corner, watching billions of His beloved children walk right passed Him, fail to look both ways, and step right out in front of a bus. That isn't love to me."

Everyone is appointed to die, FK. So, according to your formula those who live a long life are God's children and those who die young are not?

OY VEY! :) My metaphor only concerned eternal life and death. The physical is irrelevant. You have God letting His beloved, fallible, confused, distraught children leaping to their eternal deaths right under His nose, and you have Him doing nothing to intervene. We say God does indeed intervene for His real children, the elect.

If all people are God's children, then God is a terrible Father.

If you follow Calvin this is a reasonable conclusion. Which is why I say somewhere along the line, you took a wrong turn.

I did not "create" my children. God did

That's right, Go created all of us. Each and every human being was given a soul. Who gave your children the soul? Is not God the Creator of everything and all? Did God not give soul to every human being? Are you saying some souls God gives are evil?

If God did not create the 'goats,' who did? Are you saying there is another 'creator' competing with God?

If all people are God's children, then God is a terrible Father

And making people expressly destined (before they were even conceived) for eternal suffering in hell is not??!!

We say God does indeed intervene for His real children, the elect

He does? How so? I thought the Reformed believe that God settled what happens before there even was a Creation, and will not change His plan. What is there to 'intervene' about?

If all people are God's children, then God is a terrible Father

And making people expressly destined for eternal suffering in hell is not??!!