Posted on 12/20/2010 10:32:51 AM PST by truthfinder9
One's private belief is not an obstacle to being a conservative, Republican, patriotic American. If that were true, we would have to declare many of our Founding fathers as left wing, liberal misfits.
So your argument has been so demolished, all that’s left of it is the word “had.”
My argument was that God—in order to be God—cannot serve a higher necessity, and that therefore God didn't have to become a man (or anything else for that matter). That argument stands, your silly comments notwithstanding.
I’ll take out the words that don’t really matter, and rephrase my point: God fixed the problem from within. God became man.
That was not the subject of my comment. The claim that God HAD to become man was.
What problem did God fix?
The problem of man’s inherent evil.
This includes the evil which manifests as blindness to truth. The evil which is foolishness masquerading as wisdom.
God gives atheists the chance to understand that an ideology with self as the initial reference point is morally, intellectually and spiritually bankrupt.
Why is that a problem? So, when did God "fix" it, given that the evil continues unabated.
God gives atheists the chance to understand that an ideology with self as the initial reference point is morally, intellectually and spiritually bankrupt.
Nonsense. The only thing God really hated according to the Bible was idol worship.
I frequently check this thread to see if any of them have figured out as to why David’s child had to suffer divine injustice.
You probably won’t like this answer, but here goes:
Jesus’s connection to the throne of David was through King Solomon, and therefore Bathsheba. It was God’s plan for David to marry Bathsheba in the course of time so that this lineage would come about, but David jumped the gun by murdering Uriah. If the child of this early union had lived, Bathsheba would have put him forward in favor over Solomon, who would then have been the younger son.
The lineage of Jesus must have been, for reasons we may never understand, very important to God. Why would He wait so long after the fall to bring about Man’s salvation? The only logical explanation, if you’re presupposing a merciful God, is that He did it as soon as He could.
This is why Catholics honor the Virgin Mary’s fiat. We don’t believe God would have just ticked her off the list and gone on to the next humble virgin had her response been “No, now that you mention it, I’d really rather not.”
The way God solved the problem was to through salvation. We are saved from our sins, but we have to be on God’s side.
What I mean is God gives atheists the chance to redeem themselves. Their sin is self-worship.
LOL! No kidding...I wonder though, how well it would be received if, using David's biblical example, a worldly court spared a father and instead executed his newborn son for his father's crime.
That a matter of belief.
We are saved from our sins, but we have to be on God’s side
Are you suggesting man can save himself by deciding to be on God's side?
What I mean is God gives atheists the chance to redeem themselves.
By not giving them faith?
You mean God didn't see it coming?
“That a matter of belief.”
Everything is a matter of belief.
“Are you suggesting man can save himself by deciding to be on God’s side?”
You don’t understand.
Man is drowning as he tumbles through the deep, dark current of sin. A river of his own making.
But God, in his great mercy, has thrown man a rope—Jesus Christ.
Man can choose whether or not to grab onto it.
“By not giving them faith?”
As I explained, the rope is there for atheists to grab onto. But (for now) they love sin, and are not strong enough to resist its pull.
You’re making the same mistake made by atheists again, and again, and again.
You can’t think of God as though he were a man. You will never know God’s circumstances, and you can’t think about what it’s like to do what God has done.
Yes, I’ve heard this explanation before.
However, if lineage was the criteria that lead to David’s child’s death for no fault of its, then what redemption did the Amalakite babies and children receive, ordered to be slaughtered by the very same deity? Besides, what “perfect justice” is it, when a child has to die for no fault of its - only because lineage order held a greater value than human life? That’s no justice at all.
You are aware of the risks of ‘justifying’ such acts, aren’t you? It makes the deity figure difficult to distinguish from that of the Muslims, who too, must resort to calling divinely-sanctioned murder as ‘acts of divine will’.
No it's not. We know many things as a matter of fact, not faith.
Man is drowning as he tumbles through the deep, dark current of sin. A river of his own making
Maybe you should stop watching horrors movies. Most people are decent individuals with some quirks.
But God, in his great mercy, has thrown man a rope—Jesus Christ
And how did man get to be in a position where he needed a rope?
Man can choose whether or not to grab onto it
Nope, the Bible says no one comes to him unless the Father gave you to him.
As I explained, the rope is there for atheists to grab onto. But (for now) they love sin, and are not strong enough to resist its pull.
Either the world is exactly the way God wants it to be or he is no God.
I can only think of God the way Bible describes him, in anthropomorphic terms, because the authors imagined him that way. Personally I can't think of God in any terms because I have no idea what God is even if he is.
And if you say you can, why should I believe you?
Exactly!
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.