Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins
You are wrong. You accused me falsely of having Taliban tendencies, which is technically a straw man argument - accusing me of a position I do not agree with. Was the United States a Taliban style country until the last generation or two? Because that's what I'm talking about.
The fact is the great majority of people in this country agree with me, and don't want to live in the kind of world I described above.
The great majority of Americans don't want their children seduced/indoctrinated by homosexuals in schools, the media, and so on. I'm talking about homosexual activists CHANGING the moral standards of the country.
We don't want religious zealots letting lose the sex police on the rest of Americans.
IOW, you prefer the homo-activists zealots letting loose the homosexuals in the Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, as foster and adoptive parents, as Episcopal priests, as youth counsellors, teachers, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, etc.
You've made your position clear.
What a cute exercise. I don't get it though, what is your point?
Psalms 41:9 is the prophecy. John 13:18 is where Christ reveals that one is a traitor to fulfill prophecy. John 17:12 reveals that the Father is the one who "gave" Christ the disciples. Its typical Biblical harmony in that election is according to God's Divine Purpose to show His Glory. (back to Romans 9).
So what is your answer? None? One? Multitudes?
It didn't start here either.It started way before this.
When people no longer believe that God actually is then their fear of Him will wane.
In spite of what people think or say they believe....it is what they do that is the most telling.
Having said that,I am too often at a loss to explain my own actions.
God bless
mitch
Luke 18:19 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
The problem here is that you are trying to reason away Isaiah 64:6 rather than trying to understand it. This process of reading new meaning into a passage is called eisegesis. Nothing good comes out of denying Scripture because you don't understand it, or it doesn't meet the world's standards. In the question that you have posed here, you are using the world's standard for "good" and judging God by it. When Isaiah said that all of our works are as filthy rags he meant even giving food to a starving person. The reason why this seems strange to you is that you confuse human works with spiritual righteousness. Everything you do, outside of the will of God is unrighteous. Read the Sermon on the Mount where several of the Ten Commandments are explained in terms of motivation. The point being, while unregenerated, why are you feeding the starving person? Certainly not to glorify God. Human altruism is superficial in that there is always a personal motive in doing so. Why did you feed the starving? Because of some personal guilt? For the praise of others? To get the person to quit pestering you?. The regenerated man of God feeds the starving, perhaps, because he is doing so out of obedience to God, so that the Father is glorified in the sanctified works of man.
The Anthropocentrism of Free Will Theory (the American Religion) that glorifies man by saying "I chose Christ of my free will" also believes that his own standard of judging right from wrong prevails. This is the heresy of the WWJD movement, in that folks pretend God's Will is fashioned from man's subjective idea of what is right and good. This is why legalism prevails so often in the American Religion, because of its acute philosophy of man centered thinking, that if I feel that it is good, then God must be pleased by it. In truth, any work done outside of the Will of God, performed for any other reason that to directly glorify Christ, is an evil work because the motivation is to glorify man (yourself in this case) rather than to glorify God. (John 3:30)
So lets review your questions in light of this truth.
Do you think Jesus was telling us that no one can do good when he told of the Good Samaritan ?
What is the context of this parable? The whole parable ended with a rhetorical question to answer the lawyer's question of "Who is my neighbor?" The question was changed by Christ to be "Who do you think was a neighbor?" with the ultimate answer being "He who showed mercy.". But to read that and yet miss the opening question "What is the Law?" will lead you to think that the contextless work of attending the needs of a neighbor is what is righteous. The context is "Love the Lord With All of Your Heart, Soul, Strength and Mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (which is the Ten Commandments summed up) The latter does you no good if you ignore the primary. And if you are following the former, then the loving your neighbor as yourself is conducted under the influence of glorifying God.
Do you really believe God created man unable to do good so that He would have a reason to sacrifice His Son on the cross ?
That is the debate between infralapsarians and supralapsarians. I think that the latter still has underestimated God's Purpose. Your question is loaded, and I am not certain if that was intentional, or more relevatory of your disposition. I do not believe that God was surprised by A&E's rebellion, and in fact I believe that they were in the garden no more than one day.
Look at it this way - in the form of stacking dominoes so that they fall into one another. Infralapsarians tend to treat God's Soveriegnty as quickly setting up dominoes in place as soon as the first Adam domino fell. Supralapsarians have God setting up the dominoes before Adam fell. I see God not only setting up the dominos like the supra's but also placing many dominos ahead of the Adamic one.
I say again, God created man(and woman) with free choice ;and that means each may choose good or evil, may choose to obey or disobey,and will be judged on his own choices.
You must admit that at this point in the game, the opinion is rather academic. The relevant question is does man today born with a free will. Clearly the answer is no. The natural man's will is born a slave to sin and his spirit is dead. He cannot serve two masters. (Matt 6:24)
Would you also care to discuss the problems caused by the Western tradition of stating the commandment "thou shall not kill" when killing in self-and national defense is ordered by God elsewhere ? I think much anguish might have been avoided were the commandment stated as "thou shall not murder", which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
Oh now you are going to be nice and toss a softball :)
Thanks to language changes and people rendering 1611 English in twentieth century definitions, there will be people who tout that line. (With the popularity of the NIV, this should eventually do away) Actually you don't need to be a Hebrew scholar to interpret that one for those who are against citizens packing heat for self-defense.
Matt 5:21-22 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder,' and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
There you have Jesus Christ's commentary on Exodus 20:13. "Thou shall not kill/murder", is explained as murder without cause. Furthermore, striking a brother without cause, even name-calling a brother without cause also falls under the "Thou shall not kill/murder" command. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that killing in self-defense is "cause" and therefore permissable. Actually, an argument can be made here that all forms of resistance with cause is justifiable, so the choice of a lethal weapon rather than a can of mace or pepper spray is according to the personal tastes of one dispensing the deterance.
Well as I always say in terms of spiritual understanding: "Born a Pharisee, Saved as an Arminian, Sanctified into Calvinism"
Have fun at Knox. Bring back some gold souveniers for me, OK?
So there you have it! A ringing endorsment of free will by the apostate church!
The slippery slope is starting to slide and this is the best defense you have?
NO ONE BUSTED DOWN ANY DOORS in Lawrence v. Texas. The men left their front door unlocked (possibly deliberately). The caller was a gay lover of one of the men (not a homophobe as some homosexuals have alleged).
Keep your leftist talking points out of the converstations please. You know that I've corrected you on these issues a number of times. You are deliberately deceitful.
Yep.
All good Republicans.
Yep.
By those standards, All good Republicans then. :>)
I feel sure He has some higher purpose not to be revealed just yet.
And I will have to risk using what brain-power He chose to give me, looking for consistency and reason in the Bible, keeping in mind just how many princes of the world have used the spiritual hunger of their subjects to mislead and enslave them.
I just cannot see the point of a God who sets up the dominoes to fall only in a certain way. If mankind is only dominoes(a plaything)then your idea of God seems little improved from the myths of Odin,Zeus,etc. And if mankind has no choice,no free will, then how can he be condemned for following the script? My God is more than a puppeteer , and I am more than a marionette ;else it is all worthless.
Just a reminder...you publicly questioned my salvation because you didn't agree with my doctrinal stance. It's evident you hate Calvinism, so when I stood up to you, your decided I could not be saved, or I would bow before your incredible wisdom. I never questioned your salvation, even though I believe you to be wrong about Calvinism, and about your own doctrinal stance. I will not presume to judge that which I have no stake in. You obviously think yourself qualified to make that judgment about me. In that, you are wrong, and demonstrably so.
A public apology for your sin against me is what is due to me, and what I require from you. You sinned against me publicly, and so you shall apologize and retract your statements publicly. A godly man would do so. Let's see if you will.
You deny the Atonement with that statement. It wasn't Christ's Spirit that bought forgiveness of sin, it was the death of His physical body!
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1Pe 2:21-24)
Now, how did that get in there??? Shoots your little theory all to hell, doesn't it?
The universal position that all of man's works are unrighteous fails to give credit to the work of Christ and the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit.
Where did you cut and paste this from? You haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about. You are denying the Atonement, and what it did, with this Gnostic crap. Your thelogy (and I use the term loosely) is Pelagian and gnostic, and is doubly heresy.
Why do you now declare yourself to be God?
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.