Posted on 01/03/2002 11:19:13 AM PST by ArGee
A very rich man decided that he wanted to show kindness to the people of the fair city where he lived. Since he was very rich indeed, he decided to throw a banquet for the entire city. He rented the largest sports arena in the city and began his plans. He planned for huge amounts of the best food possible, making allowances for every religious and medical diet. He advertised the banquet in every possible manner - television, radio, billboard, door-to-door canvassing. Considering that there might be some who could not travel, he arranged for free bus transportation to and from the event, and some special-needs vehicles for all who could not ride busses. He even scheduled the banquet to run for 24 hours a day for several days so that everyone could be sure of being served.
He planned long and hard and finally the big day came. The rich man ate quickly and then went about wishing all his guests well and personally making sure that all had every need met. After a while he went outside to tour the grounds and talk with those who had not yet gone in, and those who had already left. Everyone was happy. Many were profusely thankful. It was a glorious occasion.
At one point the rich man noticed a group of people sitting outside a locked door with most unpleasant looks on their faces. Sensing they were not happy, he went over to them. He did not introduce himself but simply asked them if he could be of service.
"We want to go in through this door," one of them replied.
The rich man explained to them that the hall was arranged to feed a large number of people as quickly and effortlessly as possible. This required order inside, and the entrances and exits had been carefully planned to be as efficient as possible. He then offered to go call one of the golf carts that were avaialbe to help people who could not walk far to take them to the entrance. But the man replied, "We do not want to go in the entrance. We want to go in this door. We don't understand why we can't go in any door we wish. We think the man who set this banquet up is mean and hateful for insisting we go in through the entrance. He has tried to bill himself as a very kind man by offering this banquet, but he is not kind at all if he will not indulge us and let us go through this door.
The rich man was distressed at these words, but still attempted to please these people. He tried once more to explain to them what was behind this particular door, and how if they went in this door they would disrupt the meal service being offered inside. He offered to drive them himself, not only to the door, but inside the hall to their tables if they would only go through the entrance to enjoy the meal. Again the man said, "No, but only a hateful man would keep us from going through the door of our choosing. And we will sit here and tell anyone who will listen to us what an awful man he is until he lets us in."
At that the rich man was enraged and he shouted, "Enough." Then he called a police officer to have them thrown off of the property and ordered that they not be allowed to return until the banquet was over and all the scraps had been hauled away. Then, mourning for their loss, he turned to visit with other guests.
But if it makes you feel better to dismiss anything I may have to say with a wave of the hand, because you don't think I'm "qualified", then feel free to do so."
Excuse me! I guess I shouldn't have merely relied upon your writings in this thread to arrive at my conclusions.
I didn't realize that you were a qualified Bible teacher or theologian. I'll withhold the "wave of my hand" until after I read your legitimate Scriptural, and historic refutations of each of the points that Horton made in his essay on Pelagianism in my reply at #209. I'm sure you disagree with him, no? Take your time.
No.
A man posts questions which make you uncomfortable.
You have no answers to the questions.
Legitimate contemplation and introspection burns your skin like fire....
And so.... you question your antagonist's "theological credentials", in hopes that the nasty man will stop asking the difficult questions.
Like I said.... suit yourself...
But it's transparent even to the casual observer.
Thats not possible, unless you think you can prove otherwise by using Scripture and the historical record to legitimately refute Horton's essay on Palagianism that I posted at #209.
We have almost FOUR HUNDRED posts on this thread. I haven't read them all, but I have scanned an awful lot of them.
So far, I haven't found ANYONE besides you and me who has noticed this problem in the original article. The Christians are just focusing on the positive features. And the scoffers do not seem to be profiting overly much from the discussion one way or the other.
Weird, huh?
And you apparently don't understand the distinction between eternity and this temporal life we live.
Then you claim to have superior reasoning skills. (And you still haven't answered the question. Whose definitions will win out, or carry the day, so to speak? Your's or God's? (One word answer accepted - "Mine" or "God's.")
Are you ignorant of the fact that there are laws of proper Biblical interpretation? Have you ever heard the word, "Hermeneutics"?
Not at all. It's no trick to say that God is either perfectly justified, or else he is not. If he is not, he's no real God, and we have no business to worship him. If he is, he not only requires no excuses or explanation, but is utterly above and apart from all such probing.
If God is different from man merely by degree, he wouldn't be very interesting. Job's message is that God differs from man in an absolute, fundamental, and sovereign way (IOW, answering to no one), and thus the criteria for examining his ways are utterly different from examining the ways of men.
Even though you're not a believer, I hope you can accept on a theoretical level the distinction that Job makes.
God defined morality.
Is he not subject to the morality he defined?
Or is there a different morality for God, which holds the punishment and murder of innocents as moral acts?
You seem to be rationalizing here... (and not very successfully)
Are you ignorant of how ridiculous this statement is?
That's an utter cop-out.
If God is not subject to the moral laws that he himself defined, then they are not laws.
It is verifiable truth and you know it, deep down inside, but you choose not to admit it, or believe it. That's your choice. God has revealed Himself to man, and if you were totally honest with yourself, you'd know that to be true, because He's revealed Himself to you.
Let's get something straight here: God is not what we conceive Him to be, He is what He reveals Himself to be. Period. He has revealed Himself all around you. Evidence of His handiwork is everywhere you turn. It is you who refuses to acknowledge it, not He who refuses to reveal Himself. He has revealed Himself in His Word. He has revealed Himself in every act of kindness directed toward you when you didn't expect it. He has revelaed Himself in the fact that you continue to draw breath, in spite of the fact you know you don't deserve to, because of the state of your soul when measured against His Word. Saying that it isn't so doesn't make it go away. There is Truth outside of your own experience and knowledge, and it exists whether or not you believe it does. Open your eyes!
Ok... Let's grant the supposition that God is love.
It's not a supposition. God said that he is love.
But let's also recognize the fact that God teaches us what love is both in law, and in parable, throughout the Bible. And as such, we understand that it is immoral to steal, and to murder, and to intentionally cause harm to another, and to punish innocents.
OK, agreed.
And yet we are expected to believe that when GOD does these things, it is somehow moral?
When did God do ANY of these things? (If you answer correctly, you might get me to agree somewhat with ONE of these, to a limited degree. Which one?)
We are expected to believe that God turns a flood loose on the world, and drowns all of it's children, and that this is somehow moral?
Mischaracterization. You know better than this. If you don't want me quoting Bible verses back at you, please refrain from this.
We are expected to believe that God looses plagues, disease, and pestilence on the innocent children of Egypt, and that this is somehow moral?
Come on, once again, you know better than this. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." We are conceived in sin. Also, eternity in the presence of God awaits the children who are taken before they are accountable.
We are expected to believe that he tortures and disfigures Job in some sado-masochistic side-bet with Satan, and that this is somehow moral?
Another gross mischaracterization. What was the end result for Job?
We are expected to believe that he demands the willingness to cut the throat of one's own son in a test of fealty, and that this is somehow moral?
Test of fealty? (Giggle) Once again, what was the end result for Abraham?
I'll leave the personal dig that follows this aside, 'cause I don't think you really meant it.
OWK: "Are you ignorant of how ridiculous this statement is?"
No. I agree.
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.