Jar's belief statement- Part 2

Let's say you're right and it's about the ARminian view. Does it matter? Would the story approve of the doctrine of election instead? Of course not. The story condemns God for saving some and not others whether the basis for it is his choice or human choice. I am not following you. Oh I know he has a good reason for not saving everyone, but I don't know the reason except that in the end I will know it was necessary and good. Well, you like that explanation I suppose, but it's really because I know the true nature of God and know Him personally that I know the parody is false.Actually I suppose all this just reveals that human flesh judges from the ego and worldly and earthly perspectives, but God has arranged it so that He can only be known and loved through the Spirit instead, and that is only available to those who are willing to give up trusting in themselves and believe what He says over what we feel and think.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That makes her seem even more evil I'm afraid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The God that you describe is, IMO, even more evil than the warlord we have been talking about.You are saying that we are all created 'unsaved', and we must therefore actively seek out this God of yours in order to become saved!This means that your God creates people in the knowledge that He will send them to Hell. It means that your God has allowed other 'untrue' faiths to come into existence without doing anything about it.Worst of all, your God has given us a Book in which to seek Him, the only problem is, the Book is a raging mess. One of the best arguments against the God of the Bible being real is the condition of the Bible. it truly is a mess, whether speaking about historical events or philosophical aspects, the thing is rife with errors, and the only way round these errors is throw a tantrum and claim that all external evidence is inaccurate. This is a excellent example of how a fundy mind squares the clear cut horrific deeds of a petty God with their fantasy.God was right to slaughter all the Egyptian babies because everything He does is right!Dear God Faith, don't you see how enbarrassing that stance is?Don't you see that with this approach to any subject you could make it seem rational? Jesus you could even make George Bush seem semi intelligent if you ignored all the evidence. And what about those that haven't?What about those who have rejected it because their God given intelligence convinces them that the Bible is a collection of fairytales? Do we get condemned for being able to think?Apparently God doesn't want us to be automatons, but your approach to the Bible and God makes you just that, a nonthinking robot. The thing is, if your God was even the slightest bit competent we would all believe in Him. if He did anything at all to even suggest His existence then you would have a case, but He doesn't, He has done bugger all for 2000 years.Also, the choice you give is a choice that not even the simplest of us would reject IF God showed any signs of activity. I mean who would be silly enough to choose Hell over Heaven if there was even a slightest hint that they were real?What is it like being caught up in a game of dungeons and dragons?Brian.

It does make God look more evil.But, think about it for a moment. Evil is a human characteristic, God isn;t human, therefore a human characteristic cannot be applied to God.Faith's God may be evil from our viewpoint, but the deeds we deem as evil may not appear evil or nasty to God.It could simply be a part of the nature of Faith's God to slaughter innocent children and condemn people to Hell, it may make Him evil in our eyes, but it may just be the way Faith's God is. Slaughtering innocents may be second nature ot her God, who knows God's mind anyway?Brian.

quote:

---

Let's say you're right and it's about the ARminian view. Does it matter?

---

It would demonstrate that your objections to the story were ill-founded. How could you honestly claim that it misrepresents the Doctrine of Election when it is in fact closer to the Arminian view ?

quote:

---

Would the story approve of the doctrine of election instead? Of course not.

---

That is really the wrong question. That doesn't matter. THe questions at hand are whether the story is sufficiently accurate on the views it does deal with and whether Jar thought about it.

quote:

---

I am not following you.

---

I stated that it is possible to think about how the story applies to God. YOu disagreed with that. Yet rather than beleiving it you call it a "mean spirited parody", If it is not possible to think about or question the story how could you come to that conclusion ?

quote:

---

Oh I know he has a good reason for not saving everyone, but I don't know the reason except that in the end I will know it was necessary and good.

---

Yet you didn't raise that as an objection until I mentioned it. Why not ? After all it is actually a difference that woudl put GOd in a better light than the Warlord, yet you preferred to show your God as even worse.

quote:

---

Well, you like that explanation I suppose, but it's really because I know the true nature of God and know Him personally that I know the parody is false.

---

It actually fits the evidence of your posts, which your explanation does not. The fact is that you didn't even manage to think of a real problem with the story until I mentioned it.

quote:

---

Actually I suppose all this just reveals that human flesh judges from the ego and worldly and earthly perspectives, but God has arranged it so that He can only be known and loved through the Spirit instead, and that is only available to those who are willing to give up trusting in themselves and believe what He says over what we feel and think

---

And you will never find a clearer example of "do as I say, don't do as I do" on these boards.

Well, I've learned one thing from this thread, never to talk about these things again. All I want to say to this post of yours is that there is no such thing as an innocent person since the Fall, and everything hangs on that fact.

The thing is, the retaliation is not proportionate.Two people eat a fruit ans thus everyone else is branded a ciminal?How logical is that Faith, how fair is that?Even law abiding citizens are criminals because an ancestor of their's ate a fruit! How ludicrous is that Faith?If my great grandfather killed someone, shouldn't I be in jail? Well, it isn't a fact, it is what you believe, and it is based on nothing other than a fairytale that allows YOU to justify all of YOUR bad deeds that you have done in YOUR life. I mean how can you help yourself from doing nasty things when you are so evil and corrupt? If that silly man and woman all those centuries ago just didn't eat that little old fruit then poor old Faith wouldn't be tempted to sin. You shoudl have a bit more self repsect.Well, I've learned one thing from this thread, never to talk about these things again. All I want to say to this post of yours is that there is no such thing as an innocent person since the Fall, and everything hangs on that fact.

So sad, Brian, so sad. You all work your brains to fever pitch denying the true God, and nothing anyone can say can save you from it. It hurts to see you do it to yourselves. That's why I shouldn't talk about these things any more.

Will you marry me?

Ding Ding Ding We have a winner.....Knowledge is power... and people don't like to share power

So are you saying that Jar was not given the option to think about the type of God that you were taught about, due to the story given to him as a child?OK... I was taught almost the same way that you were, Faith....except that my church did'nt teach literalism to the point of creationism as an important tenet of the faith. I questioned what I had been taught---and I still question not only your Christian value system, but Jars, Ringos, RiverRats, and any other that I am presented. Sounds to me that you just can't accept the idea that ALL people get saved!I can accept it---but I'm not sure I believe it. For all I know I may be one of the ones who won't get saved. Of course, I was taught that by confessing with my mouth and believing with my heart I was saved, but if I---a mere human---can have compassion enough to worry about people who have not done so, why would God be any less benevolant?It boils down to this:1) One side says that only those who confess and accept correctly will be saved...regardless of behavior.2) The other side says that only those who behave correctly will be saved....regardless of profession and confession.Am I getting that right?

I believe you missed #33. Everyone is born saved by the grace of God. Doing, or not doing, your best to follow Christ's example is what everyone will be judged on.

repeating and elaborating on what I asked Faith in the post above this one:
DOES THIS SOUND RIGHT?1) One side believes that God saves those who trust Him and lets the rest perish. The people are saved through grace alone by faith alone.
Profession and trust count while behavior is not important, (but will automatically improve due to the Holy Spirit)2) Your take is that God already saved everyone. Behavior is important, and, since we were given a mind, WE are responsible for our actions. No devil makes us spew out hateful words. No devil made us kill and eat 30 children. (But oddly, a devil surely must have been in the terrorists who so boldly killed our 3000 people...yet no same such devil exists in our troops who have killed many more than that)Not to get too far off topic, though.Can you help me sum up the difference between fundamentalist theology and conservative Episcopal theology?

Well, not due only to that story of course, but that story would only have been told in a very liberal Christian environment. But yes, he was obviously not encouraged to believe in the traditional Christian view of God. 1) The church I went to as a child was a liberal church. Not as liberal as jar's but still liberal. So I wasn't "taught the same way" you think I was. I didn't become a Christian until I was in my 40s and nobody taught me then either. I read a lot of different religions and a lot of different books on Christianity and arrived at it myself.2) Where are you getting that? I see no Biblical justification for it. Why is it always some personal motivation with you guys? I believe what I believe because I'm convinced of its truth, not because I WANT to believe it. I can say I definitely did NOT want to believe a lot of it at first, but I became persuaded over time. But maybe most of you all believe what you want to believe so that's why you think we do. God does have compassion on the unsaved. He gave His only Son that they might believe. He sends preachers to convince them of their need for a Savior. He is longsuffering, waiting a long time for repentance, giving many a long long time to repent. He puts the desire in His believers to bring others to the faith. That's a lot of compassion on God's part. And I don't know any Christian who doesn't worry a lot about the unsaved among their immediate family and friends. That you can take for granted. No. On point #1, although we are not saved by good works, good works are essential to salvation and without them there is no salvation. And as for point #2, as far as I know, jar is the only one on earth who believes that. He may not be, but I've never heard it anywhere else.

No, I can't.First, you must ask others to explain their beliefs, I cannot do that.Nor can I tell you about conservative Episcopal theology.All I can address are MY Personal beliefs.I cannot imagine a GOD that creates damned folk. Why, does She get some sadistic pleasure from the act? Throwing in the idea of some Fall simply makes that Godlet even more incompetent and vindictive.I believe that GOD does not create folk with Damned printed on their forehead, never has, never will.I do believe that we are responsible for our actions and that we will be judged based on what we individually do.You insert: Why? Are you implying that I think that?Edited by jar, : appaln spallinEdited by jar, : -d

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion