Jar's belief statement- Part 2

The TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN GOD is the warlord. Yes, the idea is that he is not the real God, he is this evil idea of God. And the story is intended to show that that idea of God is to be repudiated, a God who would not save everybody, and implicit in the story, you could say, is that a God who would save everybody is the only God worthy of believing in. Yes, all that.There is nothing in the story that's accurate about traditional beliefs in any case, so why are you expecting it to be accurate about the doctrine of election? The point of the story is that it is EVIL FOR THE WARLORD TO SAVE SOME AND NOT EVERYBODY, and that's the essence of the doctrine of election whether all the theology is in place or not.And again, all this is really irrelevant. The point I've been making is that there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the story and that is that the warlord is evil, and he represents the traditional Christian God, and within the confines of the story there is no other reasonable conclusion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't forgotten that. I am addressing simply a particular case you identified as teaching you to think, when in fact it very cleverly led you to a predetermined conclusion. And your very long journey has never questioned that conclusion but confirmed it. That's fine, that's your choice, but the example is not of teaching someone to think, but of cleverly manipulating him to a particular opinion. Considering that I started out a nominal Christian taught in a liberal Presbyterian church, with a very fragile belief I didn't really understand, then as a teenager became a committed atheist for the next thirty years, during which I read a ton of humanist and evolutionist and skeptical stuff, after which I briefly entertained a bunch of New Age and occultic things before I finally came to the conclusion that the Biblical God is the one true God, which has been solidified by a ton of Christian reading since then, I have to say that your remark is wishful thinking coming from somebody who got brainwashed as a kid in liberal Christian school and never stepped aside from it in his long life. Au contraire. Having been a critical thinker all my life, I wish for them nothing but the most rigorous training in same.

Yes you can, and it's not an either/or. It's about the traditional Christian God's saving some and not others. The warlord requires "belief" -- that's the traditional Christian God. He will only save those who believe. OK, strictly it's not the doctrine of election but it's about the main thing in that doctrine, which is that he saves some and not others. The main point here is that it leads inexorably to one and only one conclusion, that the warlord is a petty evil tyrant who should save everybody but only saves those who believe in him. It doesn't matter for this point to be true whether the portrait is true or not. It is an example of a tendentious leading to a predetermined conclusion. That part remains true. Of course not. I consider it a meanspirited parody of the true God. And I did say why many posts back, including that the true God does not allow anyone to starve but takes care of everybody, that starvation is an inadequate representation of eternal punishment, that it leaves out the basis for salvation, that the true God died to pay for the offenses that are the cause of eternal punishment. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fine, I'm quite sure that everything in your life verified your belief, but that belief was nevertheless manipulated in that particular story, since you were only given the most negative view of a God who doesn't save everybody.

It doesn't "ask" that at all, it defines him as such. Yes. But I couldn't approve of that warlord either because he is a rank false parody of the God I believe in.

Salvation DOES come from faith in all views, but the version you are calling traditional is just the Arminian view. The doctrine of election is just as traditional as the Arminian view. Ineptly. It doesn't matter. The story itself manipulates the answer, there is no thinking involved there. Again, you are welcome to your opinion. A traditional believer is offended by the story as a meanspirited parody of the God we believe in, from which the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the traditional God is a petty tyrant. Obviously you and Jar believe that, and the story suits you just fine. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know we are all sinners who have hated and rejected the true God, so that His saving any at all is a great great mercy, and that it cost Him the incarnation and crucifixion to make it possible makes Him infinitely lovable. By rights, not a single one of us should be saved. His saving some and not others bothers all of us, but it is his own business, and some day we'll know why. But those who truly know Him as the God of love know that whatever He decrees is right. Meanwhile, those who have heard the gospel have the option of accepting Him and in the end it will be everyone's personal rejection of Him that condemns them.

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.

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.

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.

THAT's the spirit. Evolution speakeasies. Probably make more converts that way. Better not give them ideas.

Just for the record, not that you were wondering, demons aren't reputed to remove stumps of trees or get very involved in the physical world for that matter.Does your wife consider it a mystery too?

Theory #5. Somebody is REALLY into "Practice random acts of kindness."

By that method, some of the stump and all its roots should still be there, just sunk a bit beneath the surface, no? That would be an easy test.