[Nick Hallandale]

Originally Posted by godrulz

I am not Jesus nor am I infallible. There are reasons Christians debate and disagree (on peripheral vs essential/salvific issues) despite having the same Spirit/Scripture.

Using your logic, we cannot know anything at all. Jn. 3:16; Gen. 1:1, etc. are pretty clear.

It is possible to know truth and refute error (absolute vs relative).

You are deaf, dumb, blind. This does not mean the rest of us are (Christians agree on more than they disagree on). Evolutionists and humanists also disagree on many details, but that does not prove that they are all wrong about everything.

When you run out of gas you always resort to insults.

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by Nick Hallandale

When you run out of gas you always resort to insults.

. . . . . . more often than not . . . he doesn't wait to run out of gas . . . first.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Ardima

Those thirty-five verses taken at face value tell me that the writer in his limited knowledge of God percieved the circumstances as God "changing His mind."

These can be taken at face value if we jettison tradition that is not truth.

There is no reason to make it figurative since a personal God could change His mind if He wanted to (consistent with His character in response to changing contingencies).

Even if figurative, what would the words mean if not what they say. If figurative, how could the Bible teach that God changes His mind if He did (other than these words)?!

If it says Paul changed His mind, we accept this at face value. If it says God changes His mind and illustrates when and how, then to assume it does not mean what it says is simply distorting a verse to match a wrong preconceived view.

We know that God does not have feathers, so the context makes it figurative (God is spirit, not bird).

I Sam. 15 has verses that say God changed His mind and later did not change His mind (will not is not cannot). There is no reason to take one verse literally and the other figuratively in the same immediate context! In one case, God changed His mind because it was wise and righteous to do so. In the other case, it would be wrong for God to change His mind (and unwise), but this does not mean that He cannot (cannot means not personal).

If those in the image of God can change His mind, then so can the ultimate free moral agent. The verses to show that God does not change His mind merely show that He will not change like fickle humans do. If He does change, it is to remain true to His word (conditional prophecy, for e.g.).

Hezekiah illustrates this. To say otherwise means that God lied or was wrong. This is a hermeneutical issue. Instead of resorting to anthropomorphism when the context does not demand it, change your theology to be more biblical and less Platonic.

e.g. If I tell my child they will have ice cream if they clean their room, it would be a change of mind to not give it to them if they don't clean their room. If I make a promise and don't keep it, this change of mind would lack integrity. If God changes His mind in response to prayer or changing contingencies, it is consistent with His character and not capricious like humans tend to be when they change their mind.

Will not is not cannot (proof texts misunderstood...few texts vs 35x that explicitly say He can and does change His mind in some cases, but not in other cases).

The verses are a self-disclosure of the way God is, not a flawed human perception. If they do not mean what they say, what on earth do they mean? They are inspired didactic statements, not subjective perceptions of the author.

Using your logic, when God says He is loving or faithful, He really is not and that is just our wrong perception of words.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Nick Hallandale

When you run out of gas you always resort to insults.

Lots of gas, just hard to reason with the unreasonable. Banging ones head against the wall gets wearisome. Since you cannot apprehend truth, calling a spade a spade (and saying what God says about your darkened, dull understanding vs light of his truth) is not just insults (but true observation).

The bottom line is that Rom. 1 makes it clear that you are culpable and without excuse.

When you can explain the watch, human body, painting, building, universe apart from an intelligent cause, I will renounce theism. Since you cannot do that, you should renounce atheism in favor of theism (Antony Flew was far more honest and smarter in the end than you are right now...said he died before becoming a Christian...theism will not get you to heaven by itself without embracing the Lord Jesus Christ).

[Nick Hallandale]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Lots of gas, just hard to reason with the unreasonable. Banging ones head against the wall gets wearisome. Since you cannot apprehend truth, calling a spade a spade (and saying what God says about your darkened, dull understanding vs light of his truth) is not just insults (but true observation).

The bottom line is that Rom. 1 makes it clear that you are culpable and without excuse.

When you can explain the watch, human body, painting, building, universe apart from an intelligent cause, I will renounce theism. Since you cannot do that, you should renounce atheism in favor of theism (Antony Flew was far more honest and smarter in the end than you are right now...said he died before becoming a Christian...theism will not get you to heaven by itself without embracing the Lord Jesus Christ).

So if you can't explain something, God must have done it????
That's like the people who believed God made the birds fly before science figured out the technology to make airplanes.
Or the Baal worshippers who believed Baal made the crops grow and made their wives fertile.
Just because Science has not yet discovered the answer, does not mean that God did it.

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by Nick Hallandale

So if you can't explain something, God must have done it????
That's like the people who believed God made the birds fly before science figured out the technology to make airplanes.
Or the Baal worshippers who believed Baal made the crops grow and made their wives fertile.
Just because Science has not yet discovered the answer, does not mean that God did it.

. . . how's your irony meter holding out with godrulz there Nick?

[Nick Hallandale]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

. . . how's your irony meter holding out with godrulz there Nick?

I feel sorry for him.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Nick Hallandale

So if you can't explain something, God must have done it????
That's like the people who believed God made the birds fly before science figured out the technology to make airplanes.
Or the Baal worshippers who believed Baal made the crops grow and made their wives fertile.
Just because Science has not yet discovered the answer, does not mean that God did it.

God is the answer as the Uncaused Cause. It is a lame atheist argument to say that God fills the gaps (your god of chance is in the same boat) when we cannot explain something. God is objectively the uncreated Creator, the First Cause, why something does not come from nothing. I cannot grasp how God has always existed, but it is true, explains reality, blows my mind and leads me to worship in awe. You choose the presumption of something coming from nothing, life coming from non-life, intelligence coming from impersonal, etc.

I cannot understand many aspects of creation or things created by man. Just because I don't understand phones, computers, TV, etc. does not mean God must have created them (he did not).

I wish I could admire people like you who think watches or airplanes came from nothing with no intelligent input. I can't, so I will mock and disdain you (Ps. 2:1-3; Ps. 14:1; Ps. 19 I am in good company).

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Nick Hallandale

I feel sorry for him.

Don't bother. I know the most awesome, valuable, beautiful being in the universe. He died for me, so I will live for Him, abundantly and eternally.

You are the ones to be pitied for being fools who will become sinners in the hands of an angry God (if you don't repent/believe) instead of saints in the hands of an awesome God. Christians have the answers that the greatest thinkers, philosophers never found in centuries of life times.

So simple, a child can get it (Jn. 3:16). The gospel, the power of God for us who believe, but foolishness to those who are perishing (I Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16).

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by godrulz

God is the answer as the Uncaused Cause. It is a lame atheist argument to say that God fills the gaps (your god of chance is in the same boat) when we cannot explain something. God is objectively the uncreated Creator, the First Cause, why something does not come from nothing. I cannot grasp how God has always existed, but it is true, explains reality, blows my mind and leads me to worship in awe. You choose the presumption of something coming from nothing, life coming from non-life, intelligence coming from impersonal, etc.

I cannot understand many aspects of creation or things created by man. Just because I don't understand phones, computers, TV, etc. does not mean God must have created them (he did not).

I wish I could admire people like you who think watches or airplanes came from nothing with no intelligent input. I can't, so I will mock and disdain you (Ps. 2:1-3; Ps. 14:1; Ps. 19 I am in good company).

. . . I found your problem gr . . .

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

. . . I found your problem gr . . .

I am finite, not omniscient, unlike you, godplayer. We can know many things about God and spiritual truth through revelation/reason (you think we can't know anything), but we CANNOT know it EXHAUSTIVELY (same with you in any field of study).

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by godrulz

I am finite, not omniscient, unlike you, godplayer.

. . . ad hominem . . . .

We can know many things about God and spiritual truth through revelation/reason . . .

. . . godrulz asserts without evidence . . . .

. . . (you think we can't know anything), . . .

. . . godrulz thinks he can read minds . . . . . . we can know lots of things . . . but . . . only what we can observe objectively . . . and . . . make subjective evaluations on.

. . . but we CANNOT know it EXHAUSTIVELY (same with you in any field of study).

. . . which you regularly prove in contradiction . . . that you know . . . the unknowable . . . . . . which makes you such an easy target for ridicule.

[godrulz]

The invisible God cannot be observed (neither can electrons with the naked eye). This is why He became visible in Christ and left us a Book about Himself. You cannot see this under a microscope or in a telescope, but God is able to communicate Himself (but you limit things to creation instead of considering the Creator...you are the same guy who thinks watches and airplanes just come from nothing with no intelligent input).

"He is there and He is not silent"- Francis Schaeffer

Genesis 1:1 Assertions may be true or false. Prove that this assertion is false (but your 5 senses are not applicable with divine reality except as revealed in Christ/creation/Word).

Why are you wasting our time on this thread?

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by godrulz

The invisible God cannot be observed (neither can electrons with the naked eye).

. . . the difference is . . . electrons can be detected (we have objective evidence they exist) . . . not so your particular version of "god."

This is why He became visible in Christ and left us a Book about Himself.

. . . rather . . . a religious platitude . . . having no basis in fact.

You cannot see this under a microscope or in a telescope, but God is able to communicate Himself (but you limit things to creation instead of considering the Creator...you are the same guy who thinks watches and airplanes just come from nothing with no intelligent input).

. . . you're comparing apples and oranges . . . pity you can't see the difference . . .

"He is there and He is not silent"- Francis Schaeffer

. . .

Genesis 1:1 Assertions may be true or false. Prove that this assertion is false (but your 5 senses are not applicable with divine reality except as revealed in Christ/creation/Word).

. . . you obviously don't understand burden of proof . . . the skeptic needn't prove absence . . . the theist MUST prove presence.

Why are you wasting our time on this thread?

. . . @#$% . . . irony meter . . . again.

[Sealeaf]

Originally Posted by Charity

Any Thoughts Please!

Please don't "bump post" one verse an think that answers everything?

I would just like to remind you all first; Beep Beep!
Most of us Know an have heard what the scripture presents.

Why Do You Think Jesus Hasn't returned Yet?

Last time He came, we killed Him. Common sense would tell Him not to come back here anytime soon.