[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Well, Pook ol’ buddy, just for you, the Scientific Pantheist’s Prayer.
Thanks. I’ll put it next to the fishes’ bicycles.
[/quote]
Touché.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Well, Pook ol’ buddy, just for you, the Scientific Pantheist’s Prayer.
Thanks. I’ll put it next to the fishes’ bicycles.
Touché.[/quote]
Wanna start a betting pool on how many more posts it will take our two Christian friends before they agree with one another OR mutually denounce one another as heretics?
It’s great. It’s like watching a wizard’s duel.
I’m rooting for Haney, myself.
To triple 10 sets, in answer to your original question: Yes, I believe in God.
Two books that helped me sort things out were Destined for the Throne by Paul Billheimer and Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. Watchman Nee who spent the last 20 yrs of his life as a prisoner of the
communist Chinese said: “You don’t find God in Systematic Theology.” I tried and decided he was right.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
haney1 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
4. A monarchy would no longer be Ruled by God so you can’t compare them. Monarchy and theocracy not intertwined. It is individual based (see my defintion below on theocracy)
Their still ruled by God, through through a vassal king. The king of Israel was a vassal king of YHWH. Why bring did the prophets during the monarchy bring a covenant lawsuit against Israel on several different occasions? The Sinai covenant was still in effect, which was a theocracy.
The period of Ahab was marked by God’s judgment:
1 Kings 17:1 Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.”
Chapter 18:
Now the famine was severe in Samaria, 3 and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, who was in charge of his palace. (Obadiah was a devout believer in the LORD.
Here’s how YHWH dealt with the prophets of Baal whom Jezebel introduced:
40 Then Elijah commanded them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
Later on in chapter 21, Elijah says to Ahab:
20 Ahab said to Elijah, “So you have found me, my enemy!”
“I have found you,” he answered, "because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD. 21 ‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel�??slave or free. 22 I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.’
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Ahab:
34 But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot driver, “Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded.” 35 All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. 36 As the sun was setting, a cry spread through the army: “Every man to his town; everyone to his land!”
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Jezebel, who killed His prophets:
{0 Then Jehu went to Jezreel. When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window. 31 As Jehu entered the gate, she asked, “Have you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of your master?” [d]
2 Kings 9: 32 He looked up at the window and called out, “Who is on my side? Who?” Two or three eunuchs looked down at him. 33 “Throw her down!” Jehu said. So they threw her down, and some of her blood spattered the wall and the horses as they trampled her underfoot.
So God acted, He just did it when he felt like it. He also didn’t use bears this time around.
So with those point in mind. It was no longer a theocracy. Unless you are defining a theocracy differently than the dictionary
I think we should accept the definition in Deuteronomy, however all of the kings received word from God through the prophets, so I think it even fits your definition.
I love how you quote scripture at me as if I didn’t know it… truly priceless.
As for the rest of it. God even said when they asked for a king they were rejecting Him. How else do you interpret that? IE the people said we don’t want to be a theocracy anymore. Saying God acted through the evil kings is the same as saying God works through all government. It is a no duh Biblical concept, but we don’t consider all governements a theocracy. Unless you are now arguing that God did put the people in government through out the ages and that counts as a theocracy…
I detect either a double standard in your wording, or you are questioning the Soverignty of God
As for the rest your whole idea was that God dealing with the Children through the bears was this huge eschatological discourse when the simple answer was I don’t know. God does things when He chooses to. What,
you couldn’t find the verse in Romans 9 to back that position up? If you would have just said that then this last half of the conversation could have been avoided.
I wish I could say it was overly fruitful for me, but honestly we are arguing over the definition of a theocratic society. What could be gained from that?
Simple answer of why God chose to act. We don’t know.
Why take the long way around to get to the easy answer?
We don’t know why God was long suffering with Ahab anymore than we know why bears came and attacked kids after Elisha cursed them.
To claim that you can Biblically know the reason for His actions in some of those situations is to contradict scripture itself. After all God’s way are higher than ours.
So why did God bother sending prophets in to rebuke Israel if Israel was just another government? Why the covenant lawsuits? If the covenant was cancelled, why bother? God never stated he canceled the covenant because Israel asked for a visible king. Rather, he is continuing the covenant with David’s line ruling.
God acted just the way he said he was going to act when dealing with his people under the Sinai covenant, which are spelled out in Deut. 27:1 - 30:20. The sanctions for disobedience are there, and God acted accordingly when dealing with the various people we’ve discussed. I’m not making things up when I’m simply interpreting events in light of what Scripture itself says about Israel and especially Deuteronomy 28:15-68. How does one understand the various exiles Israel underwent aside from this?
64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods�??gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
If we’re not allowed to read about God’s actions in Israel in light of the covenant He Himself made with Israel, then of course we cannot understand them.
Quoting Romans 9 doesn’t help your case, because the New covenant Mediator fulfilled the Old, the latter being the promises to Abraham, Israel, and David, and abolishing the Law - meaning the treaty at Sinai. [/quote]
Wow just stunning!
-
Romans 9 would have helped your case. Which is why I said why didn’t you quote it.
-
I keep repeating myself God honoring a covenant doesn’t equate them honoring it. Therefore they weren’t a theocracy.
-
you never actually addressed any of my points. You side stepped and now you keep making the convenant the point.
It isn’t…
The point of this discussion is…
-
Why did God Send the bears right away\but not attack Ahab right away.
-
Is that particular piece of History that important.
-
What is the theological signifigance of it/your interpretation (which was totally unwarranted).
You keep throwing red herrings in like they have any bearing on those three issues.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Well, Pook ol’ buddy, just for you, the Scientific Pantheist’s Prayer.
Thanks. I’ll put it next to the fishes’ bicycles.
Touché.
Wanna start a betting pool on how many more posts it will take our two Christian friends before they agree with one another OR mutually denounce one another as heretics?
[/quote]
Interesting thing is I know we agree on this topic. Part of the reason why it is frustrating me…
Our fellow poster seems to change definitions at will which makes this exchange drag out.
Now the question is are we posting because our theological pride has been wounded by being called out, or are we doing it because we are truly enjoying the conversation or is there some enlightenment to be gained from it.
I would say the first is most likely…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It’s great. It’s like watching a wizard’s duel.
I’m rooting for Haney, myself.[/quote]
reminds me of steven lynch’s D & D song…
[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Well, Pook ol’ buddy, just for you, the Scientific Pantheist’s Prayer.
Thanks. I’ll put it next to the fishes’ bicycles.
Touché.
Wanna start a betting pool on how many more posts it will take our two Christian friends before they agree with one another OR mutually denounce one another as heretics?
[/quote]
Heh.
Just out of curiousity, do we have more or less credibility because of this exchange between us? I’m pretty sure I already know the answer…
[quote]The point of this discussion is…
-
Why did God Send the bears right away\but not attack Ahab right away.
-
Is that particular piece of History that important.
-
What is the theological signifigance of it/your interpretation (which was totally unwarranted). [/quote]
Ok. I didn’t interpret these as your questions, after several readings.
When you asked, “What about Ahab?” I took that to mean, “Why didn’t God deal with Ahab the same way he dealt with the kids who insulted Elisha?” I didn’t realize you were asking, “Why didn’t God strike Ahab dead right away?”
- I didn’t perceive that question either. If you can quote it for me in one of your previous comments, it would definitely help further exchanges.
To the unbelievers here, that particular question is important. Therefore, I think we should try to be able to explain it to them within our moral and philosophical framework the same way we should be able to explain Judges 19 or any of the other texts that give us heartburn when witnessing to unbelievers.
The atheists/agnostics here perceive our religion to be one where God acts 180 degrees out of phase with Himself from the New Testament to the Old. I was attempting to show that the God of the New and the God of the Old are the same, he just relates to man through the New covenant now rather than the Old. The Church is now part of the Body of Christ, and Jesus is the true Israel. Therefore, since Christ has fulfilled the Sinai covenant, as well as the Davidic, and Abrahamic, God no longer interacts with his Church (typified by Israel under the Sinai agreement) in the same way, but is still the same God. The typological nature of Israel however, can inform our exegesis and lead us to some conclusions about the Church under the New Covenant.
The unbelievers have legitimate questions about how we understand these texts, and I think we should be able to answer them, as do you.
But if you have a better exegesis, as I said, I’m all ears.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Interesting thing is I know we agree on this topic. Part of the reason why it is frustrating me…
Our fellow poster seems to change definitions at will which makes this exchange drag out.[/quote]
Yes, this has been noted.
[quote]Now the question is are we posting because our theological pride has been wounded by being called out, or are we doing it because we are truly enjoying the conversation or is there some enlightenment to be gained from it.
I would say the first is most likely…[/quote]
Well, you always have the option of ending the exchange. PRCalDude will probably claim victory by default, but that shouldn’t bother a man as confident in his faith as you are.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The point of this discussion is…
-
Why did God Send the bears right away\but not attack Ahab right away.
-
Is that particular piece of History that important.
-
What is the theological signifigance of it/your interpretation (which was totally unwarranted).
Ok. I didn’t interpret these as your questions, after several readings.
When you asked, “What about Ahab?” I took that to mean, “Why didn’t God deal with Ahab the same way he dealt with the kids who insulted Elisha?” I didn’t realize you were asking, “Why didn’t God strike Ahab dead right away?”
- I didn’t perceive that question either. If you can quote it for me in one of your previous comments, it would definitely help further exchanges.
To the unbelievers here, that particular question is important. Therefore, I think we should try to be able to explain it to them within our moral and philosophical framework the same way we should be able to explain Judges 19 or any of the other texts that give us heartburn when witnessing to unbelievers.
The atheists/agnostics here perceive our religion to be one where God acts 180 degrees out of phase with Himself from the New Testament to the Old. I was attempting to show that the God of the New and the God of the Old are the same, he just relates to man through the New covenant now rather than the Old. The Church is now part of the Body of Christ, and Jesus is the true Israel. Therefore, since Christ has fulfilled the Sinai covenant, as well as the Davidic, and Abrahamic, God no longer interacts with his Church (typified by Israel under the Sinai agreement) in the same way, but is still the same God. The typological nature of Israel however, can inform our exegesis and lead us to some conclusions about the Church under the New Covenant.
The unbelievers have legitimate questions about how we understand these texts, and I think we should be able to answer them, as do you.
But if you have a better exegesis, as I said, I’m all ears. [/quote]
Now that is heads and tells better than your first exegessis. Although I think it is an impossible leap to get the exegessis from just that piece of text.
I am not surprised you didn’t get that after several readings… No offense but in one of my posts I asked you why didn’t you just use Romans 9 to make your point. In your next reply you told me it wouldn’t help my case. I would gather that from the few exchanges we have had you have mis understood several of my posts. Which has lead to a rather lengthy discussion over very little.
As for the credibility issue. I would hope I would have a little bit more than you with pookie and varq considering we have had several exchanges over the last couple of years. I consider them well informed and give them the utmost respect. In many ways they have both given me knew perspectives on things concerning my faith.
Then again they could think I am just as bad as several other theist on this board…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Interesting thing is I know we agree on this topic. Part of the reason why it is frustrating me…
Our fellow poster seems to change definitions at will which makes this exchange drag out.
Yes, this has been noted.
Now the question is are we posting because our theological pride has been wounded by being called out, or are we doing it because we are truly enjoying the conversation or is there some enlightenment to be gained from it.
I would say the first is most likely…
Well, you always have the option of ending the exchange. PRCalDude will probably claim victory by default, but that shouldn’t bother a man as confident in his faith as you are.
[/quote]
Yes, but these debates are like crack. I keep coming back for more.
I must say everytime I always laugh when you post in these threads. You play devil’s advo. so well
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Just out of curiousity, do we have more or less credibility because of this exchange between us? I’m pretty sure I already know the answer…[/quote]
I don’t think we can establish much credibility based on a single exchange.
Haney gets much benefit of the doubt because he’s been around for many years, and has always been one of the most level headed and fair debater around here. Whether in the public forums, or through PMs, he’s always polite and considerate. He’s able to accept that from the same evidence, two persons can reach opposite conclusions, either because of personal experience or even simple inclination.
You’ve been around for a much shorter time, and while you undoubtedly know your scripture, my personal opinion is that you like to preach to others a lot more than you like to consider their point of view.
That’s fine as far as it goes if that’s what you want to do, but you’ll probably convince (much less convert) no one, and you’ll find yourself unable to debate some of the most interesting posters (many of them on the opposite of the theist/atheist divide) if they feel that you unfairly dismiss anything they have to say.
I believe in God.
All I know is that I was worse off without Him. My faith has improved my life. It is a sad and lonely life not believing in anything. You are missing out!
For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.
1 Timothy 4:15
…the official God - FAQ…
[quote]joshjuk wrote:
I believe in God.
All I know is that I was worse off without Him. My faith has improved my life. It is a sad and lonely life not believing in anything. You are missing out!
For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.
1 Timothy 4:15[/quote]
…it might be hard to grasp that some do not need the reassurance of eternal life after death to live a happy and fulfilling life, but the joy you’ve found in your faith is not universal or special; it’s the relief that you experience after fear is soothed…
…i don’t fear death, and i wouldn’t want to live forever. I’d like to die quietly after a long life, and be done with it. I have no use for a deity and a heaven, and don’t need to be reminded how to live a good life. How to live is good life should be obvious, but i’m glad there are means to remind people if they suck at it…
Your typing with fingers, using a brain looking at a computer screen. You mean to tell me these things created themselves by accident ?
This language were speaking right now, what does it mean ? Why does it exist ? Better yet, if nothing created it, how do you explain its existence ?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t fear death, and i wouldn’t want to live forever. I’d like to die quietly after a long life, and be done with it. I have no use for a deity and a heaven, and don’t need to be reminded how to live a good life. How to live is good life should be obvious, but i’m glad there are means to remind people if they suck at it…[/quote]
Bingo, after reading the whole thread, we have a winner.
Im not going to hell with you atheists !!!