gabriel

Thank you all for your responses. All have been of great help to clarify my ideas.
Next round with this guy will be this week.

anime

For info on Who decides who will receive what knowledge read Romans chapter 9.

Romans chapter 11 gives the qualification for the elect (remnant).

But don't let people fool you, Romans 9 does not say they are going to hell for not knowing.

braces_for_impact

Another simple point is I have yet to see an unconditionally loving parent which will systematically torture their child for all eternity, regardless of the infraction.

beastmaster

If we cannot understand god, then we cannot know that he is good.

Oh, yes, we can have faith.

But faith does not *make* god good.

sandlewood

First, this is an interactive forum and you need to state your own case. I won’t be sent off the read the Bible.

Second, this is just what BarryG is talking about regarding the circular argument. What good does it do to run off and read Romans 9 and 11 if you are not meant to understand it correctly anyway. Even if it does tell you who will understand and who will not, perhaps you will misunderstand that portion. So the question remains: how do you know that you or I understand Romans 9 and 11 correctly?

Regarding the original point, it always strikes me that the analogies between the God-human relationship and the parent-child relationship don’t make sense. Parents and children are the same type. They are all human beings. Children become parents. But do humans become gods? As children gradually grow up, they slowly understand why certain things may be wrong, like eating too much candy. But humans are fated never to understand God because he is supernatural. Except perhaps after we die—then suddenly we are granted this understanding when we go to heaven? That certainly doesn’t make sense.

When parents punish their children for disobedience, they may give them a swat on their bottom or perhaps send them to their room for a couple hours. But when God punishes you, he sends you to Hell for eternity with no possibility to get out. And that punishment is given merely for the crime of not believe God exists. Would any parent dole out such a harsh punishment? And if he/she did, wouldn’t some authority step in to enforce the child’s human rights? So who is the higher authority to protect us from God’s punishment of burning in Hell for eternity? So these parent-child analogies just don’t hold water.

What if a dictator said that you must be obedient to him because he had a way to make the world a much better place in the end? He claims that he cannot tell you how he will accomplish that because you wouldn’t understand it. But you must be obedient to him, otherwise he will kill you. Would you agree to that?

anime

First, this is an interactive forum and you need to state your own case. I won't be sent off the read the Bible.

You don't have to.

May I provide a link to those verses? Atheists and theists have both provided links on this forum to other sights for others to be "sent off" to and read with impunity.

What good does it do to run off and read Romans 9 and 11 if you are not meant to understand it correctly anyway.

Because it is better to be hot or cold rather than lukewarm:

Rev. 3:15-16 "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
{16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Even if it does tell you who will understand and who will not, perhaps you will misunderstand that portion. So the question remains: how do you know that you or I understand Romans 9 and 11 correctly?

In Romans 11, Paul makes a reference to the Old Testament, in which God has preserved 7000 (the remnant - a spiritual number) who will not bow a knee to Satan. Everybody else has been blinded.

And you can see evidence of it today. Remember the "Left Behind" series that came out some years ago, which depicts the "church" suddenly "disappearing" before antichrist appears? Or the movie "Armageddon" which shows the same thing. These people are blinded and they are the vast majority. Their is no Scripture to back up their claims.

I don't how these people interpret Romans 11, so you would have to ask them.

Regarding the original point, it always strikes me that the analogies between the God-human relationship and the parent-child relationship don't make sense. Parents and children are the same type. They are all human beings. Children become parents. But do humans become gods? As children gradually grow up, they slowly understand why certain things may be wrong, like eating too much candy. But humans are fated never to understand God because he is supernatural. Except perhaps after we die—then suddenly we are granted this understanding when we go to heaven? That certainly doesn't make sense.

An analogy is meant to teach by showing similarities, not differences.

When parents punish their children for disobedience, they may give them a swat on their bottom or perhaps send them to their room for a couple hours. But when God punishes you, he sends you to Hell for eternity with no possibility to get out.

God is quite capable of punishing people without sending them to hell:

Hebrews12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Too many "hell-fire preachers" leave out the fact that everybody will receive one fair chance to know and accept:

Ezekiel 44
23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

After that 1,000 years, Satan is realesed:

Rev. 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

The 1,000 year reign and teachings of Christ in the future is left out of most church doctrines, though it is taught in the Bible. (Do you see what I mean by blinded?)

And unfortunately, wise people who can discern these preacher's ineptitudes, reject God Himself for it.

In all honesty, I blame most of the "church" and its clergy for the atheism in the world. But as I told one atheist, many atheists I like because they are decent people.

sandlewood

It’s one thing to provide support for your point. It’s another to merely send someone off to read, telling them the point they intend to make is found in there somewhere. That would be particularly ineffective in this case since I’m supposed to be one of those who can't comprehend the Bible correctly anyway.
I have no idea what this means. “Cold” means not understanding the Bible at all and “hot” means fully understanding it? So it’s better to not understand it at all than to partially comprehend it. I guess I don’t follow. Anyway...

You’re still missing the whole point. It does no good to keep quoting the Bible. The whole point is how we can know that we understand it correctly or not. And you cannot determine that from the Bible itself because that would be circular. So Bible quotes will not help.
Though, it is not used that way in the beginning. It is used as an argument to justify the inability to comprehend many aspects about God. It’s a poor analogy precisely because there are so many differences. Then when the differences are pointed out, the fallback position is always to say “well, it’s just an analogy”.
That wasn’t the point. The point was not whether he is capable of punishing people less. The point is that God’s punishment is not anything like the punishments in parent-child relationships. So how would that analogy be “teaching” us anything, as you say?
In other words, “All the men and women who devote their lives to learning and understanding the Bible have got it wrong. But me, as an individual, well I’ve got it right.” This is the point I was making earlier. It seems most Christian say this. They can all back up their contradicting opinions with their own interpretations of Bible quotes. And their own interpretations are “obvious” to them. But they all just go on believing that the others are wrong, without seeing the need for some objective method for determining what is correct and what is not.

Jobar

Anime, speaking as a mod I advise you to keep your quotes of Bible verses to a minimum. If you feel some particular verse expresses what you want to say precisely, you may quote it, followed or preceded by your own wording; or you may just state chapter and verse, and then give your own expression, and not actually type out the Biblical quote. You have not been over the line in your use of Bible quotes so far, but you are approaching it.

anime

Understood. Thank you Jobar.

bgponder

Better watch it Sandlewood,

Anime will make a false Straw Man of you too

To all, I am continuing this because I think it relates to the OP in that it is a discussion of how we can know and understand Biblical teachings.

Anime said:


False.

That's what got the ball rolling, dude, or dudette as the case may be--


All the stuff in between notwithstanding, like how you know that
prophecy is a viable phenomenon,and how you could possibly know that some Christians who think they believe are actually rejecting the truth because they are not searching with their whole heart (are you psychic?), and what particular Biblical contexts and verses are prophetically applicable toward Millennial teaching, I just gotta ask (again, but directly this time): Do you consider yourself a part of this Remnant, which has this "truth", or not?


False. Because if you're not one of them, according to your own words here, it's not the truth you've been telling, you've just been feeding us crap. And if you think you are, then you have to justify how you can know so much without circularly spouting chapverse.

Because otherwise, let me clarify what I meant by your argument being "gobbledegook": framed in mere assertions.

Oh yeah.

You're absolutely correct, my mistake. Thanks for clearing that up.

Peace and cornbread, BarryG