7thangel

I do not specifically mean that. That's a foolish conclusion.

[quote]You are not being able to understand christian texts, you are drawing wrong conclusion proving only your ignorance. [quote]

I do admit my ignorance about matters, not of what I understand.

I was honest enough to speak of my ignorance, but care read the whole thread and show my ignorance, perhaps. Well, I am a newbie apologist, you have a great advantage.

Amlodhi

That is not what Calvin believed.

Calvin "If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment."

Let me help. Calvin is saying that if God simply knew what was going to happen, there might be some question as to whether those things must happen. However, Calvin says further, that God doesn't just know what will happen; he knows what will happen because he has already decreed that those things will happen.

None of your answers to question #3 supported predestination in any way.

In fact, your only other relevant answer was that you believe in non-existence after physical death for the non-elect.

So I will rephrase my original question:

If God himself told you that while you are among the elect, unfortunately, your young daughter isn't. What would you say to her? Would you say,"Yes sweetheart, when Daddy dies he is going to wonderful heaven and live forever. You? Oh, no, sorry pumpkin, but when you die you get to rot in the grave. But isn't God wonderful, praise Him with me now."

And when you arrived at your wonderful heaven, would you bow down and sing the praises of such a God?

Still curious . . .

Namaste'

Amlodhi

7thangel

Thanks for informing me. I have been misinformed about him for a long time.

I thought you mean from #'s 1 & 2.

In fact, your only other relevant answer was that you believe in non-existence after physical death for the non-elect.[/b][/quote]

I thought you mean from #'s 1 & 2, not predestination.

Who am I to resist God? We are all clay in reality and my daughter is not at all above any other children, men, or women. Nor would I say because I am above my daughter, nor any men, nor women.

Eternal life is a gift of God through His grace. It is not something we earned through volition, nor works. It is God who even made us who we are. If anyone really understand our clay-potter relationship unto God, all we could hope is "GRACE;" for no man is above others in the sight of God.

Israel was chosen among other nations according to God's grace, that is how simple it is. And the thing that we learn from the Scriptures with its fulfillment is showing us His power, even to the extent of knowing that our very being is shaped of God. Thus, he can also shape us in His likeness, and thus not fear of what other men and women would behave to one another in the afterlife.

Abraham did not complain to God when He drove Esau for having no part of the promise, which is actually eternal life in earth. Abraham's belief extent to same understanding of the clay-potter relationship unto God, thus, even with a heavy heart he obeyed offering Isaac. This is of course very much misunderstood by other Christians.

Too sleepy, sorry but I need to go....

Koyaanisqatsi

Of course you don't. You're programmed not to. Just look at this whole thread. You even state at one point that you're a beginner "apologist" as some sort of excuse for lack of scholarly integrity; as if it's perfectly ok for you to make so many glaring mistakes and speak out your ass (if you'll pardon the referrence) on matters you clearly are not well informed!



What's the point? It doesn't matter if you're wrong, once you believe in Jesus, you're always right? Is that what you're selling?

Let's go to the board, then, shall we, and see what both Paul and I were arguing, yes?

First of all, no Jews killed Jesus. The Romans did (if the passion narratives can be trusted), so right out of the gate, Paul is not only generalizing in order to cast undue aspersions on, presumably, the orthodoxy of Jerusalem (aka, the head of the Temple; the big cheeses; the main artery of Jewish authority), but also, apparently, lying.

Paul has just declared that the highest and most venerated members of the entire Jewish orthodoxy--across the board; naming no individual criminal to be held accountable--has accrued the "wrath" of their own God "at last." Falsely accused--en masse--of killing Jesus and "the prophets" (whoever they're supposed to be; John being the only one I can think of, I guess), the whole lot of them have accrued God's wrath.

Now, think back, if you're capable, to the trial sequence from the synoptics, where Pilate thrice declares Jesus to be innocent of all crimes and sets him free. Indeed, states categorically that he can't even find a crime against the man. Who then incongruously forces Pilate to change his mind and murder a completely innocent man? Is it the Sanhedrin and the "makers of the laws"? Nooooooo. It is the crowd of Jewish people who inexplicably and illogically scare Pilate so much as to force him to murder a man he has just officially and publicly declared (thrice) to be innocent of all charges.

So who could Paul be talking about in Thessolonians if not that crowd of Jewish people per se? I mean, if the synoptics are "true," of course. It is impossible to conclude he was referring to the Sanhedrin and "makers of the laws" or any ruling member of the orthodoxy when he said "the Jews" who killed Jesus, since all of them failed at convincing Pilate (who actually killed Jesus, by the way), so Paul must have been deliberately factionalizing the Jewish orthodoxy in Jerusalem by demonization, yes?

Nothing else explains what he said. The "wrath of god" is upon them at last? Who? The crowd? Pilate? It can't be the Sanhedrin. They not only failed, but were publicly humiliated by their failure by Pilate thrice declaring that no crime had been committed by Jesus.

Why? Because no orthodox Jew is going to fall for such nonsense, just as they still have not fallen for such nonsense for over two thousand years! Look, you can't win this. Paul was a liar if the synoptic accounts are true and if they aren't, well, then, you tell me where that places your cult. Regardless, he was more than likely just another in a long series of scam artists who was trying to form his own cult; a cult he either made up from whole cloth or he simply became the Malcolm X of an already growing cult to brainwash other ignorant sheep into hating their original masters and loving a new one. When that didn't work and none of the more mainstream Jewish factions bought his nonsense about a resurrected Messiah (since they all knew the scriptures and no such prophesy had been fulfilled by anything they saw in their time) he focused instead on the Gentiles. They didn't know what the "prophets of old" prophesied, so Paul could get away with a hell of a lot more bullshit, as is evidenced today by your fumbling apologetics.

The mainstream Jews wouldn't follow his cult; the radical, reformist Jews wouldn't follow his cult; so, he travels far from any of it and focuses on the Gentiles, aka, pagans, who are so desperate to believe anything that they believe just about everything. After all, was Jesus (as depicted in the NT we have today, anyway) preaching judaism? No. Not in the slightest. He changes every orthodox law (including what is permitted on the holiest of all holy days, the Sabbath) and his ministry is all about feeling great about being oppressed, because it means you'll win the big prize when you're dead. We're all immortal! Hooray! When you die, you get to live forever! Hooray! So long as you do what you're told to do by everyone on Earth (including your priests and cult leaders, of course) you never have to think at all about anything, ever. It's all taken care of.

Well, what idiot wandering desperately through the desert back in those times of Roman oppression and slavery wouldn't want to hear that they are blessed for being oppressed and that they will live in splendor and wonder after they are brutally murdered by the State for breathing wrong on a Centurion or their master and that they never have to do anything at all for any of this blessing, other than to just believe that some guy named Jesus died for their sins! Hell they don't even have to pay for their sins! It's all been taken care of for them so just continue to live in drudgery and pretend it's paradise in your mind until the point of the blade chops your worthless head off, all right little plebian? Tote that barge and lift that bail and sing hosannah all you want, so long as you never rise up against your oppressors like the Jews do and you'll be just fine.

That's what Paul was pushing and he wasn't even pushing it to the people who allegedly knew of Jesus the best; the Jewish people in and around Jerusalem! Why? Oh, um, that's uh, that's because, um.....they're the ones who killed him! Yeah, that's it! I'm preaching to you non-Jews about the Jewish messiah, um, because, those Jews--well, you all know what problems they are! Hell, I was even one of them myself! "They" killed their own Messiah! "They" cast us all out! "They," "they," "they!" But what "they" didn't understand is that the power of "their" God--the power that has kept the Jewish people strong for thousands of years--can be had by all of us, through Jesus! For this one time only offer of just $19.95, you too can have the power of the One True God without having to cut anything off your penis! Or keeping glatt kosher; or sacrificing your unblemished livestock or growing grain; or keeping any of the orthodox laws holy; or even worshipping on Friday sundown to Saturday sundown or any of that silly nonsense! Why, you can keep your own pagan holidays, too! Hell, you can even keep your pantheistic beliefs, because the One True God is actually three gods in one! The only requirement is that you believe what I am telling you and nobody else. That's it! Eternal life in God's great swimming pool and a powerful delusional state that let's you remain a pawn and not care all for one act of faith in me....I mean, Jesus, through me.

It ain't rocket science, 7th.

Yes, but it should not have. The "Jews" did not kill Jesus! The fault of Jesus' death lies entirely upon Pilate's inexplicable and illogical declaration to have him killed.

No one but Pilate was to blame for Jesus' death. No one. Let's grant that Pilate was so terrified of the "crowd" he was there to brutally subdue and rule over as to acquiesce to their cries of "crucify him," that still means that only Pilate is to blame for Jesus' death. He was in charge; he gave the order; he is to blame.

So, Paul was lying. Pilate killed Jesus, not "the Jews" (plural, nonspecific).



I so hate having to correct alleged theists. 2 Kings chronicles an exile to Babylon that happened to the Jews hundreds of years before Jesus was born that the prophet Jeremiah speaks about. Remember him?

And let's not forget what Jeremiah had to say regarding those exiled:

That would be roughly 370 BCE. And what was this "gracious promise?"

And what was the writing on the wall that Belshazarr could not read, but Daniel could?

Thus, the "fall" you speak of in referrencing 2 Kings and all that nonsense about rebuilding David's throne was over and done with and the Jews restored to Jerusalem some three hundred and seventy years before Jesus was even born.

I should quote all of Esther next, but you can read it on your own. The re-building of the Temple had begun under Cyrus when the Persians first took over the Babylonian empire. It was then interrupted for about 18 years due to the meddlings of the Sammaritans, then resumed by decree of Darius II, the Persian king (who the Jews believe to be the son of Esther).

The second temple--the one, presumably, that Jesus throws his hissy fit in--is completed in 350 BCE.

"See" them or know them to be bogus and fraudulent interpolations in order to justify a new cult?

False! Verse 24 says (and I note you didn't quote it to illustrate your point): From the point of Gabriel speaking to Daniel, seventy weeks is determined for "thy" people (the Jews) and for Jerusalem to, figuratively speaking, get your shit together and "anoint the holy of holies." Daniel lived hundreds of years before Jesus was even born, yet Gabriel is stating, in essence, "Because you asked, you and your people have seventy weeks to get all your shit together and make your peace with God, because at the end of sixty nine weeks, the Messiah is going to stop your ability to atone for your sins through 'sacrifice and present' and at sixty two, he's going to physically kill every single person in and around the city who is not anointed, with a flood."

That's it. It is therefore categorically impossible for Daniel to have been writing about Jesus.

Again, false! The Messiah does not die; everybody else dies, but not the Messiah, the Leader. The Messiah is there to allow for everyone to make their peace with God and then he's cut off from helping anyone. Not killed, just "cut off" from giving any help. Read the words again:

Had "cut off" meant the Messiah's death, then how could the Messiah destroy the people over the remaining eight weeks?

Categorically false on all levels, including the most salient one you forgot to deal with; that the Messiah is there to destroy the people with a flood. Not a metaphorical, allegorical flood, but actual water to drown everybody with and then the wars begin.

No crucifixion and no sacrifice! Sacrifice is ceased by the Messiah before he starts to kill everybody; before he releases the flood and wars begin. It's not a matter of a day equalling a million years or a week equally a month or any of that apologetic crap. It is, quite simply, impossible for Danile to have been describing Jesus and Jesus' life and death in either a literal or figurative manner.

It is now abundantly obvious who is the one doing the misunderstanding; deliberately, I should add.

And to what end? To desperately justify that which cannot be justified? What does that tell you about your beliefs? Daniel could not possibly be describing Jesus in any way, shape or form, yet instead of admitting this, you will go to whatever lengths necessary to simply deny this. Why?

Read the goddamned verse!

Seventy weeks total. Not seventy weeks equals the thirty two years that Jesus was on earth or seventy weeks equals the two years Jesus allegedly preached or one week equals the time that Jesus was on trial or one day equals whatever you want to it equal in order to force a conclusion that isn't there, but seventy weeks. Total. Roughly five hundred days, rounded up (or however many days that would have been according to an ancient Jewish calendar).

The clock starts ticking the minute Gabriel speaks to Daniel and everyone (presumably) in the world has got just sixty nine weeks before atonement through sacrifice ceases and at the end of sixty two weeks, the Messiah starts killing people.

Well, they're certainly clearly written. Why you're incapable of reading it clearly is, however, beyond me

No, I am not, as I have abundantly demonstrated. The Old Testament simply does not and could not possibly prophesy the life and times of Jesus. You should do a web search some time on the actual name of the Jewish "messiah" (Moshiach) and see what you find.

He doesn't. He destroys all the people. At least, according to Gabriel via Daniel, so take it up with Daniel.

As I have exhaustively demonstrated, you are anything but coherent regarding "prophesies." Daniel was not and could not have been talking about Jesus (though, I should add that, technically, Daniel is not listed among the 55 prophets of the OT by the Jews).

Which happened some two hundred years prior to Jesus' birth (unless you're holding on to the sixth century BCE dating, in which case the seventy weeks was up way before then).

Ahhh, I see! So, all the Jews throughout all of history are wrong about their own religion, but you're right. Got it.

If it were "prophesied" yes. You're the one claiming that Jesus was prophesied in the OT. So, go on. Where does it mention Pilate or Herod or the trial or that Jesus' life, death and ministry would mark none of the events the other prophets prophesied, with the pathetic exception of riding in on the ass (of two donkeys)?

Where does Isaih say, "You will know the Moshaich by his death and resurrection; his presence shall mark at least two thousand years of absolutely nothing changing in humanity, other than technological progress. His death will go unnoticed and unheralded for hundreds of years, until the very empire that had him murdered shall instead preach his word through brutal police action and for centuries mankind throughout the globe will be forced--often at knifepoint--to convert from Judaism, particularly, and Paganism to what will then be called Christianity. Although his birth was not on a pagan ritual holiday, nonetheless December 25th--a pagan, ritual holiday--will inexplicably be celebrated as his birth day and upon the anniversary of his death and resurrection, bunny rabbits laying chocolate eggs will commence forth!"

It's just as assinine as anything Isaiah ever wrote and equally detailed, so you tell me. Isaiah wrote about many messengers of god, never once (to my recollection) calling any one of them the Moshiach.

No, in yours, too. You're just denying it. See, when someone is demonstrated to be wrong, it means that there is no question to it, so it can only be childishly denied. Nowhere is Daniel saying anything about Jesus. That has been unquestionably demonstrated. Your responses were likewise demonstrated to be false. Remember? You said, "Look at this chapter" and I did and showed how it could not possibly be referring to Jesus and then you said, "Look at this chapter" and I did and showed you how it could not possibly be referring to Jesus. That's how it works.

Yes....Psalms 22....A prophecy of Jesus, is it? Not a song of supplication to be sung to God by the Jews at all? Let's go to the boards (Young's again, if you don't mind; far better when dealing with "prophecy" to get the most direct translation available, don't you agree?):

Still think this is referring to Jesus? Jesus was a "worm" was he? A "reproach of man" and "despised of the people?" People despised Jesus, did they? Well, there was that impossible crowd at the Roman ritual that never happened, but I also recall something about the multitudes flocking to hear him and how he was beloved by all? No?

Anyway, let's keep going. A "devil's" work is never done...



And this would be whom mocking him by invoking Jehovah's name? The Roman's again? Oh, that's right. The Roman's didn't kill him according to Paul, the "Jews" did. So I guess it was the "Jews" who were mocking him by invoking Jehovah like that, because that's what Jewish people would say when mocking somebody claiming to be the Son of Jehovah?

Have they now? Adversity is near? Many bulls have surrounded Jesus? A lion tearing and roaring? Or is that metaphorical? After all, Jesus allegedly invoked this psalm of suffering on the cross, so you tell me when it becomes literal and when it is merely metaphorical.

Ewe. Still going with Jesus are you? And has it yet become literal or is it still metaphorical?

Well, there's the relevant section, but I still don't see anything that necessarily equates with crucifixion, though I see where you can misconstrue the piercing part (though the "to the dust of death" part makes no sense, since Jesus tasted no dust), so let's see if there might be something in the next few verses that might help us see what is the cause of those "piercings;" a nail through into word or some other weapon that might be involved...?

Ahh! Well, there you have it. The poor bastard in the Psalm wasn't pierced by a Roman nail, but by a sword from the evil ones that compass him along with the dogs he's also afraid of.

Still not convinced it has nothing to do with Jesus (and I know you aren't...)? Perhaps the next verse will tell us what this poor bastard is asking God to do for him and whether or not God actually does?

Well, hallelujah! He's saved from the mouth of a lion and from the horns of the high places--clearly metaphorical, right?--and declares it to all those evil doers with the swords and the dogs who are tormenting him and piercing his hands and feet:

Wait, is this the Romans who he's talking to again, or the Jewish people who are mocking him? I get confused...No, that's right, it's the Romans who are casting lots for Jesus' clothes and who mocked him (and killed him), so if the Psalm of David is about Jesus.....

Then Jesus was a raving mad man by this time?

So you're still going with that being a prophecy about Jesus? I'll assume "yes."

Was he now? So, he was ingorant of the facts because he was a believer? Thanks for pointing that out.

Enough. This is a pointless rehash of other threads.

Amlodhi

Why do you simply assume that others don't understand this? I assure you that there are many on this board (myself included) who understand the concept very well. Some of us just happen to think that this is not the situation and that it would not qualify as a just situation in any case.

In Gen. 18:25 Abraham says to Yahweh: "That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked . . . Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?".

Why should the righteous of these cities be exempted from physical destruction if their righteousness was not the result of any personal volition? IOW, did God owe these people this exemption because He made them righteous without consent or help from the people themselves?

No? Why then would Abraham say, "That be far from thee to do after this manner . . ."?

It is, in addition, extemely difficult to mold a predestinational stance into IIPeter 3:9, "The Lord . . . is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

By the definition of predestination, God elects some to life and some to death totally of his own volition or "will". Thus he "wills" some to perish in contradiction to IIPeter 3:9.

I also find it interesting that you said this:

But in a later post you indicated that a predestinational doctrine is acceptable to you if there is no Hell but only non-existence awaiting the non-elect.

Consider, for argument, that you and your family are in a religiously strict foreign country. You are all accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Before the sentence is carried out, the chieftain tells you that he has decided to let you live; your family, however, will still be executed.

Will you tell your family, "Well, you were going to die anyway. I just got lucky and I wish that you would have also but, hey, that's the breaks"? And now would you happily go about your business praising this wonderful despot because he spared your life?

Even humans understand morals and justice better than that. Any bench judge who inexplicably and arbitrarily dismissed charges against select individuals while sending all others to their death would soon find himself called before the same bench to explain his actions.

The doctrine of predestination is incompatable with a just God; Paul's opinions not withstanding.

P.S.

Neither Abraham nor God drove Esau anywhere, you're thinking of Ishmael. And even as such, it was Sarah who insisted.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

7thangel

This just came to my attention, I guess one of the reason some reject, or judge, the clay-potter relationship as unjust is that God can therefore destroy even the pots whom God had prepared for His Glory. That isn't the case, for whatever God had destined it is good and will remain for eternity. Now, going back to Abraham, the same is the notion of Abraham asking God about destroying the righteous "forever" according to God's will. You must notice that Abraham accepts that God can do so at His will, even mentioning himself as "but dust and ashes," recognizing that God had the authority to do so. And the sucessive questions are actually just mere appeal unto God's mercy, not of justice. God will surely not destroy anyone whom He had chosen, else we(the chosen) will not have peace, even at the afterlife.

In addition, we must also note that afterwards Abraham even offered his only child. But of course, he believed that God can bring Isaac unto life again according to His promises unto the child. So he therefore understood that God can bring suffering to the chosen even killing them. But the issue of Abraham is about the righteous in Sodom and Gomorah is actually about perishing forever.

When Christ came to save sinners, he did not mean all, in fact he said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Previously, he said, "no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Indeed, not all who comes unto God would be saved. thus Paul said, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Note that it is God who gives enlightenment, yet these Israelites were not given enlightenment.

Now, did the apostles knew about predestination? Yes, because Christ revealed this mystery unto the apostles and prophets at that time(Peter 1:20, Mark 4:11-12). But apparently they did not lay predestination quite clearly, though there are still clear possibility that we can know predestination in the NT, most especially on Paul's writings. The same as when God gave the law, as man will be saved on it's own volition. But the justification on the law of Moses would fail all of its adherents; even in just this one, saying, "Cursed be he that confirmeth not ALL the words of this law to do them." Thus, even by the law of Moses we can plainly see God's plan of predestination.

Also, predestination is actually a teaching for the matured, not unto the babes taking milk. So, it is but necessary also that, as children, we present salvation as if it is something to "work on;" a state of being under the law. For all men pass the state of being under the law.(this needs more explanation, I guess).

When the apostles preached, they knew at hand about the apostasy, this is in line with the prophesy specifically Daniel 7:21. And that the church that will be overcomed is actually the Jewish church, thus will God bring the falling away of Israel. As you can see, Christ, and even the apostles, except Paul, did not clearly spake of predestination because they are by themselves instrumental in the falling of the Jewish church, and that they warned of this coming apostasy. And note that they did not joined themselves unto the gentile church because the gentile church were not part of the falling away. Now Paul spake of predestination, and prophesied of a day, where men would know the secrets of men by Jesus Christ through his gospel. But he speaks of gentiles who, in the future, would believe. Even the people who would "rebuild" Jerusalem.

Note also of the prophesy regarding the gentile seeking for Christ(Isaiah 11:10), and that Paul was actually an apostle to the gentiles, it is just because through Paul's gospel we can see a clear doctrine of predestination, and that through his teachings we come to understand clearly the counsel of God.

Eternal torment is different from being dead. And escaping from a chieftain is different from escaping from God. It is not a fair comparison to God doing his will on the clay, or pots. God looks at us a mere clay he shaped and formed void of true knowledge for it is God who gave us even the very knowledge. Careful examination would lead us indeed to understand that this is our case. Thus, God look unto us like an inventor look at his cyborgs, which its value is dependent to its purpose. While you are speaking of the escape from the chieftain, you had the notion of yourself being a moral agent, while in the eyes of God, we are not. Lok of what Paul said: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" This is actually the very same question we always ask about the needlessness of preaching as if we need not convict the people who do not believe. But what Paul said? " Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" You see, God does not only bring eternal death but it is also God who also shape us to be as we are be good or evil. What more is that God had all the right even at the expense of the "vessels unto destruction," to show His power and might unto the chosen vessels. Paul said, "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

But as I said, if God created every member of your family righteous, they will surely not perish, that is one thing we are assured of.

But I do not think you understand fully the clay potter relationship, everytime you insist of yourself as a moral being, you would fail to present the fairness of God's actions on the clay, unto us. Or if you really understood it, you are in denial of its true meaning.


Really to my shame, yes, I was really too sleepy. I make a lot of mistakes, but well, such this kind of mistake convinces me that I am purely mechanical anyway. Such experiences and understanding made me used to not putting myself above others, even though I know God had chosen me.

God bless you,
7thangel

Amlodhi

Maybe some do, but it wasn't my position.
You like to re-write scripture as you go along don't you.

Regardless of your position on any afterlife, the word "forever" is not in these verses. Abraham was referring to nothing more than the physical destruction of the people.
Nonsense. Not of justice? Isn't that what "doing right" means?

Gen. 18:25 ". . . Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
Maybe it is in the bible you're writing; but it's not in the bible I'm reading.
I'm completely familiar with the concept, if you decide you'd like to discuss it.

Incidentally, I have snipped from your post a great deal of irrelevant rhetoric involving apostasy, gentiles, etc. Excessive rambling simply obfuscates any point which might otherwise be clearly discerned.
Yes, he did. And Calvin, referring specifically to this statement by Paul, says:

"Let my readers observe that Paul, . . . attributes supreme sovereignty to the wrath and power of God. . .It is frivolous in our opponents to reply, that God does not altogether reject those whom in levity he tolerates, but remains in suspense with regard to them, if per adventure they may repent; as if Paul were representing God as patiently waiting for the conversion of those whom he describes as fitted for destruction." [John Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion"]

But why are you telling me that Paul believed in predestination when I already know this? And since I informed you about Calvin and Augustine, you now know that they also believed in predestination; so please do not start telling me about them.
And as I said, according to your doctrine, if he created everyone you know and love for destruction, then they surely will perish. That's another thing you are assured of.

IOW, it's "Well, you see sweetheart, God created me to live in bliss forever but he created you S.O.L., so I can hardly wait to get to heaven to tell him how wonderful he is."
Yes, I keep hearing this assertion from you while I'm busy correcting your errors.

If you would like to actually examine the implications of predestinational doctrine (and scriptural support for same), as opposed to simply restating the dogma ad nauseum, I will be happy to discuss the matter in depth with you. Either here, or in another thread.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

7thangel

Well, I have exlained to you, trying to relate why do you think Abraham offered Isaac without a question, if the destructions of the holy in Sodoma and Gomorah he questioned be "forever?" If the holy be destroyed, or perished forever, then there is injustice in God. But for God to do something evil, even unto the elect, for to put the elect in better position, God is just to do so. So why do you think Abraham did not question of God's justness regarding offering his only son, but questioned God when God would destroy Sodoma and Gomorah together with the holy men/women? So, Abraham is not questioning the evil actions of God, but of God's purpose. And my point is that if the destruction of the holy men of God in Sodom and gomorah is not eternal, he would had not questioned God's justness like when he did not question God's justness by offering Isaac.

Well, we actually have different view of God's justness.

If we all are able to discern the Bible, what are the pastors and evangelists for, and also of the prophets.

Perhaps, tell me about your understanding of the apostasy.

Based on your argument, it seems that God has not choice but to save all. If my daddy should be saved so was me, so was my children, so was my children's children..... And if we begin in Adam, well, expect all will be saved according to your argument.

But God is not obligated to choose whom He will. For we are all but dust and ashes, nobody's holier in the eyes of God. Now, if grace be demanded to be bestowed upon all men, then it is no more grace but an obligation. So the question is, why would you think that we are saved through grace, not through obligation?

Actually, you will be doing me a favor if you do so. And of course, I would like to. I only knew predestination through the Bible, and was actually beginning to look for resources, and I do not know where to begin. And if you do me a favor, God will surely bless you.

Amlodhi

It is completely unjustified to presume that the ethereal souls of the righteous would not be preserved beyond the physical destruction of the people of these cities. The first clue is that the text speaks only of physical destruction, anything beyond that is simply an addition based solely upon your presumptions. It is also untenable to presume that, here, God must be invoking some special "eternal destruction" since, according to your doctrine, physical death = spiritual death for the non-elect automatically. Thus, if physical death is all that is necessary to "eternally destroy" the wicked, why would God have any sort of a problem preserving the souls of the elect through such a physical destruction?

As to the offered sacrifice of Isaac: different story with a different purpose. I have never claimed that the biblical stories must be consistent.
Well, actually, this was Abraham's view.
To teach people how to make the text say what they want it to say?
I do not, at this point, intend to write the lengthy dissertation which would be necessary to even begin to respond to such an unbounded request. However, briefly, the concept of a "great apostasy" is based largely on II Thess. 2: 1-4. My personal contention is that there has been no such apostasy. Some think that this apostasy began following the death of the last apostle. Others contend that this apostasy is being fulfilled as we speak. Yet others argue that the apostasy is yet to come and will occur at the advent of the anti-Christ. Still others contend that this refers to the "veil over the eyes" of the Jewish nation (possibly this was your position, however it was difficult to determine because your position appeared to be a blend of these various concepts).

Perhaps the reason that we have so many diverse understandings of this doctrine is because we have so many divinely inspired preachers and prophets who are able to understand those things to which the rest of us are blinded.
This might be a reasonable assumption if I were an advocate of predestinational doctrine; but I'm not. You have simply discarded a wide range of other options, such as: There is no God . . . God is not as humans have described him in the bible . . . free-will doctrine is the correct understanding. . . ad infinitum. . ad nauseum. . .

As to a discussion of the implications of predestinational doctrine, your posts are often difficult to respond to because you tend to unwarranted leaps in order to remain within the more comfortable confines of your pre-established doctrine.

It has been said that:
In order to accomplish a bit of this grinding, for instance, one critical element of your justification of predestinational doctrine is the summary dismissal of any unpleasant afterlife consequences.

What is your interpretation then of Jesus' description of the rich man's afterlife condition in the gospel of Luke; (i.e. Luke 16:23 "And in hell (hades) he lift up his eyes, being in torment . . ."). Why would Jesus, even metaphorically, make a reference to a human consciousness being in such a place or condition? In anticipation, I would prefer that you respond directly to the question as it is asked, as opposed to merely citing an alternative verse which appears to argue that there is no consciousness for the non-elect following death. Unless, of course, you intend to argue that there are contradictions in the bible.

Namaste'

Amlodhi