Philetus
New member
And when you guys have finished swapping insults and put everybody on ignore maybe we could discuss the topic of the thread. :chuckle:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
And when you guys have finished swapping insults and put everybody on ignore maybe we could discuss the topic of the thread. :chuckle:
elected4ever
New member
That would be nice
Mystery
New member
As long as someone keeps professing that God is a free moral agent, it's going to be hard to ignore their stupidity.
How does the fact that God can think, act, feel dynamically and responsivel (vs impersonal, cosmic blob, static) make Him unstable or double-minded? He is omnicompetent and intelligent. His character and attributes are like a Rock. He is not capricious or fickle. He always choses based on love, righteousness, and intelligence.
God is great, God is good, let us thank Him for our food. Amen.
Francis Schaeffer (True Spirituality; thinker/apologist and man of God):
"The most basic teaching of the Bible is that God exists, and what He is, and the corollary of what man is as made in God's own image. We live in a personal universe, and not in an impersonal one. God exists, God is personal; we are personal, as we have been made in the image of God, and our relationship to God is to be personal, not mechanical. We are not machines, we are not plants, we are not mere animals, but men created in the image of God- rational and MORAL. When we were created, we were created for a purpose. And the purpose of our creation, in which all our subsidary purposes fit, is to be in a personal relationship to God, in communion with Him- in love, by choice, the creature before the Creator.
But sin destroyed this. The creature tried to be on the same level as the Creator; the finite sought to be placed on the same level as the infinite. And now, when we are saved based on the FINISHED work of Christ, our guilt is gone and we are returned to the proper relationship, not in a mechanical sense, but in a personal relationship of communion."
This does not contradict John's emphasis (and yours) about LIFE in union with Christ. God is not immoral. Man has a conscience. The Law reflects God's holy character. This is in the technical realm of morals, in contrast to the technical area of knowledge dealing with metaphysics (stuff/being= God is uncreated spirit, not created matter).
Moral should not be confused with morality. Just because you define things narrower than the rest of the world does is not a reason to pick a fight or deny self-evident truths.
'Free moral agent' (God is personal and holy, not an impersonal, evil blob) was also used by theologians in the 18th-19th century when men were more literate. God makes choices. Jesus made choices. These were right choices, not evil choices. They came from His will, not a causative nebulous nature. It is not my fault that you are part of an illiterate generation and fail to appreciate terms that communicate truth. Your issue is semantical and ignorance. We should not have to invent new, imprecise terms due to your simplistic confusion between moral and morality.
My informative posts are intended for a broader audience than you. Do not read them and stick your head in the ground, Mr. Ostrich. Deal with the content instead of defensive ad hominem attacks.
I lapsed...forgive me Knight. I will not be bullied into silence, but I will try to be generic instead of linking to Mystery direction.
Mystery
New member
Look, you moron, we were asked to ignore each other's posts. You took it upon yourself to slide in and respond to my posts when I was not looking. You should be banned.
Mystery
New member
Schaffer is dead wrong, and so are you. Christianity is not a "personal relationship". Christianity is Christ in you, the hope of glory. It is the death of self, not a new relationship where the two of you hang out together and exchange ideas.
Nor is He moral. God is righteous.
Man has a conscience, because man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The same tree that you are still munching on.
No, it does not. The Law was "made" by God for the unrighteous. 1 Timothy 1:9
You are so dead in the head that you can't distinguish the truth without taking wild leaps of reason from one bizzare idea to another. I don't care what some idiot in the 18th century says. 200 years from not someone will probably quote the idiot godrulz for what he says.
You have another god, not the God of the bible. You have another Jesus, and not the Jesus of the bible. You have another gospel, a gospel that is from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A gospel that man is righteous becuase of his choices. A gospel of morals, and a gospel of perfection by the flesh. A gospel that Paul says that those who teach are to be accursed, not defended.
See, you get away with the personal attacks on here, but I don't. You are somehow exempt from responsibilty. I am from your generation, you ninny. I have exposed you as a fraud and a liar with the use of the bible. All you have done is quote your IDOL theologians, and your own demon spirits to support your concoctions.
I don't think we should engage each other (suggestion, not directive), but this does not prohibit us from contributing to topics. I have been on this thread longer than you have been born.
Mystery
New member
If you are quoting me, and disputing what I say, then you are not ignoring me, you dimwitted donkey.
Mystery... godrulz is set in his ways. You have said all you can say to him and it's time you moved on.
godrulz... I think you are nearing the point where it's likely you are doing nothing more than provoking Mystery.
I like both of you. But I am going to have to eventually take action against you guys if you refuse to ignore one another.
Please.... just ignore each other!
godrulz... I think you are nearing the point where it's likely you are doing nothing more than provoking Mystery.
I like both of you. But I am going to have to eventually take action against you guys if you refuse to ignore one another.
Please.... just ignore each other!
Mystery
New member
He was on mine, until I saw his name after my posts. I checked in to look, and sure enough, he was responding to my posts! I cannot ignore him if it is not mutually agreed upon.
I am willing if he is, and does so honestly.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why don't you and Mystery take it to the One-on-One forum and have it out? I (and many others) would like to read the resulting fireworks.
Mystery
New member
I would challenge him to a Battle Royale on the subject of soteriology (as long as he actually would use the bible for a change).
Mystery
New member
Yes. I'm sorry, I thought I had responded.
Sometimes I say things in my head, that I forget to post. :doh:
I'll try and get to it tonight.
- Status