Knight's pick 06-27-2006

[Nathon Detroit]

OK... ok... I am a couple days late but this post is classic!!!!!

Jim,

You said,

On the contrary, Jeremy. My attacks were appropriate, biblical, and emulate the example set in scripture. I did not lower myself, but rather rose to occasion and acted out of biblical obligation.

Appropriate? Biblical? Let me get this straight... I disagree with your english definition of a word so biblically you say that "my Open Theist colleauges and I" am less intelligent than your children? How is that biblical Jim? In fact, you said,

You seemed intelligent, astute and able to communicate your ideas and beliefs with clarity.

Does this mean I am no longer these things Jim? In your opinion, I should be whisked back to 3rd Grade with all the other 8-year-olds, right?

My 8, 10 and 12-year-old children have a better grasp of the word "responsible" than you and all your Open Theist colleauges put together.

If you took your 8-year-old to the beach, and he / she built a sand castle, I'm sure he / she would do a wonderful job. When a stranger walked by and said, "What a beautiful sand castle! Who built that?" I'm sure your child would smile and accept responsibility for their handiwork. However, if you ask your same 8-year-old if God was responsible for creating the universe in seven days, your child would say, "No!"? I find that hard to believe Jim... Then again, according to you, I'm not as smart as your 8-year-old. :dunce:

I've never seen such widespread and deliberate ignorance about something so fundamental to language, logic, truth and righteousness.

This is your opinion Jim. If someone disagrees with you, they are automatically ignorant...

I hope you ask for forgiveness for your harsh words Jim. I want to forgive you Jim. While I was standing and praying, I wanted to forgive you, just as Christ has forgiven me. :wave2:

My definition is biblical. And it doesn't apply to God. Ever. Period.

I'm still waiting to see biblical proof Jim. I ask you to justify your personal attacks and your human definition of responsible biblically. Secondly, the only biblical "proof" you have offered to support your definition has been your misunderstanding of Job. More on this in a minute.

Now you're dodging, and it makes me sick. How long were you going to wait before offering your own definition? Or it is your goal to simply waste my time?

You are a hypocrite and a fool Jim. My attacks are biblical and justified. Let's revisit our discussion Jim... :singer:

I posted 1st. I asked you three questions (question #3 with two parts).

You posted 2nd. You responded to the three questions, but asked for clarification on question 3b.

I posted 3rd. I argued that if God predestined / decreed evil, then He is culpable for evil.

You posted 4th. You offer an english definition of responsible from the Oxford Dictionary and argue that God cannot be responsible for anything.

I posted 5th. I implied what I thought responsible actually meant and asked a series of questions.

You posted 6th. You dismiss each of my questions with "No, of course not." You still have much to respond to from Post #5 Jim.

I posted 7th and challenged your "No, of course not." statements. I thought you understood what I believed responsible meant. I never said your definition was in error, I just didn't agree with the way you applied it to God.

You posted 8th and resort to personal attacks. You claim that I have no idea what you're talking about because my intelligence is that of an 8-year-old.

I posted 9th. I substantiated what I've been saying all along as it relates to responsible and provided a definition.

You responded 10th. You get angry and say that I'm wasting your time. You ask how long I was going to wait before providing a definition. I had no idea my providing a definition was a prerequisite to disagreement.

Next, when asked about the logic of your definition, you answer,

Correct. And knowing that was my (biblical) view of the word, you STILL asked questions AS IF that weren't the case. "Was God responsible for creating the universe in seven days?" What is THAT, Jeremy? STOP WASTING MY TIME!

Since I disagree, then I'm wasting your time?? Why do you participate in any discussion forums? Isn't that the point? We can sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, and hopefully edify one another. If I'm wasting your time, then I apologize. That was not my intent. I am interested in what you believe, and until your tyrade, I thought we were having an edifying exchange. Then again, I have the mental capacity of an 8-year-old, so I might have misunderstood... :dunce:

Next, instead of responding to my argument, you address the semantics...

I don't know who you think you're debating, Jeremy. I have not made the claim that God is the "primary cause of evil." God is not the primary cause. He plans evil, but He doesn't cause evil.

Jim, this makes no sense whatsoever. So, God draws up the blueprints for evil? God decrees that an addict will inject heroin into his veins. Since God is not physically holding the needle, injecting the heroin into the vein, then He's not culpable?

Jim, when Donald Trump fronts the money for a hotel to be built, and puts "Trump Towers" on the blueprint, is "The Donald" responsible for that hotel? What if the building plan goes over budget? Who then is responsible for coming up with the rest of the cash? Now, Trump is not out there pounding nails and pouring concrete, but He's still responsible for the project. Likewise, if God plans that an addict will inject heroin into his veins, then God is responsible for that act.

False, Jeremy. My definition is biblical. Yours is empty and synonymous with "the one who did it."

A. You have yet to provide biblical evidence that your definition is the only accepted definition in the Bible.

B. My definition is biblical and it's logical. God is responsible for creating the earth in seven days. God is responsible for raining fire and brimstone on two evil cities (In your view, God planned the sodomy and rape in those cities, but was not an active participant - therefore, He's not culpable!).

I gave you examples of the word in several languages, each of which carries the biblical concept of accountability, answering to a higher authority.

Um, you typed the word in several languages. You never gave examples in those languages. Secondly, the word does not always imply "answering to a higher authority." I have provided examples of how the word can be used without moral implications or authority issues.

You can ignore it if you want, but in so doing, you demonstrate that your theology is ill-equipped to deal with a biblical concept that God has implanted within all mankind. Here, once again, is a biblical example of the concept of responsibility and how it does NOT apply to God:

10 What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips. ... 21 [Job worshipped,] And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.​

Job attributed his circumstances to God, but he knew better than to hold God responsible.

Ill-equipped? Biblical concept? Jim, your Job example doesn't work! Take off your Oxford Dictionary goggles and consider another possibility. Job did not sin with his lips by cursing God. Job was angry with Mrs Job for attributing their circumstances to God. Job did not foolishly attribute his situation to God. satan was responsible for the attack, not God. satan planned the attack (not God), and God allowed satan to do his worst.

Hilston wrote: I have only one question, Jeremy, before I proceed with this discussion:

Do you really think I am denying that God created the universe?

Jeremy, I wish I could attribute this to mere stupidity. This would be a lot less distressing.

Maybe you should attribute it to me being dumber than your kids... :dunce:

Then why did you say, "The Bible disagrees Jim ..." and then quote Ex 20:11? Why would you do that???

To substantiate my definition. To show you that there is an alternative to your understanding. I know, it's hard to believe, but it is possible. :noway:

This is what I'm talking about. You suddenly decide to ignore everything I took time to write about the word, all the referencing, the formatting, etc., and to use your own, without the courtesy of a heads-up, without offering any competing definition, and to use the word in a way that YOU KNOW I DISAGREE WITH. And then, when I respond according to the definitions I had offered (in the absence of your own proferred definition) YOU respond with "The Bible disagrees with you ..."?!?!??!?
STOP! WASTING! MY! TIME!!!!

Let me get this straight... The bolded blue above shows that it's ok for you to disagree with me, but if I disagree with you then I'm WASTING! YOUR! TIME!!!

No, I'll consider any definition you want to offer. Be prepared to justify biblically as I have mine above.

But that would mean I disagree with you and I would be WASTING! YOUR! TIME!!! I have justified my definition biblically, and plan to continue doing so.

I hope you plan to respond to the rest of Post #5. My 8-year-old mind is looking forward to your responses.

Holding Fast to the Truth,
--Jeremy

POTD :first:

Talk about some serious smack!!!! Classic Finkenbinder!!!

context