Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Lady B]

Everyone.
You merely choose denial in order to protect your belief box.

TULIP requires many assumptions from scripture that you have already denied allowing.


John 3:16 is a prime example of the mental gymnastics required to believe TULIP has any truth to it.
And if you are reduced to blatant dishonesty in order to hold onto your beliefs, your beliefs are not rooted in truth.

Please feel free to continue with the denial.
You are well versed in it.

So your telling me that TULIP has no biblical support? this is your argument ? and you are accusing me of denying what exactly? In all due respect: If you have support for your allegations, show them, If not stop speaking about that which you do not know please.

 

[McBell]

This whole thread is nothing more than you demonstrating how adept you are at denial.

So your telling me that TULIP has no biblical support?

Nope.
That is the strawman you hope will divert attention away from the "who-so-ever" in John 3:16.

this is your argument ?

Focus Lady B.
I said that John 3:16 does not support your speculations on TULIP.

and you are accusing me of denying what exactly?

You have flat out denied all your own contradictions in this very thread...
Try starting there.

In all due respect: If you have support for your allegations, show them, If not stop speaking about that which you do not know please.

YOU are the one attempting to change the subject, not me...

 

[Falvlun]

Knowledge requires that whoever proclaims it be vetted properly--thus the scriptures in which God proclaims those who are His prophets who He has imparted His knowledge to....scriptures written by those same said prophets, or someone else who can testify that the prophet told the Truth, all of whom we could be sure would never lie, because people who lived 2000 years ago didn't lied and people weren't nearly as gullible back then either.

Are you seriously trying to claim that people 2000 years ago never lied? :areyoucra

Besides, lying isn't even necessary. Being honestly misinformed, delusioned, mistranslated, misunderstood, and misinterpreted all work just as well to cast doubt as to whether the Bible is an accurate portrayal of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This argument would only be allowable had I not narrowed the field to my Beliefs in my precept. We are not discussing other religions at this time.

I agree that you seem to be coming at this issue with a lot of a priori assumptions that take Christianity as a given, but it doesn't change the fact that at some point, you must have thought about the Bible and decided "yes, this is the sort of book that God would have handed down to humanity." IOW, you presume to know the mind of God too.

 

[Falvlun]

Those who believe, have scriptures we believe to be the absolute words of God and therefore If he has said it, we can say he has said it, we are not presuming anything of God and have not said what is in God's mind but what is in his words to us.

How do you know that the Bible is God's word, and that your interpretation of it is correct?

You rely on your own beliefs, assumptions, and biases in order to make that decision. You are relying on your own understanding and presumed knowledge-- that the Bible and your interpretation of it is God's word-- from the very start. I'm sorry, Lady B, but you just can't get around that fact.

Who has said he knows God's mind? I am sure you cannot accuse me of this, nor have I seen anyone else propose they have this gift.for these reasons your posts regarding such would be ignored, noone is doing this.

You sure do seem to know a lot about God, God's desires, God's plans, God's needs, etc.

The very fact that there are hundreds of different ways to interpret the Bible destroys your "I only say what's in the Bible" defense. How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one?

EDIT:
Also, in a more nuanced point, you do claim to know God's mind-- the part that you believe he revealed in Scripture. It doesn't matter that you are getting your "knowledge" from the Bible, you are still claiming that you do know something about God's mind. So yes, every claim you make about God and his plans and desires, you are claiming to know that part of God's mind. You will continue to make that presumptuous claim, until the moment you stop making any claims at all about God and his plans and his desires.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So your telling me that TULIP has no biblical support? this is your argument ? and you are accusing me of denying what exactly? In all due respect: If you have support for your allegations, show them, If not stop speaking about that which you do not know please.

Not to speak for Mestemia, but I think that TULIP is compatible with the Bible (generally - IMO, the Bible's internally contradictory anyhow, so there's a limit to how compatible something can be with a book that's not compatible with itself), but this is true for a range of perspectives. IMO, to get to "TULIP and nothing else", you need more than just the Bible.

 

[McBell]

Not to speak for Mestemia, but I think that TULIP is compatible with the Bible (generally - IMO, the Bible's internally contradictory anyhow, so there's a limit to how compatible something can be with a book that's not compatible with itself), but this is true for a range of perspectives. IMO, to get to "TULIP and nothing else", you need more than just the Bible.

I agree.
TULIP can be injected into the Bible, but it still has a few problems.

One of the biggest being the "who-so-ever" in John 3:16.

 

[McBell]

How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one?

a big problem here is that she is in complete denial that her interpretation is even an interpretation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree.
TULIP can be injected into the Bible, but it still has a few problems.

One of the biggest being the "who-so-ever" in John 3:16.

Yeah, but even the Bible contradicts that with Matthew 7:21-23, so I guess it's considered safe to disregard, maybe?

 

[McBell]

Yeah, but even the Bible contradicts that with Matthew 7:21-23, so I guess it's considered safe to disregard, maybe?

That seems to be the accepted way to handle it.

 

[Falvlun]

Yeah, but even the Bible contradicts that with Matthew 7:21-23, so I guess it's considered safe to disregard, maybe?

No, it means you must pick and choose which verse you want to base your understanding of salvation upon.

And besides, I think that verse is more about "faith without works is dead" sort of concept, rather than pre-destination. You can claim to love God, but if your deeds don't match up to that claim, then God's gonna know. In other words, you can't fake it.

 

[McBell]

In other words, you can't fake it.

Of course you can fake it.
Otherwise all those who try really hard to get you to believe "just in case" are bad bad people.

 

[Lady B]

This whole thread is nothing more than you demonstrating how adept you are at denial.


Nope.
That is the strawman you hope will divert attention away from the "who-so-ever" in John 3:16.


Focus Lady B.
I said that John 3:16 does not support your speculations on TULIP.


You have flat out denied all your own contradictions in this very thread...
Try starting there.


YOU are the one attempting to change the subject, not me...

I am responding to your own allegations against me, you have accused me of dishonesty, denial, contradictions and when you do so, you give no support,Is that fair?

John 3:16, the most common verse atheists use as support for their theory against calvinism. Problem here is if you look good at the verse "For God so loved the world, That he gave his only begotten son,that whosoever believeth in him shall not die but have ever lasting life."
Look at the word world, and then go thru the rest of John and see that this word is used 8 times in a different context ,If you try to say that the world means every single person and thing on earth, then why would God give a stipulation of whosoever believes in him, in the second part of same verse. If he loves us all and sent his son for all, then why limit this all to whether they believe or not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it means you must pick and choose which verse you want to base your understanding of salvation upon.

And besides, I think that verse is more about "faith without works is dead" sort of concept, rather than pre-destination. You can claim to love God, but if your deeds don't match up to that claim, then God's gonna know. In other words, you can't fake it.

I don't think that passage in Matthew addresses fakers - from the sound of the passage, the people he addresses sound sincere, but they apparently just missed the point of Jesus' message. Apparently, they loved God and behaved the way God wanted to behave, but in the end, Jesus says "no, that's not what I wanted."

 

[Lady B]

I agree that you seem to be coming at this issue with a lot of a priori assumptions that take Christianity as a given, but it doesn't change the fact that at some point, you must have thought about the Bible and decided "yes, this is the sort of book that God would have handed down to humanity." IOW, you presume to know the mind of God too.

Honestly I don't remeber having that thought.That would indeed be presumptious. I do not presume to know of God from anything other than scripture and the complexity of creation. From these I can assume God has a mind far above my own or any mans.Anything that I can deduce from what I believe is His revealed word is acceptable. What I cannot know I am comfortable that He does know. I question the unanswerable also, It is in our created minds to do so, I question that tree, I question Satan being given power, I question what I can't find in scripture, But my faith helps me have peace in my own human inadequacies, to except that which is not spelled out is faith. I am OK with that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Honestly I don't remeber having that thought.That would indeed be presumptious.

Perhaps, if you had a choice. But seeing how there are several mutually exclusive scriptures around, you can't help but decide which, if any, to trust.

I do not presume to know of God from anything other than scripture and the complexity of creation. From these I can assume God has a mind far above my own or any mans.Anything that I can deduce from what I believe is His revealed word is acceptable. What I cannot know I am comfortable that He does know. I question the unanswerable also, It is in our created minds to do so, I question that tree, I question Satan being given power, I question what I can't find in scripture, But my faith helps me have peace in my own human inadequacies, to except that which is not spelled out is faith. I am OK with that.

How did you decide to trust the Bible (and that specific definition of the Bible at that, instead of perhaps the Catholic or LDS interpretations) as opposed to alternatives such as the Baghavad Gita or the Quran, however?

Did you perhaps inherit that belief from your social environment and decided to trust it? If so, fine, but that is still a choice even if by default.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Honestly I don't remeber having that thought.That would indeed be presumptious.

If you've never thought things through and actually come to the conclusion that the Bible is God's word, then it strikes me as premature for you to treat it as such.

I do not presume to know of God from anything other than scripture and the complexity of creation.

If you presume that the Bible is a reflection of the mind of God, then you presume quite a bit, IMO.

 

[Lady B]

How do you know that the Bible is God's word, and that your interpretation of it is correct?

You rely on your own beliefs, assumptions, and biases in order to make that decision. You are relying on your own understanding and presumed knowledge-- that the Bible and your interpretation of it is God's word-- from the very start. I'm sorry, Lady B, but you just can't get around that fact.


You sure do seem to know a lot about God, God's desires, God's plans, God's needs, etc.

The very fact that there are hundreds of different ways to interpret the Bible destroys your "I only say what's in the Bible" defense. How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one?

EDIT:
Also, in a more nuanced point, you do claim to know God's mind-- the part that you believe he revealed in Scripture. It doesn't matter that you are getting your "knowledge" from the Bible, you are still claiming that you do know something about God's mind. So yes, every claim you make about God and his plans and desires, you are claiming to know that part of God's mind. You will continue to make that presumptuous claim, until the moment you stop making any claims at all about God and his plans and his desires.

I think the allegation was that we presume without any authority. I disagree in that all we know or claim to know is Biblical. If I said to you purple is God's favorite color, that indeed would presume something without evidence, I have not done this. To presume what God has revealed to us is different that presuming what he has not.

So you discredit my evidence to support your allegation of my presumptuousness,Well that would be fine except it is not applicable in this debate where I have set the precepts. If you want to use this argument that I only presume the Bibles authenticity, in every debatable issue, well we would have nothing to discuss at all.So when debating a particular topic, try to consider what the absolutes are with the opponent. My absolute is that the Bible is the word of God and so I will try to show my support from this position.Taking away my position by concluding it is not valid without proof at all is not debate worthy and only takes us off-topic. Remember my title specifically states MY GOD, I am not debating from any position but my own.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think that passage in Matthew addresses fakers - from the sound of the passage, the people he addresses sound sincere, but they apparently just missed the point of Jesus' message. Apparently, they loved God and behaved the way God wanted to behave, but in the end, Jesus says "no, that's not what I wanted."

Meh, I disagree, but that only goes to prove the point: the Bible only says what you think it does.

 

[Lady B]

If you've never thought things through and actually come to the conclusion that the Bible is God's word, then it strikes me as premature for you to treat it as such.


If you presume that the Bible is a reflection of the mind of God, then you presume quite a bit, IMO.

Yes I have concluded that the Bible is God's word but not from my own presumptions of God prior to knowing him through his revealed word.