Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Before sin and thus before death, would the world have became too full

94 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

 

 

You know it's fiction, right?  As in 'not true'.  Like most fiction, there's a deeper meaning below the surface.

 

But the worldview in which they couch the story is based on humanism.  it's a lesson in humanism in the form of entertainment.  That is especially true with Star Trek TNG.

 

I didn't disagree that all of creation was intended to reveal His Glory.    However, trees have other purposes, like turning Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.  Oxygen's purpose (one of many) is to sustain us.  Dirt supports the trees and other vegetation, which feeds the animals...need I go on?

 

But all of that serves the purpose of glorifying God by revealing the mind and the power and the genius of an all-knowing Creator.  All of the universe was designed to glorify God.  It has no other purpose.  The chief end of everything God made it glorify Him and it does so in being exactly what He created it to be and doing what He created it to do.  It's not the case that they glorify God and also do "x, y, z."   They glorify God as they do those things. 

 

I thought you said you went to a Bible college.  You should have known that.

 

Bible verses or it didn't happen. :D

 

Otherwise it's purely speculation.  But, you know what, there is nothing wrong with a little speculation. :)

 

IMHO, I think God had both possibilities planned for in this creation.  As in, creation as it was in the beginning was good for both scenarios.

 

I am not speculating.  You clearly are not theologically equipped to understand what I am talking about.  I am talking about the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God.  God created a planet perfectly suited to us.   How is that something I need to defend to a Christian??? 

 

How could God have two possibilities planned???  That is inconsistent with the fact that God is all-knowing. He knows the future because He is the architect of it.  He knew the future and He made the earth commiserate with that future.  God doesn't need two plans.   I guess that Bible college was rather weak on theology.

 

I think some of your comments are a little rude and condescending. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah, this coming from the guy who judges fat people and assumes they are gluttons.  I was simply being honest about the poor theology expressed by Sheniy.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wasn't referring to the state of the world now, but before the fall.  The one that God said was good. 
 
It has been suggested that it wasn't good enough. 
 
I was just clarifying. :)

 

:thumbsup:

 

Wonderful Thread

A Great Chance To Look Deep Into The Word Of God

And To See What He May Have Said

About The Earth And About

Things To Come

 

I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. Psalms 119:16

 

You Are A Blessing To Our Worthy Family

So Post Early, Post Often

And Point To Jesus

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

PS: Any Offense Given By Joe Is Solely His Responsibility And Not That Of Management

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

You know it's fiction, right?  As in 'not true'.  Like most fiction, there's a deeper meaning below the surface.

 

But the worldview in which they couch the story is based on humanism.  it's a lesson in humanism in the form of entertainment.  That is especially true with Star Trek TNG.

 

I didn't disagree that all of creation was intended to reveal His Glory.    However, trees have other purposes, like turning Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.  Oxygen's purpose (one of many) is to sustain us.  Dirt supports the trees and other vegetation, which feeds the animals...need I go on?

 

But all of that serves the purpose of glorifying God by revealing the mind and the power and the genius of an all-knowing Creator.  All of the universe was designed to glorify God.  It has no other purpose.  The chief end of everything God made it glorify Him and it does so in being exactly what He created it to be and doing what He created it to do.  It's not the case that they glorify God and also do "x, y, z."   They glorify God as they do those things. 

 

I thought you said you went to a Bible college.  You should have known that.

 

Bible verses or it didn't happen. :D

 

Otherwise it's purely speculation.  But, you know what, there is nothing wrong with a little speculation. :)

 

IMHO, I think God had both possibilities planned for in this creation.  As in, creation as it was in the beginning was good for both scenarios.

 

I am not speculating.  You clearly are not theologically equipped to understand what I am talking about.  I am talking about the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God.  God created a planet perfectly suited to us.   How is that something I need to defend to a Christian??? 

 

How could God have two possibilities planned???  That is inconsistent with the fact that God is all-knowing. He knows the future because He is the architect of it.  He knew the future and He made the earth commiserate with that future.  God doesn't need two plans.   I guess that Bible college was rather weak on theology.

 

I think some of your comments are a little rude and condescending. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah, this coming from the guy who judges fat people and assumes they are gluttons.  I was simply being honest about the poor theology expressed by Sheniy.

 

'I was simply being honest that MANY (not all) over-weight Christians are gluttons'. You don't get fat from eating little. I don't judge them. It just seems to me that a lot of Christians seem to think that being overweight is OK, and don't really try to do anything about it. Then when you have an overweight person telling you that alcohol is inherently evil and they come across as some self-righteous goody two shoes Christian who never does anything wrong, it just makes me think about what the Bible says about gluttony and to me, it seems very hypocritical.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

You know it's fiction, right?  As in 'not true'.  Like most fiction, there's a deeper meaning below the surface.

 

But the worldview in which they couch the story is based on humanism.  it's a lesson in humanism in the form of entertainment.  That is especially true with Star Trek TNG.

 

I didn't disagree that all of creation was intended to reveal His Glory.    However, trees have other purposes, like turning Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.  Oxygen's purpose (one of many) is to sustain us.  Dirt supports the trees and other vegetation, which feeds the animals...need I go on?

 

But all of that serves the purpose of glorifying God by revealing the mind and the power and the genius of an all-knowing Creator.  All of the universe was designed to glorify God.  It has no other purpose.  The chief end of everything God made it glorify Him and it does so in being exactly what He created it to be and doing what He created it to do.  It's not the case that they glorify God and also do "x, y, z."   They glorify God as they do those things. 

 

I thought you said you went to a Bible college.  You should have known that.

 

Bible verses or it didn't happen. :D

 

Otherwise it's purely speculation.  But, you know what, there is nothing wrong with a little speculation. :)

 

IMHO, I think God had both possibilities planned for in this creation.  As in, creation as it was in the beginning was good for both scenarios.

 

I am not speculating.  You clearly are not theologically equipped to understand what I am talking about.  I am talking about the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God.  God created a planet perfectly suited to us.   How is that something I need to defend to a Christian??? 

 

How could God have two possibilities planned???  That is inconsistent with the fact that God is all-knowing. He knows the future because He is the architect of it.  He knew the future and He made the earth commiserate with that future.  God doesn't need two plans.   I guess that Bible college was rather weak on theology.

 

I think some of your comments are a little rude and condescending. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah, this coming from the guy who judges fat people and assumes they are gluttons.  I was simply being honest about the poor theology expressed by Sheniy.

 

'I was simply being honest that MANY (not all) over-weight Christians are gluttons'. You don't get fat from eating little. I don't judge them. It just seems to me that a lot of Christians seem to think that being overweight is OK, and don't really try to do anything about it. Then when you have an overweight person telling you that alcohol is inherently evil and they come across as some self-righteous goody two shoes Christian who never does anything wrong, it just makes me think about what the Bible says about gluttony and to me, it seems very hypocritical.

 

Well you have a lot to learn about what makes people overweight and it isn't all about food.  And yes it does come off as judging as evident by how you came off to a number of people in the thread you started about it.  So the hypocrisy is in your camp.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

You know it's fiction, right?  As in 'not true'.  Like most fiction, there's a deeper meaning below the surface.

 

But the worldview in which they couch the story is based on humanism.  it's a lesson in humanism in the form of entertainment.  That is especially true with Star Trek TNG.

 

I didn't disagree that all of creation was intended to reveal His Glory.    However, trees have other purposes, like turning Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.  Oxygen's purpose (one of many) is to sustain us.  Dirt supports the trees and other vegetation, which feeds the animals...need I go on?

 

But all of that serves the purpose of glorifying God by revealing the mind and the power and the genius of an all-knowing Creator.  All of the universe was designed to glorify God.  It has no other purpose.  The chief end of everything God made it glorify Him and it does so in being exactly what He created it to be and doing what He created it to do.  It's not the case that they glorify God and also do "x, y, z."   They glorify God as they do those things. 

 

I thought you said you went to a Bible college.  You should have known that.

 

Bible verses or it didn't happen. :D

 

Otherwise it's purely speculation.  But, you know what, there is nothing wrong with a little speculation. :)

 

IMHO, I think God had both possibilities planned for in this creation.  As in, creation as it was in the beginning was good for both scenarios.

 

I am not speculating.  You clearly are not theologically equipped to understand what I am talking about.  I am talking about the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God.  God created a planet perfectly suited to us.   How is that something I need to defend to a Christian??? 

 

How could God have two possibilities planned???  That is inconsistent with the fact that God is all-knowing. He knows the future because He is the architect of it.  He knew the future and He made the earth commiserate with that future.  God doesn't need two plans.   I guess that Bible college was rather weak on theology.

 

I think some of your comments are a little rude and condescending. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah, this coming from the guy who judges fat people and assumes they are gluttons.  I was simply being honest about the poor theology expressed by Sheniy.

 

'I was simply being honest that MANY (not all) over-weight Christians are gluttons'. You don't get fat from eating little. I don't judge them. It just seems to me that a lot of Christians seem to think that being overweight is OK, and don't really try to do anything about it. Then when you have an overweight person telling you that alcohol is inherently evil and they come across as some self-righteous goody two shoes Christian who never does anything wrong, it just makes me think about what the Bible says about gluttony and to me, it seems very hypocritical.

 

Well you have a lot to learn about what makes people overweight and it isn't all about food.  And yes it does come off as judging as evident by how you came off to a number of people in the thread you started about it.  So the hypocrisy is in your camp.

 

Sorry to be 'over-precise'  but of course it is all about food. If one starved, will they still be fat? No. Why not? I don't even know why we are talking about those who are over-weight because of some medical condition, because they are rare. I am talking about those who are normal, but overeat. It has been shown time and time again that if you just eat less food, you will lose weight. We need to exercise that principle more. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

You know it's fiction, right?  As in 'not true'.  Like most fiction, there's a deeper meaning below the surface.

But the worldview in which they couch the story is based on humanism.  it's a lesson in humanism in the form of entertainment.  That is especially true with Star Trek TNG.

 

There's this thing called 'discernment'. Apparently I had enough at five years old to understand truth from fiction on a TV show. There are more than just 'humanistic' truths in Star Trek if you just let yourself see it.   Or, you know, you could just see it as purely entertainment. ;)

 

God speaks to me in stories.   Whether those stories take place in Narnia or the Matrix or in the parables of Jesus, this is how He really gets points across to me. 

 

 

 

I didn't disagree that all of creation was intended to reveal His Glory.    However, trees have other purposes, like turning Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.  Oxygen's purpose (one of many) is to sustain us.  Dirt supports the trees and other vegetation, which feeds the animals...need I go on?

But all of that serves the purpose of glorifying God by revealing the mind and the power and the genius of an all-knowing Creator.  All of the universe was designed to glorify God.  It has no other purpose.  The chief end of everything God made it glorify Him and it does so in being exactly what He created it to be and doing what He created it to do.  It's not the case that they glorify God and also do "x, y, z."   They glorify God as they do those things. 

 

I thought you said you went to a Bible college.  You should have known that.

 

 

I learned at a young age that my pastors and teachers are not infallible.  They have their own biases and personal convictions.  I don't agree with everything I learned at bible school, though I treasure my time there.  And I don't agree with every interpretation of Scripture, because interpretation requires fallible human logic. 

 

My foundation is the Bible, and my Teacher is the Holy Spirit.  Everything else contributes pieces here and there to my theology, but I don't put my trust in the doctrines of man.  If I encounter something in Scripture that contradicts what I've been taught, guess what goes out the window?  I don't assume that I have all the answers, but I do have my reasons for believing what I do.

 

You want me to believe something about God?  Show it to me in Scripture, please, and I'll consider it prayerfully. Thanks. ;)

 

 

Bible verses or it didn't happen. :D

 

Otherwise it's purely speculation.  But, you know what, there is nothing wrong with a little speculation. :)

 

IMHO, I think God had both possibilities planned for in this creation.  As in, creation as it was in the beginning was good for both scenarios.

I am not speculating.  You clearly are not theologically equipped to understand what I am talking about.  I am talking about the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God.  God created a planet perfectly suited to us.   How is that something I need to defend to a Christian??? 

 

How could God have two possibilities planned???  That is inconsistent with the fact that God is all-knowing. He knows the future because He is the architect of it.  He knew the future and He made the earth commiserate with that future.  God doesn't need two plans.   I guess that Bible college was rather weak on theology.

 

Figured this would crop up eventually.

Okay, I don't believe that the future is exhaustively settled. I think it is open in the sense that it doesn't completely exist, and is therefore unknowable. This isn't about the sovereignty or omniscience of God, but about the reality of time and the future.  If something is unknowable, than it doesn't diminish the power of God if He doesn't know it.  I believe He is able to see all possible futures from the first spark of creation to the last breath of this world, and he has every possible situation accounted for. 

 

I believe he created the world knowing the possibility and likelihood of man's rebellion.  I think He created the world "good" for any and all possible outcomes.  I can see the possibility that the cosmos was a part of that system as potential population control and expansion.  I don't see any problem with this theologically.  Feel free to disagree with me.

 

 

I've seen this open future theology biblically supported, and  I've seen the philosophical reasoning behind the classical view of God's immutability, and I disagree with it.  But maybe it is a topic for another thread?  ;)

 

 

 

I think some of your comments are a little rude and condescending. Just sayin'.

Yeah, this coming from the guy who judges fat people and assumes they are gluttons.

 

And THIS coming from a guy who judges people who buy lottery tickets and assumes they are lazy lovers of money.  (Did you really not see that coming?) ;)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I wasn't referring to the state of the world now, but before the fall.  The one that God said was good. 
 
It has been suggested that it wasn't good enough. 
 
I was just clarifying. :)

 

:thumbsup:

 

Wonderful Thread

A Great Chance To Look Deep Into The Word Of God

And To See What He May Have Said

About The Earth And About

Things To Come

 

I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. Psalms 119:16

 

You Are A Blessing To Our Worthy Family

So Post Early, Post Often

And Point To Jesus            <--------------------------------

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

PS: Any Offense Given By Joe Is Solely His Responsibility And Not That Of Management

 

 

Will do!  :D

 

 

Blessings, Joe.  Keep those verses coming. ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There's this thing called 'discernment'. Apparently I had enough at five years old to understand truth from fiction on a TV show. There are more than just 'humanistic' truths in Star Trek if you just let yourself see it.   Or, you know, you could just see it as purely entertainment. ;)

 

God speaks to me in stories.   Whether those stories take place in Narnia or the Matrix or in the parables of Jesus, this is how He really gets points across to me.

 

Whatever....

 

 

Figured this would crop up eventually.

Okay, I don't believe that the future is exhaustively settled. I think it is open in the sense that it doesn't completely exist, and is therefore unknowable. This isn't about the sovereignty or omniscience of God, but about the reality of time and the future.  If something is unknowable, than it doesn't diminish the power of God if He doesn't know it.  I believe He is able to see all possible futures from the first spark of creation to the last breath of this world, and he has every possible situation accounted for. 

 

Which is completely unbiblical and pretty much false.   Open Theism is predicated on a low view of God's omniscience.  In Open Theism God is limited by time, but God created time which means God is outside of time and cannot be limited to linear time as we are.  God is outside of time.  He is not part of time or part of creation.  God could not logically be part of time and be its Creator at the same time.  It is impossible to be creator and creature at the same time and God transcends all He has created and that includes time.

 

God demonstrates over and over in the Scriptures the ability to see into the future and know the choices people will make.  His reputation is rooted in His ability to be 100% accurate in all that He says will happen.  God doesn't take any risks in prophecy and if God can't know the future and what it will be like, then we have no reason to place any hope in how things will turn out.   Maybe the Book of Revelation is wrong.  Maybe Satan will be able to make God into a liar by causing a different future for our planet than what is spelled out in Revelation.

 

And even if one argues that God has some events predestined but not others, the dilemma for people like you  is that open theism is based on human free will, but yet you have to depend on the very thing that open theism rejects, and that is sovereignty of God to predestine the future.   It is a huge self-contradiction that forces the open theist to be internally consistent.

 

Furthermore in order for God predestine some future events, it requires him to control other peripheral events surrounding the predestined events.  Everything has to cooperate with the will of God in the events He has predestined.   So it means that the future MUST be fixed in order for ANY of God's predestined events to come to pass.  He is in control of it all and knows what will happen.  God doesn't simply know what is knowable.  He knows everything from start to finish.  Nothing takes Him by surprise.

 

 

I believe he created the world knowing the possibility and likelihood of man's rebellion.  I think He created the world "good" for any and all possible outcomes.  I can see the possibility that the cosmos was a part of that system as potential population control and expansion.  I don't see any problem with this theologically.  Feel free to disagree with me.

 

It's the Bible that says your wrong.  Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  God already knew man would fall.  It wasn't a possibility.  God already had the plan of salvation in place not because He didn't know what would happen, but because it was certainty that man would fall.  God wasn't just covering all the bases.

 

I've seen this open future theology biblically supported, and  I've seen the philosophical reasoning behind the classical view of God's immutability, and I disagree with it.  But maybe it is a topic for another thread?  ;)

 

 

No, what you have seen is people pervert the Scriptures in order to defend a warped and dangerous theology that really is an assault on God's essential character.  You really need to sit under better theological teaching. 

 

Yeah you can start another thread on it if you want to.

 

 

And THIS coming from a guy who judges people who buy lottery tickets and assumes they are lazy lovers of money.  (Did you really not see that coming?) ;)

 

Wrong.  I never judged anyone for buying lottery tickets, not one time.  I said that I believe gambling is a sin.  I did not condemn anyone for participating.  You need to be a little more honest.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

There's this thing called 'discernment'. Apparently I had enough at five years old to understand truth from fiction on a TV show. There are more than just 'humanistic' truths in Star Trek if you just let yourself see it.   Or, you know, you could just see it as purely entertainment. ;)

 

God speaks to me in stories.   Whether those stories take place in Narnia or the Matrix or in the parables of Jesus, this is how He really gets points across to me.

 

Whatever....

 

 

Figured this would crop up eventually.

Okay, I don't believe that the future is exhaustively settled. I think it is open in the sense that it doesn't completely exist, and is therefore unknowable. This isn't about the sovereignty or omniscience of God, but about the reality of time and the future.  If something is unknowable, than it doesn't diminish the power of God if He doesn't know it.  I believe He is able to see all possible futures from the first spark of creation to the last breath of this world, and he has every possible situation accounted for. 

 

Which is completely unbiblical and pretty much false.   Open Theism is predicated on a low view of God's omniscience.  In Open Theism God is limited by time, but God created time which means God is outside of time and cannot be limited to linear time as we are.  God is outside of time.  He is not part of time or part of creation.  God could not logically be part of time and be its Creator at the same time.  It is impossible to be creator and creature at the same time and God transcends all He has created and that includes time.

 

God demonstrates over and over in the Scriptures the ability to see into the future and know the choices people will make.  His reputation is rooted in His ability to be 100% accurate in all that He says will happen.  God doesn't take any risks in prophecy and if God can't know the future and what it will be like, then we have no reason to place any hope in how things will turn out.   Maybe the Book of Revelation is wrong.  Maybe Satan will be able to make God into a liar by causing a different future for our planet than what is spelled out in Revelation.

 

And even if one argues that God has some events predestined but not others, the dilemma for people like you  is that open theism is based on human free will, but yet you have to depend on the very thing that open theism rejects, and that is sovereignty of God to predestine the future.   It is a huge self-contradiction that forces the open theist to be internally consistent.

 

Furthermore in order for God predestine some future events, it requires him to control other peripheral events surrounding the predestined events.  Everything has to cooperate with the will of God in the events He has predestined.   So it means that the future MUST be fixed in order for ANY of God's predestined events to come to pass.  He is in control of it all and knows what will happen.  God doesn't simply know what is knowable.  He knows everything from start to finish.  Nothing takes Him by surprise.

 

 

I believe he created the world knowing the possibility and likelihood of man's rebellion.  I think He created the world "good" for any and all possible outcomes.  I can see the possibility that the cosmos was a part of that system as potential population control and expansion.  I don't see any problem with this theologically.  Feel free to disagree with me.

 

It's the Bible that says your wrong.  Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  God already knew man would fall.  It wasn't a possibility.  God already had the plan of salvation in place not because He didn't know what would happen, but because it was certainty that man would fall.  God wasn't just covering all the bases.

 

I've seen this open future theology biblically supported, and  I've seen the philosophical reasoning behind the classical view of God's immutability, and I disagree with it.  But maybe it is a topic for another thread?  ;)

 

 

No, what you have seen is people pervert the Scriptures in order to defend a warped and dangerous theology that really is an assault on God's essential character.  You really need to sit under better theological teaching. 

 

Yeah you can start another thread on it if you want to.

 

 

And THIS coming from a guy who judges people who buy lottery tickets and assumes they are lazy lovers of money.  (Did you really not see that coming?) ;)

 

Wrong.  I never judged anyone for buying lottery tickets, not one time.  I said that I believe gambling is a sin.  I did not condemn anyone for participating.  You need to be a little more honest.

 

You're so severe; the manner in which you talk to people.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You're so severe; the manner in which you talk to people.

 

I didn't say anything severe. I am simply correcting theological error.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

And THIS coming from a guy who judges people who buy lottery tickets and assumes they are lazy lovers of money.  (Did you really not see that coming?) ;)

Wrong.  I never judged anyone for buying lottery tickets, not one time.  I said that I believe gambling is a sin.  I did not condemn anyone for participating.  You need to be a little more honest.

 

 

 

Well you have a lot to learn about why people buy lotto tickets and it isn't all about the love of money.  And yes it does come off as judging as evident by how you came off to a number of people in the thread you posted about it.  So the hypocrisy is in your camp.

 

Wait...that sounds :huh:

 

;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

And THIS coming from a guy who judges people who buy lottery tickets and assumes they are lazy lovers of money.  (Did you really not see that coming?) ;)

Wrong.  I never judged anyone for buying lottery tickets, not one time.  I said that I believe gambling is a sin.  I did not condemn anyone for participating.  You need to be a little more honest.

 

 

 

Well you have a lot to learn about why people buy lotto tickets and it isn't all about the love of money.  And yes it does come off as judging as evident by how you came off to a number of people in the thread you posted about it.  So the hypocrisy is in your camp.

 

Wait...that sounds :huh:

 

;)

 

Yeah, they were mad because I said what they were doing was a sin.  I didn't condemn them, I condemned the sin, but when you want to justify your sin, the easiest thing to do is demonize the person calling a sin what it is . Homosexuals do it all the time.  But no, I didn't judge anyone at all.  No hypocrisy on my part at all.   It was just more honest that you  and others are willing to face up to.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

And THIS coming from a guy who judges people who buy lottery tickets and assumes they are lazy lovers of money.  (Did you really not see that coming?) ;)

Wrong.  I never judged anyone for buying lottery tickets, not one time.  I said that I believe gambling is a sin.  I did not condemn anyone for participating.  You need to be a little more honest.

 

 

 

Well you have a lot to learn about why people buy lotto tickets and it isn't all about the love of money.  And yes it does come off as judging as evident by how you came off to a number of people in the thread you posted about it.  So the hypocrisy is in your camp.

 

Wait...that sounds :huh:

 

;)

 

Yeah, they were mad because I said what they were doing was a sin.  I didn't condemn them, I condemned the sin, but when you want to justify your sin, the easiest thing to do is demonize the person calling a sin what it is . Homosexuals do it all the time.  But no, I didn't judge anyone at all.  No hypocrisy on my part at all.   It was just more honest that you  and others are willing to face up to.

 

 

I was just holding up a mirror, Shiloh. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I was just holding up a mirror, Shiloh. 

 

I know that was what you were trying to do. But I  didn't judge anyone for gambling so you really didn't accomplish anything by that.  Kind of pointless and rather dishonest.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I was just holding up a mirror, Shiloh. 

 

I know that was what you were trying to do. But I  didn't judge anyone for gambling so you really didn't accomplish anything by that.  Kind of pointless and rather dishonest.

 

 

So was your accusation against Peter.  Pointless and dishonest.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

I was just holding up a mirror, Shiloh. 

 

I know that was what you were trying to do. But I  didn't judge anyone for gambling so you really didn't accomplish anything by that.  Kind of pointless and rather dishonest.

 

 

So was your accusation against Peter.  Pointless and dishonest.

 

No, it wasn't.  A lot of people saw what I saw and called him on it too.   But I am not going to sit around and ride this merry go round with you.  If you have something important to post, the fine.  If not, fine.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know it's fiction, right?  As in 'not true'.  Like most fiction, there's a deeper meaning below the surface.

 

But the worldview in which they couch the story is based on humanism.  it's a lesson in humanism in the form of entertainment.  That is especially true with Star Trek TNG.

 

I didn't disagree that all of creation was intended to reveal His Glory.    However, trees have other purposes, like turning Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.  Oxygen's purpose (one of many) is to sustain us.  Dirt supports the trees and other vegetation, which feeds the animals...need I go on?

 

But all of that serves the purpose of glorifying God by revealing the mind and the power and the genius of an all-knowing Creator.  All of the universe was designed to glorify God.  It has no other purpose.  The chief end of everything God made it glorify Him and it does so in being exactly what He created it to be and doing what He created it to do.  It's not the case that they glorify God and also do "x, y, z."   They glorify God as they do those things. 

 

I thought you said you went to a Bible college.  You should have known that.

 

Bible verses or it didn't happen. :D

 

Otherwise it's purely speculation.  But, you know what, there is nothing wrong with a little speculation. :)

 

IMHO, I think God had both possibilities planned for in this creation.  As in, creation as it was in the beginning was good for both scenarios.

 

I am not speculating.  You clearly are not theologically equipped to understand what I am talking about.  I am talking about the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God.  God created a planet perfectly suited to us.   How is that something I need to defend to a Christian??? 

 

How could God have two possibilities planned???  That is inconsistent with the fact that God is all-knowing. He knows the future because He is the architect of it.  He knew the future and He made the earth commiserate with that future.  God doesn't need two plans.   I guess that Bible college was rather weak on theology.

 

I think some of your comments are a little rude and condescending. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah, this coming from the guy who judges fat people and assumes they are gluttons.  I was simply being honest about the poor theology expressed by Sheniy.

 

'I was simply being honest that MANY (not all) over-weight Christians are gluttons'. You don't get fat from eating little. I don't judge them. It just seems to me that a lot of Christians seem to think that being overweight is OK, and don't really try to do anything about it. Then when you have an overweight person telling you that alcohol is inherently evil and they come across as some self-righteous goody two shoes Christian who never does anything wrong, it just makes me think about what the Bible says about gluttony and to me, it seems very hypocritical.

 

Well you have a lot to learn about what makes people overweight and it isn't all about food.  And yes it does come off as judging as evident by how you came off to a number of people in the thread you started about it.  So the hypocrisy is in your camp.

 

Sorry to be 'over-precise'  but of course it is all about food. If one starved, will they still be fat? No. Why not? I don't even know why we are talking about those who are over-weight because of some medical condition, because they are rare. I am talking about those who are normal, but overeat. It has been shown time and time again that if you just eat less food, you will lose weight. We need to exercise that principle more. 

 

so do you think fat people are going to hell?   How fat does one have to be to go to hell?     ten pounds.....   20   or 50.    What if a person is very comfortable being 30 pounds over weight...   I had two uncles live into the mid 80's that were 30 to 50 pounds over weight.....   didn't stop them from working or enjoying life; both were strong moral Christians who helped others....   the things that we are supposed to do.....    so  what is the sin there....       I have acquaintances over the years that died in their late fifties to early 60's who were runners and didn't have an ounce of fat on them.....  died from aneurisms where their healthy hearts just blew their plumbing apart...

 

  My favorite aunt had a cholesterol level over 350 and was nearly skinny all her life.....   died about the same age....   mid 80's.

 

Calling a fat person a sinner is way way beyond anything we are authorized to do by the word.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I think I need to mention that I do NOT think that being fat is a sin. I also do not hate fat people. It makes no difference to me how big someone is, other than I would try to help them. I have very good friends who are fat. 

The reason I posted the post:

I was talking about those who have beliefs that are not stated explicitly in the Bible (such as complete abstinence from alcohol for everyone no matter what) but then don't follow principles that ARE stated explicitly in the Bible such as gluttony. I see this very often. Sorry if I offended anyone!

Edited by Peteeeer
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think I need to mention that I do NOT think that being fat is a sin. I also do not hate fat people. It makes no difference to me how big someone is, other than I would try to help them. I have very good friends who are fat. 

The reason I posted this post:

I was talking about those who have beliefs that are not stated explicitly in the Bible (such as complete abstinence from alcohol for everyone no matter what) but then don't follow principles that ARE stated explicitly in the Bible such as gluttony. I see this very often. Sorry if I offended anyone!

It's interesting because I have only been a member of theologically conservative evangelical, "Bible Belt" churches all my life and I have never heard once, anyone judge people for drinking a glass of wine or having a social drink.  I have never heard anyone claim that drinking a glass of champagne is a sin.   So I think you are really projecting something on to others just to have something to complain about.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

I was just holding up a mirror, Shiloh. 

 

I know that was what you were trying to do. But I  didn't judge anyone for gambling so you really didn't accomplish anything by that.  Kind of pointless and rather dishonest.

 

 

So was your accusation against Peter.  Pointless and dishonest.

 

No, it wasn't.  A lot of people saw what I saw and called him on it too.   But I am not going to sit around and ride this merry go round with you.  If you have something important to post, the fine.  If not, fine.

 

 

 

Maybe he misunderstood those who are overweight and made false assumptions.  But so did you about those who play slot machines and buy lotto tickets.  A lot of people saw what I saw and called you on it, too (mirror again).

 

'Tis the same thing.

 

I am saying this as someone who doesn't touch slot machines or lotto tickets, but really loves food.   ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I think I need to mention that I do NOT think that being fat is a sin. I also do not hate fat people. It makes no difference to me how big someone is, other than I would try to help them. I have very good friends who are fat. 

The reason I posted this post:

I was talking about those who have beliefs that are not stated explicitly in the Bible (such as complete abstinence from alcohol for everyone no matter what) but then don't follow principles that ARE stated explicitly in the Bible such as gluttony. I see this very often. Sorry if I offended anyone!

It's interesting because I have only been a member of theologically conservative evangelical, "Bible Belt" churches all my life and I have never heard once, anyone judge people for drinking a glass of wine or having a social drink.  I have never heard anyone claim that drinking a glass of champagne is a sin.   So I think you are really projecting something on to others just to have something to complain about.

 

Strange.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I think I need to mention that I do NOT think that being fat is a sin. I also do not hate fat people. It makes no difference to me how big someone is, other than I would try to help them. I have very good friends who are fat. 

The reason I posted this post:

I was talking about those who have beliefs that are not stated explicitly in the Bible (such as complete abstinence from alcohol for everyone no matter what) but then don't follow principles that ARE stated explicitly in the Bible such as gluttony. I see this very often. Sorry if I offended anyone!

It's interesting because I have only been a member of theologically conservative evangelical, "Bible Belt" churches all my life and I have never heard once, anyone judge people for drinking a glass of wine or having a social drink.  I have never heard anyone claim that drinking a glass of champagne is a sin.   So I think you are really projecting something on to others just to have something to complain about.

 

 

From my experience some S. Baptist and Independent Baptist churches teach said doctrine. Or even Church of Christ...

It's not uncommon in the Bible belt for people to claim that drinking alcohol is sin.

God bless,

GE

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

I was just holding up a mirror, Shiloh. 

 

I know that was what you were trying to do. But I  didn't judge anyone for gambling so you really didn't accomplish anything by that.  Kind of pointless and rather dishonest.

 

 

So was your accusation against Peter.  Pointless and dishonest.

 

No, it wasn't.  A lot of people saw what I saw and called him on it too.   But I am not going to sit around and ride this merry go round with you.  If you have something important to post, the fine.  If not, fine.

 

 

 

Maybe he misunderstood those who are overweight and made false assumptions.  But so did you about those who play slot machines and buy lotto tickets.

I didn't condemn anyone for playing slot machines or buying lotto tickets.   They took it personal because I said that gambling is a sin.  They projected something on to me that I didn't say or even imply.   Post ONE comment where I condemned anyone.   I condemned the sin not the sinner.  But I am treated as if my condemnation of the sin is a condemnation of the sinner. 

 

  A lot of people saw what I saw and called you on it, too (mirror again).

 

 

No, you saw what you wanted to see and decided to assign false values to me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

I think I need to mention that I do NOT think that being fat is a sin. I also do not hate fat people. It makes no difference to me how big someone is, other than I would try to help them. I have very good friends who are fat. 

The reason I posted this post:

I was talking about those who have beliefs that are not stated explicitly in the Bible (such as complete abstinence from alcohol for everyone no matter what) but then don't follow principles that ARE stated explicitly in the Bible such as gluttony. I see this very often. Sorry if I offended anyone!

It's interesting because I have only been a member of theologically conservative evangelical, "Bible Belt" churches all my life and I have never heard once, anyone judge people for drinking a glass of wine or having a social drink.  I have never heard anyone claim that drinking a glass of champagne is a sin.   So I think you are really projecting something on to others just to have something to complain about.

 

 

From my experience some S. Baptist and Independent Baptist churches teach said doctrine. Or even Church of Christ...

It's not uncommon in the Bible belt for people to claim that drinking alcohol is sin.

God bless,

GE

 

Well that's where I live and I have never been told that drinking was sin, that only drunkness is a sin.  That was stressed when I was in the youth groups and stuff.  We were encouraged just to stay away from it, but were told that drunkness is what the Bible condemns.

 

They may have taught it was sin back in 1958 or something but not back in the 80s.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

I think I need to mention that I do NOT think that being fat is a sin. I also do not hate fat people. It makes no difference to me how big someone is, other than I would try to help them. I have very good friends who are fat. 

The reason I posted this post:

I was talking about those who have beliefs that are not stated explicitly in the Bible (such as complete abstinence from alcohol for everyone no matter what) but then don't follow principles that ARE stated explicitly in the Bible such as gluttony. I see this very often. Sorry if I offended anyone!

It's interesting because I have only been a member of theologically conservative evangelical, "Bible Belt" churches all my life and I have never heard once, anyone judge people for drinking a glass of wine or having a social drink.  I have never heard anyone claim that drinking a glass of champagne is a sin.   So I think you are really projecting something on to others just to have something to complain about.

 

 

From my experience some S. Baptist and Independent Baptist churches teach said doctrine. Or even Church of Christ...

It's not uncommon in the Bible belt for people to claim that drinking alcohol is sin.

God bless,

GE

 

Well that's where I live and I have never been told that drinking was sin, that only drunkness is a sin.  That was stressed when I was in the youth groups and stuff.  We were encouraged just to stay away from it, but were told that drunkness is what the Bible condemns.

 

They may have taught it was sin back in 1958 or something but not back in the 80s.

 

So your assumption that I made this up was wrong. But of course, you cannot be wrong, I forgot that. Maybe you were just 'inaccurate'.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0