Peteeeer

I know, right? Sorry for derailing your thread, Peter. It's fine. I'll forgive you, I suppose. (;

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'. NO, I just think it is a common assumption and misperception that Christians who drink pass around and parrot from each other. They think they are being judged by other Christians, most of whom don't care one way or the other. Your assumption was wrong. Just admit it. INo, you're the one making the assumption about other Christians and how they feel about drinking. I am saying that it is a wrong assumption on your part to assume that Christians are sitting around judging others for drinking while excusing pet sins. No I am not making an assumption. I know a lot of Christians who think this way. You assumed that I only pretended this was even an issue to have something to complain about. Anddddddd you were wrong.

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'. NO, I just think it is a common assumption and misperception that Christians who drink pass around and parrot from each other. They think they are being judged by other Christians, most of whom don't care one way or the other. Your assumption was wrong. Just admit it.

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'.

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.

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!

Whatever.... 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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 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.

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. 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 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.

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. 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 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'.

In my eyes there can really be only two options: 1 - He knew what we were going to sin, and thus death would be part of his plan, and therefore the issue is completely irrelevant. OR 2 - Like you said, there would be some sort of adaptations. However, this seems odd that his creation would need to adapt when it was described by Himself as 'good'. This implies to me that it doesn't need to be changed because he made it how he thought was best. To change it later on would imply that the original plan was short-sighted.

I think I would have to disagree with that.... I truly believe that God intended for Adam and Eve to fail and have Lucifer/Satan responsible for them knowing good from evil... When he made Adam and Eve they were not qualified to be any kind of judge..... and since we are told by Paul that we are going to judge the angels, I would find it rather stretching for him to make us not capable of doing that.... just as I think it is beyond a stretch to think he just decided for us to to the judging as a secondary thought after we fell. At the end of the sixth day, everything was set and it was actually well. The trap for Satan had been set and he fell right into it... and as they say the rest is history. That is not biblical. There is nothing in Scripture to support the notion that God "intended" for Adam and Eve to fall. Man had to fall in order to be qualified to judge angels??? Where does that find any support in the Bible??? The fall of man was not a trap for Satan and the Bible says no such thing. You really have to go around the Bible to arrive at all of that stuff, 'cause you won't get it from the Bible, that is for sure. The crisis of doctrinal purity in the Church is soooo evident these days Oh, so you are going to have a group of people who don't know the difference between good and evil judge anything...... Really???? Sometimes you just have to use common sense in things........ if you have any. Who said that Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between good and evil??? You are really jumping to some unfounded conclusions. Talk about a lack of commonsense. I agree. Essentially in the beginning God had defined and provided the knowledge of what was good, and thus he had the knowledge of what was good and evil. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was basically representing a choice; do we trust God's definition of good and evil, or are we going to seize the opportunity and try and define it for ourselves? We of course know what they chose to do. The basic point is that we thought we knew better than God (thought we had a better understanding of good and evil), and thus we obviously had some knowledge of good and evil. Otherwise how would we have sinned if we didn't have any knowledge of good and evil? It would, at most, have been an 'accidental' sin when Adam and Eve sinned, and that doesn't make any sense.

I think I would have to disagree with that.... I truly believe that God intended for Adam and Eve to fail and have Lucifer/Satan responsible for them knowing good from evil... When he made Adam and Eve they were not qualified to be any kind of judge..... and since we are told by Paul that we are going to judge the angels, I would find it rather stretching for him to make us not capable of doing that.... just as I think it is beyond a stretch to think he just decided for us to to the judging as a secondary thought after we fell. At the end of the sixth day, everything was set and it was actually well. The trap for Satan had been set and he fell right into it... and as they say the rest is history. That is not biblical. There is nothing in Scripture to support the notion that God "intended" for Adam and Eve to fall. Man had to fall in order to be qualified to judge angels??? Where does that find any support in the Bible??? The fall of man was not a trap for Satan and the Bible says no such thing. You really have to go around the Bible to arrive at all of that stuff, 'cause you won't get it from the Bible, that is for sure. The crisis of doctrinal purity in the Church is soooo evident these days Oh, so you are going to have a group of people who don't know the difference between good and evil judge anything...... Really???? Sometimes you just have to use common sense in things........ if you have any. Did God decide that we would judge the Angels before or after the fall? it's my personal belief that he decided that before Genesis 1:1 I believe that this whole seven thousand year program is to deal with Satan. I think you have to be careful when you have beliefs outside of what the Bible explicitly states is the truth. So you don't think he made us because he wanted to have a relationship with us? It seems very bizarre to me that we would only be here to deal with Satan. If that were true, I would find it hard coming to terms with that; it seems so cold-hearted and unloving to me. It would almost seem that he is using us for his own selfish reasons, and of course that cannot be the case.

I think I would have to disagree with that.... I truly believe that God intended for Adam and Eve to fail and have Lucifer/Satan responsible for them knowing good from evil... When he made Adam and Eve they were not qualified to be any kind of judge..... and since we are told by Paul that we are going to judge the angels, I would find it rather stretching for him to make us not capable of doing that.... just as I think it is beyond a stretch to think he just decided for us to to the judging as a secondary thought after we fell. At the end of the sixth day, everything was set and it was actually well. The trap for Satan had been set and he fell right into it... and as they say the rest is history. That is not biblical. There is nothing in Scripture to support the notion that God "intended" for Adam and Eve to fall. Man had to fall in order to be qualified to judge angels??? Where does that find any support in the Bible??? The fall of man was not a trap for Satan and the Bible says no such thing. You really have to go around the Bible to arrive at all of that stuff, 'cause you won't get it from the Bible, that is for sure. The crisis of doctrinal purity in the Church is soooo evident these days Oh, so you are going to have a group of people who don't know the difference between good and evil judge anything...... Really???? Sometimes you just have to use common sense in things........ if you have any. Did God decide that we would judge the Angels before or after the fall?

No, because there was more dry land than there is now. The topography of the earth was completely different than it is now. Much of what was dry land before Noah's flood is now under water. So there would be plenty of land for people to live on had man never sinned. The Earth would still become full, it would just take longer in that case. God is wiser and smarter than you give him credit for. Look at the earth today, We are no where near over-crowding that is with only 30% dry land. Imagine when most of the earth wasn't covered by water. There would be hundreds of times more land than what we have now. Overcrowding isn't an issue. He does have a point, though. If nobody died ever, the population would have grown much faster than it does now. And the Earth may be really big, but eventually it would fill up, even if it was 100% land. Yes I thought I wasn't being completely crazy (:

No, because there was more dry land than there is now. The topography of the earth was completely different than it is now. Much of what was dry land before Noah's flood is now under water. So there would be plenty of land for people to live on had man never sinned. The Earth would still become full, it would just take longer in that case. God is wiser and smarter than you give him credit for. Look at the earth today, We are no where near over-crowding that is with only 30% dry land. Imagine when most of the earth wasn't covered by water. There would be hundreds of times more land than what we have now. Overcrowding isn't an issue. Of course it would have been an issue! If no one had died in the history of the Earth then it would have been full by now. Even if it wasn't, it would have became full eventually. That is a fact you can't deny when there is no death... If there is a limited value of space on the earth, shared by a constantly growing number of people (if there was no death it would have been an even faster growth) then eventually the number of people would have became so great that there would be no more space left.

Thank you! (:

I think I would have to disagree with that.... I truly believe that God intended for Adam and Eve to fail and have Lucifer/Satan responsible for them knowing good from evil... When he made Adam and Eve they were not qualified to be any kind of judge..... and since we are told by Paul that we are going to judge the angels, I would find it rather stretching for him to make us not capable of doing that.... just as I think it is beyond a stretch to think he just decided for us to to the judging as a secondary thought after we fell. At the end of the sixth day, everything was set and it was actually well. The trap for Satan had been set and he fell right into it... and as they say the rest is history. Why would he set a trap for Satan to fall into? What would his motive have been? to show the whole of creation that he was a just God..... he didn't make the jury for them so all of creation understands the justness of his actions...... That's probably why he didn't just squish Lucifer like a bug from the very start. He is letting the dark side show everything what eternity would be like if he lets Satan exist freely. Isn't a perfect world in which Lucifer is running around a bit of an oxymoron? who said it was a perfect world? I said it was what he had in mind at the time. When he said all is good, he didn't necessarily say the world was perfect...... means it is what he wanted. He made it good and Satan messed it up..... he put it in motion again and Satan and the angels who married Adams daughters messed it up again.. He wiped it out again and Satan messed it up again... over and over he has given the world and then the Jews chance after chance and every time we tend as whole societies to drift to Satan in the form of one god or another. It's like the whole 6000 years has been an object lesson as to what happens when this dark entity runs loose.... and he's pretty much been running loose since Adam fell. Soon The Father will say enough is enough and he will send Jesus back and lock the old devil up for a thousand years....... after that the world will go downhill again and he will dispose of him permanently...... along with all the trash that followed him. We were perfect before the fall, so therefore why were we in such an imperfect world? To me it doesn't seem right that he would put us into a world with Lucifer. Did we deserve that or something?

Or are you saying that in his plan he had taken into account that we would sin, and thus we would never have gotten into the scenario of 'the world becoming full'? I think that would cover it yes...God knew what man would do and when man would do it.... Now, that being said, I think the question would be....what is said about reproduction ....populating ...prior to the fall.... Let me know Well off the top of my head he specifically says to "FILL" the world, not overpopulate it. Of course then something would have had to change when it was full, but having said what we just did, it seems as though this would never have been a problem because we would never get to that stage due to sin and consequently physical death.

I think I would have to disagree with that.... I truly believe that God intended for Adam and Eve to fail and have Lucifer/Satan responsible for them knowing good from evil... When he made Adam and Eve they were not qualified to be any kind of judge..... and since we are told by Paul that we are going to judge the angels, I would find it rather stretching for him to make us not capable of doing that.... just as I think it is beyond a stretch to think he just decided for us to to the judging as a secondary thought after we fell. At the end of the sixth day, everything was set and it was actually well. The trap for Satan had been set and he fell right into it... and as they say the rest is history. Why would he set a trap for Satan to fall into? What would his motive have been? to show the whole of creation that he was a just God..... he didn't make the jury for them so all of creation understands the justness of his actions...... That's probably why he didn't just squish Lucifer like a bug from the very start. He is letting the dark side show everything what eternity would be like if he lets Satan exist freely. Isn't a perfect world in which Lucifer is running around a bit of an oxymoron?

Or are you saying that in his plan he had taken into account that we would sin, and thus we would never have gotten into the scenario of 'the world becoming full'?

I think I would have to disagree with that.... I truly believe that God intended for Adam and Eve to fail and have Lucifer/Satan responsible for them knowing good from evil... When he made Adam and Eve they were not qualified to be any kind of judge..... and since we are told by Paul that we are going to judge the angels, I would find it rather stretching for him to make us not capable of doing that.... just as I think it is beyond a stretch to think he just decided for us to to the judging as a secondary thought after we fell. At the end of the sixth day, everything was set and it was actually well. The trap for Satan had been set and he fell right into it... and as they say the rest is history. Why would he set a trap for Satan to fall into? What would his motive have been?

Probably not.... after some time we would just not have children..... there would not be any real reason to over populate. Well then are you suggesting that we would not have been able to make love with our partner anymore? There were no contraceptives. there are ways of making love to your wife without getting her pregnant.... not that I would care to discuss them here. What about animals?

No I am talking about his original plan. What possibly could his plan have been when the world became full?

No, because there was more dry land than there is now. The topography of the earth was completely different than it is now. Much of what was dry land before Noah's flood is now under water. So there would be plenty of land for people to live on had man never sinned. The Earth would still become full, it would just take longer in that case.