Search results

*they're :Laughingoutloud:

"Going to marry" means "affianced". lol

You said you already dealt with the issue, but #87 (what you said that I quoted) doesn't address the issue, because the issue isn't "What does the Bible mean by 'husband' when it says God was 'husband' to His people? Is it a metaphor?", the issue is "Why was it that God was said to have been...

Bc you know that you will not answer the fact that "God" was husband to His people, but Christ is today husband to God's people, etc, and you can't account for these things on your view?

No, just trying my best to look at the evidence--same as the "Two Powers In Heaven" pre-Christian Jewish Binitarians.

How is it speculative to say that we were told God was husband to His people, and we know that Jesus is husband to God's people today? Have you read the NT? The reason I'm contrasting yours as speculative against mine is mine uses Scripture, yours relies on assumptions about things you only...

Yeah I'm saying God was (whether metaphorical or spiritual or however you want to put it) "husband" to His people, yet Jesus is "husband" to God's people today. I think it's speculative--and not entirely relevant. Let's grant that you're right, and it's inappropriate to deny that Jesus had a...

@Hazelelponi I say that, because I've learned that I can't change anyone's mind--no matter how obviously true, or how iron clad what I'm saying may be, the vast majority of people will just not listen (if they hold to a system that doesn't allow for it), but, at the end of the day, as long as I...

It matters more to me that I am satisfied with my arguments than that I change someone else's mind--also, I have questions of my own, and I hope that such discussions could help me get closer to those answers.

Lol I do discuss aspects of Scripture that I think collide with Monergism, bc it's good "exercise"--I get to hear the arguments from the other side, respond, and subject my view of Scripture to scrutiny (who better to bring out the weak points in my arguments, and help me improve?).

The thing is: if you want to try to disprove TULIP, you can do that with facts, assuming the listener is open to facts (sometimes that's not the case--if you find that's not the case, you can always just end conversation), but, yeah, things don't need to get crazy.

Clarification : by "I don't henpeck", I don't mean I never disagree with them if I intentionally post a topic where I know I'm going to disagree with them (that's just discussion), I mean I don't go out of my way to disagree with them, or say "you're not saved", like I'm "patrolling" for...

I disagree with Monergism, BUT I don't henpeck Monergists. The vast majority of the Monergists I've interacted with have seemed to know God. I don't think we need perfect doctrine to know God; we know God bc of His mercy (Jer 31:34).

I don't go there. Lol

Oh OK I didn't know.

I noticed that as soon as I got off on too many tangents/too much of a tangent, everything went haywire. LOL I won't do that in the future. I prefer to discuss the topic I post about. People who insist on being off topic, even after being asked to stay on topic, I generally "ignore".

Well, I'm not telling you not to go, if that what you think is best, but there is a section for general discussion, and it may be more what you're looking for. This is the Bible Study section, and you'll get different views. But you can set users to "ignore" by clicking on their avatar, then...

Sorry if I contributed to that at all--I prefer to just not waste my time, and I put people on ignore (I don't even want to see the empty bickering), to just end conversation (if needed), not to have "back and forth".

Yeah, I will have to learn from this, and keep it in mind going forward--even if I want to get off on a tangent, I have to be better self controlled.

You were saying that your view was "nuanced", so I wasn't sure if that was what you meant. So, you deny that God was husband to His people, and Jesus is husband to God's people?