Why did God need to give us free will, or did He need to? Do we really have it?

[bbyrd009]

Satan does have children just as God has children.

i agree that in a sense satan does, yes, strictly as an analogy, but see how this can easily be made too literal, as neither one is down here having sex and producing literal children, right. That's step 1. Step 2 is we attribute all life to God usually, right, except (for the sake of argument) you, who could be perceived as now crediting satan with the production of the life from which sin manifests, so you are iow kind of put in the position of hating sinners rather than sin, or suggesting that God hates someone, when imo you can't support that pov (meaning "maybe you can," understand, bam try if you like)

 

[bbyrd009]

The children of God are not beliefs, are they?

as an analogy, why not? "Doctrines" might fit equally well.
Understand that i don't mean to limit the def to these though
and reflect upon the fact that you cannot point to any literal "children of God" that would be unequivocally accepted as such, right
yet we know they exist, same as "children of the devil" (bad doctrine, bad def of doctrine, bad beliefs, whatever leads to sin iow)

 

[bbyrd009]

If you are saying the tares and the children of the devil are beliefs, then it must be so for the wheat and the Children of the kingdom.

then if it serves you, let it be so, and if it does not, bam reject it. No humans will be transformed into literal grains of wheat either way, right, you are strictly playing with perspective here, and your old perspective cannot just disappear.

well, that is not entirely true i guess, but when that happens you will know why, no doubt you have already been there

 

[bbyrd009]

I believe that two men in the field means there were two men in the field.

and "two men in a bed?" i mean, just homos or what? wow, i googled the phrase expecting to get an avalanche of ammo to confront you with lol, and it just isn't there, page 1 anyway. Rapture doctrine has occluded this. So, i would just say what i've already said i guess, these are analogies, and it is entirely up to you to interpret them, and if you see no relevant analogies to yourself in "two men..." then bam go with that for now.


Ha i'm on search page 3 now and all i see is refs to rapture and homosexuality, wow.
If you can accept that you are double-minded, this might help, and when i have gotten over this extreme CogDis and can recall where/how i first received this, i'll try and update

 

[FHII]

i agree that in a sense satan does, yes, strictly as an analogy, but see how this can easily be made too literal, as neither one is down here having sex and producing literal children, right. That's step 1. Step 2 is we attribute all life to God usually, right, except (for the sake of argument) you, who could be perceived as now crediting satan with the production of the life from which sin manifests, so you are iow kind of put in the position of hating sinners rather than sin, or suggesting that God hates someone, when imo you can't support that pov (meaning "maybe you can," understand, bam try if you like)

I never said Satan was down here having sex and producing children... You put that on the table. Not me. And if its just an analogy, so are the children of God. We aren't really the children of God... Its just an analogy.

I attribute all life to God. He created Satan, his angels and his children. He even said he alone created evil.

God doesn't love everybody either. He hated Esau so much that he rejected his repenting. He also hates false witnesses and those who sow discord amongst the brethren. Yes, he hates lies and hates discord. But he also hates them that do it. (Proverbs 6).

Yet, God made them.

I myself do not hate sinners. Not all of them. I am kind of like David though.

"For they speak against thee wickedly and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do I not hate them that hate thee? Am I not greived with them that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred!" - Psa 139.

Furthermore, did you know that God is an enemy to some? He told Israel that he would be an enemy to their enemies.

 

[bbyrd009]

I am a firm believer in the outward man and the inward man

ya, diff concept i'm pretty sure, although seeing when the outward and inward men don't agree is kind of intrinsic to this

 

[FHII]

as an analogy, why not? "Doctrines" might fit equally well.

Just because you managed to put a square peg in a round hole don't mean it was supposed to go there. And no. It doesn't fit. Two men are not one man.

 

[FHII]

Ha i'm on search page 3 now and all i see is refs to rapture and homosexuality, wow.
If you can accept that you are double-minded, this might help, and when i have gotten over this extreme CogDis and can recall where/how i first received this, i'll try and update

No you are on your own. I am not going to bother with such things.

 

[bbyrd009]

well fwiw i was pretty sure that was for other ppl when i wrote it anyway

Jesus said when the son of Man is revealed and you are on your rooftop, don't go down to get your stuff.

yes, but obviously if you were being raptured this would not even be a consideration, right, so i suggest that this passage works on more than one level, including an allowance for believers of rapture to seize, should that be their desire; with the...fondest admonition i can devise, that being i would dearly love for rapture to be true, too lol. i am no less susceptible to "...and would rather be dead and partying with Jesus" myself, ok...well, hmm, i guess i am now, not sure when that happened, but anyway rapture would just tickle me pink, ok. Ezekiel does not refer to pillows and soft landings in vain imo

also 70ad might be taken into account, a warning possibly for them iow, but really i think the ref is one to speak to the desires of someone who has met Him in the air, and experienced the twinkling of an eye already, iow has changed their minds--likely just a little, i dunno--enough so that the things of the world are just not even considered anymore, or at least that is the advice inherent in this passage iow--"when Christ is revealed, there is no going back," however you wish to perceive this iow

 

[bbyrd009]

have you ever gone back to some old post you wrote years ago and wondered wth you were thinking? Scripture is alive, and you are changing a little every day, imo. your priorities change as you age, etc, so imo it is a good idea to allow this reality to be reflected in your current understanding of a passage--whatever it may be--as temporary, until a more complete understanding takes its place

 

[ScottA]

While I do understand what you are saying: The only problem I see, is that the "light" projected through it, does not arrive instantaneously at the "end". Just as if the sun ceased, we would not realize it for approx. 8 minutes.

If the measure of these things was the world, that would be true. But it is not, but rather God, whom is timeless, is the measure of things. Which means the time that you speak of is merely a story line within the timeless eternity of God.

 

[Richard_oti]

If the measure of these things was the world, that would be true. But it is not, but rather God, whom is timeless, is the measure of things. Which means the time that you speak of is merely a story line within the timeless eternity of God.

As one who has contemplated "eternity" [perhaps too much so]. I concur that "time" as we know it, was created for us. For our finite minds can not truly fathom nor grasp "eternity" nor "timeless eternity".

And yet, it was "God" who brought forth "light" and gave "light" its "properties". So even attempting to remove the measure of the "world" from the equation, we are still left with a measure [of time] in which it takes "light" to travel from point A to point B.

I am not attempting to dispute what you have said, in so much as I am attempting to digest it.

 

[ScottA]

As one who has contemplated "eternity" [perhaps too much so]. I concur that "time" as we know it, was created for us. For our finite minds can not truly fathom nor grasp "eternity" nor "timeless eternity".

And yet, it was "God" who brought forth "light" and gave "light" its "properties". So even attempting to remove the measure of the "world" from the equation, we are still left with a measure [of time] in which it takes "light" to travel from point A to point B.

I am not attempting to dispute what you have said, in so much as I am attempting to digest it.

I understand the difficulty. But the scriptures, Christ, and the apostles all dispel the myth of time, saying, "today" in many forms. And those forms do not include "properties" so much as they establish the true nature of manifestation of what is more properly called an "image."

 

[bbyrd009]

Those who refused to love the truth.

doesn't that describe you, once? Could ppl behaving badly be described as "tares?" Sure, but aren't you made into a liar when they change their minds? See, you can use "tares" for ppl if you like, but hopefully the argument that you have just judged someone by doing that is apparent? And of course when you later find a tare in your field, you must then consider your entire self a tare too, right

 

[bbyrd009]

God doesn't love everybody either.

so you say

He hated Esau so much

only you cannot quote that, can you; you did a little scribing to get there, huh

 

[bbyrd009]

He also hates false witnesses and those who sow discord amongst the brethren.

or at least that is what you have been assured that an Angry God does to His children, yes, but if you stopped reading translations written by ppl convinced of the doctrine of Original Sin, your pov might change. Yes, God hates a false witness, a lie--not a person--and the sowing of discord--also not a person. You might ask yourself why such an Angry God would deal so duplicitously with Adam, the committer of the Original Sin, if you believe like you do? "Here, have a skin in that case" reflects your pov, do you think?

Yes, he hates lies and hates discord. But he also hates them that do it. (Proverbs 6).

sorry, but it just isn't in There, note "to breathe, to send"
Proverbs 6:19 Lexicon: A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.
v what a scribe translated for you, that you can read right there ^

I myself do not hate sinners.

ha, listen to yourself now; God hates certain people, while counselling you to Love Your Enemies lol. ok.

"For they speak against thee wickedly and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do I not hate them that hate thee? Am I not greived with them that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred!" - Psa 139.

Furthermore, did you know that God is an enemy to some? He told Israel that he would be an enemy to their enemies.

you are interpreting statements made to establish Law in the OT as being representative of a Gracious God, and perhaps forgetting that the Law failed? Nevermind what should be the obvious analogies available from one of your own wayward children.

i gotta ask, in all honesty, if you at any time paid anyone any money for this knowledge that you hold so dear? Full disclosure does not seem to much to ask imo

 

[bbyrd009]

Just because you managed to put a square peg in a round hole don't mean it was supposed to go there.

oh, but i never suggested that at all, did i? if you got that impression, i apologize; i meant the opposite. You should not be trying to fit in that spot at all imo

And no. It doesn't fit. Two men are not one man.

hmm, i notice you have no problem with the allusion when it is your "two men" being discussed though?
What if i am wrong, and those two men are the same men, what then?
Are you going to be able to remember to come back and fix this post?

Will God hate you until you do?

 

[bbyrd009]

No you are on your own. I am not going to bother with such things.

well fwiw i was pretty sure that was for other ppl when i wrote it anyway

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus said when the son of Man is revealed and you are on your rooftop, don't go down to get your stuff.

yes, but obviously if you were being raptured this would not even be a consideration, right

ha, maybe not so obvious after all lol. See the corner logic leads you into here

 

[bbyrd009]

For our finite minds can not truly fathom nor grasp "eternity" nor "timeless eternity".

oh pls, sure we can, we call it "death," and we accept that we will all go to Sheol, dirt nap, "rest" etc, and not return