election

What do you believe about God's election? Do you believe he chooses you for his kingdom, his calling is irresistable, and its impossible for non-elected people to be saved? Or, do you believe anyone can be saved?

REMEMBER!!!!! back this up with reasons from scripture or God's nature, NOT what you like best...

phe wrote:

NOT what you like best...

:'''(


there will be an antichrist

phe wrote:

What do you believe about God's election? Do you believe he chooses you for his kingdom, his calling is irresistable, and its impossible for non-elected people to be saved? Or, do you believe anyone can be saved?

REMEMBER!!!!! back this up with reasons from scripture or God's nature, NOT what you like best...

No idea.
I think God has his chosen people, and allows certain people to get away with shit that He wouldn't allow others to.
But as far as the other part of it, I have to say that I don't think we should be concerned with that whatsoever.
While we're worrying about that, there's a guy down the street who just died of starvation.

Having said that, this is a message board, and the whole point is to exchange ideas about things.

So my answer is, I have no idea.
I think that anyone who recognizes that God exists and tries to follow His will and create His Kingdom has a shot at heaven.
That being said, I don't know if God decides by "calling" us or not.
Seems unfair that way.
I mean, why create someone if they have no shot at heaven?
LOL.

But again, I have no Scriptural backing for that answer.

You started the thread, so you must have some interest in this question.
What do YOU think?

Alright BMI, there is no scriptural backing for the idea that we all have a choice and a say so in the matter, but without that view, the Bible seems unethical. Debate over.

47.5 wrote:

Alright BMI, there is no scriptural backing for the idea that we all have a choice and a say so in the matter, but without that view, the Bible seems unethical. Debate over.

I have no idea what you're talking about,
nor did I realize there was a debate going on.

I think you guys are giving me too much credit with Biblical concepts
that are directly related to Scripture.
LOL.

Christopher u seem to be an EXPERT on completely changing the subject but still saying completely true things...

In ur logic, why do you even have the theology thread at all or anything? Why does God give us the bible? to NOT read it?

phe wrote:

Christopher u seem to be an EXPERT on completely changing the subject but still saying completely true things...

In ur logic, why do you even have the theology thread at all or anything? Why does God give us the bible? to NOT read it?

Then I guess I shouldn't have named it the Theology Thread.

I should have named it The Jesus Thread or something like that.
And I'm not being coy, I honestly have no idea what Conner meant by that.

And God did not give us the Bible.
Good grief.
I thought we went through this in the other thread!
God may have inspired people to write about Him in a great way,
but it is the Church that has and HAD final say in what was "good" and "Holy".
We are lucky to have something like the Bible, otherwise all you, me, and PoopStink would have is the teachings of the Church.

Just do a little digging and you will see what I'm talking about.

I'm not bashing the "solo scriptura" crowd, honestly.
But this one is just not debatable.

I dont trust man with writing our bible. I believe that God wrote 100% of it

BeMyIcon wrote:

phe wrote:

Christopher u seem to be an EXPERT on completely changing the subject but still saying completely true things...

In ur logic, why do you even have the theology thread at all or anything? Why does God give us the bible? to NOT read it?

Then I guess I shouldn't have named it the Theology Thread.

I should have named it The Jesus Thread or something like that.
And I'm not being coy, I honestly have no idea what Conner meant by that.

And God did not give us the Bible.
Good grief.
I thought we went through this in the other thread!
God may have inspired people to write about Him in a great way,
but it is the Church that has and HAD final say in what was "good" and "Holy".
We are lucky to have something like the Bible, otherwise all you, me, and PoopStink would have is the teachings of the Church.

Just do a little digging and you will see what I'm talking about.

I'm not bashing the "solo scriptura" crowd, honestly.
But this one is just not debatable.

EDIT: What do you mean by "being an expert at changing the subject"?
LOL.
I gave every reason why I couldn't answer that one, as well as validation of your question.
Do you think I'm doing something INTENTIONALLY?
lol.
Because I'm not.
Like I said, if we spend all our time talking about shit like "election",
there REALLY IS homeless guy who JUST DIED because we're all hung up on who's getting into heaven and who's not.
How gross.
And like I said, this IS a forum for theology discussions, so I wasn't "calling you out" or saying you were doing something WRONG by asking that question.
But remember, I AM your older brother, and I love you.
So if I DIDN'T say things like, "well, I feel this..." or "well, I don't know about that...". I feel I would be doing a disservice to you, much like the way I acted when Paul was young.
The good thing is, I'm older now, and am [slowly] getting over certain hang-ups from my younger years.
So anyway, point being: If I ONLY treat you (and Conner, for that matter) as just "another poster" on this board, what good am I?
I feel strongly about certain things, so therefore I will say it.
Nobody has to agree with me, and take it with a grain of salt if you want to.
But don't for a second think I'm trying to somehow "avoid" certain issues or change the conversation, because that's just ridiculous.
I'm trying to be as honest as I can be.
O.K.?

phe wrote:

I dont trust man with writing our bible. I believe that God wrote 100% of it

But Philip, He DIDN'T.
I know that's what you've been told, and I don't really believe in "facts" per se, but there were many books that didn't make it into the Bible because the Church came BEFORE the Bible.

Some were discarded, some were kept, as long as they "jived" with the teaching of the Church that Jesus left us with.

I know that's hard for non-Catholics to fathom, but that really is what happened.
Again, ask your pastor who put the Bible together and HOW it was done.

And by "God didn't write the Bible", I mean he was not physically here to write it.
Take that on face value.

I still believe God had his hand on every word of the bible ... The church coming first doesn't prove anything about that

phe wrote:

I still believe God had his hand on every word of the bible ... The church coming first doesn't prove anything about that

Actually, I'm more concerned with what you mean about me "changing the subject".
LOL.

Show me where.
I really didn't try to do anything like that.
If you think somehow I'm being deceitful, please show me.

I clearly don't put the emphasis on the Bible that you and 47.5 do,
and I don't think that's any secret at this point.
I put more emphasis on the Church.
That's not meant to discredit the Bible, it just shows you where my convictions lie.

And the Church coming first certainly DOES say a lot about where the Bible is coming from and WHY certain books are in there.
In my opinion, at least.

Wow I've been gone for a while.


First, Christopher, BMI, whatever, that was a friggen quadruple post...

Second, you do change the subject a lot and even if you don't think so, it still happens. I constantly tried to keep us on topic in the other debates. You may not do it on purpose, but you need to organize your thoughts and stick to the current debated issue.

Third, the Bible was written by God. If you really disagree, why don't you check out 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy. As I've said before, the books of the Bible were already written by Moses, Matthew, Paul, etc. but they were organized into one book by the Church. The Church had no say-so in the matter on what was written. And taking books out of the Bible does not mean they wrote it. That just means they took books out of the Bible.

47.5 wrote:

Wow I've been gone for a while.


First, Christopher, BMI, whatever, that was a friggen quadruple post...

Second, you do change the subject a lot and even if you don't think so, it still happens. I constantly tried to keep us on topic in the other debates. You may not do it on purpose, but you need to organize your thoughts and stick to the current debated issue.

Third, the Bible was written by God. If you really disagree, why don't you check out 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy. As I've said before, the books of the Bible were already written by Moses, Matthew, Paul, etc. but they were organized into one book by the Church. The Church had no say-so in the matter on what was written. And taking books out of the Bible does not mean they wrote it. That just means they took books out of the Bible.

LOL.
Now you're both getting into the game of accusing me of changing the subject.
I'll ask a third time: Where did I do that in this thread?

And why do you keep saying they took books OUT?
There WAS NO ""Bible".
I'm curious what this Bible you keep talking about WAS.

If you and I were living way back then, and each of us wrote our musings about God, we could say it was "inspired" word all we wanted.
But who do you think decided whether or not it was?
(first of all, I'm not on board with that whole concept, but that's not the point right now)
I could write something that they didn't like, thus not included in what we would call the Bible.
But you may write something that they decided to PUT in what would eventually be called the Bible.

You have directly mentioned this, so I don't feel there is any changing of the subject on my part.

BeMyIcon wrote:

LOL.
Now you're both getting into the game of accusing me of changing the subject.
I'll ask a third time: Where did I do that in this thread?

I'm not accusing you of doing it on purpose, however, you have done this. It's technically not an accusation. I don't think you do this on purpose.

BMI wrote:

And why do you keep saying they took books OUT?
There WAS NO ""Bible".
I'm curious what this Bible you keep talking about WAS.

Alright apparently since we keep using the word "Bible", everyone is getting confused as to what we're arguing and what my side represents.

There were the books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, all the way to Revelation) before the Church was started. Before we get any deeper and make this any more complicated, I want to make sure we agree on this issue.

BMI wrote:

If you and I were living way back then, and each of us wrote our musings about God, we could say it was "inspired" word all we wanted.
But who do you think decided whether or not it was?
(first of all, I'm not on board with that whole concept, but that's not the point right now)
I could write something that they didn't like, thus not included in what we would call the Bible.
But you may write something that they decided to PUT in what would eventually be called the Bible.

This logic has been used before countless numbers of times, however, only by those who oppose Christianity altogether. By offering this point on your side, you are giving room to the idea that none of the Bible was written factually. You must either accept all or none of it. Who are you to determine which books are true and which are not? I'm deviating off of the main point slightly so I'll bring it back.

We accept the Bible as fact through faith. We have faith in the idea that each book was written through man by God. Without this, our religion is worthless since it is just another idea man created.

BMI wrote:

You have directly mentioned this, so I don't feel there is any changing of the subject on my part.

You seem very offended...

LOLOLOLOL.

I'll ask now for the FOURTH time in this thread where the subject was changed.
I "get" that you're not saying I'm doing it intentionally.
Fine.
Show me where that was done and why Philip said that.
Philip, if you'd like to answer, that would be great.

You can't just accuse someone of changing the subject or of being an "expert" on it without backing it up with something.
That's not fair.
I really don't appreciate those kinds of accusations, and then when I call someone out on it, there is total avoidance.
That's a common theme in my family, and it won't be tolerated here in an adult discussion.



Now I'll go read the rest of your post.

I'm not offended!
LOL

Quote :

There were the books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, all the way to Revelation) before the Church was started. Before we get any deeper and make this any more complicated, I want to make sure we agree on this issue.

No, not at all.
When Jesus left, He put Peter or whoever it was in charge of His Church.
The books of the New Testament were written AFTER Jesus left.
Or at least a bunch of them.
Think about that: Do you think Jesus had the Gospels to read about His own life while He was still living it?
LOL.
Of course not.

So no...of course, we had the Old Testament, or at least some version of it.
I guess if you want to get out of this debate now, you can say that you were referring to simply the Old Testament.
But in an earlier thread, I stated "the Bible as we know it today",
so I did my part to clarify, but maybe not well enough.

Quote :

This logic has been used before countless numbers of times, however, only by those who oppose Christianity altogether. By offering this point on your side, you are giving room to the idea that none of the Bible was written factually.

Yep, you're right.
Which is why Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity.
Many people try to disprove Jesus by "facts", but who cares?
We know it, and we get the concept.

Quote :

You must either accept all or none of it.

Tell me why it's all or nothing.
That's a very black and white point of view.
What if you had used that logic before the Reformation when books WERE taken out?
Are you saying you DO accept the books that were taken out?
Please be consistent.

Quote :

Who are you to determine which books are true and which are not?

Exactly.
Which is why we have the Church.

Quote :

We accept the Bible as fact through faith.

What do you mean by "fact"?
That everything in it happened just how it says?
I'm assuming that's what you mean, so I'll pose these questions:
1-What about the inconsistencies and different accounts in the Gospels?
You can't have "fact" concerning that.
Each person has his own view of what happened, and puts his own slant on it.
The only "Truth" is Jesus Christ.
After that, man screws it up.
2-"This IS My Body..."

BeMyIcon wrote:

I think that anyone who recognizes that God exists and tries to follow His will and create His Kingdom has a shot at heaven.
That being said, I don't know if God decides by "calling" us or not.
Seems unfair that way.
I mean, why create someone if they have no shot at heaven?

We have all been created to BE WITH GOD, however because we have fallen into sin, we now have to COME BACK TO HIM. Our hearts and minds are not holy. He has called each of us to follow him but because of sin we must acknowledge him and that calling. I do not believe there is a "chosen group" or "in-crowd", he wants us all. Unfortunately not all of us want him. There is a certain level of free will here. Our choice is do we believe as a child believes that God created us in his image, we fell into sin, he sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, and have we been reborn in this knowledge? Do we make the concious effort everday to act as followers of Christ or do we use it as a scapegoat?

oops, double post.

POP*ICON wrote:

We have all been created to BE WITH GOD, however because we have fallen into sin, we now have to be COME BACK TO HIM. Our hearts and minds are not holy. He has called each of us to follow him but because of sin we must acknowledge him and that calling. I do not believe there is a "chosen group" or "in-crowd", he wants us all. Unfortunately not all of us want him. There is a certain level of free will here. Our choice is do we believe as a child believes that God created us in his image, we fell into sin, he sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, and have we been reborn in this knowledge? Do we make the concious effort everday to act as followers of Christ or do we use it as a scapegoat?

Amen.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Except the part about nothing about us being Holy.
I think - and I'm not sure about this, I'll have to check with the Church (LOL 47.5 and phe!) - that we are STILL created in God's image.
I'm not sure everything about us is "evil" or "filled by darkness".
Again, I'll have to check that out!

Wow...how ARE you?
Thanks for posting........I'd like to see your thoughts on some of the other topics in this thread.




EDIT: The way I phrased the "Holy" and "God's image" part didn't make a lot of sense - LOL.
I guess I really just don't understand what I'm saying there.

shit that's a lot to read. I'll get back to it in probably a day.

47.5 wrote:

shit that's a lot to read. I'll get back to it in probably a day.

No problem.

LOL.

I did not mean to portray that we NOW are not in fact made in God's image or that EVERYTHING about us is "evil" or "filled with darkness, but wanted to make the point that now we are born into original sin and that fact makes us unable to be "holy." We are inherently evil people who try to be good, and not the reverse: inherently good people being evil. Our sin prevents that, however with the Grace of God we can overcome that. Originally we were born to not age and have sickness... but sin has changed that. When God calls us back to him, """"those who have chosen to follow him and his teachings""", we will be again in the same image as him with no ailments or conditions.

And I'm good... hope everything is going well down there!


P.S. your picture disturbs me

POP*ICON wrote:

We are inherently evil people who try to be good, and not the reverse: inherently good people being evil. Our sin prevents that, however with the Grace of God we can overcome that.

Yep, I'm with you.

One of the major themes that you'll see on this message board (or at least the way I'M interpreting it) is ACTION. - Or at least I've stressed that a ton.

Yes, I "get" that it's called The Theology Room or whatever,
but I still believe that "spreading the Gospel" does not ONLY mean "saving people".
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we are not be concerned with that whatsoever. The way we bring the Gospel is by action and example. We can go on and telling someone that they "need Jesus", but that sounds like cult shit to people who aren't on board.
It's about helping your neighbor and feeding the poor and kindness,
NOT telling someone they're evil and need Redemption.
LOL.

Oh no, guys: I've changed the subject.
Somebody had better ban me!
LOL.
Just having a laugh.

Quote :

And I'm good... hope everything is going well down there!

It is.
I'm working a lot on Bandons, and creating the new categories today
on our "test site": www.bossecommerce.com <---you can see the categories there.

It was 102 degrees yesterday.



Good to hear from you.
Post here whenever you want.
I appreciate your input!

Wow... you have changed the subject! And I agree as followers of Christ we are to show others the way by our actions and deeds... show them how good it is on "our" side. Because that is how it goes, we can accomplish everything with God but without him we can't accomplish anything.

Again, your picture disturbs me.

okay... I read the first stuff and the last stuff and I'm really confused. It'll be awhile until I have time to go through all this.
When I can, all I'll answer is BMI's first post with stuff directed at me. If anything else is important, tell me and I'll go over to that too.

BeMyIcon wrote:

No, not at all.
When Jesus left, He put Peter or whoever it was in charge of His Church.
The books of the New Testament were written AFTER Jesus left.
Or at least a bunch of them.
Think about that: Do you think Jesus had the Gospels to read about His own life while He was still living it?
LOL.
Of course not.

Well I knew they were written after Jesus left, but still before the Church. Of course I knew that the gospels weren't written while Jesus was alive. My point is that the books written by Paul were in fact written by Paul; not the Church.

BMI wrote:

So no...of course, we had the Old Testament, or at least some version of it.
I guess if you want to get out of this debate now, you can say that you were referring to simply the Old Testament.
But in an earlier thread, I stated "the Bible as we know it today",
so I did my part to clarify, but maybe not well enough.

I never leave a debate by acting like I meant something else. Regardless of the circumstances.

The "Bible as we know it today" is just a collection of the books written through man by God.

BMI wrote:

Yep, you're right.
Which is why Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity.
Many people try to disprove Jesus by "facts", but who cares?
We know it, and we get the concept.
Tell me why it's all or nothing.
That's a very black and white point of view.
What if you had used that logic before the Reformation when books WERE taken out?
Are you saying you DO accept the books that were taken out?
Please be consistent.

If you throw out one because you think it was written by just a man or it was completely factual, how do you know the others aren't the same? Questioning one questions them all.

The books that were taken out I know nothing on. I have asked people about them (teachers at my school mainly; doctors in theology) but they do not know about them either. Believe me, I am trying to get to why these books were thrown out and what they say. I want to figure these things out before I state that I accept them as truth.

BMI wrote:

Exactly.
Which is why we have the Church.

That is not how I meant it and the Church is not the solution to it. You either believe all of the books in the Bible or you don't. You can't just ignore some books like my mom does. As I keep saying, the Church has no better judgment than the average man. In some cases, they have worse judgment (which is why in another debate I brought up the Crusades, Purgatory, and Indulgences).

Quote :

What do you mean by "fact"?
That everything in it happened just how it says?
I'm assuming that's what you mean, so I'll pose these questions:
1-What about the inconsistencies and different accounts in the Gospels?
You can't have "fact" concerning that.
Each person has his own view of what happened, and puts his own slant on it.
The only "Truth" is Jesus Christ.
After that, man screws it up.
2-"This IS My Body..."

Okay. Yes I do believe everything in the Bible is factual and that is why I am a believer. It would be stupid to believe in a religion that has some things wrong.

To answer number 1, Yeah, each writer had a different perspective on what happened. They are all the truth. They don't go against each other. There is not one verse where Matthew says Jesus went to one town and Mark said he didn't. They all have different perspectives on the same truth.

2: what? Are you saying that isn't factual or something? He is speaking poetically and metaphorically. Metaphors aren't lies. They are a different perspective on the truth (see number one).

POP*ICON wrote:

Again, your picture disturbs me.

There.
I put on a shirt.
Better?

I believe that you're trying to be as true to God's will as you can,
but I feel there are a lot of inconsistencies with the way you're approaching this.

47.5 wrote:

Well I knew they were written after Jesus left, but still before the Church.

In the Gospels, they refer to the Church.
Jesus left Peter in charge of His Church.
What do you think He was talking about there?

47.5 wrote:

My point is that the books written by Paul were in fact written by Paul; not the Church.

I have NEVER said that The Church wrote ANYTHING.
Maybe you posted this after I clarified that - (I'm getting these threads confused) - but to say that the Church wrote them is as silly as saying God wrote them.
Inspired, whatever.
But God did not physically write the books of the Bible.

47.5 wrote:

The "Bible as we know it today" is just a collection of the books written through man by God.

How did we decide which books were "written by God", as you say?
What about letters and musings in which maybe people THOUGHT they were inspired by God, yet didn't totally fall in line with what the Church Body felt was "catechism" or whatever?
They're NOT IN THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE CHURCH DECIDED THAT.
(if that part even happened, LOL...I don't know about that)

47.5 wrote:

If you throw out one because you think it was written by just a man or it was completely factual, how do you know the others aren't the same? Questioning one questions them all.

I don't understand what you're saying about "throwing books out" here.
But I agree with the part about questioning them all.
Which is why we're lucky we had the Church at that time to decide that.

47.5 wrote:

The books that were taken out I know nothing on. I have asked people about them (teachers at my school mainly; doctors in theology) but they do not know about them either. Believe me, I am trying to get to why these books were thrown out and what they say. I want to figure these things out before I state that I accept them as truth.

You're doing the very same thing that you take up issue with me doing.
The difference is, I'm asking the Original Church, and you're asking friends and family and school teachers.
LOL.

47.5 wrote:

That is not how I meant it and the Church is not the solution to it. You either believe all of the books in the Bible or you don't. You can't just ignore some books like my mom does.

I agree with you.
But "believing" a book is not the same thing as taking a book literally.
I lost my quote, and I'm guessing that's not what I'm responding to,
but it's late, and I'm too lazy to scroll down.
LOL.

47.5 wrote:

As I keep saying, the Church has no better judgment than the average man. In some cases, they have worse judgment (which is why in another debate I brought up the Crusades, Purgatory, and Indulgences).

First of all, throw out the Purgatory example, because Catholics believe in that.
So please stop referring to that as some passing thing that is clearly wrong.
You don't believe it because you're not Catholic.
That's a difference in faith,
and differences in faith are NOT what we're debating.

The other things: I have no idea what those are.
But there are always going to be mistakes, of course.
Man leads the Church.
I don't believe that has much to do with what we're talking about, though.
The Crusades have nothing to do with interpreting Scripture today,
as far as I'm concerned.
Love your neighbor is timeless.
The Church fucked up.
So?

47.5 wrote:

Okay. Yes I do believe everything in the Bible is factual and that is why I am a believer. It would be stupid to believe in a religion that has some things wrong.

It's all about what you interpret the Bible to BE.
I don't believe the Bible has to be "literal".
Example: Was Jonah really inside a whale?
LOL.
Probably not.
Maybe, but probably not.

Don't tell me that because I don't know how to take that,
that I'm not a "believer".
I think some time we need to discuss what "factual" really means.

47.5 wrote:

To answer number 1, Yeah, each writer had a different perspective on what happened. They are all the truth. They don't go against each other. There is not one verse where Matthew says Jesus went to one town and Mark said he didn't. They all have different perspectives on the same truth.

Also, I believe we need to define "Truth".
The only Truth that exists is that Jesus is Lord,
and things that Jesus said ABOUT Truth.
That's it.

How can you possibly use that Telephone reference then tell me that
even though there clearly ARE contradictions in the Gospels,
that it has to be isolated to what town Jesus went to?
You're being inconsistent, and I'm sorry I have to call you on it.
It's about the MESSAGE, not HOW that message is written.
Don't look for truth in WORDS, look for it in Spirit.
Each person can't have his own "truth", which is why we need to take into account "perspective" and Spirit, which leads to why it's not necessary to believe the Bible to be "factual" and "literal" to be a believer.
Know what I mean?

47.5 wrote:

Are you saying that isn't factual or something? He is speaking poetically and metaphorically. Metaphors aren't lies. They are a different perspective on the truth.

Never said it was a "lie".
But how do you decide to take everything else literally,
but then:
"Oh...yeah....Jesus was definitely speaking 'metaphorically' there'"?
Seems a little inconsistent, doesn't it?
And who decides He's speaking metaphorically there?
You?
LOL.
Me?
LOL.
That's the whole point.

You say we can't pick and choose which books we want to accept.
Fine, I agree with you.
But yet, you say that each verse is open to our own interpretation.
I don't see how those can go together.

Anyway.