|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,496
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#117032
08/03/09 02:03 AM
08/03/09 02:03 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
sorry, mm. those quotes in no way discount the points made. so, it seems to depend on how one looks at it.
Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: teresaq]
#117033
08/03/09 02:05 AM
08/03/09 02:05 AM
|
Most Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,332
BC, Canada
|
|
I believe drug abuse can lead to death if one does not quit, same with smoking..Just something to consider.
God Bless,
Will
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: Will]
#117060
08/03/09 06:13 PM
08/03/09 06:13 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
i am amending my post #116941 so that it will hopefully not be as offensive. it was meant generally, but taken personally. To stick up for someone is fine. But to take offense for someone is not. And sticking up for someone by defending error is also not fine. as a child and young adult i could never understand why it was wrong for the papacy to hurt people but it was ok for adventists to hurt people. and the message came across very strong that it was ok to hurt people, disrespect and mistreat those we deemed as "bad" in some form. i struggled with that for years. the only thing i could figure out was that it was wrong for the papacy because they were wrong but it was ok for us to hurt people because we were right. ************ but we forget the lessons of the past. so many in the church held jones and waggoner to be in "error".....according to the sop they refused to unite in prayer with j and w, and they refused to investigate the position being presented. they felt the law was being undermined. the jews before them felt that Jesus was undermining the law. the jews persectuted Jesus and slammed Him on a cross, then went after the disciples. ellen white said if j and w fell away it would be the fault of their brethern. is it ok to hurt people as long as we have decided those people are in "error". do we think we are, after all, just as infallible as the jews and those of ellen whites day? is the reasoning that people have to be hurt if it will bring about a greater good? hasn't the sop and research proven that so very wrong?
Last edited by Rosangela; 08/07/09 01:30 PM. Reason: Removal of content for having been removed from other posts
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#117108
08/04/09 06:23 PM
08/04/09 06:23 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: Thank you for further explaining what you meant by “subset”. You are definitely more informed about such things than I am, and I appreciate the lesson. You are a good teacher. However, I do not view the two phrases as subsets or the same sets. Again, “needs to know” and “can know” are referring to two different aspects of knowledge. The one deals with content, whereas the other deals with ability.
T: Let's try again. We'll change the subject to something else, say, butterflies. "All that one needs to know about butterflies was revealed by Dr. Seuss." "All that one can know about butterflies was revealed by Dr. Seuss." The former is a subset of the latter. Why? Because only things which can be known about butterflies could possible be things one needs to know. Once can't need to know things which can't be known. Got it? Your assumption is too far fetched to make your point. That is, the idea Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know about butterflies is audacious. He only wrote silly books for children. I am an adult. Let’s say I’m seeking a doctorate degree in butterflies. Is it true that Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know or can know about butterflies? Let’s try again. In the context of disputing the claims of pantheism (the subject of 8T Section Five), how would I convey the idea that, due to our inadequate mental ability to fully comprehend God, the Bible only reveals those things we need to know or can know about God? (Note – I’m not saying this is what she was trying to convey, just asking how it could be conveyed). From Section Five: All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1} The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ. Received, believed, obeyed, it is the great instrumentality in the transformation of character. And it is the only sure means of intellectual culture. {8T 319.1} M: Yes, the knowledge Jesus revealed about God is what we “need to know”. I agree with the way you differentiated between salvation and translation. You overlooked the first question in my post above, namely, Are you qualified to say Jesus revealed things about God that we do not need to know? How can you be so sure He revealed things about God we don’t need to know? Do you have an example in mind? T: I addressed this. T: What specifically are you perceiving that I am saying that's different than what you are saying? I'm asking you this because it's not clear to me what you're asking me if I'm convinced I'm right about and your wrong.
M: I wrote, “Again, ‘needs to know’ does not imply everything there is to know. . . And, of course, ‘can know’ refers to one's ability to grasp and comprehend something.” You seem to be objecting to this way of looking at it. Do you think I’m looking at it incorrectly? I agree that "needs to know" does not necessarily imply everything there is to know. It is a subset. Possibly a proper subset, or possibly the same set. Regarding "can know," that means things which one can know. Both the following statements are talking about "things." A.Things which need to be known. B.Things which can be known. Let's say there are 3 things which need to be known, 1, 2, and 3. The number of things which can be known would have to be at least 3. If they are 3, they are precisely things 1, 2, and 3. If they are more than 3, they include things 1, 2, and 3, The phrase "things which can be known," must, of necessity, including things 1, 2, and 3. There can be no thing which needs to be known which cannot be known. You wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” I agree. That’s the main point I’ve been trying to get across. And, I also agree that the person possessed of normal abilities (not mentally handicapped) has what it takes to understand everything that needs to be known of God. Again, “can know” is referring to one’s mental ability to comprehend what has been revealed. M: Did you happen to read what I posted in #116926? In that section in 8T Ellen White was addressing false views regarding the person of God the Father. In it she says, "The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ." Yes, the revelation of Jesus, while He was here in the flesh, is by far the best. However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.
T: Sure she did. Right here: “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. (8T 286) This is speaking of Christ in His humanity, which she makes clear by saying: “Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings ... He became flesh, even as we are. (next couple of sentences)
You're hard to understand sometimes, MM. She clearly said that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It doesn't make sense to deny this. If you don't agree with this, that's another thing, but anyone can see what it says. Above you wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” And I wrote above, “However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.” It sounds like we’re saying the same thing. M: However, please bear in mind that I also believe Jesus revealed certain aspects of God’s character by teaching them rather than by demonstrating them (i.e. employ the “withdraw and permit” principle or command people to kill sinners). Seems like I recall you agreeing with this point.
T: What Ellen White wrote is that "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." So why not stick with the word used? Christ "revealed" God, in what He said, taught, and lived. All of this testimony is important. I agree. “Revealed” includes what He taught. And He said He was in the future going to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen. He will also command holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues. These are attributes of God Jesus revealed in the OT. M: Tom, the bulk of what you’ve written about it is along the same lines of your answer here, namely, alluding to what we should do to arrive at an answer. I can honestly say you have never clearly explained your position, your conclusion. I doubt anybody here can summarize what you believe.
T: kland could for sure. I know of others who could as well, but I won't name them.
M: I doubt it. I’ve seen no evidence of it on this forum.
T: You doubt what? That kland could summarize it? Or that anyone else could? Keep in mind that not everyone who reads these posts posts themselves. So there are people reading things here that you may not be aware of. Also teresa might be able to summarize it. It wouldn't surprise me if Rosangela could as well. If you read the link I provided, chapter 9, you could summarize it yourself by simply copying and pasting from that. It has yet to be seen if anyone you named can summarize your position, in particular why you think Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. Nor does the author of the book you linked explain it, at least I didn't see it. M: You wrote, “I disagree with your assumptions, your paradigm, your whole way of looking at this.” Is it absurd to ask, Why did Jesus command Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death? How are we supposed to look at the following passage: Leviticus
24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
24:11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)
24:12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be showed them.
24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.
24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
24:18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again].
24:21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I [am] the LORD your God.
24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses. T: I provided a link which discusses this. Please point out where the author addressed these kinds of cases, namely, where Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. You wrote, “I think your understanding of the cross is way off.” What do I believe about the cross that you think is way off? Are you referring to the “judicial punishment” aspect of it: “He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man.” (SR 225) “God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin.” (MB 114) You wrote, “The story of the father/hunter and his son was an attempt [at building a bridge to understanding why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death]. But this story doesn't make sense to you.” Sure it makes sense to me. It’s a very good analogy. It explains why God risks being misunderstood. I just don’t think it explains why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. He wasn’t taking a risk. He was commanding them to do what the law demands and requires. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Capital punishment is the penalty required by law. "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." (Con 21) “But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression—‘the wages of sin.’ They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” (GC 544) “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’" (GC 673) She goes on to say: The penalty of transgression is always death. Christ averted the immediate execution of the death sentence by giving His life for man. . . . [Justice requires] that he who refuses to walk in the [light] must receive punishment. {HP 153.3} God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {LDE 241.1}
When God pardons the sinner, remits the punishment he deserves, and treats him as though he had not sinned, He receives him into divine favor, and justifies him through the merits of Christ's righteousness. The sinner can be justified only through faith in the atonement made through God's dear Son, who became a sacrifice for the sins of the guilty world. {NL 20.1}
There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. {6BC 1070.4} When the law was proclaimed at Sinai, how definite was the penalty annexed, how sure was punishment to follow the transgression of that law, and how plain are the cases recorded in evidence of that fact! {4T 11.3} “What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death. Does the punishment end there? No, they are to die the second death. The stoning system has been done away, but the penalty for transgressing God's law is not done away. If the transgressor does not heartily repent, he will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. {TSB 131.3}
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: teresaq]
#117109
08/04/09 06:27 PM
08/04/09 06:27 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
sorry, mm. those quotes in no way discount the points made. so, it seems to depend on how one looks at it. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Which quotes? Which points?
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: Will]
#117110
08/04/09 06:29 PM
08/04/09 06:29 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
I believe drug abuse can lead to death if one does not quit, same with smoking..Just something to consider.
God Bless,
Will Do you see this as God causing pain and death? What about Jesus commanding Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death? Why do you think He commanded such things?
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#117115
08/04/09 06:53 PM
08/04/09 06:53 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
sorry, mm. those quotes in no way discount the points made. so, it seems to depend on how one looks at it. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Which quotes? Which points? i usually review the last comments leading up to the post in question before i answer. just a suggestion.
Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: Tom]
#117116
08/04/09 07:19 PM
08/04/09 07:19 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
|
|
I think to understand these things we need to study the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity, which the SOP tells us revealed everything we can know of God. I've also suggested that, given that all truths can only be known in the light of the cross, the great truth upon which all other truths cluster, it would be good to study that. But we spend 95% or more of our time here following the very approach I'm saying I disagree with. Do you think that's always possible? Does comparing Jesus to God require abstraction? Maybe abstraction is not the correct word, but I think it is when you can relate one thing to another without having a specific and direct comparison, but able to abstract or generalize one to the other. What if someone is unable to think in an abstract way, would they be able to understand things Jesus revealed? As I have noticed, different people have different levels of thinking abstractly, or perhaps can think that way, but unable to make application of it, but do you think some are unable to understand abstraction? If so, would they be able to understand God from Jesus?
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: kland]
#117148
08/05/09 04:32 PM
08/05/09 04:32 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Kland, elsewhere you said you think I lack the ability to grasp abstract logic. Let's test your theory. Give me an example of Jesus revealing the character of God that you believe relies on abstract logic. Explain how you think it reveals God. I will respond accordingly. Then we can analyze the outcome and draw conclusions.
|
|
|
Re: Does God sometimes cause pain?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#117149
08/05/09 04:35 PM
08/05/09 04:35 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Teresa, your reply above is too abstract. I'm not sure what you're talking about. What you mind spelling it out more concretely?
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
