Misconceptions about God?

reply to post by DarkKnight21

What you are referring to is the Euthyphro dilemma. Personally I think He reveals his character to us if we open ourselves to it, so it isn't necessary for us to trap God in our linguistic philosophical paradoxes.

No, I'm not talking about that.
I am asking where you get your theory from and by what you wish to defend it with.
Would you like to admit now that it is just human philosophy masquerading as religion?
I think you are trapped in your own "linguistic paradox".
What I am asking is where in the world does your theory come from.
The Bible? Yes or NO.
If Yes, then where in the Bible?
I believe that you are only parroting cult doctrine.

We all have our own ideas about what "perfect justice" should be because we are made in the image of our Creator.

OK, then you admit that your theory is just "your idea" and nothing that actually comes from a biblical source? It looks like it to me, that all you are doing is spouting philosophy with a few "God"s thrown in to appear as if it is relevant to Christians.

It's in there. You can look up the verses online, or I can find them for you.

I will take that as an admission by you that there is in fact no verses in the Bible that supports your theory.

Perfect justice was served at the crucifixion because sin demands penalty of death under our demands for perfect holiness.
Perfect mercy was served at the crucifixion because the innocent willingly took that penalty from us sinners.

According to your theory, I got that when I read the OP. Do you have any source to substantiate a single one of your claims?
I'm not here to debate philosophy, I'm pointing out that all you are offering is philosophy.
You do throw in some little bits of truth, such as Jesus being innocent, and that he died, that is in the Bible, as for the rest, I would like to see where it says that.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

We humans love to over complicate stuff. This is how our misconceptions come about. If God doesn't meet our standard of perfect justice then the error lies not in God, but in our way of thinking about what perfect justice is.

Where does your definition of "perfect justice" come from?
Deuteronomy 16:20
Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the LORD your God is giving you.
(NIV)
That's what the Old Testament says about "perfect justice", if you were reading it in the Darby version, which seems to be the only one that words it in that way.
It is in a section for judges, telling them to not accept bribes. Oh . . ! Is that what you are suggesting, that there is this great Cosmic Judge, above God and the Universe, and God bribes the judge by giving it His son?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

10. Experience of Salvation:

None of that answers my question.
It does not say in the New Testament that there was a transaction with Justice, or anyone else, trading blood for sin 'debt'.

God is a "He"!??? we know so much already!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

The precious Truth is that God's love and justice was to send His Own Son to pay the penalty for the sins of all, in order to make the redemption of all possible.

OK, you have just stated a theory that you have, do you have anything in the Bible that would collaborate it?
Good luck with that because there isn't and you are stating a theological system formulated in the late 1800's based on the writings of the Reformers, using them as source material as if they had the same authority as the Bible.
So, have a good time with your man-made theory and see how much good it does you when it is a little too late and you are facing judgment after the end of this life.
You have just been notified, so that leaves you without that excuse, so, you are damned to hell if you neglect your obligation to become righteous before God.

edit on 9-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

10. Experience of Salvation:
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)

Adventist.org/fundamental beliefs.

Thanks for your support, as I will not answer jmdewey, as I have found discussion with him to be unprofitable. I don't know why he is so condemnatory, and brings in a lot of baggage the other person does not say.

Your source is interesting to me, as I was formerly a member of the SDA church. The section you quoted has a ring of Universal Reconciliation to it, but then we get to this:

27. Millennium and the End of Sin: The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)

Here, we are reminded once again, that the Adventists are Eternal Destructionists. What I would like to know is, after Death and Hell have been heaved into the Lake of Fire, how can any of those supposedly reduced to ashes, still be dead? When you put E. G. White's end-time pronouncements together with Scripture, a few key things do not line up. In the end, I decided to follow the Bible.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

Divided middle of absolute Love between the twin pillars of absolute Justice and absolute Mercy, and the whole thing held together and reserved and preserved with integrity for the sake of our mutual glorification, joy, happiness and everlasting satisfaction and life meeting life in reconciliation with the eternal Godhead - that's Christianity and the power of the cross in a nutshell.

Does that sound about right?

Originally posted by DarkKnight21

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by DarkKnight21

 

And, if an all-powerful god existed and DID create us in his likeness - RUN! HIDE! AND HOPE TO GOD THAT HE DOESN'T EXIST!

I always though that "in His likeness" meant having an innate desire or need to create.

But we don't create; we DESTROY. It LOOKS like we're creating stuff, but what are we really doing? In order to build a house we have to rape the land to throw in a foundation and cut down trees for wood. Build a car - suck up all the fossil fuels and pollute the air. Need warmth in the winter? Burn trees, coal, and bury spent nuclear fuel rods in the ground, rendering that ground unusable for hundreds of thousands of years.

Need paper to write on? Cut down trees.

Need to connect cities? Rape the land and lay down asphalt.

No, we are not creators. We are destroyers.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


I'm not an Adventist. Dewey is, that's why I post their organization's official statements of belief.

He'll probably say they are a cult too, like everyone else.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Abraham wasn't a "Hebrew"

Abraham is considered "The First Hebrew".
The word 'Hebrew' means to have crossed over, in his case, from Ur, to the Land of Canaan.

. . . Jesus spoke of Daniel as a real person.

Jesus in Mark and Matthew said, "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" and "what Daniel the prophet spoke about".
Obviously Daniel was not there ten minutes earlier talking to the group. So Jesus had to mean, 'as it is written in the book of Daniel the prophet'.

edit on 9-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

In Galatians Paul points out that Abraham wasn't a Hebrew. And fake people don't "speak" or write books, nor do Archangels appear to them while praying.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

10. Experience of Salvation:

None of that answers my question.
It does not say in the New Testament that there was a transaction with Justice, or anyone else, trading blood for sin 'debt'.

No one made that claim anyways so apparently you're burning straw men. You took exception to an entirely different statement than this one you just formulated. But now that you mention it, Isaiah 53 pretty much hammers home the fact that Christ died for our sin.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

In Galatians Paul points out that Abraham wasn't a Hebrew.

Galatians 3:7
so then, understand that those who believe are the sons of Abraham.
Galatians 4:22
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.

Abraham comes under discussion in Galatians twice. The word "Hebrew" does not appear in Galatians.

And fake people don't "speak" or write books, nor do Archangels appear to them while praying.

Dead people don't either, so obviously "Daniel the Prophet" was a book.
A book can be called "Daniel the Prophet" without there ever having been an actual person named, Daniel the Prophet. It's called fiction.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No one made that claim anyways so apparently you're burning straw men. You took exception to an entirely different statement than this one you just formulated. But now that you mention it, Isaiah 53 pretty much hammers home the fact that Christ died for our sin.

Here is the quote that I "took exception to":

"God's love and justice was to send His Own Son to pay the penalty for the sins of all, in order to make the redemption of all possible."

How did Jesus "pay the penalty" for sins, then, if not by his blood?
If there is another way, according to the theory that apparently several members on this thread support, then maybe I am "burning straw men".
Until one of you disavows this (that sins were 'paid' for with blood), then you are making a false accusation.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Sorry, Romans, where Paul is reminding the reader that Abraham was saved before circumcision.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What does Romans 3:25 mean to you?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . Abraham was saved before circumcision . . .

I originally mentioned Abraham as an example of a Hebrew in the Old Testament.
How, can you explain, does your above statement make him not a Hebrew?
It's pretty ridiculous for you to say that when all you have to do is Google 'Abraham first Hebrew' and you get all these web pages saying just that.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . Abraham was saved before circumcision . . .

I originally mentioned Abraham as an example of a Hebrew in the Old Testament.
How, can you explain, does your above statement make him not a Hebrew?
It's pretty ridiculous for you to say that when all you have to do is Google 'Abraham first Hebrew' and you get all these web pages saying just that.

I just said I was wrong. I was thinking about the passage about circumcision, which was a sign of the covenant.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I just said I was wrong. I was thinking about the passage about circumcision, which was a sign of the covenant.

OK, apparently I misunderstood you and I thought you meant that you were just wrong on which book by Paul it was in. Never mind, then.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What does Romans 3:25 mean to you?

It means that the "mercy seat", the thing that is associated in the Old Testament with the place where the manifestation of God was, now Jesus is that, being that Jesus is the intersection of God and Man, in his person.
The 'cleansing' of the mercy seat is what prepares the temple for another year's worth of service, so at the end of the annual ceremony, they had a virtual 'new' temple. Jesus is the New Temple, in that he is front and center in the New kingdom of God on Earth, with free access to all, by faith.

reply to post by bb23108


What I meant was that serving others is a means to love God ("What you did for the least of these, you did for me" etc.) We are not asked to have warm fuzzy feelings for a magic man in the sky - that's the esoteric babble I'm talking about. We are asked to help those in need who are placed into our life. God shows favor in our lives when we show favor to others. In this way, Jesus' first and second commandments are fulfilled together.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by DarkKnight21

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by DarkKnight21

 

And, if an all-powerful god existed and DID create us in his likeness - RUN! HIDE! AND HOPE TO GOD THAT HE DOESN'T EXIST!

I always though that "in His likeness" meant having an innate desire or need to create.

But we don't create; we DESTROY. It LOOKS like we're creating stuff, but what are we really doing? In order to build a house we have to rape the land to throw in a foundation and cut down trees for wood. Build a car - suck up all the fossil fuels and pollute the air. Need warmth in the winter? Burn trees, coal, and bury spent nuclear fuel rods in the ground, rendering that ground unusable for hundreds of thousands of years.

Need paper to write on? Cut down trees.

Need to connect cities? Rape the land and lay down asphalt.

No, we are not creators. We are destroyers.

edit on 4/9/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

How do we know we are bad at creating if we didn't have some knowledge of a perfect creator to compare ourselves to?