Zone1 Question for Christians

[Meriweather]

The story referenced in the OP. You really should read the OP. To save you the effort it's Romans 9 16-23 or may be 24. I would have to check myself to be sure. I will also admit to a mistake. The remark "“I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth" was made to Pharaoh instead of Moses.

I read the OP. I then re-read all of Romans Chapter 9, plus commentary. All this the day you posted it. Even so, I did not assume I knew what you meant by

More accurately, he was explaining that god had already told Moses, long before Paul was even born, that god would decide who to love, and not love, even within the Jewish community.

What exactly had God said to Moses? Were you referencing an Old Testament Bible Verse? Specifically, were you focused on God hating Esau and loving Jacob? Or, were you referencing, "I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will."

No need to take offense. I was asking for clarity.

 

[zaangalewa]

My wife.

She will have to bury you one day, isn't it? Who will help her in this situation?

 

[presonorek]

I was devoutly Christian until I did a deep study of the bible which presented questions I couldn't find the answers to, and nobody I asked even tried to answer. I wish I could reclaim my faith. Believing in a loving, all knowing God who deeply cared about me personally gave me great comfort in hard times, and I wish I could regain peace that came from the belief that all things would work for the good to them that love God. I conveniently ignored the following part that said only those that were called according to his purpose.

Paul was quite specific when he said there is nothing in human desire or effort to gain forgiveness. God will show mercy or harden who he wants, and nothing we believe, say, or do will have anything to do with his choice. (Romans 9: 16-18) Paul goes on to explain that some people were only created as examples of his glory to be shown to the objects of his mercy. (Romans 9: 19-23) Obviously, those people were created to go to hell, since there is nothing they can believe , or do to change Gods decision on mercy.

Help me out here. Does God offer the chance to go to heaven to everybody, or just his chosen few, and how do you justify what Paul wrote with the idea of a benevolent forgiving God?

John Calvin is considered the greatest theologian of all times. He claims that God is sovereign and not subject to any rules. According to Calvin's doctrine salvation is God's decision and humans get no say in the matter. This doctrine actually makes sense. If I would have been raised an old school presbyterian then I would probably remained active in Christianity but I was raised as an evangelical. I was taught that if you say the singer's prayer then God is obligated to grant you your wish to live in heaven and avoid the grasps of hell. The Calvinist doctrine makes way more sense to me. Why would an omnipotent God be required to obey mortals? That would make him not a God. So I say that your salvation is none of your concern.

 

[zaangalewa]

Blues Man

Let me tell you a little story. Long long years ago I needed money so I sold Christmas trees. I was lucky because I had a wide range of different kind of trees and under all this trees was one which was very seldom. It was more a touch of tree. Suddenly I understood: This touch of tree was the original Christmas tree. That's why they sang in old songs about leaves - and not about needles. It were not really leaves but somewhere between leaves and needles. Whatever. The job was stressy : many people came - they asked a lot because I had so many differnt trees and everyone found his own wonderful tree.
Then came this old lady. Elegant - light - but somehow broken. And she told me from her husband who had died just a week ago. And she told me that she not believes in god or any form of afterlife. And then we had a long talk about many themes in this context. I was able to explain to her how meta-physics and physics fit together (with totally other words) and that in our universe here no information is lost and so on. And I spoke with her about my hope in god and his everlasting love and that physics and knowledge and meta-physics and spirituality not exclude each other. While we spoke in harmony and peace about the death of her husband and what are real hopes in the face of death no one else came who liked to buy a tree. Later I had the feeling god liked to give us this time to speak with each other. And what can I say in the end? She bought a tree - this little, tender original Christmas tree. A tree more for a flower vase than for a Christmas free stand. And then she went ... better to say: they levitated, she and her tree. Two soft lights in the darkness. And then my Christmas business restarted again. And I made a lot of money this day although I "wasted" so much time.

 

[theHawk]

1)why is this question only for Christians?
2)Judaism states you should not listen to Paul, because he was a political prisoner (as well as a slayer of people based on prejudices) and that makes him compromised in various ways as well as affect his judgement on humanity.
Source:
The Dead Sea Scrolls

Yes we know, Jews had to scramble and revise their own religion after Jesus to keep Jews from converting. Jews have to do all they can to discredit Jesus and his followers.

The Jewish leaders and many of the Jewish people at that time did not know God, which is why Jesus flipped the tables, and why their temple was destroyed. The new temple is the Church Jesus built with his New Covenant. You’d be wise to accept this. The real Jews that knew God followed Christ.

 

[BULLDOG]

I read the OP. I then re-read all of Romans Chapter 9, plus commentary. All this the day you posted it. Even so, I did not assume I knew what you meant by


What exactly had God said to Moses? Were you referencing an Old Testament Bible Verse? Specifically, were you focused on God hating Esau and loving Jacob? Or, were you referencing, "I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will."

No need to take offense. I was asking for clarity.

I mistakenly said Moses. God's statement had obviously been made long before Paul referenced it. I should have said Pharaoh.

 

[HaShev]

Yes we know, Jews had to scramble and revise their own religion after Jesus to keep Jews from converting. Jews have to do all they can to discredit Jesus and his followers.

The Jewish leaders and many of the Jewish people at that time did not know God, which is why Jesus flipped the tables, and why their temple was destroyed. The new temple is the Church Jesus built with his New Covenant. You’d be wise to accept this. The real Jews that knew God followed Christ.

The story of the table flipping is from Yehuda the Galionite often confused with Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter (used for a portion of the trinity of characters in the Jesus image.)
According to Josephus, Yehuda the Galionite ransacked and stole from the trade tables outside the temple which was used to accommodate the large crowds that came during holidays.
So most likely he was also the thief in the Barrabas story.
To accuse Jews of trying to discredit the first fallen messiah who their text warned was Lucifer, is quite problematic, you are supposed to avoid the claimed ANOINTED (CHRIST) cherub (Guardian-Nazarei) said to be perfect
- Ezekiel 28:14-15 about Lucifer.
Even your preachers teach this.
If Jesus is the only one who came first& is claimed this and fell to the pit Acts2:27 1Peter 3:19, and the Apostles creed. Then only Jesus fulfills the prophecy and expectations & "warnings" of Lucifer and his fall and thr little known warning I described that would have saved humanity a lot of headaches.

 

[SweetSue92]

Nope. There are plenty of verses like that. Should I just ignore what Paul said in Roman's? His statement is the exact opposite of what you listed. Wouldn't that make Paul, the author of most of the NT, a false teacher? You might note Paul's opposition to what Jesus taught (this one example is far from his only one) is only one of the many questions professed Christians can't seem to find a reasonable response to.

Quote those verses from Paul that say there will be no judgment and no rewards.

 

[SweetSue92]

Well, since the word 'hell' did not exist in his lifetime, that is interesting. As I noted before, he spoke of Gehenna (the city dump) when comparing what our thoughts and emotions can do to us; he spoke of the purifying effects of fire.

At the time of Jesus, people held a belief that at the moment of death not all immediately went to the bosom of Abraham. Some might require a time of purification, which was thought not to exceed a year. (Jews note the first anniversary of a loved one's death.) Some believe the parable of Lazarus means Lazarus was in hell, but it may be equally as likely the people of the time were thinking of those going through their year of purification before going to the bosom of Abraham.

Well you know, since Jesus spoke Aramaic, the English word "Hell" did not exist. So you're right about that. The rest is complete fiction.

 

[SweetSue92]

No. Have no idea of how that conclusion was reached.

Paul himself said if Jesus is not alive, YOUR FAITH IS DEAD.

It's not theater so you can have, I don't know, a better "journey". That mindset is not God-focused.

 

[theHawk]

The story of the table flipping is from Yehuda the Galionite often confused with Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter (used for a portion of the trinity of characters in the Jesus image.)
According to Josephus, Yehuda the Galionite ransacked and stole from the trade tables outside the temple which was used to accommodate the large crowds that came during holidays.
So most likely he was also the thief in the Barrabas story.
To accuse Jews of trying to discredit the first fallen messiah who their text warned was Lucifer, is quite problematic, you are supposed to avoid the claimed ANOINTED (CHRIST) cherub (Guardian-Nazarei) said to be perfect
- Ezekiel 28:14-15 about Lucifer.
Even your preachers teach this.
If Jesus is the only one who came first& is claimed this and fell to the pit Acts2:27 1Peter 3:19, and the Apostles creed. Then only Jesus fulfills the prophecy and expectations & "warnings" of Lucifer and his fall and thr little known warning I described that would have saved humanity a lot of headaches.

Why would I care what the Roman Jew, Josephus had to say?

 

[zaangalewa]

As a 21st century Christian I have NEVER seen God as a "monster.". Those who do have never repented of trying to "go their own way.."

That view of God comes from the Dark Side. But reciting "God is love," endlessly doesn't do away with the MANY WARNINGS Jesus have that "UNLESS YOU REPENT, YOU SHALL LIKEWISE PERISH."

God won't allow anymore Satan's to develop. That is the whole reason we are created flesh and blood. If we make the wrong choices in THIS life, it is simply OVER. Our future is death for the rest of time -- complete non-existence

It exist some little problems with this idea "complete non-existence". First of all it's a wonderful idea. I had absolutelly not any problem never again to exist after my death. If god likes to do so - why not? But - and that's a very big physical and not only spiritual "but" - I do not believe that not to exist makes shure never to exist. On spiritual reason because of the last "judgement" - what is perhaps only a final consequence. And on physical reasons because I think perhaps a "nothing" is not so easy to exist than a "something", although this seems not to be intuitive plausible. But we are existing since billions of years so "nothing" seems not to dominate us. Nevertheless: The only plausible explanation up to now - meanwhile this explanation is about 1700 years old - is it that the universe was made from nothing (what's the only thing we can say about this situation). The strange thing: This makes also sense in the most modern physical theories. So if you should one day really only be nothing - who guarantees you anything as long as a complete universe can come from nothing? God? Did he say so? Really? And by the way: If god would really take care that someone or something will end in a complete non-existence then this would also mean this thing - whatever it could be (if it could be at all) - never had existed, is now not existing and will never exist. So with us all god did not do so.

My solution for everything what will happen after our death is by the way very simple. Whatever will come: heaven, rebirth, nirwana, ... god will for sure find the very best of all possible solutions for everyone (="judgement"?). A problem I had in this situation is it when Hitler (or someone else like him) will open the door to heaven. Does this mean this is hell - or will this mean god forgave him (¿after some billion years punishment?) and expects me to do the same? But such things will not happen. God is god and not a perverted human being. We will know what is going on.

 

[Blues Man]

She will have to bury you one day, isn't it? Who will help her in this situation?

I will be cremated not buried and the cremation will have been paid for before I die. And you are also assuming that I will die first and you can't possibly know that.

Death is part of life. My wife and I know this. Everyone who has ever lived knows this. Pretending some god cares about us is not going to make a bit of difference.

 

[zaangalewa]

John Calvin is considered the greatest theologian of all times. ...

Sorry: Do you speak about this Calvin who introduced a terror regime (theocracy) in Geneva?

 

[zaangalewa]

I will be cremated not buried and the cremation will have been paid for before I die. And you are also assuming that I will die first and you can't possibly know that.

You will die before her. Otherwise I am wrong and I am never wrong. But this was not the reason why I said this. And do you think it makes more fun to burn you and to bury you instead only to bury you?

Death is part of life.

Not really. Who is dead is not alive. Death is the end.

My wife and I know this. Everyone who has ever lived knows this.

It exist two realities in this context. The reality of our experience where we see others die and the psychological reality which Epicurus described. Combined means this: if an afterlife exists then I will be able to remember after my own death everyones death - but not my own death.

Pretending some god cares about us is not going to make a bit of difference.

The problem is if you would love her then you should take care that she will not love you. So your death would be more easy for her. But in case she would believe in god it would not be the same final hopelessness for her. So your hope now should be she believes in god, isn't it?

 

[Blues Man]

You will die before her. Otherwise I am wrong and I am never wrong. But this was not the reason why I said this.



Not really. Who is dead is not alive. Death is the end.



It exist two realities in this context. The reality of our experience where we see others die and the psychological reality which Epicurus described. Combined means this: if an afterlife exists then I will be able to remember after my own death evereyones death - but not my own death.



The problem is if you would love her then you should take care that she will not love you. So your death would be more easy for her. But in case she would believe in god it would not be the same hopelessness for her.

You are quite often wrong.

And yes death is inextricably bound with life so death is a part of life. Everyone dies. If you want to believe you will live forever then you are once again wrong.

And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

 

[zaangalewa]

You are quite often wrong.

A question is not right nor wrong. The question was addressed to your egocentrism. Looks like you are not able to overbridge your egocentrism.

And yes death is inextricably bound with life

No. A stone is dead although it never lived.

so death is a part of life.

Everything dies. But what lives lives and what is dead is dead.

Everyone dies.

An interesting hypothese.

If you want to believe you will live forever then you are once again wrong.

More correct: You have a problem to identify what you believe and to identify what you know. You think your belief is your knowledge and you think my belief is stupidity because your belief excludes my belief. And you are not able to be worng.

And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Sure. Nothing makes any sense what I say, isn't it?

 

[Blues Man]

A question is not roight nor wrihng. The question was addressed to your egocentrism. Looks like you are not able to overbridge your egocentrism.




No. A stone is dead although it never lived.



Everything dies. But what lives lives and what is dead is dead.



An interesting hypothese.



More correct: You have a problem to identify what you believe and to identify what you know. You think your belief is your knowledge and you think my beleif is stupidtioy because your belief excludes my belief. And you are not able to be worng.



Sure. Nothing makes any sense what I say, isn't it?

A stone is inanimate and always was inanimate.

Yes dead is dead what's your point? I know that this already.

How am I not sure of what I believe? Everyone dies it is a fact not a hypothesis.

And where did I ever call your belief "stupid"? please quote the post.

 

[HaShev]

Why would I care what the Roman Jew, Josephus had to say?

Because he was a historian recording the historic, not passed down the line stories with agendas decades or centuries later by the fake news of Rome's authority.
Early copies of Josephus have no mention of Jesus, but the figures creating his story are mentioned as does Book of Acts 5 mention the other Christs.
Jesus accts in Josephus are out of time sequence as if placed in and a Jewish historian would not call him by a Greek Name nor use the term Christ, a Christian writter would. The name only appears after Constantines era where Eusebius the great forger and father of lies existed.
One has to be intellectually honest and
determine which historical era christ they are calling their Christ (and study and discuss their historical record), because even Paul and James seemed to argue that each was teaching another Christ.
If there's a big difference between presidents spanning different eras then don't you want to define which Hisrorical President you are discussing and not just be content with the broad stroke word President shared by many? Then don' t you think historians describing the presidents are important? (and yes knowing their affiliation is important as it can taint the narrative or perceptions.)

 

[hadit]

That's not what Paul said in Romans 9: 16-24

I still think you are hung up on God's foreknowledge. Since He knows before a person is born everything that they will do, say, or think, He is therefore able to use them for His purposes. Paul is simply underlining God's sovereignty and authority over us all. Why would He NOT use someone that He knows absolutely will reject Him for His own glory?

I do not for one moment believe that God rejects anyone who repents and seeks Him.