Why does God not correct wrong believers?

[marco]

We are told God is the best of fathers, never offering a stone instead of bread to a hungry son. If a father sees his child has a serious misunderstanding that might even lead him to do wrong, surely the father corrects the son?


Why then in our modern world do we have various groups adoring their God but saying contradictory things. If some are wrong why does God not issue a correction? Why do we have devout Muslims in their millions prostrating themselves towards Mecca, while Catholics look towards Rome and others to the clouds?


What can we conclude from God's seeming silence? Does he want division?

[marco]

AS I said recently, GOD is separating between these who are His, who can hear His voice but are sinful, from those who are not His in their sin but are indeed, condemned already.

You make this instantaneous operation sound as if it takes centuries. And you make God seem like some judge at a boxing match. I would be very disappointed if, having been proved wrong about Yahweh, I discovered him bumbling around trying to sort out the yes people from the no people. Perhaps I require more sophistication in my God, making him unlikely to be Yahweh.

The time will come for all to face the truth without the ability to deny it only longer and that will be after the last sinful elect repents unto holiness.

In the meantime there are taxes to pay, weddings to attend and we must bury our dead. Then we can humour God in his absurd games.

[ttruscott]

AS I said recently, GOD is separating between these who are His, who can hear His voice but are sinful, from those who are not His in their sin but are indeed, condemned already.

You make this instantaneous operation sound as if it takes centuries.

And why should it not take time? Why is your time table the only good one? Do you know what is necessary to bring people to repentance?

Misrepresenting GOD's work with HIS sinful people: Boxing match indeed - are you insulting me or GOD?

I discovered him bumbling around trying to sort out the yes people from the no people.

Oh HE can separate them in an instant but the trick is to get the sinful elect to separate themselves by wanting to return to the time they were separate because they have learned that living the life of an evil person is cursed.

People are stubborn and some finesse must apparently be involved.

The time will come for all to face the truth without the ability to deny it only longer and that will be after the last sinful elect repents unto holiness.

In the meantime there are taxes to pay, weddings to attend and we must bury our dead. Then we can humour God in his absurd games.

Has the ennui of a life of existential modernism moved you from the stance of 2017 Most Civil Debater or was it the intransigence of Christians to not follow your wisdom?

My contention is a logical progression, your scorn notwithstanding.

[otseng]

Has the ennui of a life of existential modernism moved you from the stance of 2017 Most Civil Debater or was it the intransigence of Christians to not follow your wisdom?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making comments of a personal nature towards another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[1213]

Please tell one example that is not clear?

Adam ate what fruit? Why was it forbidden? Why was his punishment visited upon the rest of humanity? What was the point of allowing a good man, Job, to be cruelly tortured? In what way could infants in Sodom have been bad?

Funny, I asked one example of why you think God doesn’t make His position clear and you gave these. But I agree that, it is possible that everything is not told in the Bible. I also taught that you meant that Bible is unclear on something that it says, not that Bible doesn’t give all the answers.

Yes, Bible tells Adam ate the fruit, I think that should be clear. I don’t think Bible tells it was forbidden, it had condition, if eat, with death you shall die. so, one is allowed to do it, but it has consequences.

Why you think this “life� is a punishment? This “punishment� is for us, because Adam and Eve chose it. I think it is not a problem, because this is only a short lesson and those who are righteous, can get the real life.

By what the Bible tells, God allowed Job to suffer, because He knew Job will survive. At the same time it also made good lesson about how evil, and not knowing Satan is. It also is good lesson about that we should not worry, because in the end, those who are righteous, have everything well.

That person dies in this “life� is not necessarily bad. As the Bible tells, persons can be raised from the death and have eternal life with God. If baby dies, it doesn’t necessary mean baby is bad, at lest Bible doesn’t say so.

What was the point of many plagues for Egypt - would one effective solution not have sufficed? Why were innocent first born children killed? What was the point of God asking for foreskins?

Why did Christ pick Judas?

The point of the plagues was to soften pharaohs heart so that he would let Jews go.

Children were killed, because Jews were not allowed to be free.

I don't remember does the Bible tell what is the point of God asking for foreskins.

Why did Christ allow Jews to suffer because of him?

Please explain, what do you mean with that?

What was the reason for God allowing torture and death for his "son"?

About death:
For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

Most assuredly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life will lose it. He who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life.
John 12:24-25

Why are the various accounts of the "resurrection" inconsistent in detail?

They are not inconsistent. They are testimonies of 4 witnesses. They saw things from their point of view and they remembered different parts of the same story, but still, they are not contradictory.

Who were the strangers in the tomb and what did they come for?

Please show the scripture?

Why did Christ go theatrically up into the air?

Why call it theatrically? It seems to be standard procedure, not theater.

How can different groups extract different interpretations from the Bible if it is clear?

It is possible, when people take only few lines and ignore the rest. If person remains In the truth, he doesn’t make interpretations, just reads directly what the Bible tells.

Is the Trinity true or not? Where is this made clear?

Trinity is not Bible teaching.

Was Christ God or not? Where is this made clear?

Jesus tells there is only one true God that is greater than him. So logically he is not the one and only true God. But Jesus can be considered God on earth, when he speaks in the name of God and represents God on earth.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

…the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Will this do? And please don't answer with your own private interpretation as though the bible were written for one person. If it is unclear, it is unclear.

But isn’t that just your private view that Bible is unclear? Why should I think on basis of your opinion it is unclear, if to me it is clear?

But, I think I can accept that it is unclear to you.

[marco]

Misrepresenting GOD's work with HIS sinful people: Boxing match indeed - are you insulting me or GOD?

I am doing neither. I have absolutely no reason or desire to insult other people here. I have zero belief in the Biblical God; I sincerely see him as a fabrication where some of the seams are obvious. I cannot insult a being that I believe is non existent. I can criticise his portrayal, the way he's been sketched, his bad behaviour in the play. I don't see where insult comes into it.


If we present our views on religion we must be ready to defend them and we must expect that some other people may have very different views, or they might even regard our views as utterly wrong. Such is the nature of debate. We can still raise a toast to each other at the end of our disagreements, I think.

[marco]

Funny, I asked one example of why you think God doesn’t make His position clear and you gave these.

The list is endless. I gave many because I was afraid that, in giving one, you might suppose the Bible was otherwise crystal clear. There is a whole theological industry built around clarification of disputed passages; who wrote this? did Paul actually write that? was Calvin right or was Luther or Zwingli or the Papal Curia, or the Latter Day Saints or perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses hit on the right meaning.

In answer to the examples I gave, you offer me your explanation, as if I cannot figure out an explanation for myself. But who knows what is the correct explanation?

Here is a specific example to which I invite you to give clarity. Speaking to the good thief Christ said:

"I tell you today you shall be with me in paradise."

Some people take this to mean that Christ said the thief would some day be with him in heaven, and Christ was offering this message "today."


Others suggest Christ meant that both he and the thief would see each other in paradise that very day. This strongly conflicts with what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, unless they've recently revised their prescription. So who is right? This is but a tiny detail compared to ideas about Jesus rising, Jesus as God, Jesus offering his actual flesh to be eaten....

But, I think I can accept that it is unclear to you.

It is unclear. We extract our own meaning. Your view will differ from the Roman Catholic view and umpteen others. We need clarification. That is the point of the OP.

[1213]

The list is endless. I gave many because I was afraid that, in giving one, you might suppose the Bible was otherwise crystal clear.

Don’t worry, Bible is clear, even if you can have many unclear things about it.

There is a whole theological industry built around clarification of disputed passages; who wrote this? did Paul actually write that? was Calvin right or was Luther or Zwingli or the Papal Curia, or the Latter Day Saints or perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses hit on the right meaning.

I think that who wrote the Bible is not about is Bible clear. Bible is clear, if the message is clear, even if we would not know who wrote it.

In answer to the examples I gave, you offer me your explanation, as if I cannot figure out an explanation for myself. But who knows what is the correct explanation?

I think the correct explanation is what the Bible explains.

Here is a specific example to which I invite you to give clarity. Speaking to the good thief Christ said:
"I tell you today you shall be with me in paradise."
Some people take this to mean that Christ said the thief would some day be with him in heaven, and Christ was offering this message "today."
Others suggest Christ meant that both he and the thief would see each other in paradise that very day. This strongly conflicts with what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, unless they've recently revised their prescription. So who is right? This is but a tiny detail compared to ideas about Jesus rising, Jesus as God, Jesus offering his actual flesh to be eaten....

Thank you for this example. I think this shows well the problem of all similar unclarities, which is why only one example is enough. What Jesus says is clear, it is “I tell you today you shall be with me in paradise�. There is no reason to think Jesus meant something else than what he was saying. If Jehovah’s witness claims that it means something else than what Jesus said, you should ask, why.

In these situations one problem can be how the words are defined. For example today, is day 24 hours, or is day God’s day that can be 1000 years. In any case, what Jesus says is clear, but what he means can be unclear. And if something seems unclear, it comes clear, when one has read the whole Bible and its explanations and definitions. I think people should not make own explanations, but let the Bible explain what it means. Similarly, as you probably want to explain what you mean, instead of that I would go and explain that you really mean that you believe in God and think He is great, but you just fail to say it clearly.

In this case, if the matter is unclear, one should seek the explanation from the Bible. And Bible tells that when person dies, there can be two places where he goes:

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell [accurately in Hades, if you look the original word] he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luke 16:22-23

“Abraham’s bossom� seems to be the same as paradise. Is there some reason why they could not have gone to paradise as Jesus told?

But in this case, interesting detail is also, how and why people add the “,�. In your quote, you didn’t have that. And by what I know, the original text doesn’t have it. It has quite different meaning, if you place it before or after the word “today�. It is possible that Jesus said: “I tell you today, you shall be with me in paradise�. To know that surely it should be checked form the original text. But both of these versions can be true at the same time.

[marco]

Don’t worry, Bible is clear, even if you can have many unclear things about it.

Thanks for relieving me of that worry, 1213.

I think the correct explanation is what the Bible explains.

Well, yes, if it DOES explain. It doesn't always which is why you have exegesis.

In these situations one problem can be how the words are defined. For example today, is day 24 hours, or is day God’s day that can be 1000 years.

There is no doubt we can figure out a meaning. I'm familiar with the suggestion that a day might be a thousand or a million years, for what's a day in eternity? These suggestions, 1213, are attempts to explain things. Who knows which explanation is right?

Go well, my friend, and thanks for your patience.

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

If we present our views on religion we must be ready to defend them and we must expect that some other people may have very different views, or they might even regard our views as utterly wrong. Such is the nature of debate. We can still raise a toast to each other at the end of our disagreements, I think.

[font=Comic Sans MS]...We can chart another trail - raise the anchor, hoist the sail
Lift our glasses in a toast - we are The Ghost in The Machine...[/font]

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to marco]

Everyone knows that God will punish evil doers. I here all the time about how harsh He is in the Old Testament. How mean and cruel He was to have kill the world in the flood.

So He has already demonstrated that He will punish the evil doer it is just a matter of when will He punish the evil doer. He is also sadden because He has to punish the evil doer?

Now, if you are speaking of believers, it is this very issue that separates those that are true believers from those that are not true believers, or to put in Biblical terms it separates the tares from the wheat.

Discipline of a believer is different from a non believer because of their standing with Christ. But they are disciplined none the lest. I am not sure if someone who is not a Christian can understand the anguish that a Christian feels when he sins.

You may have encountered those that did not seem to have any remorse over their sin. But if they did not have deep remorse over their sin then they are not Christians. This is why Paul calls himself wretched and the greatest of sinners.

So God does discipline believers and unbelievers. Believers here on earth with remorse over sin and unbelievers in the at the "Great White throne" judgment.