|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2005 : 16:11:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dude:
When the Bible says that Pharoah hardened his heart, do you think that means that Pharoah somehow stripped himself of free will?
If the Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then clearly that is an act of the Pharaoh's own free will. If god hardened the Pharaoh's heart for him, then clearly that would be a violation of the Pharaoh's free will.
There really isn't any complex way to spin this, Hippy. The situation is pretty straight forward. It's the difference between you eating a hamburger and me shoving one down your throat.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/25/2005 16:17:44 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 23:01:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
When the Bible says that Pharoah hardened his heart, do you think that means that Pharoah somehow stripped himself of free will?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is your god who does the hardening of Pharoah's heart, not the pharoah hardening his own.
That is an override of free will.
Maybe the Pharoah would have acted differently, and let the hebrews go in peace, if not for this interference?
So, really, your god is setting up the pharoah. Arranging it so your god can murder the pharoah's son and then point his finger at the pharoah and say... "neener neener motherfucker! I killed your son, because I influenced your decision, making you keep the jews here, to give me a reason (not that I needed one, really) to kill your son! Now you get to BURN!"
Start up some Loony Tunes music, and have god doing the "woohoo woohoo heeeheee heeeheee!" dance.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 21:02:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
I don't think that God is evil because he destroys wicked people. That's like saying that parents are wicked because they know, before they have children, that there's a possibility that one of them might grow up to be a murderer and have to be executed.
Ah, I'd forgotten that you believe that God only destroys the wicked, and not those who don't believe in Him but are not wicked. Apologies.
While we're on the subject elsewhere you said:quote:
I think that those who did not have a relationship with Jesus (or Yahweh, for those in the pre-Christian era) but weren't really wicked will get another chance at salvation in the Millenial Reign which is to take place when Jesus comes back.
So is it your belief that those who die without knowing Jesus will be raised from the dead during the Millenial Reign in order to give them a second shot at salvation?quote:
quote:
The verse in question (John 12:40) doesn't mention any kind of a time frame. If the writer of the passage did intend the meaning you are proposing then why didn't he add the words 'at that time' to the end of the passage?
Why didn't he add the words 'for all time'?
I hope I haven't given you the impression that I am proposing that. I am against adding any additional meaning to the verse, unless it is clear from the context, or from other writings of John that an "unsaid statement" was obviously intended.quote:
Because the verse doesn't mention a time frame, we are free to look at other verses and see what insight they have on the subject.
I strongly disagree that the story of the plagues of Egypt is relevant to the verse in question. The context, purpose and situation are all completely different. Exodus and John are written by different authors over a thousand years apart. John gives no indication that he is using the term in the same sense as it is used in the Exodus story. In short there is no basis for comparison.
If you want to get a sense of the context, read the verses before and after the verse in question. If you want to understand John's style of writing and what he likely means by a particular turn of phrase, read this and the other books by John.quote:
But while we're on the subject, I recently had a new thought. Why should 'hardening the heart' neccessarily include removal of free will? After all, the Bible talks about people hardening their own heart, and I doubt that it means that people caused themselves to stop having free will. It seems more like this to me: Yahweh creates people with different mindsets, different strengths and weaknesses. Some people are smart but proud, some are strong but lazy, some have the means to perform charity but are hard-hearted and don't do it. So when the Bible says that Yahweh hardens someones heart, that may simply mean that he changed someone's natural attitude so that their flesh rebelled against the idea of serving Him in some particular way. But that does not neccessarily mean that he has denied them free will.
Can you think of an example of someone who's heart was hardened by God, but nonetheless was able to accept God into their heart?quote:
Actually, the Bible said that Judas repented:
Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
And even Peter refrains from saying that Judas went to hell:
Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Jhn 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
My understanding was that most Christians believe that "the son of perdition" refers to Judas, so while he did repent, he was not saved. But I guess you have a different view.quote:
The real question that must be asked is: is there a reasonable explanation of how these verses fit together:
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
1 Tim.2:3-4 "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved."
2 Pet.3:9 "The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Here then are my points for saying that they do not conflict:
1) There are people on this earth who are damned, i.e., on the path to hell. That doesn't mean that they can't be saved, i.e., put onto the path to heaven.
But it also doesn't mean that everyone can be saved. I don't see how the Bible supports your beliefs better than it supports say... Calvinism.quote:
2) None of these verses indicate that Yahweh wants people to burn in hell regardless of their actions,
I'm not sure how you mean 'regardless of their actions'. Do you mean that God does not want to destroy anyone no matter what they do, or do you mean that God judges people based on their actions and choices, and only wants to destroy them if they refuse to accept Him?quote:
nor do they explicitly say that Yahweh denies them free will.
I disagree. Some of these verses are very explicit. Jn. 12:40 clearly portrays God removing 'their' ability to see, to understand and to be converted. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 11:06:58 [Permalink]
|
Humbert, Dude:
More insight on John 12:40. I recently found that the verse being quoted is from Isaiah:
Isaiah 6:8-10 "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
Here we see that it is actually not Yahweh making the people's heart hard, but it is Isaiah. Now, how would Isaiah, or any other human, make someone hard-hearted? What is a modern-day term equivalent to what is being described in the people? How about "pissed off"? Someone who is pissed off at you generally doesn't listen to what you're saying. And what does preaching and telling someone that they're sinful do to people that don't want to hear it? It "makes" them pissed off. Of course, we all know that people can't really take over other people's emotions. But our culture has phrases like "you're making me angry" or "you're making me sad". The ancient cultures had the same phrases.
Matt:
quote:
So is it your belief that those who die without knowing Jesus will be raised from the dead during the Millenial Reign in order to give them a second shot at salvation?
Yes, unless they sin wickedly against their own conscience.
quote:
I strongly disagree that the story of the plagues of Egypt is relevant to the verse in question.
Okay.
quote:
Jhn 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
My understanding was that most Christians believe that "the son of perdition" refers to Judas, so while he did repent, he was not saved. But I guess you have a different view.
I don't claim to know if Judas is in heaven or hell, the Bible doesn't say. The time frame of John 17:12 was before Judas repented, but even so, after Judas repented he went out and hung himself.
quote:
Can you think of an example of someone who's heart was hardened by God, but nonetheless was able to accept God into their heart?
Like I said to Humbert and Dude, I think that the biblical phrase "he hardened their hearts" is equivalent to the modern phrase "he made them angry"(by telling them thus-and-so). See my reply to them. But no, I don't know of a specific example of someone whose heart was "hardened" and it is specificly mentioned that they later accepted Him. Although there is still Paul's statement that 'the natural branches' (the Jews) which were broken of from 'the tree' (the church) could be 'graffed back in'(saved) if they didn't continue in disbelief.
quote:
But it also doesn't mean that everyone can be saved. I don't see how the Bible supports your beliefs better than it supports say... Calvinism.
Calvinists believe that humans have no free will whatsoever, and that's not quite the same subject. Can everyone be saved? If everyone believed, yes. But they didn't, so it's a moot point.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
quote:
do you mean that God judges people based on their actions and choices, and only wants to destroy them if they refuse to accept Him?
Yes.
quote:
quote:
nor do they explicitly say that Yahweh denies them free will.
I disagree. Some of these verses are very explicit. Jn. 12:40 clearly portrays God removing 'their' ability to see, to understand and to be converted.
See reply to Dude and Humbert.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 17:09:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
But our culture has phrases like "you're making me angry" or "you're making me sad". The ancient cultures had the same phrases.
Really? How do you know this?
But never mind, Hippy, for I have a verse that even you cannot explain away. It is impossible for this verse not to be conradictory because it contradicts itself!
In Exodus 17:14, God states quite clearly:
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
BUT, didn't God just permanently preserve a record of the Amalek in the bible? How could the memory of them be blotted out from under heaven? Uh-oh, god must not have been thinking very clearly that day.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/05/2005 17:10:13 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 17:22:28 [Permalink]
|
| That one is certainly interesting H! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 17:46:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
But it also doesn't mean that everyone can be saved. I don't see how the Bible supports your beliefs better than it supports say... Calvinism.
Calvinists believe that humans have no free will whatsoever, and that's not quite the same subject. Can everyone be saved? If everyone believed, yes. But they didn't, so it's a moot point.
Could you be a little clearer please. I think you may have completely missed the point.quote:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Calvinists are as skilled as you at explaining away verses that are inconvienient to their point of view. Just find some justification for making the word "world" mean something other than "the whole world" and the passage is completely consistent with Calvinism. Come to think of it, why doesn't the passage say the "whole" world? Hmmmm...
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved,"
(Eph. 1:3-6, NASB)
In short, I still don't see what Biblical justification you have to reject Calvinism, that doesn't also entail rejecting your own beliefs. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 15:08:28 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
But our culture has phrases like "you're making me angry" or "you're making me sad". The ancient cultures had the same phrases.
Really? How do you know this?
Ezekiel 13:22 with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad;
Psalms 45:8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.
2Corinthians 2:2 For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me?
quote:
In Exodus 17:14, God states quite clearly:
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
The word "memory" in this verse is mistranslated. The word in Hebrew is "zeh'ker", and it seems that the most proper translation of it is "memorial", as in a tribute to one's greatness. If the U.S. got into a nuclear war that destroyed our great monuments and we were eventually conquered, then our "memorial" would have been destroyed, but not our memory. Here is a list of the times that the word "zeh'ker" is used in the Bible: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1123618967-5527.html
Matt:
quote:
In short, I still don't see what Biblical justification you have to reject Calvinism, that doesn't also entail rejecting your own beliefs.
I assume that you are talking about whether or not people have free will. Let me go brush up on that subject and I'll get back to you.
By the way, how do you make a text link with a word instead of the entire web address?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 15:10:38 [Permalink]
|
| How do you know that zeh'ker in this sentence means memorial and not memory? Where is the justification for the using memorial instead of memory? Just curious.... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 15:20:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
How do you know that zeh'ker in this sentence means memorial and not memory? Where is the justification for the using memorial instead of memory? Just curious....
It doesn't even make semantic sense to use the "memorial" meaning in that passage. "...because I will completely blot out the memorial of Amalek from under heaven." WTF? How can you "blot out" a memorial? Wouldn't it say "bring down" or "destroy?" And where is there any mention that the Amalek even had a memorial? Where is the story of god bringing down this great monument?
Sorry, Hippy, but memory or remembrance is the only meaning of that word that makes sense in this passage. You're stretching the interpretation too far. I can hardly believe you even find your own explanation satisfactory.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/09/2005 15:50:54 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 15:31:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
In short, I still don't see what Biblical justification you have to reject Calvinism, that doesn't also entail rejecting your own beliefs.
I assume that you are talking about whether or not people have free will. Let me go brush up on that subject and I'll get back to you.
Um... where do you get that idea? I'm asking what Biblical justification you have for rejecting Calvinism, that doesn't also entail rejecting your own beliefs.
In other words, can you demonstrate that your beliefs are better supported by scripture than Calvinism is? Bear in mind that Calvinists are as skilled at explaining away inconvienient verses as you are. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 16:40:10 [Permalink]
|
H4C, I don't know if you are aware of this site:
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/biblical_problems.htm
but it pretty much covers the contradiction question for me.
I'd be interested to know your reaction. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 20:48:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
In Exodus 17:14, God states quite clearly:
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
The word "memory" in this verse is mistranslated. The word in Hebrew is "zeh'ker", and it seems that the most proper translation of it is "memorial", as in a tribute to one's greatness. If the U.S. got into a nuclear war that destroyed our great monuments and we were eventually conquered, then our "memorial" would have been destroyed, but not our memory. Here is a list of the times that the word "zeh'ker" is used in the Bible: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1123618967-5527.html
And that very web page translates the passage in question as:And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this [for] a memorial in a book, and rehearse [it] in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. (Emphasis mine, of course.) So, saying it's really "memorial" won't fly very far. The site gives "remembrance" as basically a synonym for "memory."
And check this out: the word "memorial" in the above passage isn't zeker (translated 16 of 23 times as "remembrance" or "memory"), but is instead zikrown (translated 17 of 24 times as "memorial").
Plus, look at the other uses of zeker. For example,Psa 6:5 - For in death [there is] no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? Compared with:Ecc 9:5 - For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Seems pretty clear to me that "memorial" isn't what's meant in Exodus 17:14. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
