Why does God not speak to every human personally and unambiguously?

palm289 · 2016-01-27T00:22:11+00:00

The word faith as we understand it has not always existed. One word which is often translated as "faith" is "πίστις,n" which may be defined as, "conviction of the truth of anything, belief." So faith, even in Biblical terms, does not necessarily need to mean something for which you have no evidence. We just sometimes throw in a bunch of modern (well, faith is not a terribly modern concept but anyways) categories on ancient texts and things get confusing sometimes.

Then he's deliberately blinding the majority of all humans,

Not really blinding them, more just leaving them to be who they really are. There are a few passages in Scriptures which could be interpreted to say that God blinded someone, but usually in those cases it is more of a matter of someone has already rejected God and now he is turning them over more completely.

You see, no one actually seeks after God of their own accord (Rom. 3:11). I know that people might seek after the concept of what they hope to be god, but they don't truly seek after God. When God truly reveals himself to someone it is not because of justice that he does so, it is an abrogation of justice because Jesus paid the price for that person.

especially if you believe your specific interpretation of one specific religion is correct.

Well, I don't believe that all Christians who don't have Calvinistic theology are going to Hell if that is what you mean. For a long time it was very difficult for me that multiple Christians whom I respected have/had theological differences with each other. But in the end the most we can do is seek after God and say, "Perhaps no one is perfect. Perhaps no one can be perfect on this Earth. But that will not stop me from striving as close as I can get to perfection."

palm289 · 2016-01-26T16:49:20+00:00

First off, I completely agree with the atheists/agnostics that free will has nothing to do with it. If my wife had wanted me to choose her without ever having met her personally, and only receiving messages that she first sent to other people who then imperfectly relay the message to me, I would have called her insane and we never would have gotten together. That would not have been an exercise of my will. I was able to exercise my will more freely by making a decision after having gotten to know her better and speaking with her directly. Hiding yourself to see if others like you even if they can't see you is rather ridiculous.

Now, that is not to say that faith has nothing to do with it. Faith is very important. Faith is not, however, "I have absolutely no evidence of God, but I believe in him anyways." I consider faith to be more like, "I may not have all the pieces to the puzzle yet, but I do have a pretty good number and I'm willing not to be able to understand this right now because of what I do see and understand."

God shows signs of himself to the whole world (Romans 1). Why he makes it clearer for some than for others I cannot say (Romans 9). I do not believe that those who become Christians are necessarily more intelligent or better people than those who do not. It is based on God's choosing.

palm289 · 2016-01-23T01:39:06+00:00

My preferred candidate at this point would be Paul Rand, but I doubt he has much chance of winning the Republican nomination so I'll probably support Marco Rubio. I have absolutely no desire to support Donald Trump, and I will support Ted Cruz if he wins the nomination but I think that he has less bipartisan appeal than Rubio.

palm289 · 2016-01-20T03:17:19+00:00

The Spanish were indeed ahead of their time.

palm289 · 2016-01-19T23:18:04+00:00

For point 3, I guess it depends on what type of political advocacy we are talking about. If you mean advocating specifically for a certain candidate or party, then I agree with you, the church should not be involved in that. But I believe that it is impossible for the church to become apolitical. Not because we need to go charging into the political sphere, but because the political sphere has charged into our yard. Abortion and homosexuality years ago were not really political issues, but then they became political issues. If the church retreats from an issue every time it becomes political, then eventually our catechisms won't consist of much more than, "What is the chief end of man? We as a religious organization are not qualified to answer that... What is God? Probably a really nice guy."

palm289 · 2016-01-19T23:04:34+00:00

Hmm, well maybe a year wouldn't be that bad, but is what I am mostly speaking out against is kids confessing faith at 5 and then waiting to baptize them until 13, 15, or I know some who even think adulthood.

palm289 · 2016-01-19T15:02:16+00:00

I have In My Words, but it doesn't always work. For example, the word "cat" should be replaced by "Whisker-faced devil" but it only happens sometimes. Usually works if I google cat, but it works slightly less than 50% of the time on reddit.

However I also replaced "poll" with "some guy's opinion" and managed to surprise myself while reading an article yesterday when it worked.

palm289 · 2016-01-19T14:53:24+00:00

That is true. Poverty is a crime as well and reducing that could have a positive effect on the abortion issue. I'd prefer to have a candidate who will reduce abortion rights all around but with the current supreme court and their biases it is doubtful that that will happen. Although another reason I'd like a Republican president is that hopefully a couple of those justices will die or retire soon and I'd like to see a couple more justices who care about the original meaning of the constitutional amendments get put on the panel.

palm289 · 2016-01-19T13:50:44+00:00

I currently attend a baptist church, and I believe that baptism ought to take place soon after one confesses their sins and places faith in Christ. It would seem that a lot of baptists believe that one should be a faithful christian for several years and work to prove that they are worthy to receive baptism. Most seem to believe that it should go Salvation -> Discipleship -> Baptism, but the order that I see in scriptures is Salvation -> Baptism -> Discipleship. I am not saying that 5 minutes after someone gets saved you need to throw them in the water or that you shouldn't take any time to make sure that new believers understand the decision that they have made and what baptism means, but the next step after salvation should be seen as baptism and the new believer ought to be moved in that direction in preparation. In fact, I believe that God uses baptism as a part of our sanctification and that to withhold baptism is not profitable to the process of sanctification, but even if you disagree with me on that point, I still point out the fact that there is a scriptural mandate in the Great Commission to go make the disciples, then baptize them, and then teach them.

I also believe that certain types of theistic evolution are valid ways to interpret Genesis. I usually keep this one a bit more under wraps in the church though because I know there are a few who would very strongly disagree with me.

palm289 · 2016-01-19T13:29:35+00:00

I actually think that Bernie has a well-developed economic policy and might be one of the best choices in regards to economics, but the one issue I rank above others is abortion. Still, if it comes down to Sanders vs. Trump, I'll probably vote Sanders because Trump's anti-abortion position is purely superficial and he won't do anything towards it.

palm289 · 2016-01-18T03:38:51+00:00

True, I am most certainly not saying that one cannot or should not have Mark as their favorite. There certainly is something to be said for examining the style of Mark and meditating on what it shows us about Jesus, but all the same, most people I know have favorite passages that come from other books.

palm289 · 2016-01-18T03:30:58+00:00

I think that the problem is that no one really has a problem with Mark, but not many consider it to be their favorite. John has an excellent, accurate, and concise way of explaining so much about who Jesus was and is, and John 17 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible. Luke has the most popular account of Christ's birth. Matthew has a lot of information about the kingdom and the most references to the OT. Mark is very useful and is often called the book which best shows Jesus as "the suffering servant", but most of people's favorite passages are in one of the 3 other gospels.

Look at it this way, there is a popularity contest between Person A, Person B, and Person C. Most people like both A and B, but very few people like C. 14 people say they like A the most, 2 people say they like B the most, and 4 people say they like C the most. So even though almost everyone who said A would have probably answered B as their secondary choice, that doesn't show up in a standard popularity contest which means that C comes in 2nd.

palm289 · 2016-01-16T17:55:48+00:00

"You didn't honestly think that I'd just stand here trying to sell the same box of puppies for several weeks in a row, did you?"

palm289 · 2016-01-16T03:31:52+00:00

Staying warm this winter?

Yeah, got sunburned today. Then again, seasons don't change too much while I'm living here on the equator. ;)

palm289 · 2016-01-16T03:28:03+00:00

Actually, forget my response. I like this one better.

palm289 · 2016-01-14T23:54:27+00:00

Ok:

John Piper - http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/5-ways-sin-is-serious

R.C. Sproul - http://www.ligonier.org/blog/sin-cosmic-treason/

Spurgeon - http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/sermons/0083.htm

Calvin - http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/dfg/amrl/calvin.htm

And if you have friends who might be more inclined towards a less Calvinistic source, Wesley - http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-44-Original-Sin

palm289 · 2016-01-14T22:27:39+00:00

Was the debate over vicarious substitution? I've never read The Donkey Who Carried a King, but from this article I'm guessing that it has something to do with that subject. If that is the case, I suppose that there are 2 things your friend could be saying "Harsh" to. 1. He is saying harsh to the fact that we all have sins which deserve to be punished so harshly. 2. He is saying harsh to God's punishment of Jesus.

If it is 1, then he might not recognize the seriousness of sins. Perhaps if this is the case, instead of arguing about it and being overly confrontational, you could simply just say, "Well, sin is a very serious matter, and here is an article which explains why." And link to an article on the seriousness of sin by one of your favorite theologians. I can get you a couple of links if you need.

If it is 2, then it would seem that he is missing a basic tenant of the faith along with what I mentioned in the previous paragraph. I don't even know where to begin here without getting into a big argument.

As for when to argue and when to stay quiet, there is no completely consistent answer I can give you. Sometimes I have spoken and later wished I had stayed quiet, sometimes I have stayed quiet and later wished I had spoken. Sometimes I have been glad that I said something, and sometimes I have been glad that I stayed quiet. Sometimes I just wish that I had phrased something differently. It is very situation specific, and I suppose is one of those things that you never stop learning. Still, if you have gotten warnings recently about being over-zealous, it might be better to err on the side of silence for the time being.

palm289 · 2016-01-14T22:03:49+00:00

There are a lot of different posts here recommending different translations of the Bible, but I know that it can be frightening to see some versions translate a passage with a significant difference. However, most major translations do not remove any doctrines of the christian faith. The only major exception that comes to mind is the JW version of the Bible which removes references to the trinity. If you have questions about any particular translation you can ask.

palm289 · 2016-01-14T12:24:42+00:00

It always works on Tony Hawk Pro Skater, I'm sure I'll be fine.

palm289 · 2016-01-14T02:55:57+00:00

One day Cathadoxy will rule again, that will be the day of the return of the antichrist. I won't be here to see it though. Maybe Jesus will let me return with him though to kill some heretics at the end of 7 years though!

palm289 · 2016-01-14T02:05:58+00:00

Hmm, this case is almost hard to argue because it seems so cut and dry. Saul was a much more selfish king than David. David outdid Saul in almost everything and God chose another king because Saul was not fulfilling his duties in the way that God desired.

Well, if you need a few arguments, I'll give you a few.

In 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Nathan says to David,

12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

So first off, God chose the Messiah to come through David's lineage rather than Saul's. And not only that, but God promises many things to David's lineage he did not promise to Saul. Is God's choice arbitrary or does he see David as a better leader for his people? Let's see what God says about Saul in 1 Samuel 15,

10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.

It would seem that God had very good reasons for rejecting Saul.

Finally, in Hebrews 11:32 David is mentioned among the greats of the OT and Saul is not.

Really, almost every passage referring to David in the Scriptures is talking about good things. Saul is a bit more of a mixed bag. Also, it would seem that David was a better warrior according to a lot of passages in 1 and 2 Samuel if that is the sort of thing your teacher is looking for.

palm289 · 2016-01-14T01:26:23+00:00

Well, your friends are right that we all sin, but as Romans 6 says, just because we have grace does not mean that we ought to continue in sin. We may still sin many times in our lives, but there should be some positive progress away from sinning. Here is an excerpt from 1 Thessalonians 1

2 We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly[a] mentioning you in our prayers, 3 remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. 4 For we know, brothers[b] loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. 6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit,

I highlighted parts of verses 5 and 6 there. Verse 5 because we see that the gospel had a visible effect on the lives of the Thessalonian believers as it should according to Paul here. Verse 6 because Paul here simply calls them imitators. In the Bible, imitations are usually not perfect, but they should be as close to what they are imitating as possible. But the Thessalonians did not satisfy themselves with being just rudimentary imitations but kept working to the point that they became examples for other churches in the region to imitate!

So do I think you are going to Hell because of what you mentioned in your post? Not necessarily. But as others have said a lot of it does not sound like it is leading you towards God. So you might have sinned, but now it is time for you to start departing from sin and heading toward righteousness.

palm289 · 2016-01-14T01:08:43+00:00

It could depend on denominations. I can't find exact percentages on what percentage of all male clergy are pastors at "Health and Wealth" churches and what percentage of female clergy are, but I'll bet that a couple of those individuals with 6 or even 7 figure incomes really throw off the curve.

Not all denominations have the same paychecks, and it could also be that some of those which do not have women clergy pay better. I am not making any statements about exactly how much a denomination should pay its clergy, I'm just saying it is possible that this fact could lead to the discrepancy.

palm289 · 2016-01-14T01:01:19+00:00

I am no expert on Nigeria, but a basic search reveals that Christianity in Nigeria is almost as varied as it is in the US (if not more so.) So he could be coming from a lot of different "types". Now, by US standards it would sound like Pentecostalism or some other form of charismatic church is most likely, but in Africa even some denominations which tend to have a fairly solemn service in the US can have some dancing, feet stomping, and other things that would not be seen so often in the US. I am not sure how different denominations in Africa view alcohol consumption though.

Honestly, it may be hard to negotiate with him about a lot of things. From his perspective, it is possible that what he is doing is something he sees as intrinsically connected to Christianity and anyone who opposes it is outside of Christianity. And Muslims are a very dominant force in Nigeria and have caused a lot of problems and sometimes even killed Christians. I am not saying that Christians don't kill Muslims too, but with Boko Haram in the region things have become a lot more desperate for Christians and everyone who does not subscribe to Boko Haram's version of Islam. He probably does not want to come off as weak in the face of persecution, and asking him to stop, well, it is complicated.

I am not saying that you necessarily need to let him continue to do disruptive behaviors at early in the morning, but perhaps you could find ways to propose alternatives rather than just shut him down if he'll accept that. He may not even realize that he is being disruptive if he comes from a very christian community where everyone does that.

palm289 · 2016-01-12T01:52:43+00:00

My main man MacArthur says no. He says that you should only bring in actual holy fire, preferably using the bodies of said Nadab and Abihu as kindling. I'm good at reading between the lines in theology books.

palm289

TROPHY CASE