Demons

[heb13-13]

Hey there folks,

I think it is important to understand that there are very few Scriptures that can be said to be "emphatic" and "self-explanatory." This is because they are written in words, and words are quite malleable and can be easily contorted (even unintentionally) to fit pretty much any preconceived conception. Case in point:

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

There are two possible meanings of this verse because the word "all" is ambiguous:

All in Adam refers to all who were in Adam. We know this refers to all humanity because everyone was literally "born of Adam."
All in Christ refers to all who are in Christ. We do not know if this refers to all humanity, because the Bible does not say that everyone will be "born of Christ." Maybe yes, maybe no. There's no way to tell from this verse.

How then can that verse be used as a "proof text" for anything? It doesn't say that "all will be in Christ" but rather "all who are in Christ will be made alive." It doesn't tell us who will be in Christ. Or maybe it does (if you want it to, I guess).


The words highlighted red express what must be accomplished for any progress to be made between people with differing points of view. It appears to be a most difficult thing to do.


I don't understand how you could say it "does not fit any foundation in typology." It fits perfectly! Of course, the mere fact that something can be made to "fit" does not prove it is true! And I don't think the satanic interpretations of Isa 14 and Ezek 28 are true, but they certainly do "fit" very well with typology.

Great chatting,

Richard

Maybe the common ground that needs to be established around our definition of "choice" in the grand scheme of things and man being a choosing creature and having choice and God supplying at least two choices (otherwise, there is nothing to choose). Seems we have leapfrogged over this basic concept and regardless of what man does, everything is cool.

All the best,
Rick

[kathryn]

Rick:
There is nothing obtuse about the scriptures or the receptive nature that man has and exercises by an act of his will.


Rick...I realize that when every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord....it will be by an act of man's will. What I'm trying to convey is that there are other things to consider regarding how we arrive at this choice.
Ultimately, it is God's will that is done...and it is His will that ALL men be saved. Ultimately, God's will IS our will, as it has been implanted in the core of all mankind; we just don't realize or understand this initially.
Again....until you are willing to examine the Law of Moses, you will never see how God set Adam and Eve up to fall , and bound Himself to save them, with the present mindset you have. The concept of "free will" in the bible...is NOT the concept of free will you are believing. But...we've been here before and there's no point in going on and on about it. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[heb13-13]

Rick:
There is nothing obtuse about the scriptures or the receptive nature that man has and exercises by an act of his will.


Rick...I realize that when every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord....it will be by an act of man's will. What I'm trying to convey is that there are other things to consider regarding how we arrive at this choice.
Ultimately, it is God's will that is done...and it is His will that ALL men be saved. Ultimately, God's will IS our will, as it has been implanted in the core of all mankind; we just don't realize or understand this initially.
Again....until you are willing to examine the Law of Moses, you will never see how God set Adam and Eve up to fall , and bound Himself to save them, with the present mindset you have. The concept of "free will" in the bible...is NOT the concept of free will you are believing. But...we've been here before and there's no point in going on and on about it. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Kathryn,

You only know that it will be an act of some men's will. You have no idea whether it will be an act of all men's wills, (except by your doctrine). It may be an act of all men's wills yet may not change their eternal destination. I don't even know if it will be an act of all men's wills so how can you be so sure? All we know is our choices and what we "will" in this life. I am most definitely sure that once the judgment is upon men and they see that they may get to stick with their earthly choices that they will obviously be back-pedaling and want to make a different choice. In this respect, I can see men bowing to Jesus Christ who their whole life rejected Him. But, you must identify with Jesus Christ now, while in your earthly body. At the judgement, faith is not involved, only fear.

"how we arrive at this choice"? Coerced choice is not choice. Coerced by fear or whatever. It's not choice. It is God's desire that all men be saved and it is not His will that any should perish does not mean that no one will perish.

I wonder why you cannot show me all that you want to show me just by the NT? I have no problem with the OT, but having to go into the law and guide me around your typology from the Law sounds spurious only because you cannot show me what I need to see just from the NT. You should be able to show me from both.

I can agree to disagree. No problem.

Cheers,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Maybe the common ground that needs to be established around our definition of "choice" in the grand scheme of things and man being a choosing creature and having choice and God supplying at least two choices (otherwise, there is nothing to choose). Seems we have leapfrogged over this basic concept and regardless of what man does, everything is cool.

All the best,
Rick
I don't think the "choice" idea explains anything. To think that God would create weak and feableminded humans and then determine their eternal destiny by a "choice" they made in this life seems absurd in the exteme. It would be like handing my kid a 45 pistol disguised to look like a lolly-pop and then tell him - "What every you do, don't pull that trigger while licking your lollypop!" BLAM! Dead kid. Sounds insane to me.

[heb13-13]

I don't think the "choice" idea explains anything. To think that God would create weak and feableminded humans and then determine their eternal destiny by a "choice" they made in this life seems absurd in the exteme. It would be like handing my kid a 45 pistol disguised to look like a lolly-pop and then tell him - "What every you do, don't pull that trigger while licking your lollypop!" BLAM! Dead kid. Sounds insane to me.

Well, there you go. Let that be the final word.

I'm cool with agreeing to disagree.

Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Charisma,

God knows evil not be experiencing is own act of volitionally rebelling and thus tasting evil else He would cease to be God. He would in essence rebel against Himself. A crazy person would be the God of the Universe then.

God knows evil by the very fact that it is contrary to His nature. Satan's lie to Adam was correct that Adam would be like Him knowing good and evil but the lie was 1) Adam would be like God in complete essence and with absolute freewill and 2) Adam would know good and evil like God knows it.

Adam came to know good and evil two ways. 1) Adam found out what was contrary to God's nature and 2) Adam experienced evil as part of his being. He now became a slave to evil, to sin...to Satan.

I don't understand the connection between "good" and "God's nature." When I look at many of the actions attributed to God in the Bible, they are not "good" at all. And besides, nobody can see God so there is no way to use "his nature" to define "good." The whole concept makes no sense whatsoever. We know "good" because we are humans and it is built into our nature. We know what is "good" for our own selves, and then we use our big brains to abstract from that and see that "what's good for me is good for others" and we derive the Golden Rule. Seems pretty simple to me.



"God knows good and evil not by relating such to some objective standard of goodness outside of Himself, but by recognizing that goodness is that which corresponds with His own absolute character of good.

This makes no sense to me. It seems like nothing empty assertion. No man knows the character of God, and all people have morality no matter what God, god, or gods they do or don't believe in. I cannot see any connection of any kind between the idea of a "theistic God" and the idea of "Good." Something is good or evil because of what it is. God could never declare something "good" if it wasn't already good independant of "the nature of God."



Evil is that which is not consistent with who He is, and is not the expression of His character.

Again, the character of God portrayed in the Bible is often quite horrible! I would never demand worship of myself! The God of the Bible is a super-magnified EGO that says "me me me" all the time. I know that people can make up reasons for this, but when they do that, they are admitting my point. The God of the Bible acts like a megalomanic human King who demands that everyone submit to his authority and say how good he is. If we saw this in a human, we would all agree that it is very bad. So how then does "God's nature" serve as a guide to humans about good if we can't emulate God without becoming evil?



Because God is absolute goodness, and He is independent, autonomous and self-generating in the expression of that goodness, He can "know good and evil" in reference to Himself. Man, being contingent and derivative, cannot be "like God knowing good and evil" by defining such in terms of his own inherent character and self-activation of such. So what the serpent suggested to the original man and woman was a lie. It was a half-truth, which is always a lie. The half-truth was that man could be deceived into thinking that he could be "like God" by determining "good and evil" in reference to his own opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes, etc. Setting himself up as his own standard and center of reference, man could determine that what he found to be right, correct, pleasurable and permissable would be called "good," and what he considered to be wrong, incorrect, unpleasant and impermissable would be called "evil."

Now wait a minute! God himself declared that Adam had become "like one of us." How can you say that the God is wrong and that Adam didn't really become like God in that respect?



Thus began all humanly determined standards of morality and ethics, as well as the belief-systems of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. Religion has been playing this "good and evil" game of self-determined standards of "dos" and "don'ts" ever since. It is all part of the humanistic premise that posits man as his own center of reference, whereby all revolves around his individual or collective determinations. The "father of lies" foisted upon man the lie of independency and autonomy, and persuaded man to align with him in his self-orientation and selfishness (cf. Ezek; Zech)? It was the short-circuiting of God's intent to express His character of love for others through man." Jim Fowler, The Fall of Man, http://www.christinyou.net/pages/fallman.html

Blessings to all,
Rick
All morality most definitely IS determined by humans. Your theories about morality being determined by "God's character" is just another human therory.

And was it not God himself who set up his religion in terms of "dos and don'ts?"

How does your theology differ from any other human crafted theory?

Great chatting!

Richard

[Charisma]

Hi all, and in particular Richard,

Now that I've caught up reading this thread, my mind is buzzing with things I want to say. Quickly, therefore, I want to make a general rejection of Jim Fowler's statement which Rick quoted, although as a commentary on our current era, (last few decades) it is fair enough.

Rick,

I don't know what you'll think of my comment to follow, but I actually came online today with a fresh thought which is similar to the point on which Jim Fowlers begins, 'Evil is that which is not consistent with who He [God] is'. The thought which I had had, is that except God had created evil, He would not have been able to demonstrate to us His attitude towards it (His responses to it), nor, the grief it causes Him.

Our minds can't get round that very easily, but it's not a lot different to the doctor in Australia who had discovered a bacterium and its cure, that no-one else believed in. For ten years, people died of a curable condition, until in desperation, the doctor gave himself the disease, and then cured it. Finally, the medical community took note, and became amenable to learning something new, for the betterment of their patients.


"God knows good and evil not by relating such to some objective standard of goodness outside of Himself, but by recognizing that goodness is that which corresponds with His own absolute character of good. Evil is that which is not consistent with who He is, and is not the expression of His character. Because God is absolute goodness, and He is independent, autonomous and self-generating in the expression of that goodness, He can "know good and evil" in reference to Himself. Man, being contingent and derivative, cannot be "like God knowing good and evil" by defining such in terms of his own inherent character and self-activation of such. So what the serpent suggested to the original man and woman was a lie. It was a half-truth, which is always a lie. The half-truth was that man could be deceived into thinking that he could be "like God" by determining "good and evil" in reference to his own opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes, etc. Setting himself up as his own standard and center of reference, man could determine that what he found to be right, correct, pleasurable and permissable would be called "good," and what he considered to be wrong, incorrect, unpleasant and impermissable would be called "evil." Thus began all humanly determined standards of morality and ethics, as well as the belief-systems of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. Religion has been playing this "good and evil" game of self-determined standards of "dos" and "don'ts" ever since. It is all part of the humanistic premise that posits man as his own center of reference, whereby all revolves around his individual or collective determinations. The "father of lies" foisted upon man the lie of independency and autonomy, and persuaded man to align with him in his self-orientation and selfishness (cf. Ezek; Zech)? It was the short-circuiting of God's intent to express His character of love for others through man." Jim Fowler, The Fall of Man, http://www.christinyou.net/pages/fallman.html
Originally posted by RAM
Now wait a minute! God himself declared that Adam had become "like one of us." How can you say that the God is wrong and that Adam didn't really become like God in that respect?Exactly. It's as if Jim Fowler has fallen into a humanistic definition of the Fall, whereby even 'good' and 'evil' (he seems to accept) are determined by humans.

The thing I want to say most clearly is, there is 'good' and there is 'evil' and the Bible shows us emphatically over and over, how to distinguish between them. This is not man's standard of anything; it is all and only God's.

And, until we start looking to take His definitions seriously enough to change (or desire to be changed) - and to take His thoughts into our hearts and minds - on how we view everything - we will continue to sink and float in a quagmire of relative values. And it is muddy there.



True perspective is leant by the Holy Spirit. No-one can see anything as clearly as God - apart from a supernatural revelation.


Apart from Isa. 14:12‐15 and Ezek. 28:11‐19 mentioned by Rick and Kathryn, Daniel 4 tells the same story - of a man who lost his perspective in the same way that the chief cherubim did, by thinking certain qualities could be attributed to himself independently of God.

29 At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. {in: or, upon} 30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? 31 While the word [was] in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, [saying], O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. 32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling [shall be] with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. 33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' [feathers], and his nails like birds' [claws]. 34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom [is] from generation to generation: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? 36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. 37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works [are] truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.


There could not be a clearer statement of how real mental health and profound well-being is dependant on accepting God's definitions.



The other thing about us having become 'gods', is the spiritual dimension. It's not merely a realm of thought and action. Our spirits while unyielded to God their rightful Father, become a place of fellowship for other spirits. Sometimes this is invited, sometimes not, but always, apart from the power of the Son of God to deliver from all communion with other spirits apart from His, there is bondage of soul, mind, body and behaviour, and many words may come out of the mouth of such an one, which declare the heart to be out of communion with God.

James reminds us:
James 3:10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Hebrews 12:9b '... shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers...'

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


Is it possible to avoid the deduction that those who choose 'cursing', choose death, having consciously rejected the 'life' option?



It is not possible to 'opt' without doing something. The question is, what does a person's opting look like? What does God see them doing?




I'll tell you: He sees them doing the desires of their heart.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi all, and in particular Richard,

Now that I've caught up reading this thread, my mind is buzzing with things I want to say. Quickly, therefore, I want to make a general rejection of Jim Fowler's statement which Rick quoted, although as a commentary on our current era, (last few decades) it is fair enough.

Rick,

I don't know what you'll think of my comment to follow, but I actually came online today with a fresh thought which is similar to the point on which Jim Fowlers begins, 'Evil is that which is not consistent with who He [God] is'. The thought which I had had, is that except God had created evil, He would not have been able to demonstrate to us His attitude towards it (His responses to it), nor, the grief it causes Him.

Our minds can't get round that very easily, but it's not a lot different to the doctor in Australia who had discovered a bacterium and its cure, that no-one else believed in. For ten years, people died of a curable condition, until in desperation, the doctor gave himself the disease, and then cured it. Finally, the medical community took note, and became amenable to learning something new, for the betterment of their patients.

Hey there Charisma,

This really hits the core issue. All humans everywhere have "knowledge of good and evil." I don't see anything to suggest that we get that knowledge from the Bible. Yes, the Bible says a lot about good and evil, but that's because the Bible was written by humans who were expressing their own ideas about it. The Bible is written in human language using words developed by humans just like any other book. Therefore, all the basic concepts in the Bible, like good and bad, light and dark, mountains and valleys - everything - are concepts that humans understood and had words for before there was a Bible.

I don't see any justification for the idea that 'Evil is that which is not consistent with who He [God] is.' I think that is backwards - God is now being defined in terms of what people think are good. The concept of good was defined prior to and independently of the concept of God. We begin with a knowledge of good and evil, and then we assert that it describes the character of God. This is why many things the Bible says about the character of God violate the moral sense that we humans have. The morals of the people who wrote the Bible were not very good in many cases, and so they attributed those bad morals to their God. Now when modern folks accept the Bible, they must say that God is good no matter what is actually said about him in the Bible. How then can "God's character" serve as a standard? Case in point: We humans had to invent antibiotics to save people that God was willing to let die. It would be a moral abomination if I had antibiotics that could save someone and I refused to give them to that person. God has all power, and the Bible promises that God will provide the things needed in this life if only we ask in faith, but he does not answer those prayers. He may answer a prayer here or there for all I know, but I do know that he does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. If any one of us acted like this we would be condemned as a sinner. How then can we use God as an example of morality? Just think of all the mothers with dying children that beg God for a cure, and he remains silent. And worse, think of all the people who have been abused and killed even as God stood there in their presence while they begged him to be saved. This is why all these assertions about God this and God that sound so vain - they just don't correspond to anything real.




Now wait a minute! God himself declared that Adam had become "like one of us." How can you say that the God is wrong and that Adam didn't really become like God in that respect?
Exactly. It's as if Jim Fowler has fallen into a humanistic definition of the Fall, whereby even 'good' and 'evil' (he seems to accept) are determined by humans.

The thing I want to say most clearly is, there is 'good' and there is 'evil' and the Bible shows us emphatically over and over, how to distinguish between them. This is not man's standard of anything; it is all and only God's.

And, until we start looking to take His definitions seriously enough to change (or desire to be changed) - and to take His thoughts into our hearts and minds - on how we view everything - we will continue to sink and float in a quagmire of relative values. And it is muddy there.

Who is talking about "relative values?" Values are absolute, and they are based on the Golden Rule. They are innate to humans, not derived from God. The "moral water" I see is clear as crystal.



True perspective is leant by the Holy Spirit. No-one can see anything as clearly as God - apart from a supernatural revelation.

And every person has a "revelation" that is right in their own eyes.



Apart from Isa. 14:12‐15 and Ezek. 28:11‐19 mentioned by Rick and Kathryn, Daniel 4 tells the same story - of a man who lost his perspective in the same way that the chief cherubim did, by thinking certain qualities could be attributed to himself independently of God.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 do not say anything about Satan directly, and the implications are purely speculative. Such speculations may give some insight, but they should never be used as the foundation of any doctrine since they are very uncertain. It would be like building a house on sand.



Is it possible to avoid the deduction that those who choose 'cursing', choose death, having consciously rejected the 'life' option?

I think you have it backwards. Few if any "choose cursing or death." But neither do they choose to follow Christianity. And there is no objective evidence that Christians are more moral than other people.



It is not possible to 'opt' without doing something. The question is, what does a person's opting look like? What does God see them doing?

I'll tell you: He sees them doing the desires of their heart.
Exactly as every Christian I have ever seen.

We're all in the same boat! There is no objective difference between Christians and non-Christians that I am aware of.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

I'm going back to your post on p24 now.


Hi there Charisma,

It's good to be discussing this with you. I'm not saying that good and evil are "equal in quality." That would be silly, like saying light is the same as dark. My point is that the idea of "good and evil" is a single idea. The concept of "good" implies "evil" and vice-versa. They are the two "poles" of a single way of looking at the world. The way of "judgment." It assumes a fundamental duality in the world. That was my point. I am not saying that they are "equal" - on the contrary, I am saying that they are opposites like light and dark, up and down. They are inextricably connected with each other because they are polar ways of viewing reality. Okay. I understand this better now. My difficulty with the polar terminology is that God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, separately from the tree of life. It's not difficult to see 'good and evil' as poles of the same entity when placed in that context. The context which really does include everything - the visible and the invisible - is the existence of the tree of life, and the absolute gulf between it, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Again, I would not put light and dark as poles of the same entity, for God translates from the kingdom of darkness those who believe in Jesus Christ into the kingdom of light. Spiritually, these are two entirely separate places. One cannot make the transition between light and dark without noticing, but one can dwell in the realm of the knowledge of good and evil where all values are relative to a person's preconditioning, and never have a single revelation of bone-shattering truth.


You ask "how many humans want to be godlike in the way that Jesus was?" Who wouldn't? That's the fundamental error in the idea of eternal punishment. What good does it accomplish? And if it is not good, but rather an eternal evil, we know with perfect certainty that it is not something that the true God would do.Can I ask you something? (Here goes!) (Leaving aside God's plans for humans who decide to reject His plan for their redemption from said plans), you've just said, with regard to 'how many humans want to be godlike in the way that Jesus was?' "Who wouldn't?" and what I wonder is, since God sent Jesus to deal with every aspect of 'eternal punishment' for those who will believe in Him (inclusively accepting the efficacy of His obedience to His Father in so dealing), why not think again about receiving the gift of eternal life? What is it that prevents you from recognising God's offer as the best deal on the table - and just taking it?


When Jesus said only God was good, he was obviously using hyperbole. We know this because elsewhere Jesus talks about good people. For example:

Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

If there is no such thing as a "good man" then Jesus was speaking very deceptively here. I think this is one of the times when He is setting the bar higher than it was before. Although speaking within the Old Covenant era, He is priming us for the New Covenant era.


This is what I meant when I said that "there are those who dispute the meaning of that phrase." Think of the gymnastics folks are willing to execute to support their doctrines. If you wanted to believe that God was "all in all" in the literal meaning of that phrase, you would present arguments for that. It's all a matter of what folks want to believe. They don't derive their beliefs from Scripture so much as impose them thereon. Case in point - the church is only the "firstfruits" of the great company that will be redeemed, which is the entire universe and all who live in it:
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

I would like to compare 'they that are Christ's' with a sequence I found in the OT today: Psalm 21:8 Thine hand shall find out all thine enemies: thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee. 9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. 10 Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men. Please explain how it is that these OT unbelievers are going to be saved? Isn't it much easier to read both outcomes as not inconsistent with God's justice, seeing Jesus had to die to satisfy the wrath of God against sin. If God was willing to slay His own obedient Son, why would He not be willing to slay disobedient children?


1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Why does Paul say that God is the savor of all men? Why does it say "especially those that believe?" Does that not imply he is also the savior of those who do not believe? I know you can say "Yes, he is the savior of all men, but only those that believe will be saved." That's fine, you can believe what you like, but you can't claim your interpretation is the only possibility. The Bible says that God reconciled the whole world (2 Cor 5:19). Surely this one is fairly easy to disentangle; God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5) but not all the members of the world are willing to be reconciled to God. Therefore, those who do not accept the reconciliation (at-one-ment), cannot benefit from it. It's like children called to the meal table but some don't come. Do they get the meal? No, they miss it.


When the Bible says that God is "the One filling all in all" (Eph 1:23) he is not talking about the "church" only.He might be, if the Church is going to be the only people left on the earth.

Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.

Psalm 4:3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself:...'

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I don't see how anyone can by-pass all the conditions spelled out through scripture from beginning to end, to make the ungodly and sinner acceptable to God, separate from the ungodly and the sinner choosing to repent towards God, and enter a changed relationship with sin. If there is to be consistency in God, then the God who was willing to let Adam and all his descendents die, is also willing to close certain of those recalcitrant souls out of the heavenly city, as it is written:

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.


There is only one issue here. You have begun with a certain set of presuppositions to which you are forcing these verses to conform. And that's fine, everyone does it. But the fact remains that you could have chosen a different set of presuppositions and conformed everything to them. Case in point: I begin with the presupposition that God is Light and God is Love and God is Just. Therefore, there no eternal hell. QED.
Indeed, 'hell' may last only until the end of the age, and, you could choose a different set of suppositions, also. :winking0071:


Originally Posted by Charisma
Clearly, God is most desirous of Unity, but not at the expense of authentic wholeness or perfection (completion).That's right! And that's why there cannot be a "hell." There could never be any "authentic wholeness or perfection" in a universe filled with tortured sinners twisted in torment forever!

I think you underestimate the power of God to redeem each and every person.Not at all. I think you underestimate God's willingness to carry out the destruction He has promised upon those whose failed to claim their redemption according to the required terms.


You have inherited the Roman Catholic Doctrine that was invented to make people slaves of fear. The Catholics claimed to have power over the eternal fate of your soul. If you did not submit and obey their rule, they would condemn you to eternal hell. That's what it's all about. Power and fear. The doctrine is entirely ungodly.Again, not at all. I, too, disagree wholeheartedly with Catholicism, notwithstanding the many delightful people born into Catholic families, of whom some find their way into real relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

I lean far more towards the Celtic understanding that God sent His Son to make it possible for Him to restore His image in man. I see the blood of Jesus Christ as totally efficacious for cleansing from sin, with no works of any kind whatever being required, except to believe, and even that, Paul states is 'a gift'. (In fact, my own experience of salvation includes this very point - a gift of faith from God, before I could rest in faith, being believing every day.)


You know, the world looks completely different from here (my point of view in God), because I know He loves in the present tense, and is not willing any to perish (although I'd be interested to see any verses where He promises destruction upon those who have obeyed Him - if you have any), and He has kept His word to Noah about the seasons, seedtime and harvest, and many other prophecies have been fulfilled, especially in Jesus (but also, historically), and so to me, the preponderance of evidence that God is faithful, only mounts up, the longer I know Him. He is faithful as a Father to correct those who are willing to accept correction, and to bring about that yielding of the peacable fruit of righteousness in the lives of the corrected ones, and painful though it is painful to be resisted by God when one is off course, there is a sense of gratitude that He doesn't let one slip off course right into an abyss from which one cannot be rescued.

Psalm 116:1 I love the LORD, because he hath heard my voice [and] my supplications.
2 Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon [him] as long as I live.
3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.
4 Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul.

5 Gracious [is] the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God [is] merciful.
6 The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me.
7 Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee.
8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, [and] my feet from falling.
9 I will walk before the LORD in the land of the living.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Okay. I understand this better now. My difficulty with the polar terminology is that God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, separately from the tree of life. It's not difficult to see 'good and evil' as poles of the same entity when placed in that context. The context which really does include everything - the visible and the invisible - is the existence of the tree of life, and the absolute gulf between it, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Again, I would not put light and dark as poles of the same entity, for God translates from the kingdom of darkness those who believe in Jesus Christ into the kingdom of light. Spiritually, these are two entirely separate places. One cannot make the transition between light and dark without noticing, but one can dwell in the realm of the knowledge of good and evil where all values are relative to a person's preconditioning, and never have a single revelation of bone-shattering truth.

Hey there Charisma,

When I speak of the concept of "duality" I speak of things like big/small, light/dark, good/evil, male/female, yin/yang. I wouldn't say they are are poles of a single entity so much as poles of a single conceptual framework. The one always entails the other. There cannot be any meaning to the word "light" if there is not a corresponding concept of "dark."

The state of consciousness marked by duality is only a fragment of the Ultimate Reality (God) which is Unity. All is one. God is all in all. It is very interesting that the Garden story links the fall from fellowship with God to the idea of the fundamental duality of Good and Evil.




You ask "how many humans want to be godlike in the way that Jesus was?" Who wouldn't? That's the fundamental error in the idea of eternal punishment. What good does it accomplish? And if it is not good, but rather an eternal evil, we know with perfect certainty that it is not something that the true God would do.
Can I ask you something? (Here goes!) (Leaving aside God's plans for humans who decide to reject His plan for their redemption from said plans), you've just said, with regard to 'how many humans want to be godlike in the way that Jesus was?' "Who wouldn't?" and what I wonder is, since God sent Jesus to deal with every aspect of 'eternal punishment' for those who will believe in Him (inclusively accepting the efficacy of His obedience to His Father in so dealing), why not think again about receiving the gift of eternal life? What is it that prevents you from recognising God's offer as the best deal on the table - and just taking it?

The problem is that I do not see any table and I have not received any offer from God. I have only received words from people who have religious beliefs and who think I should adopt their beliefs. The Mormon's promise that I will get a "burning in the bosom" if I pray sincerely to know the truth of the Book of Mormon. Should I pursue their offer? Should I believe the Book of Mormon if I get a burning in my bosom?




When Jesus said only God was good, he was obviously using hyperbole. We know this because elsewhere Jesus talks about good people. For example:

Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

If there is no such thing as a "good man" then Jesus was speaking very deceptively here.
I think this is one of the times when He is setting the bar higher than it was before. Although speaking within the Old Covenant era, He is priming us for the New Covenant era.

That doesn't answer my point. Christ spoke of the concept of "good" independent of God. He spoke of trees that bear good fruit. He spoke of people who were like "good soil" and he said that there were "good men" who did good things. This contradicts the idea that "only God is good." Obviously, he was using hyperbole when he said that.




This is what I meant when I said that "there are those who dispute the meaning of that phrase." Think of the gymnastics folks are willing to execute to support their doctrines. If you wanted to believe that God was "all in all" in the literal meaning of that phrase, you would present arguments for that. It's all a matter of what folks want to believe. They don't derive their beliefs from Scripture so much as impose them thereon. Case in point - the church is only the "firstfruits" of the great company that will be redeemed, which is the entire universe and all who live in it:
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

I would like to compare 'they that are Christ's' with a sequence I found in the OT today: Psalm 21:8 Thine hand shall find out all thine enemies: thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee. 9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. 10 Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men. Please explain how it is that these OT unbelievers are going to be saved? Isn't it much easier to read both outcomes as not inconsistent with God's justice, seeing Jesus had to die to satisfy the wrath of God against sin. If God was willing to slay His own obedient Son, why would He not be willing to slay disobedient children?

We are not talking about mere "slaying." We are talking about eternal torment in hell. God would not be willing to do that because he is love, and because he is rational. No rational loving being would create an eternal hell and then populate it with people for merely failing to join a religious club. Just look at the number of competing religions in the world. How is any normal person supposed to sort through them all to come to "truth" and get "saved?" In you scenario, all the Muslims go to hell for the crime of being born in a Muslim country! That's just not right.

I don't know what you are getting at concerning the OT believers. Please be a little more explicit with your question.




1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Why does Paul say that God is the savor of all men? Why does it say "especially those that believe?" Does that not imply he is also the savior of those who do not believe? I know you can say "Yes, he is the savior of all men, but only those that believe will be saved." That's fine, you can believe what you like, but you can't claim your interpretation is the only possibility. The Bible says that God reconciled the whole world (2 Cor 5:19).
Surely this one is fairly easy to disentangle; God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5) but not all the members of the world are willing to be reconciled to God. Therefore, those who do not accept the reconciliation (at-one-ment), cannot benefit from it. It's like children called to the meal table but some don't come. Do they get the meal? No, they miss it.

So you are saying God is like a parent who will torture his children forever if they don't accept his "wonderful" dinner? I think you might want to rethink your metaphors.




When the Bible says that God is "the One filling all in all" (Eph 1:23) he is not talking about the "church" only.
He might be, if the Church is going to be the only people left on the earth.

That can't be right - the earth is not "everything." God is the All in All. He is much larger than the "earth." And where is hell supposed to be if God is the All in All?



I don't see how anyone can by-pass all the conditions spelled out through scripture from beginning to end, to make the ungodly and sinner acceptable to God, separate from the ungodly and the sinner choosing to repent towards God, and enter a changed relationship with sin. If there is to be consistency in God, then the God who was willing to let Adam and all his descendents die, is also willing to close certain of those recalcitrant souls out of the heavenly city, as it is written:

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.

If the New Jerusalem is the Church, then those "outside" are merely those who have yet to come in. The Spirit and the Bride call to all who are thirsty, and who is thirsty but those outside? Therefore, you can understand the Bible from a Universalist point of view with no problem.




There is only one issue here. You have begun with a certain set of presuppositions to which you are forcing these verses to conform. And that's fine, everyone does it. But the fact remains that you could have chosen a different set of presuppositions and conformed everything to them. Case in point: I begin with the presupposition that God is Light and God is Love and God is Just. Therefore, there no eternal hell. QED.
Indeed, 'hell' may last only until the end of the age, and, you could choose a different set of suppositions, also. :winking0071:

To be followed by what? Annihilation? That is one solution. But I have no reason to believe it, since I do not see any difference between anyone based on the religion they adhere to.




I think you underestimate the power of God to redeem each and every person.
Not at all. I think you underestimate God's willingness to carry out the destruction He has promised upon those whose failed to claim their redemption according to the required terms.

You contradict the Bible which says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

And besides, most people who ever lived never even heard heard of Christianity so it's totally irrelevant to their eternal fate, unless God is some kind of irrational monster who sends people to hell for something they could do nothing about. And many, if not most, of the people who have heard of Christianity got one or another version of it (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, JW, Mormon, Baptist, Calvinist, etc., etc., etc.) and there's no way they were able to discover the "true" version. So again, God could not judge them. So who is left to be judged? The lucky few who heard and correctly understood the "true Gospel" and then rejected it? That might account for 3% of all people who have ever lived. The doctrine is simply not believable. It makes God look like an irrational and hateful parent.




You have inherited the Roman Catholic Doctrine that was invented to make people slaves of fear. The Catholics claimed to have power over the eternal fate of your soul. If you did not submit and obey their rule, they would condemn you to eternal hell. That's what it's all about. Power and fear. The doctrine is entirely ungodly.
Again, not at all. I, too, disagree wholeheartedly with Catholicism, notwithstanding the many delightful people born into Catholic families, of whom some find their way into real relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

I lean far more towards the Celtic understanding that God sent His Son to make it possible for Him to restore His image in man. I see the blood of Jesus Christ as totally efficacious for cleansing from sin, with no works of any kind whatever being required, except to believe, and even that, Paul states is 'a gift'. (In fact, my own experience of salvation includes this very point - a gift of faith from God, before I could rest in faith, being believing every day.)

Totally efficacious for whom? The few who have heard about it? What about all the people that God created but didn't bother to tell about Jesus? Does he hate them? Or is knowledge of Christ not needed for salvation after all? Or is God some sort of crazed bureaucrat who has invented ten thousand exceptions to his rules about who gets in and who doesn't? That's the problem with the Gospel you preach - it is not universal. Therefore, it cannot be from the Universal God.



You know, the world looks completely different from here (my point of view in God), because I know He loves in the present tense, and is not willing any to perish (although I'd be interested to see any verses where He promises destruction upon those who have obeyed Him - if you have any), and He has kept His word to Noah about the seasons, seedtime and harvest, and many other prophecies have been fulfilled, especially in Jesus (but also, historically), and so to me, the preponderance of evidence that God is faithful, only mounts up, the longer I know Him. He is faithful as a Father to correct those who are willing to accept correction, and to bring about that yielding of the peacable fruit of righteousness in the lives of the corrected ones, and painful though it is painful to be resisted by God when one is off course, there is a sense of gratitude that He doesn't let one slip off course right into an abyss from which one cannot be rescued.

You say that God is not willing that any should perish, yet he designed the universe to ensure that not only do many perish, but they suffer forever in a hopeless hell. You speak of God as a parent and then describe him doing things no earthly parent would ever do. You conception of God seems entirely incoherent to me.

I'm really glad you are taking the time and effort to work through this with me. I think it is very helpful for all who will be following this discussion.

All the best,

Richard

[Charisma]

Good morning Richard, :tea:

I'm reading your post back to me and will reply in more fulness to what I perceive to be your key points. Since this question has a straightforward answer, and is of great import, it will be the sole content of this post.

And where is hell supposed to be if God is the All in All?
Psalm 139:8b 'if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].'



Paul Washer has said, 'It's hell because God is there.'





I think that squares the circle perfectly, don't you?

[Charisma]

Hello Richard,

This reply will be random in order, and I will restrict it to your points to which I have something new to say.


If the New Jerusalem is the Church, then those "outside" are merely those who have yet to come in. The Spirit and the Bride call to all who are thirsty, and who is thirsty but those outside? Therefore, you can understand the Bible from a Universalist point of view with no problem.
Now I can see why you didn't understand the OT reference in Psalm 21:8 Thine hand shall find out all thine enemies: thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee. 9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. 10 Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men, where UNbelievers are destroyed. Or, my meal analogy. And yet, Jesus clearly tells of people being left outside in the parable of the ten virgins, ending: 'Verily I say unto you, I know you not.' (Matthew 25:12)

This would be in keeping with Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.


As Kathryn's view is not Universalist, please would you write down for me with Bible verses, how you understand the salvation of God-rejecters and anti-Christs being effected, and, when, as that would be most helpful. As you see, I really don't get it!!!


To be followed by what? Annihilation? That is one solution.But surely, annihilation is what the Bible tells us will happen.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Isn't this the final end of the 'captivity' which 'He led' 'captive'?


since I do not see any difference between anyone based on the religion they adhere to. The verses in scripture which tell us that God sees a difference, are plenteous.


You contradict the Bible which says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Does this statement mean that you have the impression (or assume) God 'takes pleasure' in everything thing He does? Does the Bible tell us He does?

Wouldn't that be a bigger contradiction? Who can be happy (or pleased) when they are angry (righteously), or sorrowful (over the unrepentance of disobedient children), or keeping one's word to punish a wrong-doer (justifyably under the law)? Wouldn't anyone (humanly speaking) prefer there to be no cause for anger, no cause for sorrow, and no need for external discipline? Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone was at peace with God and doing the right thing because of their relationship with Him, just as He promised the New Covenant would make possible?


And besides, most people who ever lived never even heard heard of Christianity so it's totally irrelevant to their eternal fateBut isn't this exactly what scripture addresses in many different verses?

Psalms 68:11 1 The Lord gave the word: great [was] the company of those that published [it]. {company: Heb. army}

Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

If God reigns (Thy God reigneth!), doesn't that mean He can do whatever He thinks fit? Isn't that what it means for a king to be King? And as has been pointed out by many a preacher, wouldn't you want the Judge of all the earth to do 'right'? Or, would you rather have an unjust Judge?

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:
and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

(Richard, I completely take your point that to be a witness, you have to have seen something, and that you have not 'seen' yet.)

Matthew 24:14a And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:
therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.



It makes God look like an irrational and hateful parent.And it makes you look as if you are stamping your feet because you can't have your own way all the time.

Judges 17:6, Judges 21:25 In those days [there was] no king in Israel, every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; [B]but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Isaiah 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; in returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength...'


Totally efficacious for whom? The few who have heard about it? What about all the people that God created but didn't bother to tell about Jesus? Does he hate them? Or is knowledge of Christ not needed for salvation after all? Or is God some sort of crazed bureaucrat who has invented ten thousand exceptions to his rules about who gets in and who doesn't? That's the problem with the Gospel you preach - it is not universal. Therefore, it cannot be from the Universal God. Richard, the problem is not with the gospel I preach, but with the effects of sin which dim spiritual awareness to the intensity of God's love for mankind shown us through Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection.


You say that God is not willing that any should perish, yet he designed the universe to ensure that not only do many perish, but they suffer forever in a hopeless hell. You speak of God as a parent and then describe him doing things no earthly parent would ever do. You conception of God seems entirely incoherent to me.Surely it is obvious that children don't always do what their parents might wish - might have taught them? Do you hold the parents responsible for that, or do you accept there is a coming of age, when responsibility for the children's behaviour passes from the parent to the child? If so, is not the parent equally free from the child's choices, to execute judgement (usually in the form of the way they plan to divide their inheritance to said living children after the parental demise), and withhold their estate from such children as deemed irresponsible (by the parent) to inherit said estate? Should God's justice be any less discerning?



I'm really glad you are taking the time and effort to work through this with me. I think it is very helpful for all who will be following this discussion.

All the best,Thank you, too, for taking time to hear out my understanding on these matters.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard, :tea:

I'm reading your post back to me and will reply in more fulness to what I perceive to be your key points. Since this question has a straightforward answer, and is of great import, it will be the sole content of this post.

And where is hell supposed to be if God is the All in All?
Psalm 139:8b 'if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].'

Paul Washer has said, 'It's hell because God is there.'

I think that squares the circle perfectly, don't you?
Good morning Charisma,

No, I don't think that helps at all. First, the Psalm is not even talking about "hell" but rather the "grave." Second, it suggests that people will be tormented by the presence of God because they failed to believe in him when he was absent! That's just a little too loopy for me. It can't correspond to reality.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard,

This reply will be random in order, and I will restrict it to your points to which I have something new to say.

Now I can see why you didn't understand the OT reference in Psalm 21:8 Thine hand shall find out all thine enemies: thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee. 9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. 10 Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men, where UNbelievers are destroyed. Or, my meal analogy. And yet, Jesus clearly tells of people being left outside in the parable of the ten virgins, ending: 'Verily I say unto you, I know you not.' (Matthew 25:12)

This would be in keeping with Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Which OT reference did I not "understand?"

Also, I don't believe the Bible is logically coherent so quoting verses is not very convincing. I could quote back verses that contradict your verses, and then you'd say they have to be interpreted this way instead of that, and it would go round and round like the last two thousand years of arguments between believers. Just look at you and Kathryn. You hold very different views on this fundamental issue. And that's because the Bible does not really make sense, so everyone has their own interpretation.



As Kathryn's view is not Universalist, please would you write down for me with Bible verses, how you understand the salvation of God-rejecters and anti-Christs being effected, and, when, as that would be most helpful. As you see, I really don't get it!!!

I don't believe the Bible is logically coherent, so it is logically impossible to believe everything it says. That's why I don't concern myself about it. I merely do my best (like everyone else) to understand reality from where I've been planted.

As for Kathryn's view, is it the same as Dr. Jones view? Has it been stated in a sentence of two so it can be known with clarity?



But surely, annihilation is what the Bible tells us will happen.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Isn't this the final end of the 'captivity' which 'He led' 'captive'?

If so, then most Christians have misunderstood the Bible is a most fundamental way for thousands of years! Obviously, such confusion can not be captain of my eternal destiny.




since I do not see any difference between anyone based on the religion they adhere to.
The verses in scripture which tell us that God sees a difference, are plenteous.

Is there any reason we should believe those verses if they don't correspond to reality? If only God sees the "difference" between some people and everyone else, then there is no way for anyone to know if they are "in" or "out" - plenty of people (if not most) think that their religion is right, and they can't all be right!



Does this statement mean that you have the impression (or assume) God 'takes pleasure' in everything thing He does? Does the Bible tell us He does?

Yes it does. God is absolutely free, correct? Therefore, he does nothing that doesn't "delight" him. Otherwise, he's got psychological problems since he was free to do things differently but chose to do things in a way he didn't like as much as another. Most Christians forget that God is free. It is God's freedom that makes Christianity impossible to believe because it is inconceivable that the true God would have chosen to create a universe so full of pain and violence if he had a choice to do otherwise. I've asked this question many times in this forum but no one answered - Why does God love violence so much? He was free to create any kind of world, and he chose to make a world full of pain and violence. Why did he do that? What is it about pain, murder, rape, and violence that God finds so delightful?

Or is the Christian God not free?

Or does the Christian God not really exist?

This is much more profound than general problem of evil because it emphasizes God's freedom. He could have done anything. Why did he choose to create (and indeed, command) so much pain and bloodshed? It just doesn't make any sense to me.


Wouldn't that be a bigger contradiction? Who can be happy (or pleased) when they are angry (righteously), or sorrowful (over the unrepentance of disobedient children), or keeping one's word to punish a wrong-doer (justifyably under the law)? Wouldn't anyone (humanly speaking) prefer there to be no cause for anger, no cause for sorrow, and no need for external discipline? Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone was at peace with God and doing the right thing because of their relationship with Him, just as He promised the New Covenant would make possible?

What "unrepentant children?" Most people who ever lived never even heard of Christ, and of those that heard, how many had an accurate understanding of what they were supposed to be accepting. It looks like your whole world-view is based on false assumptions about the whole world deserving hell for merely existing.

Do you not think the Buddhists are at peace with God? If not, why not?

And is there any real meaning to your idea of being at "peace with God?" If so, then we should be able to distinguish between Real Christians and everyone else. But that's impossible, as you seem to have admitted. So this makes your statements appear to be mere words with no content in reality.

This is the foundation of my view: I see all people as equal. Most are good, some are psychologically troubled, all are part of the Whole and can be "redeemed."

Your view seems very imbalanced and based on unsupported assumptions, many of which are nothing more than your interpretation of an old book with no reference to reality. That's the sure path to false conclusions. The only way we know anything is if we can confirm it by checking reality. It's the "empirical method" of science. Without that, we've got people arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Religion becomes nothing but vain imaginations totally divorced from reality. There MUST be some sort of link between the Bible and Reality or all is vanity.




And besides, most people who ever lived never even heard heard of Christianity so it's totally irrelevant to their eternal fate
But isn't this exactly what scripture addresses in many different verses?

Psalms 68:11 1 The Lord gave the word: great [was] the company of those that published [it]. {company: Heb. army}

Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

No, none of those verses address the problem I raised. On the contrary, they amplify it because they admit that people could not know "God's salvation plan" without a preacher, and God chose not to give them a preacher. Therefore, he mercilessly let them die in their sin (according to the Christian doctrine).




If God reigns (Thy God reigneth!), doesn't that mean He can do whatever He thinks fit? Isn't that what it means for a king to be King? And as has been pointed out by many a preacher, wouldn't you want the Judge of all the earth to do 'right'? Or, would you rather have an unjust Judge?

EXACTLY MY POINT! And since God is free and good, we know he would not do all the things the Bible says he did and does.

This is the fundamental point of all confusion. Anyone reading the Bible can see for themselves that God is portrayed as less than good, less than loving, and indeed, less than god in many places. Therefore, the Bible is literally unbelievable in the sense that a person with understanding cannot believe it because it is logically incoherent and says things about God that simply can't be true. And this brings up the most fundamental of all points that I have asked over and over again on this forum but few have tried to answer: WHY BELIEVE THE BIBLE? Do you have a reason? What is it? I would love to know.



1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:
and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

(Richard, I completely take your point that to be a witness, you have to have seen something, and that you have not 'seen' yet.)

But I thought I saw it for over a decade! Now I see I was mistaken.

So how do two reasonable people discern who is right and who is wrong in a situation like this? Do you have any standard of truth by which we can test the Bible to see if we should believe it?



It makes God look like an irrational and hateful parent.

And it makes you look as if you are stamping your feet because you can't have your own way all the time.

Oh really now? Only petulant children would oppose God setting things up to ensure the pain and destruction of his own children?

It looks like you are dodging the two ton elephant in the room.



Judges 17:6, Judges 21:25 In those days [there was] no king in Israel, every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; [B]but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Isaiah 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; in returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength...'

Richard, the problem is not with the gospel I preach, but with the effects of sin which dim spiritual awareness to the intensity of God's love for mankind shown us through Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection.

How is God's "intensity of love" expressed in his choice to design a universe in which his own creatures would suffer eternal torment?



Surely it is obvious that children don't always do what their parents might wish - might have taught them? Do you hold the parents responsible for that, or do you accept there is a coming of age, when responsibility for the children's behaviour passes from the parent to the child? If so, is not the parent equally free from the child's choices, to execute judgement (usually in the form of the way they plan to divide their inheritance to said living children after the parental demise), and withhold their estate from such children as deemed irresponsible (by the parent) to inherit said estate? Should God's justice be any less discerning?

You really should not use the "parent" metaphor for God in this context. No loving parent would treat their children the way God treats us! Letting starve and die in our own vomit, to be eaten by rats, all for the "crime" of being born?



Thank you, too, for taking time to hear out my understanding on these matters.
And thank you again. It is very good to explore these issues with much plain talk.

Richard

[Beck]

:focus:

Thought I would give a place where one could read more in detail concerning demons. A newly acquaintance of mine is Duncan Heaster. I have drawn some of my conclusions from him. He has written a book and has a website called the 'The Real Devil'. (http://www.realdevil.info/index.htm)

All of the context of his book is make available on that site.

263

Now you can continue.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:focus:

Thought I would give a place where one could read more in detail concerning demons. A newly acquaintance of mine is Duncan Heaster. I have drawn some of my conclusions from him. He has written a book and has a website called the 'The Real Devil'. (http://www.realdevil.info/index.htm)

All of the context of his book is make available on that site.

263

Now you can continue.
Thanks Beck, that's a very useful resource.

:signthankspin:

[Charisma]

Hi Beck and Richard,

Thought you both might be interested in taking a look at this book, too.

http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DALindex.htm

[heb13-13]

Hi all, and in particular Richard,

Now that I've caught up reading this thread, my mind is buzzing with things I want to say. Quickly, therefore, I want to make a general rejection of Jim Fowler's statement which Rick quoted, although as a commentary on our current era, (last few decades) it is fair enough.

Rick,

I don't know what you'll think of my comment to follow, but I actually came online today with a fresh thought which is similar to the point on which Jim Fowlers begins, 'Evil is that which is not consistent with who He [God] is'. The thought which I had had, is that except God had created evil, He would not have been able to demonstrate to us His attitude towards it (His responses to it), nor, the grief it causes Him.

I do agree. But God does not participate in and experience evil firsthand and I think this is what Jim was saying. Also in Isa 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This word "evil" is not the fallen rebellious nature of Satan, but affliction, calamity, suffering, etc.

Look at the context and the Hebrew.

I know that most anything perceived by humans that is hurtful or causes suffering or deprivation is usually seen as evil. Yet, God has a different view of suffering that we humans, isn't that right? My kids have called me evil and mean for not letting them have something that they wanted. What children have not thought it at least?

Adam and Eve "became like one us" because they saw and experienced for the first time, firsthand what was contrary to God's Nature. Not only did they know it intellectually now, but they knew it experientially. God does not know evil experientially as the One participating in and committing the act of evil that is against His nature (spiritual adultery, rebellion against Himself, pride, covetousness, etc).

God does not share in Satan's nature and character. Jesus said, "...The prince of the this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me", John 14:30.

The Hebrew children will tell you they suffered much under the Shepherdship of God and it was no walk in the park for them. It is very clear that God brings calamity, suffering, affliction upon His people. As one grows in their relationship with the Lord they learn more about His ways and understand thereby bringing about spiritual maturity.

1Sam 12:7
Now therefore stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD of all the righteous acts of the LORD, which he did to you and to your fathers.

All the acts of the Lord are righteous whether we are able to understand the meaning or not. This should not be foreign to us as Mothers and Fathers or if we are not Mothers and Fathers we certainly are a son or a daugher of a parent. As parents we do not have to explain to our kids why we want them to do something. The explanation may come later when they can truly understand it. My father and mother did not owe me an explanation on every little thing they asked me or told me to do. That is nonsense. It makes for a child centered home. Much like what man is trying to do with God. Make a man-centered Universe. I am not necessarily saying that people who want a man-centered universe came from a child-centered home, by the way (but could). Mainly, before Christ we all reflect aspects of Satan's nature and character.

Does the Lord allow calamity, and hardship in our lives? Of course. Is it for a purpose? Absolutely!

Heb 12:6
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb 12:8
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.


Our minds can't get round that very easily, but it's not a lot different to the doctor in Australia who had discovered a bacterium and its cure, that no-one else believed in. For ten years, people died of a curable condition, until in desperation, the doctor gave himself the disease, and then cured it. Finally, the medical community took note, and became amenable to learning something new, for the betterment of their patients.

Exactly. It's as if Jim Fowler has fallen into a humanistic definition of the Fall, whereby even 'good' and 'evil' (he seems to accept) are determined by humans.

The thing I want to say most clearly is, there is 'good' and there is 'evil' and the Bible shows us emphatically over and over, how to distinguish between them. This is not man's standard of anything; it is all and only God's.

I did not quite grasp how you see Jim Fowler as defining evil. He was saying that somehow, without evil being present in the Universe for Lucifer to model himself after, God had to make it possible (somehow, we don't know how) for him to want to exalt himself with pride to usurp God's throne. Lucifer became the incarnation of evil, by doing that which was contrary to God's nature.

He admitted that he does not know how all that took place. And he clearly says that humans derive their spiritual behaviour, character and nature either from God or Satan which lines up with scripture. There is not a third choice. That is why we are either like our Father in heaven or we are children of the Devil. That is very insulting to a lot of people because they would never consider themselves as reflecting the nature and character of Satan. But Jesus was very clear about that construct in several ways.

Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Beck and Richard,

Thought you both might be interested in taking a look at this book, too.

http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DALindex.htm
I love that book! It is the textbook example of how folks always think that it's the "end times" and that their own generation will be the "last generation" before the "Second Coming." I quote from Chapter 3 (http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DAL_03.htm):

A court preacher a hundred years ago said almost every sign necessary to Christ's coming had been fulfilled. Now there is no sign unfulfilled standing between us and the first or thief-like phase of His second coming. In the words of a great preacher, "There is not the thickness of the morning mist between us and His secret, thief-like coming for His Church. Demons were intuitively stirred into great activity at the first coming of Jesus. The demoniac origin of Herod's interest in the Christ-child is shown in his slaughter of the innocents.

That was written in 1921! That's almost a full century in the past now, and he even quoted a person from a hundred years earlier who thought the "end times" could be coming any day then two hundred years ago! End-timers always talk like this. It's always the end of the world. And they have always been wrong, but they never learn from their mistakes.

And I love his final paragraph:

So rapid is the increase of divorce in America that every other marriage ending thus is seen in the offing. Holy marriage, home and obedient children are the marks for the most malignant Satanic attacks The new freedom, when disillusionment comes, is seen to be license and the ground often for demon possession. True liberty is synonymous with subjection to all law. Paul enjoined submission, subjection and silence upon the woman not because he was narrow, but because in that direction lay her greatest freedom, health, happiness, longevity, and salvation. Thus holy women of old found meekness and peace, subjection better than assertiveness, obedience better than rebellion. God save men and women from the prevalent spirit of lawlessness with its fearful potentialities for evil and awful penalties hidden from the victim in the schooling stages prior to possession by the demon.

I'm sure it sounded very reasonable back in 1921 when he wrote it. He thought that the "new freedom" women were finally attaining after two millennia of male oppression was a "Satanic attack." It is interesting that our friend debz would say he got it completely wrong and that Paul never taught any such thing. So which is the "Satanic attack" - the freedom women now enjoy, or the two thousand years of false Biblical interpretation that led to their suppression?

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

There is whole section by Jim Logan, on sermonindex.net, about how to recognise and deal with demon activity. You'd find it interesting.


Originally Posted by Charisma
As Kathryn's view is not Universalist, please would you write down for me with Bible verses, how you understand the salvation of God-rejecters and anti-Christs being effected, and, when, as that would be most helpful. As you see, I really don't get it!!!

I don't believe the Bible is logically coherent, so it is logically impossible to believe everything it says. That's why I don't concern myself about it. I merely do my best (like everyone else) to understand reality from where I've been planted.On what, then, is your claim to a Universalist stance based?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

There is whole section by Jim Logan, on sermonindex.net, about how to recognise and deal with demon activity. You'd find it interesting.

As Kathryn's view is not Universalist, please would you write down for me with Bible verses, how you understand the salvation of God-rejecters and anti-Christs being effected, and, when, as that would be most helpful. As you see, I really don't get it!!!

I don't believe the Bible is logically coherent, so it is logically impossible to believe everything it says. That's why I don't concern myself about it. I merely do my best (like everyone else) to understand reality from where I've been planted.
On what, then, is your claim to a Universalist stance based?
Hey there Charisma,

I'm not a Christian any more, so I don't believe in Christian Universalism. I was presenting arguments I would have used when I was trying to be a Christian Universalist before I discovered I no longer fit the definition of a "Christian."

I'll take a look at the stuff about demons on sermonindex. Do you have a link?

Thanks,

Richard

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

You're a brave man!

This series and what Jim Logan shares from experience is not compatible with standard pentecostal (small p) doctrine, but it's hard to argue with a man's experience of walking with God and overcoming in the spiritual realm. (Other talks could be found by searching the 'speaker' section.)

This is a series of lectures delivered to Christians, so, no evangelistic apologetics whatever, are included. The order in which he addresses topic, is designed to reduce alarm for believers. Please take care (as an unbeliever), and don't assume you are un-alarmable.

The links need to be opened in a new window before download is possible.



Spiritual Warfare - 1 "The Battle" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21647&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 2 "Resistance" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21648&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 3 "The Armor Of God" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21649&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 4 "Principalities And Powers" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21650&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 5 "Our Position In Christ" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21651&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 6 "Manifestation Of Demons" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21652&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 7 "How The Enemy Attacks" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21653&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 8 "How We Can Help Others" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21654&commentView=itemComments




May God's blessing rest upon you as you listen.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

You're a brave man!

This series and what Jim Logan shares from experience is not compatible with standard pentecostal (small p) doctrine, but it's hard to argue with a man's experience of walking with God and overcoming in the spiritual realm. (Other talks could be found by searching the 'speaker' section.)

This is a series of lectures delivered to Christians, so, no evangelistic apologetics whatever, are included. The order in which he addresses topic, is designed to reduce alarm for believers. Please take care (as an unbeliever), and don't assume you are un-alarmable.

The links need to be opened in a new window before download is possible.



Spiritual Warfare - 1 "The Battle" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21647&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 2 "Resistance" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21648&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 3 "The Armor Of God" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21649&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 4 "Principalities And Powers" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21650&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 5 "Our Position In Christ" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21651&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 6 "Manifestation Of Demons" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21652&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 7 "How The Enemy Attacks" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21653&commentView=itemComments

Spiritual Warfare - 8 "How We Can Help Others" by Jim Logan
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=21654&commentView=itemComments

May God's blessing rest upon you as you listen.
Hey there Charisma,

Thanks for the links. I listened to most of the first one, and don't think I'll be listening to the rest. They obviously are just the opinions and anecdotes from someone who believes in demons from a traditional Christian perspective without any "evangelistic apologetics whatever" so I don't find them convincing. The world is filled with such anecdotal "evidence" and it really doesn't prove anything. It is not merely "hard to argue with a man's experience of walking with God and overcoming in the spiritual realm" - it's literally impossible because he is telling stories I can neither confirm nor deny. Have you heard of Bob Larson? He's a famous "exorcist" that I've followed for years. I find his stuff totally unbelievable. It's like the healings at the Benny Hinn Salvation Carnivals. Hank Hanegraaff asked him for his three best proven miraculous healings and not one of the was verifiable. And that's just in the Christian world. New Agers, Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, and pretty much everyone else with a metaphysical worldview have filled the world with their "testimonies" about how some supernatural events confirmed their beliefs. Why should I believe any of it? And how am I supposed to discern between which stories are true and which are false?

This doesn't mean that there aren't "mysterious manifestations" of things that would be interpreted as "demonic" by fundamentalist Christians. The problem is that whatever is really going on is being interpreted with fundamentalist Christian presuppositions which I think are fundamentally fallacious, and there is no way to determine the truth of the anecdotes anyway.

All the best,

Richard

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,


Have you heard of Bob Larson? He's a famous "exorcist" that I've followed for years. I find his stuff totally unbelievable. It's like the healings at the Benny Hinn Salvation Carnivals. Hank Hanegraaff asked him for his three best proven miraculous healings and not one of the was verifiable. And that's just in the Christian world. The problem with the kind of anecdote you've just offered here, is, it doesn't prove that the Name of Jesus Christ has no power to heal those who come to Him believing Him.


New Agers, Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, and pretty much everyone else with a metaphysical worldview have filled the world with their "testimonies" about how some supernatural events confirmed their beliefs. Why should I believe any of it? And how am I supposed to discern between which stories are true and which are false? You're going to continue to have a problem working out what and what not to accept as worth putting your trust in, while you insist upon objective evidence separate and confirmatory to your own experience. God didn't make you to need objective evidence. He made you to be able to know truth and to be able to recognise others who know truth because their testimony chimes with yours in respect of truth. Many of us can testify to knowledge, but it didn't bring us LIFE.

Paul said: there are many voices in this world and none of them are without significance.

All of us have to attune our spiritual ears, and limit what we look at, in order to narrow down the information we can get (tree of the knowledge of good and evil) until we have sifted every last bit of 'knowledge' out of the picture, and we are left only with the other tree - life (truth).


Thanks for the links. I listened to most of the first one, and don't think I'll be listening to the rest. They obviously are just the opinions and anecdotes from someone who believes in demons from a traditional Christian perspective without any "evangelistic apologetics whatever" so I don't find them convincing. The world is filled with such anecdotal "evidence" and it really doesn't prove anything. It is not merely "hard to argue with a man's experience of walking with God and overcoming in the spiritual realm" - it's literally impossible because he is telling stories I can neither confirm nor deny.I appreciate you having taken time to listen as you did. It's quite a specialist topic anyway, and I had no idea what you'd make of the kind of information the speaker was offering. You can imagine it leading to heated debate among Christians!

The only person who God wants to convince about certain things, is the person He is speaking to at the time. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would convince the world of three things: sin, righteousness and judgment. These are His priorities, and the more instinctive and honest our response to them is, the more actual knowledge of God we will receive, thus beginning to build a personal database of 'evidence', without which no other evidence can be properly compared.


This doesn't mean that there aren't "mysterious manifestations" of things that would be interpreted as "demonic" by fundamentalist Christians. The problem is that whatever is really going on is being interpreted with fundamentalist Christian presuppositions which I think are fundamentally fallacious, and there is no way to determine the truth of the anecdotes anyway.It's certainly true that if you throw out Maker's Instructions, you're left with the limitations of conscience and personal experience. Many people make it their life's work systematically to continue looking in places where there is no logical reason to expect to find LIFE, almost as if they have forgotten what they were looking for in the first place. But God searches the hearts, looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence in the Universe, hoping to communicate with those hearts where He finds hope of bringing a fuller revelation of His love to their attention.

[heb13-13]

Hi Richard,

The only person who God wants to convince about certain things, is the person He is speaking to at the time. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would convince the world of three things: sin, righteousness and judgment. These are His priorities, and the more instinctive and honest our response to them is, the more actual knowledge of God we will receive, thus beginning to build a personal database of 'evidence', without which no other evidence can be properly compared.

It's certainly true that if you throw out Maker's Instructions, you're left with the limitations of conscience and personal experience. Many people make it their life's work systematically to continue looking in places where there is no logical reason to expect to find LIFE, almost as if they have forgotten what they were looking for in the first place. But God searches the hearts, looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence in the Universe, hoping to communicate with those hearts where He finds hope of bringing a fuller revelation of His love to their attention.

These are worth quoting again!

Thanks Charisma for those thoughts.

Rick

[Charisma]

Hi Rick,

Somehow I overlooked replying to a post you made on the previous page (p27), about evil.


This word "evil" is not the fallen rebellious nature of Satan, but affliction, calamity, suffering...


I did not quite grasp how you see Jim Fowler as defining evil. He was saying that somehow, without evil being present in the Universe for Lucifer to model himself after, God had to make it possible (somehow, we don't know how) for him to want to exalt himself with pride to usurp God's throne. Lucifer became the incarnation of evil, by doing that which was contrary to God's nature.

He admitted that he does not know how all that took place. And he clearly says that humans derive their spiritual behaviour, character and nature either from God or Satan which lines up with scripture. There is not a third choice. That is why we are either like our Father in heaven or we are children of the Devil. That is very insulting to a lot of people because they would never consider themselves as reflecting the nature and character of Satan. But Jesus was very clear about that construct in several ways.
To be honest, I don't think that until now I quite 'saw' the difference between 'evil' as a set of external happenings to people, and, 'the sin' which through the Devil entered the human race, so that from the inside, PEOPLE do bad things. They themselves become the external agent capable of destroying other people's lives, property, reputation and hopes.

Now that I see it, it's obvious, but I didn't see the distinction before. Thank you for having borne with me.

Regarding the origin of Satan's downfall, I have heard the temptations (which expose Satan's priorities and heart) explained as a kind of sequel to what had taken place in heaven aeons previously: that the Son, being the apple of His Father's eye, and destined to inherit all things, caused such jealousy to spring up in Lucifer, that he wanted to compete with Him for that honour and glory, even though it was above his station, spiritually. This fits well with:

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Hebrews 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him]; 4 God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

I know that in the economy of God's word, these verses can also be used to prove that the Messiah was not of angelic nature; He was of God; but it is also clear that an angel who did not understand the demands of His Sonship (His incarnation and death) could hear the promises, and envy Him.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Have you heard of Bob Larson? He's a famous "exorcist" that I've followed for years. I find his stuff totally unbelievable. It's like the healings at the Benny Hinn Salvation Carnivals. Hank Hanegraaff asked him for his three best proven miraculous healings and not one of the was verifiable. And that's just in the Christian world.
The problem with the kind of anecdote you've just offered here, is, it doesn't prove that the Name of Jesus Christ has no power to heal those who come to Him believing Him.

Hey there Charisma,

I don't think your use of the word "anecdote" applies to Bob Larson. His antics as an "exocist" are very well documented, unlike the supposed "miracles" that are reported by Jim Logan.

And I wasn't trying to "prove that the Name of Jesus Christ has no power to heal those who come to Him believing Him." That's not my job. On the contrary, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that "the name of Jesus Christ" has power to heal. And that's something that has never been done in an objectively verifiable fashion.




New Agers, Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, and pretty much everyone else with a metaphysical worldview have filled the world with their "testimonies" about how some supernatural events confirmed their beliefs. Why should I believe any of it? And how am I supposed to discern between which stories are true and which are false?
You're going to continue to have a problem working out what and what not to accept as worth putting your trust in, while you insist upon objective evidence separate and confirmatory to your own experience. God didn't make you to need objective evidence. He made you to be able to know truth and to be able to recognise others who know truth because their testimony chimes with yours in respect of truth. Many of us can testify to knowledge, but it didn't bring us LIFE.

Paul said: there are many voices in this world and none of them are without significance.

All of us have to attune our spiritual ears, and limit what we look at, in order to narrow down the information we can get (tree of the knowledge of good and evil) until we have sifted every last bit of 'knowledge' out of the picture, and we are left only with the other tree - life (truth).

I don't have any "problem" at all discerning what is worth listening to. That's why I chose not to listen to any more of Logan's preaching. He is not giving any evidence for anything. He is merely preaching to the choir and assuming the truth of what he happens to believe.

We've gone over this many times now on this forum, but you have never answered (at least not in a way that I thought was valid). Without "objective evidence" how does a person separate the true from the false? Muslims, Mormons, Hindus and everyone else can make claims just like Christians. If there is no evidence for the Christian claims, why believe them?




Thanks for the links. I listened to most of the first one, and don't think I'll be listening to the rest. They obviously are just the opinions and anecdotes from someone who believes in demons from a traditional Christian perspective without any "evangelistic apologetics whatever" so I don't find them convincing. The world is filled with such anecdotal "evidence" and it really doesn't prove anything. It is not merely "hard to argue with a man's experience of walking with God and overcoming in the spiritual realm" - it's literally impossible because he is telling stories I can neither confirm nor deny. I appreciate you having taken time to listen as you did. It's quite a specialist topic anyway, and I had no idea what you'd make of the kind of information the speaker was offering. You can imagine it leading to heated debate among Christians!

Yes, it certainly would lead to "heated debate" and that only shows yet again that we are not talking about objective reality. "Heated debates" exist in fields only until the truth is established. There were lots of "heated debates" about evolution for example, but now it is accepted as solid science on the same level as any other experimentally established study. I'm not talking about all aspects of the theory of evolution, since there are many aspects that are still debated, such as the origin of the DNA code, etc., but the fact of evolution is now broadly accepted by the vast majority of scientists. My point is that "heated debates" occur in fields where the truth is not yet known. And that's a pretty bad diagnosis for a "system of truth" that is now nearly 2000 years old! If believers can't agree about the teachings of Christianity, it seems pretty foolish for me to worry about it. If God Himself has not bothered to establish the truth of Christian doctrines in any way that can be broadly agreed upon, it seems pretty obvious that He's not concerned about it. So neither am I.



The only person who God wants to convince about certain things, is the person He is speaking to at the time. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would convince the world of three things: sin, righteousness and judgment. These are His priorities, and the more instinctive and honest our response to them is, the more actual knowledge of God we will receive, thus beginning to build a personal database of 'evidence', without which no other evidence can be properly compared.

That's great! So everyone believes whatever they think "God is telling them." How is that different than everyone just doing what is right in their own eyes? If there is no objective truth to Christianity, then there is no reason anyone should believe any of it.




This doesn't mean that there aren't "mysterious manifestations" of things that would be interpreted as "demonic" by fundamentalist Christians. The problem is that whatever is really going on is being interpreted with fundamentalist Christian presuppositions which I think are fundamentally fallacious, and there is no way to determine the truth of the anecdotes anyway.
It's certainly true that if you throw out Maker's Instructions, you're left with the limitations of conscience and personal experience. Many people make it their life's work systematically to continue looking in places where there is no logical reason to expect to find LIFE, almost as if they have forgotten what they were looking for in the first place. But God searches the hearts, looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence in the Universe, hoping to communicate with those hearts where He finds hope of bringing a fuller revelation of His love to their attention.
If God was really "looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence" he would be well advised to quit doing everything in his power to hide from everyone! The fact that he refuses to do anything to make his existence evident has led Christians to develop a whole theological paradigm called "The Hidden God" and they go about explaining why God chooses to act as if he doesn't exist. Just Google "theology god hides himself" and you will find a mountain of theological explanations as to why God does not make himself evident even to those who are devout believers.

Great chatting!

Richard

[heb13-13]

To be honest, I don't think that until now I quite 'saw' the difference between 'evil' as a set of external happenings to people, and, 'the sin' which through the Devil entered the human race, so that from the inside, PEOPLE do bad things. They themselves become the external agent capable of destroying other people's lives, property, reputation and hopes.


Exactly!

Matt 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Luke 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heartbringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heartbringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

So, this thought means much more now.

Eph 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

We are filled with either the Spirit of God or the spirit of Satan (in varying degrees). What people don't understand is that just like the Spirit of God is working with the Believer to sanctify him more and more and possess his vessel in cooperation with the Believer, the spirit of Satan is working against people to sanctify them more and more in evil and possess their vessel completely (with cooperation, too, but through deception thinking they are receiving something good).

Because most people have been taught that demon possessed people all froth at the mouth, they have no concept that Satan is possessing most men and women from different levels and degrees. Just as the Holy Spirit wants to fill the Believer more and more the unholy spirit desires to fill men/women more and more.

Satan has never stopped lusting for power and worship (to be God). He is continually exalting himself above God and is very successful at it, getting the majority of mankind to bow down to him and "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (Rom 1:29)"

Contrast that with:

Php 1:11
Being filledwith the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

Luke 4:1
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

Luke 11:39
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Notice in the verse above that the Holy Ghost will lead us, but in the verse below the unholy spirit/Devil only drives people.

He is a driven spirit and not at rest. He is constantly going to and fro seeking whom he may devour (trying to get people to worship him and be filled with him).


Satan's own words.

Job 1:7
And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

All the best,
Rick

[Charisma]

Hello Richard, :tea:


On the contrary, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that "the name of Jesus Christ" has power to heal. And that's something that has never been done in an objectively verifiable fashion.
There are places in the world (a church in India of which I've heard, for instance) in which there is healing in the name of Jesus every week. It seems that if you want to observe with your own eyes such events, you need to go there. Of course, the big name people who become bad name people cause confusion, but, the 'seek and you shall find' principle is still in operation - for the moment.


If there is no evidence for the Christian claims, why believe them?I think you're a bit harsher on Christianity here, than the other 'faiths' you name. When they make claims, as with Christians, it is because they have followed the steps prescribed by their gods/God. I promise you that (apart from the interference of God), if you follow idolatrous worship systems, you will reap the same spiritual results as their other adherents do, and, if you follow the instructions of the Christian God, you will reap the same spiritual results as Christians do.

Imho, if you had continued in following the instructions of the Christian God, you would have continued to draw closer to Him in the knowledge and outworking of His ways, and His blessing in your life. The evidence which you present of not having reaped said blessings previously, raises the question of how much you were engaged in wholehearted and singleminded obedience to His express instructions? From a purely scientfic pov, I could surmise that the 'evidence' is: you were neither whole-hearted nor single-minded. And yet, Jesus said: 'if your eye is single, your whole body shall be full of light'.


If God Himself has not bothered to establish the truth of Christian doctrines in any way that can be broadly agreed upon, it seems pretty obvious that He's not concerned about it. So neither am I.
The main reasons some Christians debate about demon activity can be listed along with the usual culprits: denial, ignorance, fear and knowing participation (sin). To the person who disposes of those barriers by the means set out in scripture, there is no conflict between what is recorded in the NT and the operation of the faith of believers, today. It works in practice. It's not merely theory.


That's great! So everyone believes whatever they think "God is telling them." How is that different than everyone just doing what is right in their own eyes? If there is no objective truth to Christianity, then there is no reason anyone should believe any of it.That is not exactly what I said. I said, the person engaging with God Himself, will build up a database of evidence 'without which no other evidence can be properly compared'. As we know from the garden of Eden, the Devil is a talker. He has a simple strategy (despite his so-called intelligence) which is to say the opposite of God. There are many ways this can be done, depending on the construction in which God is speaking at any one time (or, depending the construction in the mind of the person trying to make the distinction). From experience, I know it is possible to analyse what is going on in my heart/mind distinct from the voice/speaker, and to compare the safety of what I'm hearing with what I already know of God's nature and historic interactions with men. For sure, if I'm honest with Him, even if I make mistakes, I'll be okay because He can over-rule/over-ride my errors, but the Devil wants my destruction. I went through quite a time of seeking to know which was God, and which was a n other speaker, until I had become less attached to the outcome of obedience in terms of how it would affect my flesh and feelings. Not good news for the carnal man, of course, but good for the eternal outcome of the spiritual - the invisible inner man - heart, soul and strength - whose choices always show eventually on the outside.


If God was really "looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence" he would be well advised to quit doing everything in his power to hide from everyone!I have to laugh! :lol: Indeed. This is one of God's little ploys to help His children grow up strong and straight and full of faith. Our inability to perceive Him near is all on our side. I am not great for theology, but prefer to use the scriptures' express scenarios to give context to the particular reason and kind of hiding He is doing at any one time. While this may not make the unaccustomed exercise of faith any easier, He does stay within His own proscribed limitations, of not allowing us to be tempted beyond what we can bear. Thus, the familiar testimony which goes something like this: 'just when I thought God was never going to hear me/come through, He did such and such .....' (Of course, thus proving He had been watching and listening all the time!) If we are ever going to know the God of (take our pick of OT hero) then we have to be prepared to go through the same kind of testing they went through. God calls this 'proving' and 'humbling' us, while we call it 'proving God'.... a bit like French toast or a French seam - which the French call an English seam, and English toast! It's all about perspective. The nuts and bolts are never that much different.


Great chatting!Thank you, too.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard, :tea:

There are places in the world (a church in India of which I've heard, for instance) in which there is healing in the name of Jesus every week. It seems that if you want to observe with your own eyes such events, you need to go there. Of course, the big name people who become bad name people cause confusion, but, the 'seek and you shall find' principle is still in operation - for the moment.

Hey there Charisma, :yo:

If that were true, I'm sure more than a few Christian journalists would grab some medical doctors, fly over, and confirm everything.

And besides, I wouldn't need to go to India. I could just as well watch a Benny Hinn Healing Carnival and see hundreds of people get on stage and claim exactly the same things as those in India. Then Hank Hanegraaff could check them out and find that none of them are actually verifiable.

That's just the way it is. If there were real miracles going on, they could be verified, and if they were verified they would be headline news.




If there is no evidence for the Christian claims, why believe them?
I think you're a bit harsher on Christianity here, than the other 'faiths' you name. When they make claims, as with Christians, it is because they have followed the steps prescribed by their gods/God. I promise you that (apart from the interference of God), if you follow idolatrous worship systems, you will reap the same spiritual results as their other adherents do, and, if you follow the instructions of the Christian God, you will reap the same spiritual results as Christians do.

I don't understand what you are saying. I was not being "harsh" about anything. I only asked a question.

And I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "idolatrous worship systems." That's the primary complaint Jews and Muslims have against Christianity. They see Christ as just another man-made idol when he is elevated to the position of God.

This seems very strange to me. I don't feel like you are able to see that to an outsider, your particular version of Christianity looks like all the other religions. If you can't see this, then you are blind to an aspect of reality that is plain and obvious to everyone else. Now please don't get me wrong, but that kind of blindness is the fundamental characteristic of religious cults. It's fine if you believe your religion is true, but if you can't see that your arguments are logically equivalent to the arguments presented by Muslims, Mormons, and Hindus, then how are you able to know whether or not your religion is a cult like theirs? Do you not see the equivalence?



Imho, if you had continued in following the instructions of the Christian God, you would have continued to draw closer to Him in the knowledge and outworking of His ways, and His blessing in your life. The evidence which you present of not having reaped said blessings previously, raises the question of how much you were engaged in wholehearted and singleminded obedience to His express instructions? From a purely scientfic pov, I could surmise that the 'evidence' is: you were neither whole-hearted nor single-minded. And yet, Jesus said: 'if your eye is single, your whole body shall be full of light'.

I never said I never "reaped blessings" as a Christian. On the contrary, I believed that God answered prayers. I posted things about that on my old blog, and spoke about it constantly. But as time went by I noticed that my concept of "God answering prayers" was false. And I know that I am right because I've talked with lots and lots of Christians who claim that God really does answer prayers, but after some talking they finally admit that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. You know this is true. If God really did answer prayers as a general rule, then it could be proven in a heartbeat and I would be shown to have erred. But that's not going to happen, is it?

I'm surprised you just accept reports of "answered prayers" if they come from Christians but not Muslims, Hindus, or others. Does that not show an "false balance" in your judgement (Proverbs 11:1)?




If God Himself has not bothered to establish the truth of Christian doctrines in any way that can be broadly agreed upon, it seems pretty obvious that He's not concerned about it. So neither am I.
The main reasons some Christians debate about demon activity can be listed along with the usual culprits: denial, ignorance, fear and knowing participation (sin). To the person who disposes of those barriers by the means set out in scripture, there is no conflict between what is recorded in the NT and the operation of the faith of believers, today. It works in practice. It's not merely theory.

Sorry, but that's like saying "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong." The people who believe in "demons" are also typically the people who believe false doctrines about a Young Earth (< 10,000 years old or so), a literal flood, etc. Folks living in the 21st century have EVIDENCE that the doctrines about demons are false because we can cast out a "demon of disease" with a scientific pill. This proves that the demon ideas of the NT are just the superstitions of an ignorant people that lived in a pre-scientific era.




That's great! So everyone believes whatever they think "God is telling them." How is that different than everyone just doing what is right in their own eyes? If there is no objective truth to Christianity, then there is no reason anyone should believe any of it.
That is not exactly what I said. I said, the person engaging with God Himself, will build up a database of evidence 'without which no other evidence can be properly compared'. As we know from the garden of Eden, the Devil is a talker. He has a simple strategy (despite his so-called intelligence) which is to say the opposite of God. There are many ways this can be done, depending on the construction in which God is speaking at any one time (or, depending the construction in the mind of the person trying to make the distinction). From experience, I know it is possible to analyse what is going on in my heart/mind distinct from the voice/speaker, and to compare the safety of what I'm hearing with what I already know of God's nature and historic interactions with men. For sure, if I'm honest with Him, even if I make mistakes, I'll be okay because He can over-rule/over-ride my errors, but the Devil wants my destruction. I went through quite a time of seeking to know which was God, and which was a n other speaker, until I had become less attached to the outcome of obedience in terms of how it would affect my flesh and feelings. Not good news for the carnal man, of course, but good for the eternal outcome of the spiritual - the invisible inner man - heart, soul and strength - whose choices always show eventually on the outside.

Talk about a talker! :p That's a lot of words my friend, but I don't feel any closer to understanding. It seems like you are saying "I'm right, and that's all that matters." It seems like you don't understand that the world is filled with people who think that they "hear from God." How is anyone supposed to tell the true from the false?

The answer is simple. There is no way to know because there is no objective evidence for anything. Each person gets thoughts and feelings that they then attribute to God. It's entirely subjective and each person believes whatever they want, and there's no way for them to know if they are one of the deluded or one of the saved.




If God was really "looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence" he would be well advised to quit doing everything in his power to hide from everyone!
I have to laugh! :lol: Indeed. This is one of God's little ploys to help His children grow up strong and straight and full of faith. Our inability to perceive Him near is all on our side. I am not great for theology, but prefer to use the scriptures' express scenarios to give context to the particular reason and kind of hiding He is doing at any one time. While this may not make the unaccustomed exercise of faith any easier, He does stay within His own proscribed limitations, of not allowing us to be tempted beyond what we can bear. Thus, the familiar testimony which goes something like this: 'just when I thought God was never going to hear me/come through, He did such and such .....' (Of course, thus proving He had been watching and listening all the time!) If we are ever going to know the God of (take our pick of OT hero) then we have to be prepared to go through the same kind of testing they went through. God calls this 'proving' and 'humbling' us, while we call it 'proving God'.... a bit like French toast or a French seam - which the French call an English seam, and English toast! It's all about perspective. The nuts and bolts are never that much different.

Thank you, too.
Yes, that is one of the common explanations about why God hides himself. But do you not see how it contradicts your previous assertion that God is "looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence?"

The experience of something happening "at the last moment" is very common in humans. Folks always say they couldn't find something because it was in the "last place they would ever think to look." You don't hear about all the times that God failed to come through because that doesn't make for "good testimony" which is rewarded by lots of applause by fellow Christians. That's another thing that you need to consider - the social dynamics of why people get up on Benny Hinn's stage and proclaim that God did things that he did not do. They are driven by a desire for healing, yes, as well as other social forces like proving how holy and devoted they are. When Benny's show is looked at through clear eyes, you see a lot of what drives the social dynamics in many churches.

Great chatting my friend,

Richard

[Charisma]

Hi Richard, :tea:


If that were true, I'm sure more than a few Christian journalists would grab some medical doctors, fly over, and confirm everything.Now you see, that there kind of comment makes it sound as if you wouldn't believe it even if you saw it with your own eyes, and that's a bit disheartening amdist certain of your other rhetoric. India's a big place with a great many people and when it takes three hours or more to pray down a queue of people seeking healing every week, it's not news anymore - except to the healed people. You would see similar things in Hong Kong, too, as regards the supernatural happening through the power of the name of Jesus.


Do you not see the equivalence? To be honest, I've never spoken to a Muslim who makes the same claims to assurance of salvation, such as I have. They have to wait until they've died, to find out what will happen to them, and that is a cause of constant fear to them. Regarding other 'faiths' which are demon worship by other names, many are the manifestations of spiritual activity to those who give themselves to it, and most of them are listed in scripture by God, prohibited to those who worship Him. The distinction He who searches the hearts makes, is blessing upon those who serve Him only. As you know, in the OT these blessings were material, like manna in the wilderness and water from the Rock, prosperity in agriculture and the fruit of the womb; in this NT era, the blessings are spiritual and the Christian is sifted by trial, tribulation, hostility, adversity and privations, but, these are also the means by which the Christian whose faith is thus exercised, proves God true to His word.

You frequently say you can't tell the difference between the testimony of Christians, and those of other faiths, and I don't understand how you can't. A person who has been filled with the Holy Spirit sounds different even from a Christian who has not been filled with the Holy Spirit (and I'm not talking about speaking in tongues). Even you will be able to tell if a person spends time with the Lord, because it changes them.


I never said I never "reaped blessings" as a Christian. On the contrary, I believed that God answered prayers. I posted things about that on my old blog, and spoke about it constantly. That's great.


But as time went by I noticed that my concept of "God answering prayers" was false. I want to separate out this statement, because even if it is true, there are many different ways to move on from such a postition without abandoning God, without ceasing from prayer and without ceasing to grow in depth of spiritual character. If I accept that your concept now appeared 'false' to you, it wouldn't be the first or the last time that a Christian had that kind of revelation FROM GOD, which made them do a thorough revision of previously held attitudes. It's no bad thing, but God is unchanging.


And I know that I am right because I've talked with lots and lots of Christians who claim that God really does answer prayers, but after some talking they finally admit that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. You know this is true. No I don't. I know people who get anwers to prayer all the time, and nothing in my own experience proves to me that God doesn't answer prayer. Even now - today - I am in the midst of having prayers answered.


If God really did answer prayers as a general rule, then it could be proven in a heartbeat and I would be shown to have erred. But that's not going to happen, is it? Seriously, Richard, if you are intent upon being 'shown to have erred', God will oblige you with a mountain of evidence. There isn't anyone alive for whom this could not be true. 'But that's not going to happen' because it involves a high degree of risk which many fewer folk are willing to take, just in case they find God is true, and they have to lose everything to follow Him. They count the cost, and they make a choice.


I'm surprised you just accept reports of "answered prayers" if they come from Christians but not Muslims, Hindus, or others. Does that not show an "false balance" in your judgement (Proverbs 11:1)? To be fair to both of us, I don't ask Muslims, Hindus or others about their answered prayers, but I know this: that God doesn't see them with religious labels. He sees them as people, with the eyes of His faith, knowing that there is not a man, woman or child alive - who if they turn to Him (from their idols) with a repentant heart from the sin which has separated them from Him - whom He cannot deliver into absolute freedom from fear, from demons, from death, from sickness, from confusion, from danger, from being without hope. It is a sad thing that some Christians settle for so much less a salvation than Jesus procured for them. Therein lies the observance of much similarity between one group of people and another, where all that is being proclaimed is the flickering outward activity of dead dogmas. The Life of God is not in them.


Sorry, but that's like saying "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong." The people who believe in "demons" are also typically the people who believe false doctrines about a Young Earth (< 10,000 years old or so), a literal flood, etc. Folks living in the 21st century have EVIDENCE that the doctrines about demons are false because we can cast out a "demon of disease" with a scientific pill. This proves that the demon ideas of the NT are just the superstitions of an ignorant people that lived in a pre-scientific era. No, it doesn't prove anything except the rhetoric you've chosen to espouse. Demons can have various different effects, from thoughts to behaviours, but the thing which they have in common is that their interference with a person's life makes the person's life less free when examined in the light of wholeness and balanced well-being. The person may think they are choosing a course of action freely, but in fact they are responding to other inhibitions or hindrances which make their 'choice' the more livable option. Demons can gradually close a person down over a period of years, until that person can hardly remember what they used to be like. But, the person has no idea they are the victim of spiritual attrition by enemies of their soul. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. You won't change my mind on this. And I'm not wrong, either. :winking0071:


Talk about a talker! That's a lot of words my friend, but I don't feel any closer to understanding. It seems like you are saying "I'm right, and that's all that matters." It seems like you don't understand that the world is filled with people who think that they "hear from God." How is anyone supposed to tell the true from the false? :lol: With the Holy Spirit's help, of course. (Didn't I mention that?)


The answer is simple. There is no way to know because there is no objective evidence for anything. Each person gets thoughts and feelings that they then attribute to God. It's entirely subjective and each person believes whatever they want, and there's no way for them to know if they are one of the deluded or one of the saved. Talking of subjective, what do you think, here..... When Jesus said: John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep', and we hold it in the light of 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', was God's love for the world subjective, or objective (or both)? Whatever your answer, are you honestly putting forward the myth that nothing can be known, dressed up as a piece of respectable science? Do you 'know' when you've had a drink, or, are you just guessing, because the cup is now empty? You really can't tell you're not thirsty any more?


Yes, that is one of the common explanations about why God hides himself. But do you not see how it contradicts your previous assertion that God is "looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence?" No. God doesn't hide Himself from people who are looking for Him with all their heart for the first time. It's only when He wants them to grow up, or, they grieve Him with overlong absence from fellowship with Him (perhaps through an alternative attraction, such a sin), that He may seem distant, but His intention is always to draw the person back into even deeper fellowship with Himself. He is never far away. It is us who feel the increase in distance.


You don't hear about all the times that God failed to come through because that doesn't make for "good testimony" which is rewarded by lots of applause by fellow Christians. That's another thing that you need to consider - the social dynamics of why people get up on Benny Hinn's stage and proclaim that God did things that he did not do. They are driven by a desire for healing, yes, as well as other social forces like proving how holy and devoted they are. When Benny's show is looked at through clear eyes, you see a lot of what drives the social dynamics in many churches. Of course, the whole exhibitionist culture which is dogging many churches these days, is at great variance with the New Testament's description of 'church' meeetings.

The detailed experience we see of people in the Bible, is mainly in the OT, and there we learn that God will not appear for the salvation of those who are doing things their own way. He turns out for those who trust HIM.


Are we any further forward?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard, :tea:

If that were true, I'm sure more than a few Christian journalists would grab some medical doctors, fly over, and confirm everything.
Now you see, that there kind of comment makes it sound as if you wouldn't believe it even if you saw it with your own eyes, and that's a bit disheartening amdist certain of your other rhetoric. India's a big place with a great many people and when it takes three hours or more to pray down a queue of people seeking healing every week, it's not news anymore - except to the healed people. You would see similar things in Hong Kong, too, as regards the supernatural happening through the power of the name of Jesus.

Hey there Charisma, :yo:

"That there kind of comment" does not impy anything like what you said. On the contrary, it was nothing more than the common sense request for evidence supporting your extraordinary claims. I was a fundamentalist Christian for 18 years. I saw countless devout Christians fervently pray over and over and over again for folks with diseases and ailments of all kinds with no results. Serious Christians know by experience that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. If you are not aware of this fact, I can only conclude that you have lived a blessed life in which few of your friends or family have ever suffered serious problems. Or you have a selective memory where you ignore and forget all the prayers that went unanswered.

Now you seem to be insisting that there is real, objective evidence for answered prayers coming out of India and Hong Kong. Where did you get that information? Please post some links so I can evaluate the evidence myself. Why do you believe it is true? Christians are notorious for lying about miracles. Just look at the drunken lying adulterer Todd Bentley who claimed that 31 people had been raised from the dead. He also claimed that God told him to kick on old woman in the face with his biker boot (http://youtu.be/Q8MeieXU4Wc) to impart "divine healing." This godless charlatan raked in millions of dollars by duping hundreds of thousands of gullible Christians. And after abandoning his wife and children to run off his sexy 20-something assistant, he has since been "restored" to the ministry by another lying charlatan Rick Joyner (who claimed to have gone to heaven and seen the apostle Paul after being given a "mantle of humility" by an angel). Given this record of delusion and deceit by prominent Christian ministries, only a fool would believe such reports without any objective verification.



You frequently say you can't tell the difference between the testimony of Christians, and those of other faiths, and I don't understand how you can't. A person who has been filled with the Holy Spirit sounds different even from a Christian who has not been filled with the Holy Spirit (and I'm not talking about speaking in tongues). Even you will be able to tell if a person spends time with the Lord, because it changes them.

That's not true. If I filled a room with 100 atheists pretending to be Christians, and one hundred "real" Christians, could you tell the difference by talking with them? Nope.




But as time went by I noticed that my concept of "God answering prayers" was false.
I want to separate out this statement, because even if it is true, there are many different ways to move on from such a postition without abandoning God, without ceasing from prayer and without ceasing to grow in depth of spiritual character. If I accept that your concept now appeared 'false' to you, it wouldn't be the first or the last time that a Christian had that kind of revelation FROM GOD, which made them do a thorough revision of previously held attitudes. It's no bad thing, but God is unchanging.

I'm not "abandoning God" - I'm rejecting the "man in the sky" kind of God of traditional Christian theism who supposedly goes about "doing things" like any other bit player in the Cosmic Drama. I reject that God for a number of reasons. For example, it is impossible to believe that he goes about answering a prayer here for football games or finding lost puppies while letting hundreds of thousands of people die in earthquakes, tsunamis, and diseases. This problem is greatly exacerbated by the fact that God has always been willing to let people die from easily preventable diseases. People suffered and died as long as they relied on God to provide for them. It was only when we took matters into our own hands and discovered cures like antibiotics that our lives improved.




And I know that I am right because I've talked with lots and lots of Christians who claim that God really does answer prayers, but after some talking they finally admit that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. You know this is true.
No I don't. I know people who get anwers to prayer all the time, and nothing in my own experience proves to me that God doesn't answer prayer. Even now - today - I am in the midst of having prayers answered.

I'm sure you know plenty of people who think that God answered their prayers. But are they right? Probably not. They'd probably get the same results praying to a milk jug:

http://youtu.be/jk6ILZAaAMI




If God really did answer prayers as a general rule, then it could be proven in a heartbeat and I would be shown to have erred. But that's not going to happen, is it?
Seriously, Richard, if you are intent upon being 'shown to have erred', God will oblige you with a mountain of evidence. There isn't anyone alive for whom this could not be true. 'But that's not going to happen' because it involves a high degree of risk which many fewer folk are willing to take, just in case they find God is true, and they have to lose everything to follow Him. They count the cost, and they make a choice.

It's not going to happen because there is no such God who goes about "doing things" as if he were a bit player in our world. This is a necessary truth because if there were such a God, he would be morally culpable for letting all sorts of evil occur. If you claim God is "good" because he occasionally answers a prayer here or there, then you simultaneously condemn him as wicked for being able to stop a lot of evil and doing nothing.

Think of the Christian woman who was abducted by an evil rapist and kept in a dungeon for ten years. God was there in the dungeon, silent, watching while the man raped her day after day. She prayed. She cried to God. She begged him to help her. But God stood there, right beside her in that room and watched every evil act the rapist inflicted upon her, and chose to do NOTHING. It went on for a decade, and God was there at every moment, actively choosing NOT to do anything to help her. What would we say of any other person who acted like that? We would condemn such a person as a moral monster.




I'm surprised you just accept reports of "answered prayers" if they come from Christians but not Muslims, Hindus, or others. Does that not show an "false balance" in your judgement (Proverbs 11:1)?
To be fair to both of us, I don't ask Muslims, Hindus or others about their answered prayers,

Well if you don't inform yourself about all the other religious claims, then I can understand why you think you are right and they are wrong. But to me, I look at all religious claims about healings, and see them all as equally unfounded.




Sorry, but that's like saying "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong." The people who believe in "demons" are also typically the people who believe false doctrines about a Young Earth (< 10,000 years old or so), a literal flood, etc. Folks living in the 21st century have EVIDENCE that the doctrines about demons are false because we can cast out a "demon of disease" with a scientific pill. This proves that the demon ideas of the NT are just the superstitions of an ignorant people that lived in a pre-scientific era.
No, it doesn't prove anything except the rhetoric you've chosen to espouse. Demons can have various different effects, from thoughts to behaviours, but the thing which they have in common is that their interference with a person's life makes the person's life less free when examined in the light of wholeness and balanced well-being. The person may think they are choosing a course of action freely, but in fact they are responding to other inhibitions or hindrances which make their 'choice' the more livable option. Demons can gradually close a person down over a period of years, until that person can hardly remember what they used to be like. But, the person has no idea they are the victim of spiritual attrition by enemies of their soul. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. You won't change my mind on this. And I'm not wrong, either. :winking0071:

My comment was not mere "rhetoric." I was speaking of evidence, and you did not address the evidence I presented. The Bible attributes all kinds of diseases to demons that are treatable with modern medicine. That shows the Bible doctrines were made up by superstitious people from a pre-scientific era. You "answer" didn't answer this fundamental point.




Talk about a talker! That's a lot of words my friend, but I don't feel any closer to understanding. It seems like you are saying "I'm right, and that's all that matters." It seems like you don't understand that the world is filled with people who think that they "hear from God." How is anyone supposed to tell the true from the false?
:lol: With the Holy Spirit's help, of course. (Didn't I mention that?)

That's what the Mormon's would say. Such words have no meaning.




The answer is simple. There is no way to know because there is no objective evidence for anything. Each person gets thoughts and feelings that they then attribute to God. It's entirely subjective and each person believes whatever they want, and there's no way for them to know if they are one of the deluded or one of the saved.
Talking of subjective, what do you think, here..... When Jesus said: John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep', and we hold it in the light of 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', was God's love for the world subjective, or objective (or both)? Whatever your answer, are you honestly putting forward the myth that nothing can be known, dressed up as a piece of respectable science? Do you 'know' when you've had a drink, or, are you just guessing, because the cup is now empty? You really can't tell you're not thirsty any more?

I most certainly am NOT "putting forward the myth that nothing can be known." On the contrary, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that reality can be known and proven with objectively verifiable tests. It is your claims about miracles that cannot be verified, and that's why I don't believe them.




Yes, that is one of the common explanations about why God hides himself. But do you not see how it contradicts your previous assertion that God is "looking for any flicker of intelligent acknowledgement of His presence?"
No. God doesn't hide Himself from people who are looking for Him with all their heart for the first time. It's only when He wants them to grow up, or, they grieve Him with overlong absence from fellowship with Him (perhaps through an alternative attraction, such a sin), that He may seem distant, but His intention is always to draw the person back into even deeper fellowship with Himself. He is never far away. It is us who feel the increase in distance.

I get the impression that you spoke before acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand. The "God who hides himself" is a Christian answer to the question why God hides himself even from Christians.

Most if not all serious Christians will experience times when God seems absent. Mother Theresa spent her whole life in that condition. Of course, you can say that she wasn't really a Christian, but that's just your subjective opinion. Such an answer would be an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.



Are we any further forward?
I don't think so!

But have a nice day anyway. :rolleyes:

Richard

[kathryn]

Here is an interesting take on the serpent "eating its tail" as discussed in a previous post on this thread:

http://littleguyintheeye.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/daily-tidbits-127-yin-yang-oroboros/

I'm not familiar with his beliefs, so this isn't an endorsement...just a note of some interesting tidbits I was unaware of.:winking0071:

[Charisma]

Greetings, Richard, :yo:

I will try to keep coming back to your post, to reply to a bit more, as I have the time. What follows is a discussion around what scripture reveals God has disclosed to us about prayer. It is not a comprehensive statement. For instance, the place of praise and thanksgiving in effectual prayer is not addressed with scripture verses. Nor is the huge topic of spiritual opposition which finds out the weakenesses of the pray-er.

There are many different kinds of miracle - not just healing - and there are many different kinds of prayer, including those which do not make the least attempt to know the mind of the Lord before applying the label 'prayer' to the exercise which has been performed.

A couple of miracles which don't fall obviously into the 'healing' category, happened to the apostle Paul. But, we could say that he was healed of pride, anger and a murderous spirit - all very clearly related to the problems faced by Cain so long ago - all a result of the Fall.

Acts 9:1 - 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

We see that his physical blindness was a figure to highlight the spiritual blindness which God healed through Ananias' prayer.


"That there kind of comment" does not impy anything like what you said. On the contrary, it was nothing more than the common sense request for evidence supporting your extraordinary claims. I was a fundamentalist Christian for 18 years. I saw countless devout Christians fervently pray over and over and over again for folks with diseases and ailments of all kinds with no results. Serious Christians know by experience that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. If you are not aware of this fact, I can only conclude that you have lived a blessed life in which few of your friends or family have ever suffered serious problems. Or you have a selective memory where you ignore and forget all the prayers that went unanswered. Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
That is a nice simple verse which begs a lot of questions. For instance, believing what (or who)? Answer: believing what God has said to pray for.

Immediately this raises the matter of what some folk call listening prayer. Is there a precedent for it in scripture? Yes there is:
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

In John 14, the Lord's instructions about prayer are effectively transferred from His relationship with His Father, to, the disciples' relationship with Him (the Son),
John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].

and, in John 16, it becomes clear that the Lord promised they would be able to ask the Father directly, after they had received the Holy Spirit.

There are other guidlines in the New Testament which direct us to a better understanding of God's heart, and what He is likely to approve:
Luke 4:And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give
Notice that little phrase, 'freely ye have received'? I think that's a big clue to the order which is necessary for knowing how to pray for others. Within it is hidden the truth that the person who has already received something from God, has previously exercised faith in the word he or she heard preached to him/her.

In the Old Testament, there are more clues to God's will:
Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.

Isaiah 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

Earlier in the chapter we read: 2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel. 4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. 5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. 8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!

Those thoughts from God are reminiscent of the testimony in the New Testament:
Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

We see in the array of verses above some of the basic clues scripture offers, as to how effective prayer can be. On certain matters, God has declared His favour in advance; in other matters, we have to wait on Him in prayer, until we know what to pray for.

Perhaps this is what Peter was doing here, in Acts 9:39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them. 40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning [him] to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. Harsh as it may sound, just because this lady was popular, and folk were upset at her death, didn't mean that to pray for her to be raised from the dead was the will of God. This seems to be what Jesus was saying in John 5 in a more general way.

But He backed it up with this interesting statement: Luke 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. 24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, [a city] of Sidon, unto a woman [that was] a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

The truth of the selectiveness of God's will for each individual minister, is further supported by what happened in Acts 3, set against the likelihood that Jesus had seen the same man, unhealed, many times: 1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth [hour]. 2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; 3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. 4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. 5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. 6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. 7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted [him] up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God: 10 [B]And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

Doesn't this raise another question? Is there any scriptural basis whatever, for the idea that whatever we want we will receive?

Shouldn't the first prayer be, 'What does God want?' before ever embarking on praying for a specific outcome?

I agree, sometimes it's blatantly obvious from God's commands what He will want in principle, but then other important components have to be factored in. For instance, if the parents of a sick child don't turn to God in prayer, isn't that a hindrance to the prayers of others for their child? (It might not be, but it might be.)

What about if a person who is sick is unwilling to confess the sin which is creating a barrier between them and God? Should God hear their prayers (or those of their friends) when the person upon whom the responsibility to seek God honestly on His terms, refuses to do that?

What about a person who knows the Lord, who has been used by Him to heal individuals from time to time, yet receives no leading to pray for a certain person who needs healing? Is there any scriptural reason to believe (after the incident at the Gate Beautiful) that God intends to heal every sick person on earth? We believe He would be able to, but we forget that the high level of success Jesus experienced was with a huge majority of people who left everything, and came to Him with their problem.

I wonder if your disenchantment with prayer is based on misinformation about what to expect from 'faith in God' which is not based on what I shall call 'the now of today' of His word to the pray-er?

I have the impression that there are people who believe once they have been used to heal one person one time, that the gift of healing is theirs, and they should (if they had enough faith), be able to heal anyone they like. I don't see this in scripture, though. I am not saying, 'Don't bother praying about things that distress, grieve, worry or concern you'; but I am saying that unless you know what you're praying is following God's leadership, how do you know you're praying aright? And, the answer may be difficult to discern. All the while, there are pray-ers who keep praying until they get a spiritual breakthrough, who claim to see all kinds of situations changed, simply by the power of prayer. For sure, the person who doesn't 'pray', can never make this claim.

Regarding Hong Kong and India, I have only second-hand information. I've looked online and found nothing. Jackie Pullinger's book Chasing the Dragon, and David Wilkerson's The Cross and the Switchblade, or, Come Out the Wilderness, would all give documented cases.

I understand your skepticism. David Wilkerson's drug rehabilitation centres in the US (and elsewhere) have an extraordinarily high success rate, but even after testifying in person to large conferences, doctors would stand up afterwards and speak as if he hadn't said a word about them. In the end, a horse can be led to water, but, it may just refuse to drink. In the end, that's the horse's problem.


:pray: