> General Discussions

How can I talk to a "literalist"???

<< < (4/4)

Bradigans:

--- Quote from: Bradigans on October 29, 2007, 12:03:41 PM ---All true born again (John 3:3, John 3:7) bonafide believers are literalist. Just not from a carnal perspective.

-1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

-2 Corinthians 5:7 - (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

It all depends on your perspective of literal...


--- End quote ---

God's perspective is always the literal (carries the most clout) perspective. This is why THE CHURCH is admonished in Ephesians 4:17-18 - This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart (spirit).

Here's another verse to consider.  Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Notice that i underlined and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Now that sounds literal. It's not imaginary. The faith of CHRIST isn't imaginary. That's the best perspective (the most literal perspective) that you can have.

Folks have warp views of what's literal (real) and what's not. Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.God's perspective is always the literal. It's just a matter of whether or not we've got the faith to see, embrace, and acknowledge it...

Deborah-Leigh:
Hello Bradigans

Perhaps this will add to how you are percieving Gods perspective. From http://bible-truths.com/kennedy2.htm

RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE

If a theologian can't see the "absolute" versus the "relative" in Scripture, he is in no position to teach anyone.

A little boys asks: "Why did God say in Gen. 3:9: 'Where art thou [Adam]?' Mommy says that God knows everything." (I Jn 3:20). You say, "Of course God knew where Adam was. Adam sinned. Adam felt bad. He thought he could hide from God. God was condescending to man's level. It was for Adam's benefit that God asked, 'Where art thou Adam?'" You say, "That's not a problem. That's easy to understand and answer. It's stupid to think that God didn't know where Adam was."

And, of course, we have Scriptural proof that God knew where Adam was because "He [God] knows all" (I Jn 3:20)

Neither did our Lord ask questions out of ignorance:

"Believe ye that I am able to do this?" (Matt. 9:28)

"Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48)

"How many loaves have ye?" (Matt. 15:34)

"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 116:13)

Christ asked dozens of questions during His ministry. But He already knew all the answers:

" ... because of His knowing ALL men ... " (Matt. 21:27).

Christ even answered questions by asking questions. The Pharisees asked why His disciples transgressed the "traditions." Our Lord knew how to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by asking: "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?" (Mat. 15:3)

This brings up another apparent contradiction, however, because Prov. 26:4 says: "answer not a fool according to his folly ... " Our Lord knew how to do that as well: "Neither am I telling you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mat. 21:27). These two scriptures in Proverbs should teach us to never pit one verse of Scripture against another. Verse 4 and 5 do not contradict. They are both true.

So if it's stupid to think that God didn't really know where Adam was, a relative statement condescending to man's level, isn't it then, likewise, stupid to believe that God contradicts Himself in the following verses:

 

THE RELATIVE:
 THE ABSOLUTE:
 
" ... seek, and ye shall find ... " (Mat. 7:7) "Not one is seeking out God" (Rom. 3:11)
"God changed His mind" (Ex. 32:14) "God is not a man Who changes His mind" (I Sam. 15:29)
" ... choose you this day whom ye will serve." (Josh. 24:15) "Ye have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you ... " (Jn. 15:16)
" ... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ... " (I Jn. 3:10) "All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18)
"Zechariah was just before God" (Lk. 1:5) (Comparing him to the corrupt priests) "Not one is just" (Rom. 3:10)
(Comparing man with God)

 

One is the "relative" the other is the "absolute." One is from man's point of view, comparing men with men, the other is from God's point of view. One shows how a thing is perceived while the other shows how it actually is. One is for minors while the other is for the mature.

Both Scriptures are true. The relative is true and the absolute is true. They do not contradict. However, one really is "relative" while the other is "absolute."

Theologians are always taking Scriptures that speak of the relative, from man's point of view, and insist that these verses are absolute. By doing this they commit a double sin. Because then they insist that these relative truths actually nullify God's absolute declarations. They won't admit to this in their own words, but this is what they do when they retain the "relative" at the expense of rejecting the "absolute."

Even theologians admit that their free will theory is limited. So they have invented "limited free will." They use analogies like a cow on a tether or a fly in a jar or a lion in a cage. Their freedom is limited to the confines of their restraints, but within those confines they are nonetheless, free. Is this true? Is there such a thing as "limited" free will? Or is this just more theological double-talk?

Only in religion do simple words lose their meaning. Let's look at Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary: Page 963, "limited, a. Restricted." Page 682, "free, a. without restriction." So here then is what theologians want us to believe: Man has a will that is restricted without restriction.

Man does not have "limited" free will. Otherwise God would have "limited" sovereignty. Man has no free will and God has total sovereignty. Theologians try to make high what is low and try to bring low what is high. These teachings do not glorify God.

Somebody has been taking William James too seriously. God is not sitting around waiting to see what man will do through his "free will" so that He can then figure out what to do about it. Rather than conclude from the "wisdom of the world" that man has a free will (and thus deny the sovereignty of God), we must conclude that since God is sovereign, man can not and does not have a free will. This is logical, sensible, and lawful. It is Scriptural and it glorifies God.

Theologians condemn scientists for their inability to see beyond the "relative" in our universe. Surely these scientists must see that a God must be behind everything. However, except for rare persons like Dr. Einstein, they can't.
 
 

Peace be to you

Arcturus :)

Kent:
Thank you all for your responses. I read them all. There is a lot of wisdom and experience in each of these responses.

It is hard to relate to people that have, in the past, believed in "hell", because I simply never believed in it. I just didnt know the answers, so I kept my mouth shut, knowing with absolute certainty that I would know, by faith, the answers in time. Now that I know, I can defend against this monstrous doctrine and it is hard to keep my mouth shut. ;) But I am learning.

It's not so much as I was trying to "win" an argument. I couldn't care less about that.
In that board I was posting at there are christians, satanists, atheists, agnostics, hindu, buddists, etc.
The non-christians already have a preconceived notion of what christians believe, and they want nothing to do with it, precisely because of this doctrine of demons called eternal hell, and some other doctrines you are all aware of.

My "argument" was more meant to show them that not all of us are like that, not to convince a self-proclaimed christian. Some of those people have dead loved ones and simply dont want to believe in a hell, and it seems that it is almost mandatory for all christians to believe in hell. Well, when someone comes in with that eternal hell doctrine, then I have a hard time in not responding to that, and to show that there is another perspective for them to consider. Then, the unbeliever can decide who "wins".

It's odd. I have more in common with agnostics it seems, than I do with other christians. They are much more open to these types of conversations and we go back and forth discussing things in a friendly manner. It's sad to say, but I have more hope for them than I do for those stuck in churchianity.

I threw some seed out there. I'll just have to wait and see if any of it grows and bears fruit.

Again, thank you all. I do appreciate it.
Kent

rvhill:
The thing about the inerrantist you have to remember is that they are idolaters. Their god is not the father or Jesus, but the book that they read.  The bible say that the word of God is with out error, and the word of God is Jesus. The Bible is not Jesus.

indianabob:
Friend Kent,
Thank you for the summary.  I have experienced the same thing and have gotten a more thoughtful and balanced response from "polite" non-believers in many instances.  It is very much harder to UN-learn memorized error than it is to consider new information with an open mind.

Of course the agnostic has limitations in that they are usually not yet being called, but they are also usually thinkers/doubters in that they don't believe men's theories or desire to join any group that will accept them.  True scientists are similar in that they are willing to grow and learn AFTER they receive their degree in philosophy  (PhD= piled higher and deeper)

Please share any new experiences with us as they occur.

indianabob




--- Quote from: Kent on October 29, 2007, 10:06:31 PM ---Thank you all for your responses. I read them all. There is a lot of wisdom and experience in each of these responses.

It is hard to relate to people that have, in the past, believed in "hell", because I simply never believed in it. I just didnt know the answers, so I kept my mouth shut, knowing with absolute certainty that I would know, by faith, the answers in time. Now that I know, I can defend against this monstrous doctrine and it is hard to keep my mouth shut. ;) But I am learning.

It's not so much as I was trying to "win" an argument. I couldn't care less about that.
In that board I was posting at there are christians, satanists, atheists, agnostics, hindu, buddists, etc.
The non-christians already have a preconceived notion of what christians believe, and they want nothing to do with it, precisely because of this doctrine of demons called eternal hell, and some other doctrines you are all aware of.

My "argument" was more meant to show them that not all of us are like that, not to convince a self-proclaimed christian. Some of those people have dead loved ones and simply dont want to believe in a hell, and it seems that it is almost mandatory for all christians to believe in hell. Well, when someone comes in with that eternal hell doctrine, then I have a hard time in not responding to that, and to show that there is another perspective for them to consider. Then, the unbeliever can decide who "wins".

It's odd. I have more in common with agnostics it seems, than I do with other christians. They are much more open to these types of conversations and we go back and forth discussing things in a friendly manner. It's sad to say, but I have more hope for them than I do for those stuck in churchianity.

I threw some seed out there. I'll just have to wait and see if any of it grows and bears fruit.

Again, thank you all. I do appreciate it.
Kent


--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page