God gave up the right to punish along with dominion.

[Greatest I am]

God gave up the right to punish along with dominion.

 

God, in Eden, gave man dominion over the whole earth and all the entities on it.

 

Some also believe that Satan was given dominion here. If the temptation of Jesus is believed to have literally happened then this supports the notion that Satan has dominion or the temptation was a farce that Jesus would have seen through. He did not deny Satan’s dominion.

 

If God gave dominion to man and it was somehow transferred to Satan, then God would have giving up any right that he would have to punish anyone here because he does no longer had dominion here.

 

As above so below indicates that if he can punish us and basically usurp the sovereignty of Satan or man, then this policy is what man should follow. This says that some other country coming to enforce their laws in our countries, would be allowed and proper. I cannot see any country allowing this and if they cannot, then God also cannot.

 

God is shown quite often as coming to earth and enforcing his laws. Sodom and the genocide in Noah’s day are prime examples of his doing so.

 

My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of my lips.

—Psalm 89:34

 

Who has dominion on earth?

 

Does God have a right to enforce his law?

 

If so, why?

 

If not, then is he breaking his own word?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[A Tripolation]

God gave up the right to punish along with dominion.

 

God, in Eden, gave man dominion over the whole earth and all the entities on it.

 

The store manager at the company I work for has dominion over the entire store and all of its employees. But the district manager has dominion over him, and in turn, over all the things the store manager has dominion of. Your premise is broken. The rest of your post is irrelevant. Try again.

Edited September 27, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Dekan]

God is shown quite often as coming to earth and enforcing his laws. Sodom and the genocide in Noah's day are prime examples of his doing so.

 

But Greatest, surely the examples you cite, Sodom and the Flood, don't show God enforcing His laws. They show Him punishing people for disobeying His Law.

 

And that is the crucial difference. Obviously God could force us to obey Him. But of what value would such obedience be, if forced upon us?

We would be nothing but robots, forced to obey God's programming. No - God wants us to behave righteously, and obey His laws, of our own free will. He wants us to choose to do the right thing, because it is right. Not because He's forced us to do it.

 

He has offered us plenty of guidance on what is the right thing. Guidance is provided by the Bible - and especially, by lucid advice straight from the lips of His personal representative on Earth, Jesus Christ. How much more can we ask for?

 

But at the end of the day, it's up to us to choose. If despite all the good advice, we still choose to behave badly - of our own free will - then it seems to me, that God's acting entirely within His rights to punish us.

[Greatest I am]

The store manager at the company I work for has dominion over the entire store and all of its employees. But the district manager has dominion over him, and in turn, over all the things the store manager has dominion of. Your premise is broken. The rest of your post is irrelevant. Try again.

 

This tells me that you cannot refute the premise and have run from an actual discussion.

I have seen what you had to offer elsewhere and would not learn anything from what you have to say in the first place.

I also see that you do not wish to learn.

 

Regards

DL

 

But Greatest, surely the examples you cite, Sodom and the Flood, don't show God enforcing His laws. They show Him punishing people for disobeying His Law.

 

Exactly the point. He is enforcing his law but his law is not the law of the land.

 

Man’s law is the law of the land since man has sovereignty here. Not God. He gave it up.

 

England gave India back it’s sovereignty. What do you think the Indians would do if England decided to return whenever they want, and where their laws conflict with the Indian one, decided to impose their rules and punishments?

 

You know quite well what would happen. War. Yet you would have man just roll over when God does it.

 

And that is the crucial difference.

 

What difference.

 

When a judge punishes a criminal, is that not part of the process of enforcing the law. Certainly it is. It begins with a police arrest and ends in a sentence when the person is found guilty.

 

Obviously God could force us to obey Him. But of what value would such obedience be, if forced upon us?

 

That is not obvious at all. He would have to stop hiding wherever he is.

 

Do you see his form of free choice -----do things my way or burn forever----as a true free unhindered choice.

 

It is a threat demanding compliance.

 

 

We would be nothing but robots, forced to obey God's programming. No - God wants us to behave righteously, and obey His laws, of our own free will. He wants us to choose to do the right thing, because it is right. Not because He's forced us to do it.

 

Then he should not threaten us with hell.

 

He has offered us plenty of guidance on what is the right thing. Guidance is provided by the Bible - and especially, by lucid advice straight from the lips of His personal representative on Earth, Jesus Christ. How much more can we ask for?

 

But at the end of the day, it's up to us to choose. If despite all the good advice, we still choose to behave badly - of our own free will - then it seems to me, that God's acting entirely within His rights to punish us.

 

 

Only if you deny that he gave man dominion here.

Is that what you are doing?

 

 

Would you really like to live under the laws of your God?

 

 

Regards

DL

[A Tripolation]

This tells me that you cannot refute the premise and have run from an actual discussion.

 

No need to refute it. I have shown that it is broken. If A has dominion over X, and B has dominion over A, then B has dominion over X as well. It is not my fault if you cannot follow such elementary logic.

[deluxe]

God gave up the right to punish along with dominion.

 

God, in Eden, gave man dominion over the whole earth and all the entities on it.

 

Some also believe that Satan was given dominion here. If the temptation of Jesus is believed to have literally happened then this supports the notion that Satan has dominion or the temptation was a farce that Jesus would have seen through. He did not deny Satan's dominion.

 

If God gave dominion to man and it was somehow transferred to Satan, then God would have giving up any right that he would have to punish anyone here because he does no longer had dominion here.

 

As above so below indicates that if he can punish us and basically usurp the sovereignty of Satan or man, then this policy is what man should follow. This says that some other country coming to enforce their laws in our countries, would be allowed and proper. I cannot see any country allowing this and if they cannot, then God also cannot.

 

God is shown quite often as coming to earth and enforcing his laws. Sodom and the genocide in Noah's day are prime examples of his doing so.

 

My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of my lips.

—Psalm 89:34

 

Who has dominion on earth?

 

Does God have a right to enforce his law?

 

If so, why?

 

If not, then is he breaking his own word?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

But what some have missed about this, is, that God gave Satan and man a determined time before God would step in. ( because he knew how it would turn out)

 

So, right from the 1st prophecy in the bible, God told us all the he would takes Satan's influence over man away from him. And those people that want to follow God and not this system ( under Satan), would have that opportunity, to do so. That is what Armageddon is about.

 

 

 

But the bible also says very few really want to serve God the way he requires. That has alsways been the case. If you look at the flood, 8 people survived out of a approxiatly 1million. Abraham was the only one, Job also was singled out, when Jesus came he did not go to the religious leaders he started with only himself and choose a few, to follow him.( which grew in time)

 

The vast amjourity follow Satans world.

So God is not to blame, for the mess we see. People can only blame themselves and Satan. God is our ownly way out.

[Greatest I am]

But what some have missed about this, is, that God gave Satan and man a determined time before God would step in. ( because he knew how it would turn out)

 

So, right from the 1st prophecy in the bible, God told us all the he would takes Satan's influence over man away from him. And those people that want to follow God and not this system ( under Satan), would have that opportunity, to do so. That is what Armageddon is about.

 

 

 

But the bible also says very few really want to serve God the way he requires. That has alsways been the case. If you look at the flood, 8 people survived out of a approxiatly 1million. Abraham was the only one, Job also was singled out, when Jesus came he did not go to the religious leaders he started with only himself and choose a few, to follow him.( which grew in time)

 

The vast amjourity follow Satans world.

So God is not to blame, for the mess we see. People can only blame themselves and Satan. God is our ownly way out.

 

 

Do you blame people for not following the guidance and laws from your God?

 

 

Hell, they are quite barbaric.

 

He tells us to follow his genocidal ways and even kills his own son for a ransom that he himself set.

Your God is insane.

 

 

Will you follow him that far? If so, then you need a shrink.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[deluxe]

Do you blame people for not following the guidance and laws from your God?

 

 

Hell, they are quite barbaric.

 

He tells us to follow his genocidal ways and even kills his own son for a ransom that he himself set.

Your God is insane.

 

 

Will you follow him that far? If so, then you need a shrink.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

The bible says God gave his son because he loved the world so much. Jesus did it willing.

We can learn allot form this.

God set in place away to redeem mankind.Adam lost a perfect life, Jesus gave that back

Satan's taunt to God was man will only serve God for what they get out of him, when it came to they life they would be disloyal. ( to save themselves)

Jesus proved that wrong.

 

So you could think that would you give up your son for people other people, is that was the only way to save their life? Jesus did that willing for his Father, and for man. Even though he would suffer, as a human. It also shows that God, uses legal means, a life for a life.

[mooeypoo]

The bible says God gave his son because he loved the world so much. Jesus did it willing.

We can learn allot form this.

God set in place away to redeem mankind.Adam lost a perfect life, Jesus gave that back

Wouldn't that mean we should have a perfect life now? Adam lost a perfect life in Eden, Jesus gave it back--- to who, exactly?

 

Satan's taunt to God was man will only serve God for what they get out of him, when it came to they life they would be disloyal. ( to save themselves)

Jesus proved that wrong.

... how? And, I'm sorry, but what do you mean with "Satan's Taunt"? For that matter, how do you know what's Satan's 'taunt' and what is God's will? I was always confused on the matter of Satan and God, but that is a different subject. What bugs me in this particular case though is that you seem to know EXACTLY what God did versus what Satan did, and yet its not like God did only good things and Satan did the bad things -- God did quite a number of bad things too... so how could you differentiate between what Satan "Taunt" is and what God's will/plan is?

 

If you can't, by the way, it seems to render the "Jesus proving that wrong" statement rather moot.

 

That said, you are raising another point about the dominion and the right to punish by bringing up Satan. If Satan is so adamant in making people's lives hell (or rather in pushing them towards hell) doesn't that, in itself, take away from God's dominion? If you have full dominion over something, it comes with full control (by definition) -- and yet, Satan is out there in the world messing up God's plan.

 

So if Satan exists and works against God, either God does not have dominion, or God likes Satan's work (in which case we go to whether or not God good at all and that lovely familiar argument) or Satan doesn't exist and it's all God's big plan to confuse us (in which case how can you trust ANY of the text).

 

Which is it?

 

So you could think that would you give up your son for people other people, is that was the only way to save their life? Jesus did that willing for his Father, and for man. Even though he would suffer, as a human. It also shows that God, uses legal means, a life for a life.

 

 

I'm not clear on what you're saying in this last point.

 

~mooey

[deluxe]

Wouldn't that mean we should have a perfect life now? Adam lost a perfect life in Eden, Jesus gave it back--- to who, exactly?

 

 

... how? And, I'm sorry, but what do you mean with "Satan's Taunt"? For that matter, how do you know what's Satan's 'taunt' and what is God's will? I was always confused on the matter of Satan and God, but that is a different subject. What bugs me in this particular case though is that you seem to know EXACTLY what God did versus what Satan did, and yet its not like God did only good things and Satan did the bad things -- God did quite a number of bad things too... so how could you differentiate between what Satan "Taunt" is and what God's will/plan is?

 

If you can't, by the way, it seems to render the "Jesus proving that wrong" statement rather moot.

 

That said, you are raising another point about the dominion and the right to punish by bringing up Satan. If Satan is so adamant in making people's lives hell (or rather in pushing them towards hell) doesn't that, in itself, take away from God's dominion? If you have full dominion over something, it comes with full control (by definition) -- and yet, Satan is out there in the world messing up God's plan.

 

So if Satan exists and works against God, either God does not have dominion, or God likes Satan's work (in which case we go to whether or not God good at all and that lovely familiar argument) or Satan doesn't exist and it's all God's big plan to confuse us (in which case how can you trust ANY of the text).

 

Which is it?

 

 

 

 

I'm not clear on what you're saying in this last point.

 

~mooey

Jesus gave the opportunity for man to get back perfect life ( no death). But God allowed, man to rule himself, with all the rulerships, they tried over the centuries. God set the time for a change of government ( Satan's) back to himself. This would be just before man totally ruined the earth. ( God knew man would get to that point)

 

That time is about up.( the bible is full of prophecies about that time period.)

The bible calls that Armageddon.

 

The first lie, that was told was in the garden of Eden. When Satan told Eve that God lied and they would not die. Well we see the result today. We do die.

 

Satans taunt to God is recorded at with Job.

 

Job 1:8-2:3

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

⁸And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" ⁹Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason? ¹⁰Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ¹¹But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." ¹²And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

 

 

 

 

You see from this that Satan said God was protecting Job. But if the protection was not there Job would abandoned God. This is the same for all men.

 

 

 

 

So God gave man the time to test out this taunt from Satan. That is the period we have been in since Adam and Eve. So when Satan is done away with, no one will ever be able to say man did not have a chance to go his own way. So when God dose, in and takes back the rule of the world from Satan, this question can never be asked again. Because we have the answer.

 

Jesus death proved Satan a lier . Because Jesus was perfect like Adam and Jesus never sinned and he prove faithful to death.

 

 

Gods plan has never changed. It always was for man to fill the earth with perfect people, and make it a paradise. That is what will happen. Nothing will change that. God set his rest day for this to be accomplished. This has not changed, at the end of the rest day, the earth will be filled with perfect people and it will be a paradise.

 

Satan took over ruling the world on his own and man followed him. But Gods purpose still remains the same. He gives all men a choice of who they will follow. Most don't want, God's rule, because it means a change in life style and accountability. But some do. In the end only the people that want will survive. That will fulfill the prophecies.

 

 

 

 

God allowed Satan to rule for a time, because man ( because Adam chose Satan). But God will take that rulership away, from Satan. That is what Armageddon is all about.

Edited October 11, 2011 by deluxe

[Greatest I am]

The bible says God gave his son because he loved the world so much. Jesus did it willing.

We can learn allot form this.

God set in place away to redeem mankind.Adam lost a perfect life, Jesus gave that back

Satan's taunt to God was man will only serve God for what they get out of him, when it came to they life they would be disloyal. ( to save themselves)

Jesus proved that wrong.

 

So you could think that would you give up your son for people other people, is that was the only way to save their life? Jesus did that willing for his Father, and for man. Even though he would suffer, as a human. It also shows that God, uses legal means, a life for a life.

 

The only way!!!

 

You limit your God. Tsk tsk.

 

Sripture also refutes your claim but you do not care about scriptures to begin with.

 

 

Regards

DL

 

 

Satan took over ruling the world on his own and man followed him. But Gods purpose still remains the same. He gives all men a choice of who they will follow. Most don't want, God's rule, because it means a change in life style and accountability. But some do. In the end only the people that want will survive. That will fulfill the prophecies.

 

 

 

 

God allowed Satan to rule for a time, because man ( because Adam chose Satan). But God will take that rulership away, from Satan. That is what Armageddon is all about.

 

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

If your God is stupid enough to let satan, who can deceive the whole world run free after God created his prison, then he is insane.

 

A farmer does not put the fox in the chicken coop unless he wants his chickens eaten.

 

If that is the case with your God, then he is just as big a fool as scriptures make him out to be.

 

Your last make s your God an Indian giver and this makes you proud of him. Yuk.

 

Regards.

 

DL

 

 

[deluxe]

The only way!!!

 

You limit your God. Tsk tsk.

 

Sripture also refutes your claim but you do not care about scriptures to begin with.

 

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

If your God is stupid enough to let satan, who can deceive the whole world run free after God created his prison, then he is insane.

 

A farmer does not put the fox in the chicken coop unless he wants his chickens eaten.

 

If that is the case with your God, then he is just as big a fool as scriptures make him out to be.

 

Your last make s your God an Indian giver and this makes you proud of him. Yuk.

 

Regards.

 

DL

 

 

 

It was a perfect life lost, gained back by a perfect life.

The question at hand was loyalty. A perfect man became dislyoal. Jesus as a perfect man was loyal.

Man being disloyal , meant that a question was raised, does God have the right to rule. Or can man ruled by Satan also work.

Satan said it could, and man chose him over God. The time had to be taken to prove this point. This is for the Angels and man. Sop man was allowed to go his own way. We see the results.

 

So now in the future no one can say we could have done OK on our own. The question is answered for all time. So when God takes way the rulership of Satan and those following him, and restablishes, God rule, no one ever can say, we didn't have the chance to do it on our own.

We are not robots, programed to follow God, he gave us the choice. He also gave us the opportunity, to get the results of that choice.

 

There are people all through history that did want to serve God. So the question is when do they get the chance, to live under Gods perfect rule. Without death without wars.

So as for justice, many have a life, that they can choose one way or the other. It is fair that God gave man time to see the results, but it is also justice, to remove the ones that don't want it. So when when some ask for justice, they should look into what that means, for them.

It has been known for many centuries that there was a time set for justice, and it will happen exactly when it should. It is not late or forgotten about. it just had to get to the point that if God did not step in man would ruin himself and the earth. Were getting close. And the scientists have been a big part of the problem.

[mooeypoo]

The only way!!!

 

You limit your God. Tsk tsk.

...

 

Your last make s your God an Indian giver and this makes you proud of him. Yuk.

 

Tsk tsk on your attitude, you're not making it easy to agree with what you're saying, and I seem to be more or less on your side.

 

Let me just remind you that my "tsk tsk" has a bit more teeth. Pleas go over our rules, Greatest I am, and don't make the staff take action here for your blatant disregard of our rules -- especially in the religion forum, which we hold in even higher standards of discussion.

 

We can have a discussion without personal attacks, soap boxing, preaching and patronizing. I promise you, it's possible.

 

~mooey

 

Jesus gave the opportunity for man to get back perfect life ( no death). But God allowed, man to rule himself, with all the rulerships, they tried over the centuries. God set the time for a change of government ( Satan's) back to himself. This would be just before man totally ruined the earth. ( God knew man would get to that point)

So wait, Satan is the government? Is it ALWAYS the government regardless of what the government does, or is it just a secular government? If we elect a religious government of your particular flavoring (whatever your denomination is) will it still be Satanic just because it's a government?

 

 

I'm tryingt o make the point that *you* seem to know exactly what God says and what Satan is, and yet your conditions are vague and seem to depend on your personal views rather than on rules that are clearly separable between good ("God", supposedly) and EVIL.

 

If you can't make this distinction clear, it's hard to say who has dominion over the earth - Man, Satan, or God - and who gave it up.

 

That time is about up.( the bible is full of prophecies about that time period.)

The bible calls that Armageddon.

Actually, the bible is *full* of predictions that are very vague and did not come true, either. But let's gloss over that part of the sake of sticking to the topic.

 

Armageddon is not what English-speaking christians seem to claim it is. Armageddon comes from "Har Megido" in the *original* hebrew/aramaic bible. That would be "Tel Megiddo" (which is actually a very beautiful place to go hiking, see some pics here http://en.wikipedia....iki/Tel_Megiddo) This place was an important route through history and saw its share of conquest, each conqueror flattening out the town and building a new one on top of it (which is why in our current day it is a mound). It's built on a layer of approximately 26 flattened-out-towns.

 

Let me quote wikipedia here:

Megiddo is mentioned twelve times in the Old Testament, ten times in reference to the ancient city ofMegiddo, and twice with reference to "the plain of Megiddo", most probably simply meaning "the plain next to the city".^[6] None of these Old Testament passages describe the city of Megiddo as being associated with any particular prophetic beliefs. The one New Testament reference to the city of Armageddon found in Revelation 16:16 in fact also makes no specific mention of any armies being predicted to one day gather in this city, but instead seems to predict only that "they (will gather) the kings together to .... Armageddon.^[7]" The text does however seem to imply, based on the text from the earlier passage of Revelation 16:14, that the purpose of this gathering of kings in the "place called Armageddon" might be so that these kings could do battle with one another.

 

So Armageddon isn't quite armageddon in the bible.

There goes that prophecy.

 

The first lie, that was told was in the garden of Eden. When Satan told Eve that God lied and they would not die. Well we see the result today. We do die.

 

 

Hang on a second, Satan told Adam and Even the truth. He told them that God lied to them, and that if they eat the fruit they actually will NOT die. They ate the tree and did not die. They "die today" because God kicked them OUT of Eden. Read the text, it's quite clear. The lie wasn't satan's, it was God's.

 

I will also gloss over the question of who let the serpent *into* Eden if God is almighty, powerful and all-good. That's an old question and I assume you have a few ready-made answers. We can discuss those in another thread (I am pretty sure we have a few of those open already).

 

You decided to interpret the text to say that God is the true-speaking one, but CLEARLY he lied to adam and eve because they did NOT die when they ate the fruit. The first lie is God's.

 

Satans taunt to God is recorded at with Job.

Job 1:8-2:3

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

⁸And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" ⁹Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason? ¹⁰Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ¹¹But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." ¹²And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

 

 

We can argue about that too, by the way, as Jews claim a completely different interpretation for this, but I will (again) gloss over on that issue.

 

The point is that even if Satan was the taunter, God was the ACTION taker. If I stand next to a bully and bet him that he can break every bone in your body, the fault is with me, but if the bully goes on and breaks every bone in your body, the fault is with him too.

 

God wanted to play. God played. This whole idea that many Christians have that God's this benevolent lovely true all good creature despite Job always baffled me. I can accept "Almighty". But he succombed to Satan's taunts and tortures the hell out of Job for no other reason than to prove a point *to Satan* (not even to "teach job" or any other reason like that). This would not pass any ethical reviews for anyone else other than God, so I don't quite understand how god passes that at all.

 

Also, take a look at that last bit there. God tells Satan not to interfere with Job's life. God says *I* will do it. So this isn't a case where God stands aside to see Satan mess things up and test Job's resolve. This is a case where God *actively* plays the Devil.

 

And you say you can absolutely and with certainty separate what acts are "Satan's" and what acts are "God's" ? How, if there are cases where God is acting as if he's Satan, for whatever reason?

 

You see from this that Satan said God was protecting Job. But if the protection was not there Job would abandoned God. This is the same for all men.

You call this protecting? He goes on to kill his children, his crop, his wives, give him disease.... that's protection?

 

So God gave man the time to test out this taunt from Satan. That is the period we have been in since Adam and Eve. So when Satan is done away with, no one will ever be able to say man did not have a chance to go his own way. So when God dose, in and takes back the rule of the world from Satan, this question can never be asked again. Because we have the answer.

No no no.

 

See, if God would have stood aside and let Satan do all these horrible things -- maybe we'd have a point of argument here. I'd still argue that this makes God immoral (any person standing aside of such horrific acts when they have the power to stop them is immoral, in my view) but I would at least admit that this is Satan's work.

 

But it isn't the case. Satan didn't touch Job. Satan looks from the sidelines as God torments Job.

 

God does not give man "time to test out this taunt from satan", God actively torments man. How is this an analogy to our day and age, unless you claim God is actively tormenting the entire population of the earth to test our faiths? If that's the case, I'd say we have a problem with dominion in general, since it's clear he has no intention to let man control ANYTHING if he's the one taking things away and tormenting people.

 

Your analogy falls short.

 

Jesus death proved Satan a lier . Because Jesus was perfect like Adam and Jesus never sinned and he prove faithful to death.

How is that? Jesus was sent by God, he wasn't really a man. So God proved Satan a liar by sending his own son (or.. himself.. however that goes) to prove that he's right.

 

That's a nice trick, but it's not really proof of lie.

 

That said, we could also read the end of Job and come to a clear conclusion that God (by being a horrific tormentor) proved Satan wrong, because Job remained loyal to God despite the torments. Why do we need yet another proof? Why does GOD need another proof? He's all-powerful and all-knowing, does he have such low self esteem that he needs to boost his ego with repeated evidence cases?

 

Gods plan has never changed. It always was for man to fill the earth with perfect people, and make it a paradise. That is what will happen. Nothing will change that. God set his rest day for this to be accomplished. This has not changed, at the end of the rest day, the earth will be filled with perfect people and it will be a paradise.

Now you're the one who's preaching. I am not quite sure how to answer the above other than tell you that there's no way for you to know that, especially when there are so many cases where Satan and God's actions are indistinguishable. Unless you claim you have a direct line to God (and, of course,can prove so) I don't see how you can claim to know any of his plans. Or how you can claim you know which plan is the REAL plan versus which one is the fake one Satan is trying to confuse us with.

 

How do you know it's not the other way around?

 

 

Satan took over ruling the world on his own and man followed him. But Gods purpose still remains the same. He gives all men a choice of who they will follow. Most don't want, God's rule, because it means a change in life style and accountability. But some do. In the end only the people that want will survive. That will fulfill the prophecies.

What? Where? Show me in the bible where this is written. I can tell you it's not written in the "Old" testament, for a fact, since "Satan" isn't quite the devil Christians seem to make of it at all, but other than that, I am not quite sure where you see Satan took over the world in teh new testament either. Please give references to that.

 

However, even if this is true, this right there makes your whole argument moot. If Satan took over the world, the Satan has dominion, which means God GAVE UP dominion. If God still has dominion, it means he has control. He's obviously strong enough (being omnipotent) to prevent Satan from doing his tricks -- let alone take over *RULING* it -- and yet, if Satan is RULING the earth, he has dominion.

 

And if Satan has dominion over the world DESPITE the fact God is omnipotent, it only means God gave it to him (or let him have it). This means he has the merit of rule, which also means he has the right to punish -- this is something that comes from the right of ruling. Which means God lost that right when he gave it away to Satan.

 

You can't eat the cake and leave it whole. Which is it?

 

God allowed Satan to rule for a time, because man ( because Adam chose Satan). But God will take that rulership away, from Satan. That is what Armageddon is all about.

That's not what the bible says armageddon is about.

That's not what the bible says God has done. Nowhere does it say God gave up his ruling to Satan.

 

EVEN if that's the case, though, then the only conclusion here is that God gave up his ruling (even if it's temporary as you claim) and hence gave up dominion, and hence gave up the right to punish.

 

Which makes your own argument agree with the initial premise of this thread.

 

So either agree with it (even temporarily until Jesus returns to kill all the nay-sayers) or explain yourself better.

 

~mooey

 

The store manager at the company I work for has dominion over the entire store and all of its employees. But the district manager has dominion over him, and in turn, over all the things the store manager has dominion of. Your premise is broken. The rest of your post is irrelevant. Try again.

 

I see what you did there, and I respect your logic. However, I am not quite sure it fits here. Entities (human and, supposedly, superhuman/gods/whatever) can give up their dominion in practice even if they have a right to it. It's done all the time in hierarchical companies, like, for instance, the army.

 

A General has dominion over his subordinate Captain, who has dominion over his Lieutenant.

Obviously, it means the General has dominion over the Lieutenant, in principle, but the entire point is that the General gives up that right for practical reasons so that the Captain can operate well. It goes as far as to have rules against "interfering" with command structure; so a General is *able* to command the Lieutenant, but most armies have some sort of rule in place to make it go trhough the Captain.

 

The Captain has to follow the order, but it's up to him as to HOW to do it, which is given to him by his dominion. Rarely do you get a General giving an order about a *particular* soldier; you will get orders that are about a task or what to do -- the Captain has dominion even though he must follow teh direction of the person who has dominion over him.

 

I'm hoping I made it clear enough. The idea is that while the General is still "above" the Lieutenant and, in principle, could "break the chain of command" and go directly to him to control him, he, in essence and practicality gave up his PRACTICAL dominion.

 

 

 

In this sense, God might be able to reassert dominion (that's a given even just by the idea that he's omnipotent) but it is completely possible for him (or her...) to have given it up to someone else provisionally.

 

Does this make sense?

[deluxe]

Moneypoo wrote:

 

So wait, Satan is the government? Is it ALWAYS the government regardless of what the government does, or is it just a secular government? If we elect a religious government of your particular flavoring (whatever your denomination is) will it still be Satanic just because it's a government?

 

It is not only the governments, it is financial, religious, the philosophy, and entertainment of the world.

 

 

Ephesians 2:2 (GOD’S WORD Translation)

 

Ephesians 2:2GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

 

²You followed the ways of this present world and its spiritual ruler. This ruler continues to work in people who refuse to obey God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ephesians 2:2

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

²wherein in times 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Romans 12:2

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

²And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God

 

Here are just 2 scriptures.

 

When the bible says prince of the power of the air, the prince is Satan, and it is talking about the atmosphere of this Satanic world. It pervades everything in this world. governments, religions, thinking, entertainment, financial, etc etc.

So what you see today and in the past is not God's way at all. But is Satan's and man's way. Does this not make sense when you look at the world?

You can't blame God for this system, it is man's choice and Satan as a ruler.

 

[mooeypoo]

You're putting your own interpretation. It's nice, but I can do the same by stating the exact opposite and we will be stuck in a permanent tie.

All of those are vague. "Ruler" can be God when he's good and Satan when he's bad, and yet God acts badly quite a lot.

 

You skipped about 90% of what I answered you, I ask that you go over my post and try again, I'm not going to participate in a one-sided discussion, I raised good points, you should be able to answer them.

 

Also, I'm mooeypoo, not moneypoo. It's only rudimentary respect to copy/paste a nickname you think is hard to pronounce or write.

[deluxe]

You're putting your own interpretation. It's nice, but I can do the same by stating the exact opposite and we will be stuck in a permanent tie.

All of those are vague. "Ruler" can be God when he's good and Satan when he's bad, and yet God acts badly quite a lot.

 

You skipped about 90% of what I answered you, I ask that you go over my post and try again, I'm not going to participate in a one-sided discussion, I raised good points, you should be able to answer them.

 

Also, I'm mooeypoo, not moneypoo. It's only rudimentary respect to copy/paste a nickname you think is hard to pronounce or write.

 

Actually the bible is written so that there is only one interpretation. It interprets itself.

I know I missed some things you wrote I will answer those, soon as get caught up.

[mooeypoo]

Actually the bible is written so that there is only one interpretation. It interprets itself.

I know I missed some things you wrote I will answer those, soon as get caught up.

 

Of course it does, that's why there's only one Judeo-Christian interpretation and one single denomination.

[nath88nael]

 

So if Satan exists and works against God, either God does not have dominion, or God likes Satan's work (in which case we go to whether or not God good at all and that lovely familiar argument) or Satan doesn't exist and it's all God's big plan to confuse us (in which case how can you trust ANY of the text).

 

Earth is God's "refinery".

Earth is a place where doubt is cast and options given in order to sift the good from the bad.

We have the ability to Observe, analyze, and recreate the things we see

 

A Person has no choice but to propagate the essence of himself.

(He is lazy, others see his laziness)

(He is Sad, others see his sadness)

This is the foundation of the phrase "A tree bears fruit acoording to it's kind"

This is foundation of the paradox "A person can't -actually- be doing -nothing-"

 

People have no choice but to act as sounding boards for emotions, ideas, and abstracts

 

 

"godly" things are those which bring us closer to achieving cohesion with everyone else

"devilish" things are those which separate us spiritually

 

 

 

All of our consciousnesses are linked and all of our spirits are cut from the same cloth.

The goal is to understand that, and live according to that knowledge.

 

 

Wouldn't that mean we should have a perfect life now? Adam lost a perfect life in Eden, Jesus gave it back--- to who, exactly?

 

 

Jesus lived a very "exemplary" life. All of the decisions he made, all of his actions and words, were done with the intention of bringing people's spirits together.

Sometimes he would challenge establishments which created structures that (when adhered to) would drive people apart.

 

It is still a matter of personal action for each of us to be "saved". "Salvation" is like happiness. there are ways to achieve a higher "base level" of it, a more perfect standard below which one consciously avoids falling, but to truely reach higher they must exhibit intuitive acts under stressful and unfamiliar conditions.

[deluxe]

moneypoo wrote

 

I'm tryingt o make the point that *you* seem to know exactly what God says and what Satan is, and yet your conditions are vague and seem to depend on your personal views rather than on rules that are clearly separable between good ("God", supposedly) and EVIL.

 

If you can't make this distinction clear, it's hard to say who has dominion over the earth - Man, Satan, or God - and who gave it up.

 

The bible tells us allot of what is going on. That means who in ruling the earth. For example. It gives example from real life what happens when people do their own thing. You know learn from history. Jesus was a perfect example for us. So we see from that what God expects from us. The bible was written about the people of that time, but is for the people of the time of the end.

 

Actually, the bible is *full* of predictions that are very vague and did not come true, either. But let's gloss over that part of the sake of sticking to the topic.

 

Armageddon is not what English-speaking christians seem to claim it is. Armageddon comes from "Har Megido" in the *original* hebrew/aramaic bible. That would be "Tel Megiddo" (which is actually a very beautiful place to go hiking, see some pics here http://en.wikipedia....iki/Tel_Megiddo) This place was an important route through history and saw its share of conquest, each conqueror flattening out the town and building a new one on top of it (which is why in our current day it is a mound). It's built on a layer of approximately 26 flattened-out-towns.

 

Armageddon or Har–Ma‧ged′on) [from Heb., meaning “Mountain of Megiddo”] The term applies specifically to the condition, or situation, to which “the kings of the entire inhabited earth” are gathered in opposition to God and his Kingdom by Jesus Christ. In a number of versions it is rendered “Armageddon".

The word 'mountain' in the bible figuratively means God's kingdom or rulership. ( government)

 

There does not appear to have been a literal place called “Mountain of Megiddo,” either inside or outside the Promised Land, before or during the days of the apostle John, who recorded the vision. Hence, Har–Magedon draws its significance from the events associated with the ancient city of Megiddo.

Megiddo was situated a few miles SE of Mount Carmel, overlooking and dominating the Plain of Esdraelon (Jezreel) and controlling major N-S and E-W trade and military routes. Joshua first conquered this Canaanite city. (Jos 12:7, 8, 21) Near this site Jabin’s army under command of Sisera was later destroyed. God there employed natural forces to assist the Israelite army under Barak.

 

It was at Megiddo that King Ahaziah of Judah died after he was mortally wounded on orders of Jehu. (2Ki 9:27) There King Josiah of Judah was killed in an encounter with Pharaoh Nechoh. (2Ki 23:29, 30) Because of its commanding position, many other nations, according to secular history, warred around Megiddo. ‘Jews, Gentiles, Saracens, crusaders, Egyptians, Persians, Druses, Turks, and Arabs have all pitched their tents on the plain of Esdraelon.’

—Word Studies in the New Testament, by M. R. Vincent, 1957, Vol. II, p. 542.

 

Har–Magedon.” (Re 16:16) In the Bible to′pos may refer to a literal location (Mt 14:13, 15, 35); or to one’s opportunity, or “chance” (Ac 25:16); or to a figurative realm, condition, or situation (Re 12:6, 14). In view of the context, it is to a “place” in the last-mentioned sense that earth’s combined military powers are marching

 

 

Revelation 16:14

American Standard Version (ASV)

 

 

 

¹⁴ for they are spirits of demons, working signs; which go forth unto the kings of the whole world, to gather them together unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.

 

 

 

 

So what this is saying is that all the kings ( governments) of the earth will be gathered together, to face God. That is what Armageddon is. God's war against the governments of this world and Satan. God's government will take over.

 

 

 

 

There are many prophecies in the bible and they are, and all are shown to be fulled. Though there are some that yet have to take place. But the vast majority have been fulfilled.

 

 

 

 

Moneypoo wrote

 

Hang on a second, Satan told Adam and Even the truth. He told them that God lied to them, and that if they eat the fruit they actually will NOT die. They ate the tree and did not die. They "die today" because God kicked them OUT of Eden. Read the text, it's quite clear. The lie wasn't satan's, it was God's.

 

I will also gloss over the question of who let the serpent *into* Eden if God is almighty, powerful and all-good. That's an old question and I assume you have a few ready-made answers. We can discuss those in another thread (I am pretty sure we have a few of those open already).

 

You decided to interpret the text to say that God is the true-speaking one, but CLEARLY he lied to adam and eve because they did NOT die when they ate the fruit. The first lie is God's.

 

 

Genesis 2:15-17

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

¹⁵And the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

 

¹⁶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

 

 

¹⁷but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

 

 

 

 

 

2 Peter 3:8

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

⁸But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Genesis 5:5

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

⁵And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

 

 

 

 

So Adam died at 930 years with in the 1,000 year 'day' of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you see how the bible interprets itself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moneypoo wrote

 

No no no.

 

See, if God would have stood aside and let Satan do all these horrible things -- maybe we'd have a point of argument here. I'd still argue that this makes God immoral (any person standing aside of such horrific acts when they have the power to stop them is immoral, in my view) but I would at least admit that this is Satan's work.

 

But it isn't the case. Satan didn't touch Job. Satan looks from the sidelines as God torments Job.

 

God does not give man "time to test out this taunt from satan", God actively torments man. How is this an analogy to our day and age, unless you claim God is actively tormenting the entire population of the earth to test our faiths? If that's the case, I'd say we have a problem with dominion in general, since it's clear he has no intention to let man control ANYTHING if he's the one taking things away and tormenting people.

 

Your analogy falls short.

 

 

 

Job 1:7-12

Amplified Bible (AMP)

 

⁷And the Lord said to Satan, From where did you come? Then Satan answered the Lord, From going to and fro on the earth and from walking up and down on it.

 

⁸And the Lord said to Satan, Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who [reverently] fears God and abstains from and shuns evil [because it is wrong]?

 

⁹Then Satan answered the Lord, Does Job [reverently] fear God for nothing?

 

¹⁰Have You not put a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have conferred prosperity and happiness upon him in the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.

 

¹¹But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has, and he will curse You to Your face.

 

¹²And the Lord said to Satan (the adversary and the accuser), Behold, all that he has is in your power, only upon the man himself put not forth your hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.

 

It wasn't God that harmed Job it was Satan. God only told Satan not to kill him. Job lost everything, but that was by Satan's hand, not Gods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God has given man about 6,000 years to go their own way. And it definitely has ended up badly. If God does not step in man will end up destroying himself. That is just as the bible says. That prophecy is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecclesiastes 8:9

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

⁹All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein a man ruleth over another to his own hurt.

 

 

 

 

This is true.

 

 

[Greatest I am]

Actually the bible is written so that there is only one interpretation. It interprets itself.

 

 

Whose interpretation of the O T takes precedent.

 

I E.

 

The Jews who wrote the O T call Eden our elevation, while Christianity interprets it as our fall.

 

Who is correct and has authority over the O T?

 

In the N T, Paul does not agree with james on faith virsus deeds.

 

Which is correct in your self interpreting book?

 

 

DL

 

-------------------------------------

 

 

nath88

You say Jesus led an exemplary life.

 

I do not agree.

 

His example of vicarious redemption is a completely immoral act.

To teach that the murder of an innocent man is a good way for others to shed their responsibilities for sin is a miscarriage of justice.

The guilty should pay their dues. Not the innocent.

 

 

Regards

DL

Edited October 12, 2011 by Greatest I am

[deluxe]

Whose interpretation of the O T takes precedent.

 

I E.

 

The Jews who wrote the O T call Eden our elevation, while Christianity interprets it as our fall.

 

Who is correct and has authority over the O T?

 

In the N T, Paul does not agree with james on faith virsus deeds.

 

Which is correct in your self interpreting book?

 

 

DL

 

-------------------------------------

 

 

nath88

You say Jesus led an exemplary life.

 

I do not agree.

 

His example of vicarious redemption is a completely immoral act.

To teach that the murder of an innocent man is a good way for others to shed their responsibilities for sin is a miscarriage of justice.

The guilty should pay their dues. Not the innocent.

 

 

Regards

DL

\

It is not really correct to consider it the OT and NT. It is one complete book. The Jews were awaiting Jesus, and when Jesus came the writings were about what happened at that time.

The bible interprets itself. In that one scripture will say something and other scriptures will add to that.

For example what you mentioned You need to have faith. But you also need to have faith with the works, . This explains, why the bible says faith without works is dead.

So you need both. That is how the bible interprets itself.

 

Satan is responsible for every sickness and death there ever was.

It all goes back to him.

Edited October 12, 2011 by deluxe

[mooeypoo]

Guys, this is a science-minded forum, not a religious theologians forum. We respect opinions, but in this forum we must work with evidence. In the case of religion, that has to come with logical arguments, avoiding logical fallacies and explaining your reasoning.

 

Saying "this is the way it is" is insufficient unless you explain WHY you think this is the way it is. Otherwise, it's nothing but preaching. You can say "it's clear" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are DOZENS of denominations within Christianity that disagree with the "clear" thing, not to mention other religions (like Judaism) that have their own interpretations.

 

If you don't support your claims or make a logic-driven statement, I really don't see what I can answer.

 

Example:

Earth is God's "refinery".

Earth is a place where doubt is cast and options given in order to sift the good from the bad.

We have the ability to Observe, analyze, and recreate the things we see

 

A Person has no choice but to propagate the essence of himself.

(He is lazy, others see his laziness)

(He is Sad, others see his sadness)

This is the foundation of the phrase "A tree bears fruit acoording to it's kind"

This is foundation of the paradox "A person can't -actually- be doing -nothing-"

People have no choice but to act as sounding boards for emotions, ideas, and abstracts

 

This is preaching, my friend. It has no logical basis, just a combination of statements that you deem true. That's all fine and dandy, and you have the right to believe whatever you want -- but if you're in this forum to debate, you need to support your statements.

 

For that matter, your logic is flawed. A person DOES have a choice but to propogate his own essence. I was in the army, and I can tell you for a fact that there are a HUGE number of people who are absolutely and utterly lazy, and yet they make it seem like they're the best workers out there. The cheat the system, and it works, and people think they're the best ever -- and they get promoted.

 

Sometimes they get found out at some point. Sometimes they don't. A person can absolutely hide his true nature from unsuspecting people. That's why we have conmen on the planet, and hoaxters and deluded psychics (or hoaxters psychics, we have tons of those too and they're very successful).

 

So what you're saying makes no sense, and is also not really supported by anything other than your own opinion. Please support your statements with logical explanations. You can open a blog if you just want to state what you think is obvious, that's not what we're here for.

 

"godly" things are those which bring us closer to achieving cohesion with everyone else

"devilish" things are those which separate us spiritually

That's so vague I can't even begin to answer it. So let me ask you something, if we have a person that has no spirituality per say (an atheist, call it, or agnostic or secular, whatever you wish) -- and that person spends their entire life volunteering in starving villages in Africa bringing food to the masses, and yet seeing the devastation and suffering just proves to convince him further of his secular'ism -- that's devil's work?

 

In opposition, a religious person goes on to Africa to push messages of anti-protection against HIV, messages that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people --- that's Godly?

 

I don't quite get your distinction here.

 

All of our consciousnesses are linked and all of our spirits are cut from the same cloth.

The goal is to understand that, and live according to that knowledge.

Yeah that's just preaching again. Any proof that our consciousnesses are linked? Scientifically speaking there's not a shred of evidence for that. Supply evidence, prove your point, and substantiate your claims. That's what discussions here are like.

 

Jesus lived a very "exemplary" life. All of the decisions he made, all of his actions and words, were done with the intention of bringing people's spirits together.

Sometimes he would challenge establishments which created structures that (when adhered to) would drive people apart.

I grew up Jewish, and I read the OT in its original form (hebrew/aramaic) from start to finish about 3 times, so I can't claim expertise about the new testament. However, even I can find examples in the text where Jesus becomes angry and abrasive (especially ni his younger years) which would make his "exmplary life" less than exmplary. He's supposed to be the son of God, which would mean he would need to be perfect *from the start* rather than "learn to be perfect".

 

Also, it seems to me there's a 30-year gap in the depiction of Jesus' life in the bible. How do you know his life was exemplary in those 30 years? You cannot know if there's no record of it.

 

\

It is not really correct to consider it the OT and NT. It is one complete book. The Jews were awaiting Jesus, and when Jesus came the writings were about what happened at that time.

 

The Jews were awaiting their Massiah, which was, in their eyes, NOT Jesus. Hence the separation between Jews and Christians. I understand you have conviction in your belief, but I would appreciate if you try to make your claims a bit less definitively-true and a bit more explained. I explain my views with logical explanations and examples and references, you should do the same, otherwise we won't really achieve anything other than agreeing to disagree.

 

Now, there are no writings *EVER* from Jesus' actual time. All writings are from future perspective, and were not written by the Jews, so your last statement that "when jesus came the writings were about what happened at that time" is plainly false.

 

Lastly, I would like to remind you that while you state the book is one single book, you keep quoting english translations of it. If you truly think the bible is the word of infallible god, I would think you'd go study the original language it was written in and study the nuances of it.

 

I can tell you for an absolute fact (and I am not the only one saying it, Christian theologians have been saying it for years as well, a tleast those with enough self credibility to go study the hebrew/aramaic and greek to read the texts) that the translation is written AFTER it was INTERPRETED.

 

That means that while in English things are oh-so-clearly-said, they are NOT so clearly said in the original language. If you insist on arguing about what the bible says, have the least bit of integrity to at least admit you're not reading the actual original version.

 

The bible interprets itself. In that one scripture will say something and other scriptures will add to that.

For example what you mentioned You need to have faith. But you also need to have faith with the works, . This explains, why the bible says faith without works is dead.

So you need both. That is how the bible interprets itself.

Really? The bible interprets itself? Is that why there are so many denominations out there each claiming to hold the true interpretation? You glossed over this question in my last post, I would like you to consider it now.

 

Also, where does the bible says that faith without works is dead? I know of quotes where God says he just wants belief in him. In fact, there's quite a lot in the OT about how NOT to worship, and about how the worship that did happen was more about customs of purity that the followers did to distinguish themselves and praise God, and less about what God actually requested.

 

Satan is responsible for every sickness and death there ever was.

It all goes back to him.

 

You keep ignoring my points, here again.

 

TWO issues here:

 

First, the OT is filled with places where God kills a whole bunch of people on his own right, from the flood to conquest, to ordering people to kill their children (who are innocent!). Is that satan's work? The bible clearly states it as God's work, so either God did it, or the bible is fallible. Pick one.

 

Second, even if that's the case, that means God GAVE UP DOMINION to Satan. There's a lot of evil stuff happening out there, my friend, and if all of those are Satan's work, it means God doesn't do anything to stop it --- which means he gave dominion over them to Satan.

 

Your points do not lead to the conclusion you stated.

 

 

~mooey

 

The bible tells us allot of what is going on. That means who in ruling the earth. For example. It gives example from real life what happens when people do their own thing. You know learn from history. Jesus was a perfect example for us. So we see from that what God expects from us. The bible was written about the people of that time, but is for the people of the time of the end.

The bible is severely lacking in facts, though, like the size and shape of the earth and mechanisms that allow it to work. If it's the word of God meant for the future, I'd expect allknowing God to know a bit more than hinting at a "perhaps" circular shape and "perhaps" too many stars to count. By th way, we can actually count and approximate, the number isn't infinite at all.. how did God not be able to do that? Is he not almighty and infallible and all knowing?

 

Armageddon or Har–Ma‧ged′on) [from Heb., meaning "Mountain of Megiddo"] The term applies specifically to the condition, or situation, to which "the kings of the entire inhabited earth" are gathered in opposition to God and his Kingdom by Jesus Christ. In a number of versions it is rendered "Armageddon".

 

The word 'mountain' in the bible figuratively means God's kingdom or rulership. ( government)

Figuratively by whom? The word "Har" (Mountain in Hebrew) is used extensively in the bible, and never in the context you imply. This is wishful interpretation without any evidence.

 

There does not appear to have been a literal place called "Mountain of Megiddo," either inside or outside the Promised Land, before or during the days of the apostle John, who recorded the vision. Hence, Har–Magedon draws its significance from the events associated with the ancient city of Megiddo.

I lived in Israel, I went camping in Megiddo close to 15 times. It exists, and the ruins stretch out to around 3000 years ago, which is well before the apostle. Also, the biblical text is quite clear in describing the place to the letter. It's not an imaginary place, it's a real one, and it exists in archeological digs.

 

You're more than welcome to go to Israel and visit it. It's quite lovely.

 

Megiddo was situated a few miles SE of Mount Carmel, overlooking and dominating the Plain of Esdraelon (Jezreel) and controlling major N-S and E-W trade and military routes. Joshua first conquered this Canaanite city. (Jos 12:7, 8, 21) Near this site Jabin's army under command of Sisera was later destroyed. God there employed natural forces to assist the Israelite army under Barak.

What?

 

Jos 12 (HEBREW alongside english, link here).

 

Jos12:7: And these [are] the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel smote on this side Jordan on the west, from Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon even unto the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir; which Joshua gave unto the tribes of Israel [for] a possession according to their divisions;

 

No mention of Har Megiddo, or Armageddon.

 

Joshuah 8 speaks of the destruction of Ai. I didn't see a mention of Megiddo, Har Megiddo, Tel Megiddo, or Armageddon.

Joshuah 21 is about the spoils of war and how they're distributed between the tribes.

 

Beyond the bible, Megiddo is recorded at around 609 BC (before the apostles) to be a site of a battle between the Egyptians and Assyrians, so we have historical records beyond the bible for the site's existence (namely, archeological finds).

 

It was at Megiddo that King Ahaziah of Judah died after he was mortally wounded on orders of Jehu. (2Ki 9:27) There King Josiah of Judah was killed in an encounter with Pharaoh Nechoh. (2Ki 23:29, 30) Because of its commanding position, many other nations, according to secular history, warred around Megiddo. 'Jews, Gentiles, Saracens, crusaders, Egyptians, Persians, Druses, Turks, and Arabs have all pitched their tents on the plain of Esdraelon.'

—Word Studies in the New Testament, by M. R. Vincent, 1957, Vol. II, p. 542.

Right, Ahazaia died there, which makes it a real place, not a symbolic one.

 

Har–Magedon." (Re 16:16) In the Bible to′pos may refer to a literal location (Mt 14:13, 15, 35); or to one's opportunity, or "chance" (Ac 25:16); or to a figurative realm, condition, or situation (Re 12:6, 14). In view of the context, it is to a "place" in the last-mentioned sense that earth's combined military powers are marching

I can't argue with personal interpretations liek this. If this is right, then EVERY place in the bible can be also interpreted as a symbolic sign of something or other. This place is ESTABLISHED to exist, and to exist a long time *AND* to exist as a battleground. The fact it is then described to be the meeting for battle of multiple rulers makes sense if it's a repeatedly-disputed location -- which is it.

 

If you INSIST on finding ways of how this is otherwise, I'm pretty sure you can move the goalpost a number of times more and do the same for any location. You're not quite being consistent, though.

 

Christians chose to take Armageddon as their symbolic huge battle of the souls -- that's their choice. There's no actual text that says so, though, only interpretation that must rely on a unique circumstances that ONLY fits to this PARTICULAR location. That's not much evidence.

 

Revelation 16:14

American Standard Version (ASV)

 

 

 

¹⁴ for they are spirits of demons, working signs; which go forth unto the kings of the whole world, to gather them together unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.

That's not in mount megiddo, nor is it in "Har Megiddo" or armageddon. Fine, you guys chose that location for yourself, but at the very least admit it's an interpretive choice. The bible does NOT claim this place as anything other than battlegrounds until Christianity declared it as so, which is why Jews have no problems going there and do not see it as a symbolic place of destruction.

 

So what this is saying is that all the kings ( governments) of the earth will be gathered together, to face God. That is what Armageddon is. God's war against the governments of this world and Satan. God's government will take over.

So you decided that kings mean governments (that's not a clear definition in the bible, sir) and you decided it means that it's the end of the world-war. Why ca't it be a middle-of-the-world war? A 'cleansing' war in the symbolic sense, where people fight to find their true spirit? Those "symbolic wars" are *AAAAAALLLLL over the bible*. Why is this different?

 

 

There are many prophecies in the bible and they are, and all are shown to be fulled. Though there are some that yet have to take place. But the vast majority have been fulfilled.

 

.... you must be jesting.

 

Show me one prophecy that came true, I'll show you 10 that did not. This might be good odds for a human psychic wannabe, but I would say those are LOUSY odds for an almighty God. God should have 100% accuracy, not 20%, and he should be very CLEAR about the prophecies, not give vague descriptions that can fit any vague event big enough to be recorded. That's not really impressive. In fact, I can find predictions in the Kaballah as well, and in the Quran, and in Harry potter. The same reasons you would likely dismiss them are the reasons I dismiss the ones in the bible. If you spend 10 minutes actually THINKING about the statement I just made, you might realize I have a point.

 

Genesis 2:15-17

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

¹⁵And the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

 

¹⁶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

 

 

¹⁷but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Yes. What does that mean? If you eat it, you will die.

 

They ate it and lived.

 

By the way, the hebrew text has "Mot Tamut" this is a double emphasis on the word "Death", and the sentence begins with "The day you eat this, you shall die." == this is an immediate threat, not an implied one for the future. Eat = death.

 

Adam and Eve ate. They lived.

 

Who's the liar?

 

2 Peter 3:8

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

⁸But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

This can also be interpreted as to say that bliss feels like forever. Most of the hindus believe that, I believe. That does not serve much to say that Adam and Eve would've stayed alive forever.

 

Another issue here: God punished Adam and Eve by kicking them out of Eden, which is kicking them out of his side. That would mean that they stopped "living forever" because he kicked them out, not because they ate the fruit.

 

 

Genesis 5:5

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

⁵And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

 

 

 

 

So Adam died at 930 years with in the 1,000 year 'day' of God.

 

 

No, Adam lived 930 years (in some weird numbering scheme of the bible, most likely) after he was kicked out of Eden.

Perhaps he would've lived 1000 years if he stayed in Eden. You can't know that, and the text is quite clear that the reason a person suffers in life and then dies is PART of the punishment for eating the fruit, it's not part of the side effects of eating the fruit.

 

The text is quite clear. God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit or they will die. They ate the fruit and the side effect was that they "knew" one another, and hid their nakedness, etc, which we could argue was symbolic to the loss of innocence. *THAT* was the effect of the fruit. God got angry then and punished them; he made the woman suffer through birth and the man work his entire life and both were kicked out of Eden and suffered and died without being at God's side.

 

God lied about what the fruit would do. They die because he kicked them out in punishment, not because they ate the fruit.

 

Do you see how the bible interprets itself?

Do you see how it's not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have quite a lot to say about your quotes on Job, but I have to go out to do stuff for a different kind of job, so I will have to postpone answering until later.

 

~mooey

[A Tripolation]

The Captain has to follow the order, but it's up to him as to HOW to do it, which is given to him by his dominion. Rarely do you get a General giving an order about a *particular* soldier; you will get orders that are about a task or what to do -- the Captain has dominion even though he must follow teh direction of the person who has dominion over him.

 

I'm hoping I made it clear enough. The idea is that while the General is still "above" the Lieutenant and, in principle, could "break the chain of command" and go directly to him to control him, he, in essence and practicality gave up his PRACTICAL dominion.

 

What you say makes sense. But how does that support Greatest I Am's original premise? He says that God have up the right to punish along with dominion (we'll use your definition of dominion in this context). Can the General not discipline an individual soldier if he sees the need to?

[Greatest I am]

What you say makes sense. But how does that support Greatest I Am's original premise? He says that God have up the right to punish along with dominion (we'll use your definition of dominion in this context). Can the General not discipline an individual soldier if he sees the need to?

 

There can only be one king in a country and one dominion. His.

 

He can delegate authority for sure but nothing should be without his say so.

 

God spoke of dominion. Not partial or shared. Full dominion.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[mooeypoo]

What you say makes sense. But how does that support Greatest I Am's original premise? He says that God have up the right to punish along with dominion (we'll use your definition of dominion in this context). Can the General not discipline an individual soldier if he sees the need to?

 

Actually no. He technically can, but in PRACTICE he gives that right to the Captain. I was once punished (a stupid little fine, don't ask) by my own direct CO for something a visiting General thought was offense. (If you care, I was wearing work uniforms when I accepted him into the base rather than the 'show' uniforms he expected).

 

He COULD punish me right there. The custom is that he doesn't. He gave up dominion; he went to the Captain (mine) and gave him the story; my own captain not only punished me, but chose the punishment within guidelines.

 

 

Giving up dominion and rights of punish provisionally is absolutely logical.

 

For that matter, God may have the ABILITY to punish, but he gave the right to to someone else. Whether it is man or Satan is something I'm still not clear on based on some of the mixed up posts in the thread.

 

Does this make sense?

 

There can only be one king in a country and one dominion. His.

 

He can delegate authority for sure but nothing should be without his say so.

 

God spoke of dominion. Not partial or shared. Full dominion.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

Actually, that seems to be against what you're saying. Religious folk believe they do ask permission before they do things, so that leaves dominion with God. If he can't delegate, then he didn't give it up, and it's his.

 

I'm a tad lost with regards to your point now.