An open challenge to all closed theists

[smaller]

No surprise that you would dodge the question again 1Way. That

God’s word says that His character and ways are holy and righteous and good (loving, merciful, just, wise, etc. etc.). I see no reason to doubt God concerning His character, so your wrong in assuming that concerning matters that rely strictly upon His character, that the open view promotes instability let alone duplicity or immorality in God.

So you would consider GOD REPENTING about his intent to ETERNALLY TORTURE the billions of unbeliever to be "unstable,"duplicitous," and "immoral?"

A kingdom can not stand if it is divided against itself. Say one thing and do another (without just cause) is the sin of hypocrisy.

So you are saying that GOD CANNOT REPENT unless He be COMPELLED to BY the ACTIONS of OTHERS?

God is not a hypocrite. The open view specifically addresses the realistic nature of the extent of what is knowable, even what God can know.

You have already admitted that YOU do not know EVERYTHING that God knows have you not? And if this IS the case how can you DETERMINE what God can and cannot DO. This observation applies even moreso to the closed view.

My understanding of why God set up heaven and hell with eternal consequences is that God based those decisions upon His righteous and holy character such that I expect God would not repent from complying with Himself. Same question applies to salvation just as equally.

I certainly see that you LOVE TO PLAY IT BOTH WAYS 1Way.

Could God repent and not save anyone? Yes or no?

I stay in the GOD CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO camp, and understand that I cannot infringe into that territory. He is simply TOO GREAT for me to fathom entirely. I also expect this to be the case forever.

Or is God’s salvation truly based in Himself and His character and ways?

Salvation is not OF MEN. (Job's determinant)

If you understand that “salvation” and “damnation” are more arbitrary and subjective issues that based upon God’s character and ways, then I would require sufficient evidence, otherwise the it is worthless conjecture.

We are simply contemplating the RESULTs of a God WHO YOU SAY CAN REPENT. So APPLY IT as YOU CALLED IT. Using your own axiom GOD CAN CERTAINLY REPENT of His Intent to ETERNALLY BURN BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

Of course I know this will STICK IN YOUR CRAW to NO END, but that's why we make these observations of positions eh? Please keep in mind that this is NOTHING against YOU, but the positions, as always.

But God teaches against standing on anything less than the solid ground of His word. God says that He is “eternal” and “true” and “faithful” and His actions conform to His word 100%, so for you to suggest that God can make Himself to have never existed, is ludicrous yet your view allow for such insanity.

I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants.

Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do.

Well then YOUR VIEW does confirm my previous OBSERVATION A eh? You just can't quite seem to SPIT IT OUT. You know when you DO OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE that GOD CAN REPENT from TORTURING THE UNBELIEVERS that the Calvies will be ALL OVER YOU.

So why don't you just say that GOD CANNOT REPENT and SAVE YOURSELF....

But I am not so indignant and rebellious as to think that I know better than God’s word!

DEEP CHORTLE. I do so love my daily entertainment.

Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it.

You just can't quite let the words cross your lips though eh? Very entertaining indeed.

enjoy the ride!

smaller

 

[1Way]

Smaller – I did not dodge your question. You are a person who lacks understanding, even of fairly basic things like that you should not contradict yourself, or like when I explain myself, you should at least get them right before attempting to rebut them.

I answered your question and by your varied responses, you do not understand my answer. God’s character is true and faithful, other moral beings, men and angels do not enjoy such trustworthy character attributes. So my answer is only simple and easy to understand if you are willing to accept it. To the extent that the issue depends upon God’s character and ways, then to that extent, the issue is certain and divine repentance need not apply. However, if the issue is dependent upon unstable men or angles, then to that extent the issue may involve divine repentance.

As to the form of your question, since your phraseology is rather strange to scripture if find it pretty philosophical and thus I will not be trapped by your subjective foolishness. Instead, I trust on God’s word which teaches that He is the Lord of salvation, He is our salvation, so according to my understanding of God’s place over salvation, He will plainly not repent from doing what He said He would do since it is not based on anything but Himself, and God cannot reject Himself.

You said

I stay in the GOD CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO camp, and understand that I cannot infringe into that territory. He is simply TOO GREAT for me to fathom entirely. I also expect this to be the case forever.

So if God wanted to, can He make Himself to have never existed? Yes, or no, there are not other fitting responses because either He can do that, or He can not do that, yes or no.

Here, the dumb value raises greatly, you said.

I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants.

I highlight the parts that were especially dumb. I am not a determinant of God’s actions, I am an objective observer. But you just attacked everything you think you know is right about God because you are limited and you can not define or limit God. So every time you claim that God can not be limited, who are you to suggest that you know so much about God to rope Him into your understanding and argue against anyone else’s. Other than the fact that no one knows everything there is to know about God, excepting God of course, your entire train of thought is hypocrisy and because of the number of times that I have pointed this out to you, it seems apparent that you are happy living with the sin of “say one thing but do the opposite”. Your entire post has been about explaining your understanding of God and you seem to put off that on every issue we touched on, that you know full well about it. So which is it, you can not define God, or you can define Him?

It is your own free will, you can sin and contradict yourself if you are so determined to do.

I said

Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do.

and you responded with by not remotely addressing my point. Your mind must be twisted or something. My point remains, closed theists are hypocrites because the insist that God always performs what He says and thinks He would do, yet they will not allow God to do what He says He has a right to do in Jer. 18 7-10 and what He did do in Jonah 3:4 and 10.

I said

Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it.

So how about it mister “God can do anything He wants to do”? Can God repent and not do what He said and thought He would do (granting that He wanted to do that)? If that is so, that God can do that, then obviously His foreknowledge does not fit your view (you affirm exhaustive foreknowledge, unlimited knowledge of everything).

Example
You can not know you are going to do something (A), and then later change your mind and not do it (Non A). Either the first knowledge was wrong (I will do A), or if you knew you were not going to do (A), then you never repented from doing what you thought you were going to do, you always knew that you were not going to do (A). So it is impossible to hold to your view of exhaustive foreknowledge and at the same time hold that God can repent and not do what He previously thought He would do.

Not that you will understand all this with any lasting integrity, but it will remain true even if you disagree with it a thousand times! Stop limiting God by not letting Him do what He says He can do like divine repentance from what He thought He would do. And since God does sometimes repent and not do what He thought He would do, and that is not a lie, then we know that God does not know the future exhaustively. And the more you try to maintain that God does know everything or can do anything, then to that extent you are a hypocrite for claiming to know about God in a way that you say is wrong because God is unlimited and we are limited.

I have to wonder if you will go to the grave never realizing how easy it could be to stop being such a brash hypocrite, because so far, you have only barely altered the frequency of which you promote hypocrisy. Don’t you even sense how dumb it is to say one thing and then do another? Don’t you recognize the sin involved? Surely you must understand that if you can not raise above the level of non-contradiction and hypocrisy, I have no choice but to view you as a person who is challenged beyond a reasonable capacity. I know, I’ll just start calling you hypocrite, smaller poster and larger hypocrite!

 

[smaller]

hehehe...

I did not dodge your question. You are a person who lacks understanding, even of fairly basic things like that you should not contradict yourself, or like when I explain myself, you should at least get them right before attempting to rebut them.

I know, I know. These little conundrums really get your goat.

I answered your question and by your varied responses, you do not understand my answer.

Yeah, right. That little A, B thingy got pretty detailed eh. Was there an answer in your response btw??? What was it again???

Yes, or NO???

God’s character is true and faithful, other moral beings, men and angels do not enjoy such trustworthy character attributes. So my answer is only simple and easy to understand if you are willing to accept it.

It may be MUCH EASIER to accept if you could JUST SAY IT. Waffles are good for breakfast but not for DOCTRINE.

To the extent that the issue depends upon God’s character and ways, then to that extent, the issue is certain and divine repentance need not apply.

So your answer is then that GOD CANNOT REPENT????

However, if the issue is dependent upon unstable men or angles, then to that extent the issue may involve divine repentance.

So your answer then is that GOD REPENTS???

As to the form of your question, since your phraseology is rather strange to scripture if find it pretty philosophical and thus I will not be trapped by your subjective foolishness.

Well of course you won't. To answer will show your FOOLISHNESS in the matter. I certainly understand that you want it BOTHways rather than 1WAY. Perhaps a NAME change is IN ORDER???

Instead, I trust on God’s word which teaches that He is the Lord of salvation, He is our salvation, so according to my understanding of God’s place over salvation, He will plainly not repent from doing what He said He would do since it is not based on anything but Himself, and God cannot reject Himself.

ah, back to the ol' SUBJECT CHANGE...oh well. What more have I come to expect from 1Way???

You said

quote:
I stay in the GOD CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO camp, and understand that I cannot infringe into that territory. He is simply TOO GREAT for me to fathom entirely. I also expect this to be the case forever.

So if God wanted to, can He make Himself to have never existed? Yes, or no, there are not other fitting responses because either He can do that, or He can not do that, yes or no.

Perhaps you can deal not with you NOT KNOWING everything God knows and then you can deal with WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO eh??? You will not GET PAST that SPOT Mr. I Know What God can and cannot do....

I have repeatedly stated that God can do WHATEVER it is that He wants to and I am not willing to LIMIT God. You seem QUITE EAGER to place your LIMITS upon God as we have well come to SEE eh?

Here, the dumb value raises greatly, you said.
quote:
I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants.

I highlight the parts that were especially dumb.

The only DUMB PART in the equation is your human arrogance.

I am not a determinan of God’s actions, I am an objective observer.

Oh give it a rest. You continually present what GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO. It is a classic case of the SUBJECTIVE defining the OBJECTIVE. An IMPOSSIBLE feat.

But you just attacked everything you think you know is right about God because you are limited and you can not define or limit God.

I made some very simple and elemental observations that you cannot grasp. Why? Because YOU DEFINED GOD. I take an OPPOSITE position. The "servant" is not GREATER than the MASTER is a very elemental position. The SERVANT does not DEFINE the MASTER....

So every time you claim that God can not be limited, who are you to suggest that you know so much about God to rope Him into your understanding and argue against anyone else’s.

ah, now the old TURNABOUT play. Your little debate games are SO transparent...

btw, can GOD REPENT of torturing billions of unbelievers FOREVER????

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Baited breath still awaits. Actually you are just providing me with a good old belly laugh....as usual Mr. I Limit God.

Other than the fact that no one knows everything there is to know about God, excepting God of course, your entire train of thought is hypocrisy and because of the number of times that I have pointed this out to you, it seems apparent that you are happy living with the sin of “say one thing but do the opposite”.

A DUAL turnabout play....how novel...I know you would like to make my positions YOURS but then you will simply end up agreeing with me. You do understand the danger of that eh??? ahahahahahahahaha

It is your own free will, you can sin contradict yourself if you are so determined to do.
I said
quote:
Also, the closed view does not allow God to fulfill Jer. 18 by letting God completely reverse from doing what He thought He would do.

and you responded with by not remotely addressing my point. Your mind must be twisted or something. My point remains, closed theists are hypocrites because the insist that God always performs what He says and thinks He would do, yet they will not allow God to do what He says He has a right to do in Jer. 18 7-10 and what He did do in Jonah 3:4 and 10.

I simply asked if your GOD REPENTS scenario COULD apply to the ETERNAL TORTURE of billions of unbelievers.

Come on. Step on it just a little teeny tiny bit....see how I laid out the COULD just to ENTICE you????

HA!

I said
quote:
Praise God, He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do. Imagine the thought that man can do that, but God can’t, talk about a superiority complex! The closed view is full of it.

So how about it mister “God can do anything He wants to do”? Can God repent and not do what He said and thought He would do (granting that He wanted to do that)? If that is so, that God can do that, then obviously His foreknowledge does not fit your view (you affirm exhaustive foreknowledge, unlimited knowledge of everything).

Well, since I believe that ALL PEOPLE are saved I will certainly meet you on the ground that GOD CAN SURELY REPENT of His Intent to TORTURE BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS since this would please me greatly.

Will you JOIN ME in AGREEMENT with YOUR POSITION????

ha!!!!!

Put your HANDS UP. You are SURROUNDED!

double HA!

Example
You can not know you are going to do something (A), and then later change your mind and not do it (Non A). Either the first knowledge was wrong (I will do A), or if you knew you were not going to do (A), then you never repented from doing what you thought you were going to do, you always knew that you were not going to do (A). So it is impossible to hold to your view of exhaustive foreknowledge and at the same time hold that God can repent and not do what He previously thought He would do.

Can you spell w-a-f-f-l-e??? I have already STEPPED ONTO your ground my friend. You are arguing with YOURSELF at this point. I am will to say that GOD CAN REPENT of HIS (supposed) INTENT to burn BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS IN FIRE.

Will you JOIN YOURSELF to your OWN UNDERSTANDING in this???

Not that you will understand all this with any lasting integrity, but it will remain true even if you disagree with it a thousand times! Stop limiting God by not letting Him do what He says He can do like divine repentance from what He thought He would do. And since God does sometimes repent and not do what He thought He would do, and that is not a lie, then we know that God does not know the future exhaustively. And the more you try to maintain that God does know everything or can do anything, then to that extent you are a hypocrite for claiming to know about God in a way that you say is wrong because God is unlimited and we are limited.

Fine...let's leave the subject OPEN. Can God Repent of BURNING BILLIONS OF UNBELIEVERS IN FIRE????

A or B??? Yes or No???

I have to wonder if you will go to the grave never realizing how easy it could be to stop being such a brash hypocrite, because so far, you have only barely altered the frequency of which you promote hypocrisy. Don’t you even sense how dumb it is to say one thing and then do another? Don’t you recognize the sin involved? Surely you must understand that if you can not raise above the level of non-contradiction and hypocrisy, I have no choice but to view you as a person who is challenged beyond a reasonable capacity. I know, I’ll just start calling you hypocrite, smaller poster and larger hypocrite!

I just love to see YOU DANCE little boy...

When you get a 0TUIT you might AGREE with YOURself eh???

enjoy!

smaller

 

[1Way]

Smaller – I really should be more kind and thankful for your contributions. Thanks for contributing more examples of how inane the closed view is and how contradictory teachings tend to make a person prone to irrationality, and that the sin of hypocrisy is so easy to cease from doing if the soul is humbled and willing. It is always good to be reminded of examples of what not to emulate. So, your contributions are much appreciated.

 

[smaller]

Was that an A or a B??? A YES or a NO???

lol Mr. Duality/Waffle King....

 

[1Way]

Smaller – In my opening three paragraphs, I greeted you, denied your false claim against me, levied your willful ignorance against yourself, told you how I answered you, then re-explained my answer again, then explained my problem with the way you phrased your question, then since we agree that God is Lord over salvation, I plainly answered saying

Instead, I trust on God’s word which teaches that He is the Lord of salvation, He is our salvation, so according to my understanding of God’s place over salvation, He will plainly not repent from doing what He said He would do since it is not based on anything but Himself, and God cannot reject Himself.

However, you spent the first half of your willfully ignorant post pretending like I had not made myself perfectly clear.

You quoted me and responded saying

Here, the dumb value raises greatly, you said.
quote:
I will repeatedly say Mr. 1Way that WHEN YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO POSSIBLY KNOW then and ONLY THEN can you determine WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Until that time you will remain a MERE MORTAL with the appropriate LIMITATIONS.

The logical analysis here is THE LIMITED cannot define or LIMIT THE UNLIMITED. Get it??? Eternal is beyond YOUR ROPE. You cannot pass that yellow tape with your limited determinants.

I highlight the parts that were especially dumb.

However I did not stop there you shredder, I also said

I am not a determinant of God’s actions, I am an objective observer. But you just attacked everything you think you know is right about God because you are limited and you can not define or limit God. So every time you claim that God can not be limited, who are you to suggest that you know so much about God to rope Him into your understanding and argue against anyone else’s. Other than the fact that no one knows everything there is to know about God, excepting God of course, your entire train of thought is hypocrisy and because of the number of times that I have pointed this out to you, it seems apparent that you are happy living with the sin of “say one thing but do the opposite”. Your entire post has been about explaining your understanding of God and you seem to put off that on every issue we touched on, that you know full well about it. So which is it, you can not define God, or you can define Him?

It is your own free will, you can sin and contradict yourself if you are so determined to do.

and you responded

The only DUMB PART in the equation is your human arrogance.

You are defending hypocrisy and claiming that I am arrogant while you say we can not define God yet you arrogantly do so on a constant basis. You are a hypocrite and you rip up my thoughts into small bits in order to ignore my line of reasoning and contextual development. So you are back on rejection again, no one respects a hypocrite.

smaller in a bible conforming faith, larger in hypocrisy!

 

[1Way]

For the record, I do not hold that God tortures anyone forever in hell, your philosophical and false assumptions are rampant and unbiblical. It is fully possible that people who are enemies of God will be tormented by their own unrighteousness and personal grief, and all the pain and destruction and despair they promote. People in heaven will be rewarded to the extent they were godly, so it is reasonable to assume that a similar corresponding reality will befall those in hell. Evil and sin carry guilt and pain and condemnation even if man thinks his is getting away with it, he is not.

 

[Yorzhik]

1Way... you are a trooper. I'm thankful you have continued to respond for us lukers to be able to gleen some great points between the mud slinging.

But we have to get some rational closed view advocates to bring this thread back.

So when are we getting together for Table Tennis? If you don't want to do the structured Thursday with the pros (what I would prefer since I like watching people that can actually play), I'm getting my garage cleaned up, and I have a table to plink around on. It won't be ready for another month. Let me know.

 

[smaller]

NEWSFLASH!

Open viewer 1Way says GOD CAN REPENT but....

only if the surrounding questions suit him...

go figure...

 

[CryTears]

God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh

bit drastic, I know she is simple but really? destruction???

 

[smaller]

NEWSFLASH!

Open viewer 1Way says PEOPLE MAKE THEMSELVES ETERNAL and then PROCEED TO TORTURE THEMSELVES forever and EVER...

lol

go figure...

 

[smaller]

Did we get to that YES or NO yet 1Way???

HA!

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi 1Way,

Again, if God conveyed a conditional threat or warning, saying effectively, “shape up or else”, then He lied when He said that He repented from doing what He said He would do, and He did not do it!

Can "Ninevah will be destroyed" be said to be what God said, even if there is an implied condition? That was my point about the two accounts of the demons in Mt. 8:31 and Mk. 5:12, in one account the condition is expressed, in another it is not, yet in both places we can say "this is what was said." So how do you respond to this reply?

Also, I don't think God lied, if the Ninevites thought there might be an implied condition, and they were correct. How did God mislead anyone, if everyone recognized this possibility? Jonah even thought it was the purpose of the mission, to get them to repent. How do you respond to this reply, again?

I am trying to advance the discussion, and not repeat myself...

However God did not lie when He admitted non-compliance with what He said He would do. By God saying that He did not do what He said He would do (bring a disastrous overthrow upon Nineveh) eliminates the idea of a conditional warning. God did not comply with His prophesied word, He contradicted it via 100% reversal, saying plainly that He repented from it, and He did not do it.

So I don't understand how this is not a lie. You can say it's not, but I think you are saying that God said "I will do X unconditionally", and did not do it. So what he said was not true, and even intentionally not true, if, as you seem to be saying, God had conditionality "within himself" about the destruction.

What I need to know from you, also, is what was God's intent when he sent Jonah:

1) To destroy them.

2) To get them to repent.

3) Some other intent.

4) No real intent.

You seem to be saying that 1) is your choice: "He can do what man can do, repent from doing what He previously thought He was going to do." Not only did God intend to destroy them, he thought it would turn out that way.

So now my previous questions apply:

Why didn't God just destroy them right away?
Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?
Why couldn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting (1 Sam. 2:25)?
Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[1Way]

Yorzhik – Thanks for the contribution towards sane rational discussions, also sans the mud slinging! And for the compliments, it is an honor, and I’m enjoying the discussions anyways, becuase the closed theists keep demonstrating how afraid they are of scripture that denies their view.

I have been thinking about you and our previous plans to get together sometime. I am sorry for not getting back with you for so long. So far my back situation has not improved much despite having one chiropractor visit, so I’m afraid that until that situation improves, I need to watch and not play. My personal life is still in a bad way every since loosing my last job the way I did. So I have become even more withdrawn than I was before. I have a long road of recovery ahead of me. But I do very much so wish to play table tennis again. I would love to meet with you to watch others play but although my back is slightly better than it was before, I am leery of playing just yet.

I did not realize that Thursday was the night for the pros and watching, for some reason I thought that was the night for the unranked or lowest skilled players. I would like to watch and I would like to play, but I’m just not in shape to play yet.

The grace and patience and encouragement are all greatly appreciated. Right now I need to get rent and utilities taken care of, so I am really out of sorts for the next week or two, but I very much look forward to getting together.

 

[1Way]

(CLICK HERE to see an improved version of this post.)

Crytahvn – (“CryTears”) Excellent question. You posted

God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh

a bit drastic, I know she is simple but really? destruction???

That’s ok, the situation is also fairly simple. Consider the following to see if Nineveh’s prophesy was one of destruction or not.

Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you."

4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Jon 4:2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, "Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You [are] a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

In the bible, most (perhaps all?) national overthrows performed by God were violent and even deadly, often terribly so. So even the mildest most lenient understanding of the idea of “God overthrowing a nation” denotes severe wrath, although I agree that exceptions might apply, so the question deserves more investigation. Fortunately for us, God clarified the meaning involved through the simple contextual development (the storyline). The national overthrow is qualified by the following ideas.

• v.9 perishing
• v.10 national “disaster” brought “upon” them, disaster is clearly a bad destructive idea, and disasters tend to befall “upon” people, it happens “to them”, but repentance comes from within people, it is very contrary to say that a repentant overthrow was brought “upon” them.
• Ch.4 v.2 The issue is about God’s anger and lovingkindness and from relenting from doing harm! It is not harmful to repent in faith to God, no, this harm was related to God’s prophesied national (even lethal) disaster. God plainly planned on destroying them, but after they repented, He did not do it.

Lastly, if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them, then v.10 is a lie from God because if He intended on bringing “conversion or repentance upon then”, then He would have never said that He failed to do what He said He would do. Instead, He would have said, see, I told you I would overthrow you and your wickedness has been repented of so I accomplished exactly what I said I would do! That is a contradiction to what God says did happen.

So the “overthrow” of Nineveh can not mean, yet forty days and Nineveh will be “converted by nationwide repentance”! That is just silly contradiction given how God describes the rest of the story.

I sincerely hope this helps. Isn’t it neat how simple understanding God’s word can be if you just give it half a chance by keeping in mind the whole story instead of focusing too much on a minor issue, like what does this one word mean. Better is asking, what does this whole story teaching and plainly say. After you do that, the individual words are easy to figure out what they mean.

 

[1Way]

Lee – Please, no need to make yourself out to be so ignorant. It’s bad enough that you have been caught red handed lying and perverting against God’s word.

There is such a thing as you can't win an argument with stupid.

If you can not understand

• It’s a lie if you know in advance you are absolutely not going to do something, but you say that you will do it anyway
• It’s a lie of you say that you (literally) repented and did not do what you (literally) said you would do, if you never said you were (literally) going to do it in the first place
• It’s a lie it if was a threat to make then repent if you qualify the “overthrow” accordingly:
  • lethal v.9,
  • national disaster v.10
  • that was to be “brought upon them” not enlisted from within them v.10
  • involving the contrast between God’s anger and lovingkindness 4:2 i.e. God repented from a judgment of anger and harm and disaster
  • harmful 4:2
• That “new and different” circumstances alter cases, even justify complete reversals of otherwise righteous judgments
• That God did not do what He plainly said He would do, particularly concerning His prophesy of national destruction of Nineveh, God says that “He did not bring the disaster that He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.”
• You can not maintain that the prophecy was of “literal destruction”, and that it was not literal destruction, it was a figure for repentance.

Then of course it is not surprising that you do not understand how it is that you lied and perverted against God’s word by falsifying scripture as you so plainly have done. By demonstrating a consistent habit of violating the entire list just mentioned, you are aggressively willfully ignorant, and you have no qualms about lying in order to maintain your views.

See my post to Crytahvn for more on why the overthrow can not mean repentance or that it could not have been a conditional warning. As to all your remaining statements and questions and challenges, who cares, you a liar, just ignore it just like most people treat “Freak” and “smaller” because of their lack of personal integrity over matters of truthfulness.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi 1Way,

... if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them...

This is not what I am saying, though. Your statements about "overthrow" meaning destruction I agree with, I think both were included in "overthrow." What you need to show me is that it cannot mean repentance, as well as destruction. Now you could do this by showing that "overthrow" can only have one meaning here, and not two. Or you could show me how "repentance" is not a possible meaning for "overthrow."

It’s a lie if you know in advance you are absolutely not going to do something, but you say that you will do it anyway

That was what my reply was with the Matthew and Mark illustration. You are repeating your question, and not answering my reply...

Hope your back feels better soon!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[1Way]

Lee – also pervert and liar - As to your first point, that the prophesy could have been both a literal national disaster, and a figure of national conversion via repentance. Stop pretending like I have not already dealt with that issue at full length. You quote this

... if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them...

and then simply respond saying this

This is not what I am saying, though. Your statements about "overthrow" meaning destruction I agree with, I think both were included in "overthrow." What you need to show me is that it cannot mean repentance, as well as destruction. Now you could do this by showing that "overthrow" can only have one meaning here, and not two. Or you could show me how "repentance" is not a possible meaning for "overthrow."

I have dealt with why it can not mean your second meaning. Reconsider this in its entirety with your question in mind and my answers as well.

(Notice: This quote is an improved version.)
Crytahvn – Excellent question. You posted

God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh

a bit drastic, I know she is simple but really? destruction???

That’s ok, the situation is also fairly simple. Consider the following to see if Nineveh’s prophesy was one of destruction or not.

Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you."

4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Jon 4:2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, "Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You [are] a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

In the bible, most (perhaps all?) national overthrows performed by God were violent and even deadly, often terribly so. So even the mildest most lenient understanding of the idea of “God overthrowing a nation” denotes severe wrath, although I agree that exceptions might apply, so the question deserves more investigation. Fortunately for us, God clarified the meaning involved through the simple contextual development (the storyline). The national overthrow is qualified by the following ideas.

• v.9 perishing
• v.10 national “disaster” brought “upon” them, disaster is clearly a bad destructive idea, and disasters tend to befall “upon” people, it happens “to them”. A case of national repentance can not rightly be said to be a “national disaster”.
• Ch.4 v.2 The issue is correlated with God’s anger verses His lovingkindness and from relenting from doing harm! It is not harmful to repent in faith to God, no, this harm was related to God’s prophesied national (even lethal) disaster, that He did not do. So by trusting in God's word, we know that God plainly planned on destroying them, but after they repented, :He did not do it.

Lastly, if 3:4 “overthrow” only implies their turning from their wickedness (i.e. repentance), not a national “disaster” of “harm” to be “brought upon” them, then v.10 is a lie from God because if He intended on bringing “conversion or repentance upon then”, then He would have never said that He failed to do what He said He would do. Instead, He would have said, see, I told you I would overthrow you, and your wickedness has been repented of so I accomplished exactly what I said I would do! That is a contradiction to what God says did happen.

So the “overthrow” of Nineveh can not imply conditions because of how God described what happened after the fact of Nineveh's repentance. The words "yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown, can not mean be destroyed or else be “converted by nationwide repentance”! That is pure contradiction given how God describes what actually happened.

I sincerely hope this helps. Isn’t it neat how simple understanding God’s word can be if you just give it half a chance by keeping in mind the whole story instead of focusing too much on a minor issue, like what does this one word mean. Better is asking, what does this whole story teaching and plainly say. After you do that, the individual words are easy to figure out what they mean.

As to your second point, about the demons and the swine. (1) That does not answer my objection you quoted. Are you trying to be mistaken on purpose? You quoted me saying

It’s a lie if you know in advance you are absolutely not going to do something, but you say that you will do it anyway

and then you responded ever so incoherently by saying

That was what my reply was with the Matthew and Mark illustration. You are repeating your question, and not answering my reply...

And then on top of that complete disassociation subversion attempt, somehow you failed to perceive that (2) I have responded to your point about the swine and demons as prompt as I have any other response of late.

Question
Are you trying to mess everything up, or are you just trying to misunderstand, or are you just willfully being ignorant, or are you purposefully ignoring my points in order to subvert attention from them because they serve well at destroying your views, or are you purposefully being generally aggravating, or perhaps you are purposefully lying and perverting like you have done against God’s word. :idea: Oh, I get it, you can lie against God and scripture with no remorse or Christ like accountability, so since I am of far less importance than God, so you can lie and pervert even more so. :nono:

Seek and ye shall find
Here’s a suggestion that you should implement in the future to help yourself verify your suspicions. If you really care to know if someone has responded to your point or not, do a word search for their handle and include keyword or words that are centrally associated to your issue. You put my handle in the user box, you put demon in the keyword, you select posts not threads, I happened to select the last single month’s worth of posts, and presto, your response was immediately discovered by the aid of (now old technology) database query combined with a reasonable desire to know.

CLICK HERE to see the post in queston.

"God says" is not good enough for Lee
God's word records the following qualifications that the overthrow was a matter relating to God’s response involving: anger, harm, national disaster, them perishing and all those things being brought “upon them”, not “from them”. Plus, if you simply consider the implications of “national overthrow”, I’m not absolutely sure of this, but I think it is very likely that there are precisely zero biblical records of God overthrowing a nation without it involving mass destruction and calamity and almost always widespread death. I’m sure Israel returned to faith away from their wickedness many times, but I’m almost just as sure that God never said of such a national conversion that He overthrew it, and brought national repentance by bringing His overthrow upon them. And that the overthrow He was thinking of was to be a "national disaster", and that it was right to qualify it as from "anger" and for "harm" in relation to His judgment of "overthrow" and "disaster". (LOL, this is just absurd) You’re such a willfully ignorant person if you can’t see how it can not mean repentance. It’s NOT harmful to repent from sin, it’s not God’s judgment of anger and it’s not a disaster to repent and turn to redemptive faith in God!

What’s lying got to do with it?
Oh wait a minuet, since you act like it is ok to openly lie and pervert against scripture, even to not respond to reasonable Christian accountability for such offenses, so then it naturally follows that “for you” it’s ok for God to lie about what happened! So you just accept that “God is not exactly telling the truth” about all this business of the overthrow being a: national disaster, having lethal connotations, having it “brought upon” them, not “coming from” them, and being associated to God’s “anger” and “intention to do harm”. ... (continued next highlight)...

Lee’s spiritual discernment, that’s what!
... So all that is just a lie from God, so since it is a perversion of the truth, you just accept your manmade tradition (Closed theism, pagan derived divine immutability) in place of God’s bogus lies. Thus apparently “lying” is more crucial and central to your “belief system” than anyone would have ever imagined possible. Wow, it all makes sense now.
:dunce: Truth is not as important since lying is acceptable!

Maybe your not Lee Merril! Maybe I’m Lee Merril! Maybe no one is Lee. Who knows since it’s perfectly ok to lie, the truth becomes unimportant, because, it’s ok to violate it, it’s ok to lie and to pervert the truth.

So Lee, lets say that for some reason you affirm God’s word as true, that the context is clear that the conditional idea of shape up (repent) or else can not be the meaning “from the prophetic message”, and you are even sorry for lying and perverting against scripture,,, and for not humbly submitting yourself to Christ like accountability. Considering all that happened because you have not once responded to my call for amends on this issue, I should not believe you, right? Because those admissions may also simply be yet another lie from you, right?
No wonder I have been working so hard to restore the trust and integrity towards the truth between us.
:doh:
But you don’t care about how we treat one another, do you.
:dizzy:
What a deal!
:BRAVO:

 

[1Way]

Lee – I’m sorry, maybe you are privy to some new and improved Holy writ that should be of higher authority than scripture and that has somehow given you an exempt status from the standards of Christian accountability over matters of falsification and perversion.

So has God superceded scripture and given you some sort of extra biblical authority that we do not know about yet? If so, please do tell as the situation under biblical authority is unacceptable. Or haven’t I mentioned that yet?

Hoping my back feels better
Nice try, but how can I be sure your not lying about that either? I love and trust God largely because He is honest, so I base my trust and respect with others in a similar moral fashion. You are openly dishonest against God’s word, so of course your trust and personal integrity is broken, ,,, until you make amends. I have no problem allowing you to make a concession of unintentional impropriety and just chalk it up to standard human error and such. Many people make similar mistakes, but you happened to insert yours at the very heart of our discussion, and so I can not allow that, the truth matters.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi 1Way,

I did miss your point about the pigs, I tend to skip over the angry parts, and not read every word.

We have a relationship that is engraved in scripture that you can not do away with by aversion, and that is concerning compliance (or non-compliance) with what one previously said he will do. Your demon and pig example does nothing about a later non-compliance with what was earlier truthfully said would happen.

All I meant by this illustration is that you can be said to have said "A", when the entire statement was "If 'condition' then A". And I think you agreed that that was fine, so that was all I was after.

So the “overthrow” of Nineveh can not mean, yet forty days and Nineveh will be “converted by nationwide repentance”! That is just silly contradiction given how God describes the rest of the story.

This is a misunderstanding, though, I did address this, but maybe I missed your reply again. I mean that "overthrow" meant "destruction" while the Ninevites were unrepentant, and "repentance" after they repented.

I think I'm satisfied that it's not possible to maintain that God intended to destroy the Ninevites, there are just too many difficulties with this interpretation.

After reading some of the rest of your latest post (I couldn't read it all), I guess I give up. I do wish you well, but I hope you will change your approach in these discussions.

2TI 3:2 For men will be ... revilers.

This is what you are doing, 1Way, and it's a sin.

Blessings,
Lee