An open challenge to all closed theists

God_Is_Truth

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Addendum

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Addendum

Originally posted by Z Man

Ummmm.... what do you think?

Where is this all leading?

i was trying to get a better understanding of the calvinist viewpoint of Jonah and ninevah.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Addendum

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Addendum

Hi God is Truth and Z man,

so the question is, did God ever really have in his mind the plan to destroy the ninevah people?

No, I don't think he did plan that. The warning was part of his plan, to bring about the repentance, so he would not have to destroy them. That's why he sent Jonah! And why Jonah ran, because he knew (I think) what God's purpose was in sending him.

Blessings,
Lee
 

Z Man

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Addendum

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Addendum

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi God is Truth and Z man,



No, I don't think he did plan that. The warning was part of his plan, to bring about the repentance, so he would not have to destroy them. That's why he sent Jonah! And why Jonah ran, because he knew (I think) what God's purpose was in sending him.

Blessings,
Lee
I agree. And the reason Jonah ran is because he didn't want to see Ninevah repent:

Jonah 3:10; 4:1-2
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. But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 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.

Jonah knew that God wasn't intending on destroying Ninevah; God had ordained Ninevah to repent. That's why He told Jonah to go to Ninevah to begin with! But Jonah hated the city of Ninevah; he did not want to see them repent, thus he ran from God. But God not only taught Jonah a lesson through his disobediance, but He also taught Ninevah a greater one as well!

As one can clearly see, the story of Ninevah and Jonah, if truely read in it's entirety and context, is not about a God who changes, but about a God who brings about His purposes and uses evil to bring about a greater cause, most importantly that of repentance.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
God says that He did not do what He said He would do, but you closed theists contradict by saying, no, God never intended on doing what He said He would do.

When you finally agree that God did clarify His course of action (Nineveh’s prophesied destruction) as being reversed, you try to say that He was just being figurative about the destruction, He didn’t really mean it, but you will NEVER tell us what the figure actually means, because you have no reasonable idea what it really means.

So either way the Calvinist leans,

1) the prophesy was just a warning with conditional implication,

2) or God actually did the complete opposite of what He said He would do, but He was only being figurative about the destruction, not literal,

either way the closed theist is genuinely presenting an illegitimate argument that he himself has a hard time selling to others because of the inherently falseness of it. Hence none of you will come to work for me for even $200 dollars an hour (waiting a month prior to payment)! Why?!? Because you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place. You KNOW that is wrong to do, but you think it would be godly if God did it. Say one thing but do another. God was not wrong when He said the following, and you have no standing to overturn God'says truth.
Jon 3:4 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!" ...

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.
As to the personal attacks that all I have done is say your wrong, the truth is that I have provided reasons from scripture, not just empty claims. God commands and harshly warns and condemns against taking away from, or altering, His word, but, you do so without even providing a suitable biblically based reason, and without replacing the meaning you void. You don’t have a leg to stand on, so instead you lash out at me personally, holding higher your manmade doctrines than the holy word of God.
 

lee_merrill

New member
When you finally agree that God did clarify His course of action (Nineveh’s prophesied destruction) as being reversed, you try to say that He was just being figurative about the destruction, He didn’t really mean it, but you will NEVER tell us what the figure actually means, because you have no reasonable idea what it really means.

No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion.

MT 11:21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

Jesus knew that the people in Tyre and Sidon would have repented if someone had done the works that Jesus did there. There was real destruction in Tyre and Sidon, because they did not repent. But if someone had gone there and done the works, then there would have been real repentance. This possibility doesn't make the meaning of repentance figurative.

The threatened destruction was as real as the mentioned repentance in Tyre and Sidon.

So either way the Calvinist leans,

1) the prophesy was just a warning with conditional implication,

2) or God actually did the complete opposite of what He said He would do, but He was only being figurative about the destruction, not literal.

I would say it was a threat, with a condition. I think you are saying God really planned to destroy the Ninevites, and then changed his overall plan.

So some questions for you here:

Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)

... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place.

Jonah thought there was an implied condition, the Ninevites hoped there was, and they were both correct. They understood God's intent, thus God did not pretend or mislead them.

Blessings,
Lee
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – The first thing you said was
No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion.
There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.
Jon 3:4 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!" ...

... 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.
Now watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

You said
I would say it was a threat, with a condition. I think you are saying God really planned to destroy the Ninevites, and then changed his overall plan.
God said that He did not do what He said He would do. That is God’s position, and I accept it even though you don’t.

You said
So some questions for you here:

(1) Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

(2) Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

(3) Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

(4) How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)
... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place.
Oh my goodness, I don’t believe it, you are actually admitting that trying to turn a serious honest literal statement into a figurative meaningless statement is wrong to do. Wow, talk about an advancement from the closed view camp. You should watch over your shoulder now that you have sort of left the field behind (if you will).

(1) It was not His intent. I never said nor implied that it was. Have you lost your senses?

(2) Sending Jonah was part of His plan, God clarified His intents of destruction when He later repented from doing what he said He would do, destroy Nineveh. If God was never intending on destroying Neneveh, then there would have been nothing to repent of. Your train of thought does not conform to scripture, it even contradicts it. Please stop pretending that God did not say what He honestly did say.

(3) Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either. :confused: You pervert, twist, fabricate and falsify a lot. Please stop doing this, I enjoy reasonable honorable discussions.

(4) Because God was going to destroy them based upon the current situation He was perfectly righteous and justified in so prophesying. When the circumstance changed, so did God’s judgment against them. I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the virge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destuction upon Nineveh).


You seem completely afraid to deal uprightly with this biblical fact. God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it". That eliminates the unsupported notion that the prophesy was just a threat by God's honest and holy word on the matter.


Divine repentance is a glorious godly doctrine that you should stop voiding from scripture.

You said
Jonah thought there was an implied condition, the Ninevites hoped there was, and they were both correct. They understood God's intent, thus God did not pretend or mislead them.
More falsifying. You have no basis for overturning scripture. Scripture is true, you words are false. Jonah understood the conditionality within God ("if" God later finds the situation has drastically changed), not about His prophesy, that was God's word preserved without error.

I agree that a part of God’s intent was to allow room for national repentance as revealed by His actions. But that does not do anything to overturn scripture that show God’s repentance by reversing His prophesied word of destruction, it is because God repented from doing what He prophesied He would do, that we know God changed His course of action. If He would not have repented from bring destruction, then He would have destroyed them upon the prophesied 40 days. This is according to what God says, you need to start according your faith to that instead of contradicting it.
 
Last edited:

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee - I just re-edited my post for additional clarity. I hope you will respond to this version instead of an older one. Sorry for any hassles this may involve. I just want to be as clear as possible.

Also, I never said there was absolutely no conditionality within God about all this. The fact remains that God repented from bringing the destruction that He said He would bring, and He did not do it. So God's word is clear about Him changing His intentions via repentance from carrying out His prophesied word of imminent destruction.


Thanks.
 
Last edited:

lee_merrill

New member
Hi 1Way,

I just re-edited my post for additional clarity.

Thanks for the editing, I appreciate the discussion, too! And I was just about to press "post". Now here is my revised (maybe not standard) version...

God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain.

I don't think it is, actually! God didn't actually say he would destroy them. God said he would overthrow them, which he did, by the Ninevite's repentance, instead of by destruction.

Now for the questions! Thank you for your replies...

Lee: Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

1Way: It was not His intent. I never said nor implied that it was.

Well, if God very literally repented, as you say, then what did he repent from, if not from an intent to destroy them?

Lee: Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

1Way: Sending Jonah was part of His plan, God clarified His intents of destruction when He later repented from doing what he said He would do, destroy Nineveh. If God was never intending on destroying Neneveh, then there would have been nothing to repent of.

Now I think you are saying that God did intend to destroy Ninevah. So I ask my first question again, "why didn't God just destroy them right away, if that was his intent?" Also (back to question 2), how was sending Jonah part of that plan? This spoiled it, actually.

Lee: Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

1Way: Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either.

He did think the Ninevites would probably repent, though:

JNH 4:2 "That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

Now Jonah certainly knew that God would relent only if the Ninevites did repent. But according to the OV, I think you have to say Jonah's view was accurate, and God's actually was not. When the Ninevites repented, God had to change his plan. If God thought the Ninevites would repent, then he would have had that as part of his plan in the first place, I expect.

Lee: How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction?

1Way: I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the virge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance.

This is all fine (from an OV perspective), but God made no condition to the Ninevites, according to the OV, though he knew there was a possibility of repentance. Thus, I think this implies he actually misled them, i.e. that he did lie.

God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it".

Two quotes in one! I will address this after the next quote...

You “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place.

But if there is an understood, implied condition for paying the money (I won't get paid if I don't work), then if I don't work, you are justified in applying the condition, and not paying me. You didn't have to state that condition, it was implied. So you didn't do what you said, but we both understood the implied condition, you didn't have to say that part.

I agree that a part of God’s intent was to allow room for national repentance as revealed by His actions.

So now I wonder if you are saying that God's intent changed when he repented? Or instead he just changed his pronouncement, from judgment to mercy? Which is pretty close to what I am interpreting this passage as saying...

Blessings,
Lee
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
We have a particular stopping point for focus

We have a particular stopping point for focus

Lee – On the creative scale, you are very creative, but on the truth conformity scale, your creativity ruins your understanding of the truth. You said
I don't think it is, actually! God didn't actually say he would destroy them. God said he would overthrow them, which he did, by the Ninevite's repentance, instead of by destruction.
God qualified His statement of overthrow as being one of destruction. Again, you are afraid of dealing uprightly with what God actually said, here it is again for truth conformity.
Jon 3:10 subsection part b ... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
The word for destruction is Hebrew ra`, which is a moral or amoral bad or ruin, to break, etc. And God did not correct the Ninevites who assumed that God’s version of destroying them meant they would perish, i.e. be killed! Now if God did not intend a serious and lethal punishment, then that would be the last impression God would have recorded about His judgment without making a clear correction of the misunderstanding. Surely our loving and righteous God would have given a corrective word so that they would not worry about God killing them if He had no intentions on doing so.

But all that aside, God said that He did not do what He said He would do. There is no getting around that. Here is what He said.
Jon 3:10 subsection part b ... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
What did God say He would do that He did not do? Bring destruction upon them. That was exactly what God repented from doing, and He did not do it.

It can’t get any planer and simpler and easier and clearer than that.

As to your overthrow comment that God supposedly accomplished. You are so confused it is pitiful. Again, God, not you, not me, not even Augustine, God said that concerning what He said He would do, He repented from doing it, and He did not do it! So you can try to claim that God only wanted to overthrow them and that He did do that, but concerning God’s prophesy of disastrous overthrow, God said that He did not do it! You say He did overthrow them! You might want to get some medical attention, maybe a CAT scan ;) because you just can not seem to be able to deal uprightly with extremely simple ideas.

With all due respect, your fear and contradiction against this text is simply remarkable. You hold in higher esteem your traditions than you do God’s word. Please reconsider the meaning of this text that is arguably below junior high school level. If you can not deal uprightly with this small responsibility, of course larger more complex issues will confound you.
 
Last edited:

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Biblical conformity isn't possible if you neglect/violate it for manmade tradition

Biblical conformity isn't possible if you neglect/violate it for manmade tradition

Lee – I guess I should not have read more of your post because what I have read so far is alarming to say the least, and if we can not improving things at this fundamental and basic level, then further productive discussion efforts are certainly futile. But, I did read on to your very next point just now, and I am even more stultified by your lack of understanding. This will be my last issue I raise as these two issues are so basic and simple and fundamental that no progress can be achieved without these issues being already resolved in a reasonable fashion. You can not run before you can walk, and it appears in your case, before you can crawl. To your credit, you seem focused and articulate, but the content of your understandable responses are incredibly void of scriptural truth and meaning.

You said
Lee: Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

1Way: It was not His intent. I never said nor implied that it was.
Well, if God very literally repented, as you say, then what did he repent from, if not from an intent to destroy them?
God repented of His prophesy of a national disastrous overthrow in yet 40 days. That is what God repented from doing. The 40 days addendum represents a significant time span of prophesied doom. The very act of giving such a prolonged time span is indicative of the desire to allow for nation wide repentance, or perhaps for “whosoever” would place faith in the truth from God, maybe those people could escape the destruction by leaving the nation prior to the nation’s destruction, thus concentrating the punishment on those who remained defiant against God.

How it could be that you can not understand what God literally repented from by willfully ignoring the few and very basic elements of this context, is beyond reasonable scrutiny and justification. You display uncanny willful blindness to scriptures meaning clearly given. I do not, and will not allow such foolishness without clear objection. Please rectify this situation over these last two posts or realize that I will end up leaving you in the preposterous pile of willful ignorance that you have entrenched yourself in.

You do agree that God and by scripture is the highest authority for matters of faith, right, not your theology traditions, God’s word, right?
 

lee_merrill

New member
Re: We have a particular stopping point for focus

Re: We have a particular stopping point for focus

Hi 1Way,

You said God qualified His statement of overthrow as being one of destruction. ... God did not correct the Ninevites who assumed that God’s version of destroying them meant they would perish, i.e. be killed!

I agree, real destruction was implied, though not mentioned specifically, and the Ninevites understood this, and they were correct.

But all that aside, God said that He did not do what He said He would do. There is no getting around that.

Fine, but in your analogy of coming to work for you, if I don't do the work, you won't do what you said, you won't pay me. Even if you didn't state that condition. So there was an understood, and implied condition, thus you didn't change your overall plan at all. And you didn't do what you said you would do.

Lee: Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his intent?

1Way: God repented of His prophesy of a national disastrous overthrow in yet 40 days.

Yes, I know that is what Jonah was given to say. But why was Jonah sent to say that, if it was God's intent to destroy them? Why not destroy them right away, and not even send Jonah, to say this message? I repeat question two here: Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan to destroy them?

And I leave the other questions as an exercise for the reader...

Blessings,
Lee
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
You have meaningfully sliced up what I have said thin enough to have effectively ignored the bulk of it. And more importantly, you have not lifted a pinky to justify your violence against God’s word as clearly exposed.

I will not stand down on this issue, you will stand corrected or this conversion will end unpleasantly because I have no respect for willful liars and perverts, especially when directed against God’s word. Anyone who does respect such people are trying to be nicer than God, which is foolishness and likely selfish sin.

You tried to stretch my analogy beyond what it was used for, which was simply to point out the immorality of being purposefully dishonest or deceptive. I even congratulated you for doing well on understanding my analogy, but now I have to take it back because now you mishandle it.

God’s positive truth claim = Nineveh’s disastrous overthrow

My positive truth claim = I will pay you $200/hour to work for me with the stipulation that you must wait to be paid until after a month’s time of full time work.

If you want to continue with the analogy, you must consider accurately what happened. God said that He did “not” do what He said He would do, because the people changed such that it contradicted the original circumstances, so God changed His judgment accordingly.

For me to analogously say that I “did not do what I said I would do”, would be for me to pay you even though you did not do the work for me according to the original situation! That would be a very strange analogy, and does not help much. Besides, concerning what actually did happen with God and Nineveh, the situation is simple and easy such that it needs no analogy. So stop avoiding the scripture, deal with it.

So then, why did I give my analogy? Because you folks are so deluded, you don’t even see the hypocrisy in your own lives over this issue about subverting a literal truth into a non-literal and/or meaninglessness.

With your words only, you promote that it can be good and godly to offer an honest serious judgment of harsh condemnation, and then later just say it was not literal, or that it was conditional and thus represents no change in original course of action. But your life betrays your hypocrisy because you will not come and work for me for even $500 bucks an hour because you know that I will just pull the same wicked stunt you are trying to levy against God and His word, in that I would just say, hey, remember what I said at the beginning, all that stuff about me paying you $100, $200, or even $500 bucks an hour, forget all that, that was either

figurative, I did not literally mean what I said,

or

it was actually conditional even though I never stated the condition.

That is why you would not come and work for me, so you live the exact opposite of what you say you believe.

Also, no matter how you look at it, it would be WRONG for me to absolutely KNOW that I was NOT going to pay you, yet still say

1) I will pay you!

2) I repented from doing what I said I would do, and I did not do it.

In both cases, if I absolutely knew that would not pay you, then in both cases I would be dishonest about my intentions.

You KNOW that is wrong, and that is why you would not work for me under this analogy, so you’re a hypocrite. Shucks I might even make it more than what I have generously offered already! But you wont, because when the rubber meets the road and truth becomes undeniable, I’m right, your wrong and you’ve been playing the hypocrite.

As to Jonah being sent, I already answered you fully, and you have presented no new questioning, so until you do, I direct your attention to what I already said. God intended on doing exactly what He did, including sending Jonah, yet He still ended up relenting from doing what He said He would do, and He did NOT DO IT. I see you still will not touch that truth from God’s word with anything but ignorance and violence. At least your consistent.

You suggest that God did do what He said He would do by “overthrowing” Nineveh, so He did what He said He would do. :eek: So God did not mean a lethal disaster, only a moral/spiritual overthrow, but, you also say that the “disaster” implied Nineveh literally perishing(!!!). :kookoo: So evidently you don not even know what you believe. You are lost in a world of contradiction and false teaching. :radar: But I stand on God’s word hoping you would stop violating it. :nono:

I have already given you one chance to stand corrected for your perversions and an outright lie, and you have chosen the path of self defense refusing to be held accountable for violating scripture as you have. Strike one, my patience is wearing thin, you are well aware of what you have done. I strongly suggest that you re-read my exposure of your ill treatment of God’s word and respond accordingly or this conversation may become unpleasant rather quickly for your willful ignorance and violence against God’s word. Not because you do not agree with me, but because you lie and pervert against scripture as clearly exposed.

If you had planned on responding to my very serious charges, then you should have said so without presenting the impression that you are ignoring all that. What a short list, lying against and pervert scripture, combined with a generous helping of hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:

lee_merrill

New member
Hi 1Way,

I will not stand down on this issue, you will stand corrected or this conversion will end unpleasantly because I have no respect for willful liars and perverts, especially when directed against God’s word. Anyone who does respect such people are trying to be nicer than God, which is foolishness and likely selfish sin.

...

If you had planned on responding to my very serious charges, then you should have said so without presenting the impression that you are ignoring all that. What a short list, lying against and pervert scripture, combined with a generous helping of hypocrisy.

Please calm down! I am not attacking you. Our conduct should commend our comments.

I will repond to your post later, but please adopt a different tone...

Blessings,
Lee
 

lee_merrill

New member
God’s positive truth claim = Nineveh’s disastrous overthrow

My positive truth claim = I will pay you $200/hour to work for me with the stipulation that you must wait to be paid until after a month’s time of full time work.

Where is the condition for averting "disaster" in the prophecy, though? And where did you say you would not pay me if I did not do the work? Both are implied.

Also, no matter how you look at it, it would be WRONG for me to absolutely KNOW that I was NOT going to pay you, yet still say

1) I will pay you!

2) I repented from doing what I said I would do, and I did not do it.

I agree that is wrong, if there was no implied condition, and I do not agree that that is analogous to God's threat to the Ninevites. That is why I restated your analogy with the implied condition, I think that is a good analogy.

As to Jonah being sent ... God intended on doing exactly what He did, including sending Jonah, yet He still ended up relenting from doing what He said He would do, and He did NOT DO IT.

You did say previously that God had some intention of destroying the Ninevites, though. So how did God do exactly what he intended?

And you actually have not given me satisfactory answers to my questions. I did address your answers, and you have not, that I know of, addressed my replies. Apart from this last quote, which I think is inconsistent with what you said previously, so I'm not sure what you are saying about these first two questions.

Here it is again: If God intended in any way, shape or form, to destroy Ninevah, why didn't he just do so? And not send Jonah, which spoiled his plan?

You suggest that God did do what He said He would do by “overthrowing” Nineveh, so He did what He said He would do.

No, you misunderstood me. The "said he would do" applies to the implied destruction, not to the overthrow. Though I'm not going to insist on this interpretation, I think I can do without it, if need be. You need to show me how the Ninevites repenting is not an overthrow, though.

I strongly suggest that you re-read my exposure of your ill treatment of God’s word and respond accordingly or this conversation may become unpleasant rather quickly ...

This is unpleasant, actually. Do please adopt a different tone, that would be appreciated.

Blessings,
Lee
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee - Twice in a row now I have called you on the carpet for plainly “lying” and “perverting” against God's word, and every time you you continue to ignore any accountability to these evils. So you are racking up a third evil in so doing, you are not above Christian/biblical accountability.

This is your last warning to do right and risk the consequences. You know where to go to deal with the accusations of “wrong doing”, I’ve repeatedly pointed them out to you despite your repeatedly ignoring them. If you have no defense against lying and perversion against God’s word, then my case is done and you are a shame.

You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against God’s word, don’t you?
 

lee_merrill

New member
This is your last warning...

That's why I'm posting here, actually. Do feel free to show me where I am mistaken. How is it that repentance cannot be viewed properly as "overthrow"? I think it can:

AC 17:6 "These men who have upset the world have come here also..."

If you have no defense against lying and perversion against God’s word, then my case is done and you are a shame.

I have not proceeded with my defense, because you have not proceeded with more answers, though! Your case is not done, as well, for I still have my questions waiting for answers:

If God had any intent of destroying the Ninevites, why didn't he simply do so? He even has the power to keep people from repenting, when he warns them, if his plan is to destroy them:

2CH 25:16 "I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel."

1SA 2:25 His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the Lord's will to put them to death.

So if it was God's plan to destroy the Ninevites, then he could have even kept them from repenting at Jonah's message, I believe. But again, why did he send Jonah in the first place?

You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against God’s word, don’t you?

I do understand that. Another repeated question: how is it, on your view, that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction?

Now you may have changed your view, I may have misunderstood if you now have a different thought on these verses. If that's so, that's fine, but I do need to understand now what your position is.

Blessings,
Lee
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – You are trying to levy (subjective) artistic license into this new discussion about your wrong doing, and of course I will not allow you to pervert nor contradict here neither. The facts have been recorded in black and white for all to see, and if you persist in this shameful course of action, I will end up re-exposing what you have done as a reminder to all of the kind of violence and perversion you promote against God’s word. You will deal with this issue uprightly, or you will suffer the unresolved charges of wrong doing as plainly levied against you. I reject such insolent and scriptural dishonesty, and I tire of repeating what you keep ignoring.

However, you said
That's why I'm posting here, actually. Do feel free to show me where I am mistaken. How is it that repentance cannot be viewed properly as "overthrow"? I think it can:
That is not the case at all. I clearly explained the case for why I charged you with lying and for perverting against the scripture. My words have not changed, and your lie and perversion has not been addressed let alone repented of.

You said
I have not proceeded with my defense, because you have not proceeded with more answers, though! Your case is not done, as well, for I still have my questions waiting for answers:
You have no grounds for me doing wrong, I have presented you with “immediate and clear” grounds for doing wrong, and every since then you have utterly ignored it. I will not continue with the discussion until this issue is resolved, no one likes to chat with a liar. You have presented no defense for your actions so the charges of serious wrong doing remain against you. And of course I will not entertain a liar’s charges against anyone because your reputation concerning truth is already obviously challenged and in my opinion sufficiently exposed for being false. You are probably just trying to stall the inevitable, it will not work.

Although the our discussion was the arena of where you perpetrated these things, the ongoing discussion has nothing to do with you standing accountable for what you already have done. You are certainly being held accountable as charged until the matter is remedied and no amount of you trying to wiggle your way out of it will suffice instead. Make amends or remain exposed for being a liar and a pervert against God’s word.
 

smaller

BANNED
Banned
Let's not LIE 1Way

You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against God’s word, don’t you?

Now you KNOW your statement should have read as follows:

You do understand that it is evil and wrong to lie and pervert against 1Way's interpretation of God’s word, don’t you?

He uses this phoney tactic continually...go figure
 

Z Man

New member
1 Way,

You disgust me. Your level of ignorance and close-mindedness is so high that you refuse to receive any sort of new knowledge into your intellect. You have trapped yourself into a world that you have made up, and if no one else fits into your paradigm, which was created from your own isolation in your own world, then they are wrong. You truely are 1 way, but I'm afraid that that "way" is not God's...
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Here is my post #146, the one that Lee has completely ignored my immediate claims of wrong doing via violence against God’s word, especially the first occurance.

****
Quoting post 146.
****


Lee – The first thing you said was
No, the destruction was not figurative, God's statement was this: "If there is no repentance, there will be destruction." Real destruction was threatened, and repentance averted it. God knew that would happen, but the threat was not an illusion.
There’s no easy way around this, ,,, that is a lie, I know you know the truth about what God actually said, but you still falsified anyway. God did not by His words say nor imply any warning nor condition. What God did in fact say was concerning His prophesied destruction of Nineveh, HE DID NOT DO IT, He did not do what He said HE WOULD DO, He repented of bringing to pass His prophesy, that much is certain. Also, if God DID say as you falsified by saying that God’s word was a conditional warning, then you make God out to being a liar when He said that concerning that so called “conditional warning”, He did not do what He said He would do. By God complying with, and not contradicting against “a conditional warning”, then God would have said, so I will do what I said I would do and not bring destruction (if you repent), and God did do as He said He would do.

Here is God’s word again that you keep rejecting in favor of your manmade traditions.
Jon 3:4 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!" ...

... 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.
Now watch my take on this, and examine the humble truth conformity as opposed to your outright contradiction. God relented (lit. “repented” as a response to the nation’s repentance, so “relented” is a fabulous translation showing real-time relational synergism) from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. That is perfect, that is what happened, God did not do what He said He would do, He did not do it. God is right and you are wrong for trying to void this easy teaching of meaning.

...

...


...
...

(3) Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and God apparently did not.

(4) How is it that God did not lie to the Ninevites, if there was no implied condition in the threat of destruction? (repeat question here)
... you “know” it is wrong to state a serious proposition in a literal way, and then later just claim it was figurative pretending like I never really intended on paying you any money in the first place.
...
...
(3) Jonah understood that God has a reputation for repenting from destruction because of His righteous mercies. “Nothing” is shown that he thought the Ninevites “would probably repent” nor anything about what God thought about that likelihood either. :confused: You pervert, twist, fabricate and falsify a lot. Please stop doing this, I enjoy reasonable honorable discussions.

(4) Because God was going to destroy them based upon the current situation He was perfectly righteous and justified in so prophesying. When the circumstance changed, so did God’s judgment against them. I say that God did not know with absolute certainty that they would repent, He knew that the situation (as is) was on the the verge of destruction, but allowed for the outside chance (however slim or likely) of a phenomenal occurrence of nationwide repentance. !!! What an outstanding and unusual reaction!!! And it was "only after" God learned of their repentance ("Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented") that God contradicted His previously prophesied judgment and did not do what He said He would do (=bring destuction upon Nineveh).


You seem completely afraid to deal uprightly with this biblical fact. God's word is clear that God did not do what He said He would do, quote, "and He did not do it". That eliminates the unsupported notion that the prophesy was just a threat by God's honest and holy word on the matter.

Divine repentance is a glorious godly doctrine that you should stop voiding from scripture.


****
End quoting post 146.
****
 
Top