Truck Driving Jobs

golfhobo · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: God is an Outlaw (for Slimland)

Slim: Well, here it is. The thread we promised to further discuss whether God is subject to his own (or some universal) law, or not.

As we discussed, I would appreciate if you would list any thread links that I may need for research. I need them HERE and not in a PM.

This is NOT going to be argumentative, or in any way disrespectful to God or to you (if I can manage it.) This is a discussion thread.

I only ask that you MINIMIZE your quoting of scripture. If you'd like to give them as references, I'm sure I can find them in my Bible. Small excerpts will be accepted. But.... I REALLY want you to speak from your OWN heart as to what you believe, or have been taught, or conclusions you've come to.

If I understand you correctly, and without yet researching ALL your threads, you believe that God instituted a LAW that he cannot break. In this way, you feel he is subject to his own law, and that somehow... if he broke his own law, he could NOT exist. Please correct me if I misunderstand your premise.

Just because my father is a minister, and I've heard the Gospel and other sermons ALL my life, does NOT make me an expert. I will not presume that I know ALL the answers. But, I ask that you keep your arguments brief and to the point, and try not to talk in circles. Religion is a very confusing and deep subject, and it is hard to address your concerns/beliefs when they are MANY and cyclical. (i.e: don't talk yourself into a corner.)

Regardless of my personal beliefs about the existence of God, I will respond as though there IS one for the purpose of discussion. I will try not to muddy the waters with questions about his existence. However, please do not assume that I believe as fervently as you do, and try to answer me on a philosophical level instead of an evangelical one.

For the purpose of this discussion, MY vantage point is this:

God created ALL in heaven and Earth, including all laws. He put himself below NO laws. The fact that he cannot, or MAY not, violate any law that we have ascribed to Him, in NO way means that he is subject to any law that HE made, or that if he chose to break one, he would somehow cease to exist, or would not ever HAVE existed.

If I read you right, you seem to believe that IF he broke his own law, he would not be, and could not be, God.

There have been many things you've said that I might want to debate, but for now, the subject is God's law and whether or not he exists ONLY because he does not or cannot break his own law.

Are we agreed on this? Or have I missed your point?

Hobo

Fozzy · Joined: 02 Sep 2005 Posts: 2460

Universal law does not require a god....

golfhobo · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject:

Fozzy wrote: Universal law does not require a god....

It does if you believe God created the universe and therefore all the laws that govern it. :lol:

Be NICE, Fozzy. Slim hasn't even weighed in yet, and this is a discussion he wanted to have concerning God's Law and whether or not he is subject to it.

You, and anyone else, are welcome to join in if you like. But, try to stay on topic. :wink:

[And please, folks... no HUGE pictures of trucks that exceed the limits mentioned in the TOS. They make me have to scroll back and forth JUST to read each line of every post on the page.]

EDITED one time to correct a bad impression I made. :D

Consider · Joined: 21 Jul 2006 Posts: 643 Location: New Mexico, USA

... this is a pretty short thread... and no input from Slimland...

What happened? (oops, I thought this thread was from 2005... sorry. I wasnt' reading accurately.)

I was all ready to read this discussion.

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:19 am Post subject:

Consider: Slimland just PM'd me Saturday morning saying he thought I'd decided NOT to have this discussion. I didn't see his message until last night, and told him actually I was just about to start it now.

I guess he's out of town for the weekend or something. In case you missed it, this is a continuation of a discussion we were having on the Big Bang Theory thread. It didn't belong there, so we decided to move it to here.

Consider · Joined: 21 Jul 2006 Posts: 643 Location: New Mexico, USA

golfhobo wrote: Consider: Slimland just PM'd me Saturday morning saying he thought I'd decided NOT to have this discussion. I didn't see his message until last night, and told him actually I was just about to start it now.

I guess he's out of town for the weekend or something. In case you missed it, this is a continuation of a discussion we were having on the Big Bang Theory thread. It didn't belong there, so we decided to move it to here.
Oh, I've been meaning to look at the Big Bang thread... Thanks for reminding me.

Where's the NEW LAWS thread? I can't find it... there are 15 pages that turn up when I search "new laws" and I haven't checked all of those pages yet.

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:10 am Post subject:

Consider wrote: golfhobo wrote: Consider: Slimland just PM'd me Saturday morning saying he thought I'd decided NOT to have this discussion. I didn't see his message until last night, and told him actually I was just about to start it now.

I guess he's out of town for the weekend or something. In case you missed it, this is a continuation of a discussion we were having on the Big Bang Theory thread. It didn't belong there, so we decided to move it to here.
Oh, I've been meaning to look at the Big Bang thread... Thanks for reminding me.

Where's the NEW LAWS thread? I can't find it... there are 15 pages that turn up when I search "new laws" and I haven't checked all of those pages yet.

Here it is, Consider. Sorry, I couldn't remember the actual title of it before.

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20866

Slimland · Joined: 27 Dec 2005 Posts: 1626 Location: Texas

Helloo-- am I in the right place :lol:

Well GolfHobo--you put down my thought exaclty the way I said them, so you are correct in your presentation.
I will try to keep it simple, and I will try to keep it from circling back into the same point. "you know me too well"

As for links to other discussions, I will galdly give them or just repost them on this thread. whatever you like.

As for scripture-- I will do my best to paraphrase-and follow with the verse key, and not the actual verse, that way you can read it for your self..

Lets start with the question.

Is God subject to His own Law??

I had stated befor that Jesus was the Word of God, and therfor God, and also thus the Law. This is backed up in John.

So the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst men. How does this make Him subject to Himself?

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

This can be found in Galations-- And In my understanding, God made Himself subject to His Own Law, and He was the only one who could fullfill the Law.

This should be a good starting point on this thread-- Sorry it took so long to answer--and as I said via pm-- we are both busy, but I will do my best to get on here during the weeks and not just the weekends, God willing!

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:47 am Post subject:

Slimland wrote: Helloo-- am I in the right place :lol:

Well GolfHobo--you put down my thought exaclty the way I said them, so you are correct in your presentation.
I will try to keep it simple, and I will try to keep it from circling back into the same point. "you know me too well"

As for links to other discussions, I will galdly give them or just repost them on this thread. whatever you like.

As I said, please post the links to the previous threads HERE. That way I can click on them to research or quote as I need them... while IN this response mode.

As for scripture-- I will do my best to paraphrase-and follow with the verse key, and not the actual verse, that way you can read it for your self..

Hmm... this may or may NOT work. (see below) I didn't mean not to quote the scripture reference - book & chapter, I meant don't give me a block of 15 verses from 3 places in the Bible at once (as an answer to my points.) Paraphrasing DOES give me a perspective on how YOU interpret the scripture though. But, I DO want to know exactly what scripture you reference when doing so. Does that make sense?

Lets start with the question.

Is God subject to His own Law??

I had stated befor that Jesus was the Word of God, and therfor God, and also thus the Law. This is backed up in John.

So the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst men. How does this make Him subject to Himself?

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

This can be found in Galations-- And In my understanding, God made Himself subject to His Own Law, and He was the only one who could fullfill the Law.

See... I don't want to read ALL of Galations looking for this scripture JUST to see whether the part you put in RED is actually THERE or not. Let me clarify: THIS is a short one or two line scripture. Go ahead and quote it AND give the citation (book, chapter & verse.) Then I will go back and read it myself to see the context.

If, however, a concept or point you are making is, say.... found in an entire chapter, then just tell me the book and chapter and NOT use up two pages on this forum quoting the whole thing. Does THAT make sense?

This should be a good starting point on this thread-- Sorry it took so long to answer--and as I said via pm-- we are both busy, but I will do my best to get on here during the weeks and not just the weekends, God willing!

God willing??? Now.... THAT'S another topic! :lol:

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:06 am Post subject:

Okay, Slim: From your first post....

Galations 4:4-5

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."

This can be found in Galations-- And In my understanding, God made Himself subject to His Own Law, and He was the only one who could fullfill the Law.

**********

In MY humble opinion and interpretation of this verse [last time I will precede my comments with that... but it will always apply]:

What is being said here is that God sent his son, Jesus, to be born as the son of MAN so that HE (Jesus) would be subject to the Laws of MAN so that he would be an example to those he witnessed to, those that ARE under the law, of how to live one's life for GOD while yet subject to the laws of the "tribe" so to speak.

He could have sent him to Earth on a winged horse and Jesus could have walked among us as a GOD. He didn't want this. He wanted his son to be born "under the law" by being born of a woman.

We often talk of the Trinity as though they are all one in the same, and "in spirit" they may be. But, I believe God is a separate entity from his SON at the time of Jesus' birth. Otherwise, how could he have SENT us his son out of his love for us, and why would Jesus - on the cross - cry out to his father for a reprieve from his will?

So.... he sent his SON to be born "under the law" but this in NO way indicates that God himself has subjugated himself to Man's Law. (Jesus might have to "render unto Caesar... but I can't see GOD doing such.) And that is still different from being under his OWN law.

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:00 am Post subject:

Okay... that's what I get for reading and interpreting a few scriptures out of context. I had to go back and re-read all of Galations to get this straight. Although, I stand by what I said above, I have a better understanding of the context now.

Paul was writing to the Galatians concerning an issue about serving "the Law." This was not so much laws like taxes and things. This WHOLE book, which comes from ONE letter to the "church," is about the Jewish Law concerning circumcision.

I believe the point is that Jesus was born a Jew and as a child, not yet aware of his calling, was circumcised "Under the Law." Paul is explaining to his Church that this has NO bearing on whether or not one is "justified" by God.

At any rate, this scripture is not about God being subject to his own laws and whether or not he could exist otherwise. Please find another reference to back up your argument.

Hobo

chapchap70 · Joined: 15 Mar 2006 Posts: 138 Location: Long Island, NY

I see it the same way that golfhobo does but those who have read my posts already know that.

If no one lives up to the law that God gives to men to obey, all men must pay the penalty for falling short of the law.

Slimland may be saying that God must act according to what He says which of course is true. In essence as far as we understand it, God's power culminates from His Word. If God accepted men into His kingdom that fell short of His law without the penalty being paid, the Truth would have lied. Since Jesus Christ became a man and upheld the law God gave to man as a man, there exists a way for mankind to be saved from the penalty of God's law.

Since God wanted reconciliation (for whatever reason) with mankind, He upheld the law He gave to man but He was in no way required to do so in order to continue to exist. God existed without mankind in the past and could have existed without mankind in the future.

Slimland · Joined: 27 Dec 2005 Posts: 1626 Location: Texas

Quote: Hmm... this may or may NOT work. (see below) I didn't mean not to quote the scripture reference - book & chapter, I meant don't give me a block of 15 verses from 3 places in the Bible at once (as an answer to my points.) Paraphrasing DOES give me a perspective on how YOU interpret the scripture though. But, I DO want to know exactly what scripture you reference when doing so. Does that make sense?

NOW I understand completly what you are saying. Got-it!

Quote: See... I don't want to read ALL of Galations looking for this scripture JUST to see whether the part you put in RED is actually THERE or not. Let me clarify: THIS is a short one or two line scripture. Go ahead and quote it AND give the citation (book, chapter & verse.) Then I will go back and read it myself to see the context.

If, however, a concept or point you are making is, say.... found in an entire chapter, then just tell me the book and chapter and NOT use up two pages on this forum quoting the whole thing. Does THAT make sense?

I cant help but laugh at this :lol:
I didn't even realize that I had not given the verse number or chapter, sorry you had to read all that. :lol: 8)

Quote: In MY humble opinion and interpretation of this verse [last time I will precede my comments with that... but it will always apply]:

Ditto

Quote: What is being said here is that God sent his son, Jesus, to be born as the son of MAN so that HE (Jesus) would be subject to the Laws of MAN so that he would be an example to those he witnessed to, those that ARE under the law, of how to live one's life for GOD while yet subject to the laws of the "tribe" so to speak.

Not the Laws of Man, but of God. And He "Jesus" was subject to those Laws. That is the whole of the book-- Paul with stood Peter--because the Laws forbid the Jews to eat with the gentiles--But Now that the Christ has come and Fulfilled the Law, and brought in the New Covenant in which God had cleansed the gentiles. These Laws no longer applied.
Peter himself had witness this in acts, but as we all Know, the old man is hard to get rid of, and he "peter" was found to be a hypocrit--because he proclaimed the new, and still tried to follow the old. This is why legalism--is called Galationism.
This book goes hand in hand with Romans, Hebrews, Corinthians, and Ephisians
And I am sure in the futur of this discussion, these books will be discussed.

Galatians 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Quote: He could have sent him to Earth on a winged horse and Jesus could have walked among us as a GOD. He didn't want this. He wanted his son to be born "under the law" by being born of a woman.

He wanted His Son who is His Word Born under His Word, and to do this He "Jesus" had to be born of a Virgin. For the man carry's the seed of sin.
The first prophecy of the Christ talks of this.

Genesis 3:13-15
13 And the LORD God said to the woman, ?What is this you have done??
The woman said, ?The serpent deceived me, and I ate.?
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
? Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.?

Quote: We often talk of the Trinity as though they are all one in the same, and "in spirit" they may be. But, I believe God is a separate entity from his SON at the time of Jesus' birth. Otherwise, how could he have SENT us his son out of his love for us, and why would Jesus - on the cross - cry out to his father for a reprieve from his will?

Yes and No-- For God the Father Spoke, and the Word is Him, just as your words are you. Thus the Word became Flesh.
This is why Jesus said He and the Father are one. As for the Holy Spirit--God is Spirit.
Jesus Cried out because He bore the sins of the whole world, and therfor was seperated from God.
I am sorry, but I can not fathom you not understanding this.

God creats a Law, This Law is His Word, and this Word when man hears it-- It flows through him-killing him. Becuase of the unrighteousness of man. So The Word dies to itself, to creat a New Law, to wich man can live by.

Huuugghhh "bangs head on computer"

Quote: So.... he sent his SON to be born "under the law" but this in NO way indicates that God himself has subjugated himself to Man's Law. (Jesus might have to "render unto Caesar... but I can't see GOD doing such.) And that is still different from being under his OWN law.

Yes it does, the above is talking of God's Law. For it was a shadow of the true law, the substance is of Christ!
And Jesus being God, is subject to Himself!

Where are you getting mans law from?
Quote:
I believe the point is that Jesus was born a Jew and as a child, not yet aware of his calling, was circumcised "Under the Law." Paul is explaining to his Church that this has NO bearing on whether or not one is "justified" by God.

Justifacation through faith, Not by Works of the Law.. As for cicumsision, Paul tells us that if one is to be circumsised because of the Law--then they are debted to do the whole law, and for man that is impossible. But for Christ it was not.

Quote: Since God wanted reconciliation (for whatever reason) with mankind, He upheld the law He gave to man but He was in no way required to do so in order to continue to exist. God existed without mankind in the past and could have existed without mankind in the future.

God is requiered to uphold the Law, because He is the Law!
Paul tells us it is impossible for God to lie!

shyykatt · Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 2097 Location: MN

I read through all this pretty fast, so I'm sure I missed the whole point. Everywhere on these forums there are those of you that just go back and forth over "There is a God; No there's not!; There is...etc". What I do not understand is this: If you believe in God above, then WHY question his word? And if you do NOT believe in him at all, the WHY keep asking questions about him?! If you are a self-proclaimed non-believer, yet you want believers to PROVE to you why they say there IS a GOD, then you must be curiouse about him then, right? If you really do not believe in him, then you would not give it a second thought. Or else maybe your on a mission to prove to the world that he does not exist. I told myself to not get in on this, its such a 'touchy' subject.

Fozzy · Joined: 02 Sep 2005 Posts: 2460

The problem is when "believers" want to start legislating their version of god. Especially a country like ours that forbids it! Religion is like anything else in the world, if it makes YOU happy.. kookie. If somehow this kookie feeling makes you want to subject others to it by illegal or forceful means, then it is NOW dangerous to the well being of societies. As we are now seeing and have seen in the past, when it was ir is our version of god that is being enforced its somehow "OK" Now that it's some other religions turn behind the trigger, it's not fair and the other religion is now "bad". We as a planet are just re-living history and we who claim that organized religion is dangerous are AGAIN caught in the cross fire between the rabid followers these supposed "loving and merciful gods".

I wish there was a way to just allow them a corner of the world that they could play their dumb a**ed games and leave everyone else alone.

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com