Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site qantel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!qantel!ken From: ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Reply to Rob Message-ID: <300@qantel.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 13:17:53 EST Article-I.D.: qantel.300 Posted: Thu Nov 8 13:17:53 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 07:49:59 EST References: <277@qantel.UUCP> <1090@trwrba.UUCP> Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA Lines: 122 John writes, > [Ken Nichols] > Did God invent our democracy? No. > > I thought all things good came from God and certainly the good attributes > of our democratic and constiutional system were modeled on the Christian > views of compassion and justice. Looks to me like God had a very distinct > hand in inventing our democracy. I meant that our democracy was not divinely condoned. The form of government that God seems to practice looks like a Theocracy from what I see in the Old Testament. I will agree that democracy is a fairly good system of government, but it is not God ordained. > Then it's just as sinfull as everything > else on this Satanicaly run earth. > > I thought God was calling the shots... no don't bother answering. > You have a hand-wave for everything. Part of God's plan for the earth is letting Satan have ownership of it for a time. Jesus Christ will come back to earth to reclaim it for Himself after the tribulation. > > Shall we believe everyone who claims ultimate authority? > > But they were men, not God! > > That's not what THEY claimed. Show us the difference between the men that > authored the Bible and any other man. Where is the conclusive evidence > that will convince us that the Bible IS indeed the word of God. If you > can't produce such evidence then your statement that the Bible is the only > source of the truth is false. Because I can't produce any "undeniable" evidence, the Bible is false? No, it just means I can't produce any "undeniable" evidence. A Bible historian could most certainly make a could argument for the veracity of the Bible. I'm not up on that area of Christianity. It does take a certain amount of faith to believe in the Bible. You don't have to believe in the whole Bible to become saved, anyway. > The problem is that you always rely on the Bible as your one source of > authority and it is this very source that we are questioning. And no, > the reason is NOT pride.... it's the need to know the truth. I'm not asking you to believe the Bible. I'm asking you to accept the gift that God gave you in the form of Jesus Christ. Accept the sacrifice of Christ as payment for your sin. > God's control of a man is much, much different than man's > control over a man. > > Oh? I haven't noticed much difference between the tactics of men and the > God that you describe. Blackmail and murder are pretty standard on > this Satanic earth... God's hell is probably worse. I have answered this many times before. Man deserves God's punishment. > The sin which Adam and Eve committed was the sin of pride. > They wanted to be like God. The fruit was able to make them > wise. > > Solomon also desired wisdom and God praised him for his wise choice. > In reward for his wise choice God made him wiser than any man then alive or > that was to come. Seeking wisdom isn't the crime here and neither > was Adam and Eve's sin that of pride. No evidence of "pride" can be > found as I read Genesis. Solomon desired to know God in a deep way, not to be like Him in all His wisdom. He was rewarded because he chose to seek God's council in the matters of His kingship. Adam and Eve desired to be wise as God was wise. "..and seeing that the fruit was able to make one wise, she took and ate...". Satan told her that she would be like God, knowing good and evil. She desired this. This is the same thing that Lucifer desired. He also wished to be like God. The root of both of these acts was pride. > To many people focus in on the 'goody, goody' side of God. I'm just > trying to provide a balance. > > You've provided an imbalance and not a balance. That's why so many people > label you as a fanatical-fire-and-brimstone-on-your-knees-and-kiss-that-bible > sicko. The fact that you focus primarily on the hell-fire aspects of God > shows that you do not have an adequate conception of God or his ways and thus > are not a suitable steward of his word. A Holy (read "whole") God is not as > you portray him. I have begun to post articles with a little mov%emphasis on God's loving side than I have in the past. I will continue attempting to show a more balanced view of God. What is you definition of the Holiness of God? > What you have said is true. No doubt about it. But does that > mean that you can ignore an entire group of God's attributes? > Those of holiness, justice, hatred of sin, etc? > > Many of which you continue to ignore including love, compassion and > healing of those unable to heal themselves. As I've said, your > treatment is unbalanced and quite unlike the true and whole nature > of God. I have spoken of my belief in these attributes of God in other articles. I will continue to speak of these in future articles. Let us both not ignore any of the attributes of God. > I for one will not disobey Christ for the fear > that I might offend someone with the truth about God. > > The question to ask yourself is... is this REALLY the truth of God and > am I (Ken Nichols) a good steward of this word. If not, then don't > feel compelled to use it. Otherwise you will offend both God and man. > > - John I believe the answer to your question is 'Yes, I do feel that I am portraying the truth of God that is shown in the Bible. And I am growing in my stewardship of the word." -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken --------------------