Death and Dying, part deux

[SovereignGrace]

Well if you want to be juvenile about it, I could just as easily accuse you of heresy for denying the omnipotence of God. It's all semantics, really. Jesus is God, and He was tempted. In order to be a legitimate temptation He had to have had the capacity to yield to temptation, right? But He had the divine character necessary to overcome temptation, and that's what we're discussing - the difference between divine power and divine character.

I don't agree that just because the Christ was tempted meant He had the capacity to sin, and merely chose not to. Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. Just because He was 100% man does not mean He could have sinned if He chose to.

It's not being juvenile, its being true and constant to the scriptures. Theology literally mean the study of God. Sadly, many try to study in ways to make Him less God and more human. Romans 1:23 and 9:20 in full display in this thread.

 

[JGIG]

Oh, I don't have a problem with Depleted sharing her story - testimonies are powerful things!

What I do have a problem with is her saying that her belief that God 'had her go through rape', to show her 'that she needed Him', that she needed for Him to 'give her a kick', that God 'was not pleased', so He took her where she needed to be by taking her through something (rape) - that her belief is an accurate representation of God's sovereignty.

The implication that she's making is that because God 'was not happy with her' that it was His will for her to be raped.

After Christ came, God NEVER dealt with sinners in such a way! Prostitutes, adulterers, tax collectors, sinners of all stripes find God's MERCY in Christ - God NEVER would EVER cause someone to be raped to 'get them where they need to be'!

Why is there evil in the world?

Because God gave angels and mankind free will.

Can God take what is meant for evil and bring good from it? He can and He does. And that's where there is value in Depleted's testimony, not in her belief that God willed her to be raped to teach her a lesson.

Jesus said there would be trouble in this world, but that He would never leave or forsake us.

He promises to be with us in the midst.

-JGIG

Seriously! What right do you have to say someone else's testimony is not right, because you don't happen to agree with the theology?

Where did I say that her testimony was not right?

I did not.

What I did say was that I have a problem with her belief about God's sovereignty. She believes that God caused the awful things that happened to her and that it was a demonstration of God's sovereignty in her life. I think that's a flawed view.

Do not I have a right to express what I think on this, the Bible Discussion Forum?

Are you now the arbiter of who can express what views?

You are so arrogant, it passes the bounds.

I'm content to let God and the reader judge between us.

My testimony, is that I put myself through hell, not God. God saved me from that! But then, he allowed me to go through things, that were sometimes necessary, in order to work on the task of sanctifying me, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

How you view God and what He does is certainly your business, as how Depleted views God and what He does is her business.

When you share them here, you open those views up to public discourse about what those views are. That's the nature of forums.

You preach such an anemic and useless gospel, JGIG. Your rigidity and inflexibility to really look at the whole counsel of God, because you have been so badly influenced by the doctrines of evil men, is just pathetic and sad. But then, you do lack theological training, and it really shows!

What is not your business is to constantly insult and tell those of us who have a different view than you that we are not allowed to have that view. Or that we're rigid, inflexible, pathetic, sad, gullible (badly influenced) . . . sheesh . . . can you hear yourself?

This is the Bible Discussion Forum, not the 'My Way or the Highway' forum.

I pray you do come to understand the sovereignty of God one day, instead of your man-centered, "all about me" gospel.

How is the following a "man-centered 'all about me' gospel"???

(from the On Death and Dying -- Spurgeon Style thread)
We, as believers, have an eternal perspective in this fallen world, and can walk with great hope in what can seem like a hopeless world. It gives us the ability to love others well in the face of adversity - whether ours or theirs - and share the hope that we have in Christ.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: God works in the midst of and in spite of the trials, tragedies, and sickness that this fallen world throws at us, He does not will those trials, tragedies, and sicknesses to then show His power and sovereignty. God works His will despite the evils in this fallen world, He does not cause, or even allow in a targeted way, those evils to then work His will.

God can take what is meant for evil that originates with the Enemy and reckon it for good and to serve His ultimate purposes. We see that truth all throughout the Scriptures.​

Or this?

We always have a choice to trust God - that no matter what, He will walk through whatever this fallen world throws at us.

There is a lot of peace in that!

And it very much influences how we respond to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.​

Or this?

For me, a good picture of how God meets us in the circumstances of this fallen world is the account of Jesus in the boat with the disciples during the storm.

Just because Jesus is in our boat doesn't mean that the storms of life won't affect us.

Did Jesus/God cause that storm?

No - that storm came about in the normal course of weather patterns and earth systems that are a result of the Fall (along with tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, fires, volcanoes, etc.).

Nevertheless, Christ (God in the flesh) chooses to be present with us in the midst of life's storms.​

Or this?

I guess what I believe about all of this is summed up so very well with the following song. When our son was in treatment for metastatic brain and spine cancer, we did not know how it would all turn out. There were very hard days. For all nine of us - parents and seven children.

And we had to make a choice to trust God. That no matter what, He is good, and He loves us. And that somehow, in some way, He would redeem what life in this fallen world had thrown at us. And even if our son had died, there was value and beauty in the journey. Seeing the love and provision from God and the Body of Christ, how our son - even in the depths of the journey and at the lowest points - literally raised his hands to God in worship from his hospital bed as he listened to worship music - God was indeed doing something beautiful in the midst:

​

[video=youtube;fv6foJHaxLg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=fv6foJHaxLg[/video]


These are things that God has taught me as life has happened, not "an anemic and useless gospel" taught by "the doctrines of evil men". Again . . . sheesh . . . can you hear yourself?


Please just stop with the insults and put downs. You're better than that.

-JGIG

 

[trofimus]

Calvin is still the originator of Calvinism though.

Why call yourself a Calvinist if you disagree with the man?
Not you personally, but them. Seems counter-productive.

Well, you are a protestant. It originated with Luther. Does it mean that you follow the man and accept all he ever said or written? Of course not.

Its possible to adopt some idea because you believe its true and biblical, without following the man who brought it in everything.

BTW I think that the "originator", if we can say it like that, was Augustin and for him it was apostle Paul and Bible. Calvin is seemed more as somebody who put it to a systematic theology (between calvinists). Not as originator. Thats probably why you can not understand why they/I are quite careless what Calvin said here or there.

Are you saying Calvinism teaches that God is micromanaging everything? I am seeking clarity on this issue because it is a point of contention with the Calvinist.

Calvinism is followed by millions of people, its roughly a half of protestantism. So you can find many different opinions about details between them. Some surely do, some maybe not.

If the question is "should they?" then I think yes, its said for example in the Second Helvetic Confession:

CHAPTER VI
Of the Providence of God

"We believe that all things in heaven and on earth, and in all creatures, are preserved and governed by the providence of this wise, eternal and almighty God...
Paul also testifies and declares: "In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), and "from him and through him and to him are all things" (Rom. 11:36).
Therefore Augustine most truly and according to Scripture declared in his book De Agone Christi, cap. 8, "The Lord said, 'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will' " (Matt. 10:29). By speaking thus he wanted to show that what men regard as of least value is governed by God's omnipotence. For he who is the truth says that the birds of the air are fed by him and lilies of the field are clothed by him; he also says that the hairs of our head are numbered (Matt. 6:26 ff.). "

There are some implications (like "are some small events random?" or "do we have to try, if everything is predestined?") mentioned in next two parts in the chapter, I recommend to read them, so that you see context. It was too long to paste here.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm

BTW, I certainly believe that. God must be in control of everything to produce outcome He wishes.

Thank you for your response, Trofimus, it has been a pleasure as always My apologies for my tardy reply; I was having computer issues, and had two different devices on the go at one point, with my initial response lost when I went to post it because the token had expired Any ways, I am glad you have moved beyond Calvinism, as I agree, there are more loving theologies, superior understandings, and explanations. I do not think I have heard of Leibniz before. He sounds interesting and someone I may benefit from reading Thanks again for the recommendation!

No problem, we live in different time zones, anyway Theodicy by G.W. Leibniz is my most precious book after the Bible. Surely recommending.

 

[Nehemiah6]

BTW I think that the "originator", if we can say it like that, was Augustin and for him it was apostle Paul and Bible.

If Augustine had really been following the Gospel of Paul and the Bible, then we we not even be having this discussion about Calvinists. Augustine distorted Bible truth, hence Calvinism is a distortion of the Gospel.

 

[trofimus]

If Augustine had really been following the Gospel of Paul and the Bible, then we we not even be having this discussion about Calvinists. Augustine distorted Bible truth, hence Calvinism is a distortion of the Gospel.

Well, nobody is perfect, nor Augustine.

But Pelagius condemned by the church is your horse then, I suppose.

 

[JGIG]

Actually, Depleted did, in the other thread (that you said you read):

Originally Posted by Depleted

Let's get this down to personal levels, since you prefer vague levels.

I was raped! I do not know all the reasons God had me go through that, but I know this much.

I was raped because...

-- I was stupid enough to think I was invincible, and God had to show me how much I need him.

-- Five young men thought they could do anything they wanted. They too thought they were invincible.

-- I needed a kick to get me to the point of really quitting drugs. I had been stuck in this circle of "maybe if I just do a little here and there, I can handle it. No. I really need to stop because I've royally screwed up my time in college, and now I have to live with those consequences and start a real life. But real life is too hard, how about just a little stoned? No, how about a lot of stoned? I really should stop. God is not pleased. But, I don't know how to stop. Well, maybe if I just do a little here and there..." That went on for six months. Circle, circle, circle, because I had no idea what to do next. So, the Lord took me to where I never wanted to go, and plunged me in so deep, my last "rock bottom" looked like a cliff high above me. (Do understand, I was a senior in college, had all the courses I needed to get my degree, and yet could not do what that degree was for -- teach high school English -- because no one ever gave me a hint that I stink at grammar so can't teach English at any grade level. And, poof, four years of college wasted, in more than one way. I could get the degree. I couldn't get certified to teach. And, there was no going back to learn something else by then, so my plans since I was 12 years old had already crashed around me before I was raped.)

-- Somehow, someway, just telling a friend that I was raped, opened up something I never knew about him. He was a pastor. (I did know that. lol) But he was also a counselor at a drug rehab. I never knew that, and because he was on the board for that place, he was able to get me in immediately. Not only did they teach me how to quit drugs and how to live life sober, they also helped me deal with the rape.

-- Because they helped me to do that, I've got a foot up on helping other people -- boys, girls, men, and women -- who have been raped, plus know how to help with any form of real abuse, and can give hope to those people.

-- Hope. Aka God. The one who got me where I needed to be by taking me through something I never thought could happen to me.

-- Hope! In God. The God of love. The God of Justice. The God of wrath.

That's my story.


​

​

The picture of that god has done great harm in the Body of Christ and has driven many a lost soul away from a god they want nothing to do with.


-JGIG

JGIG, I reported your plagiarism. You do not have permission to take my writing, cut it in half, and then reformat it to turn it into your writing.

But I didn't. I know some have come to defend me in this, and thank you. I do need to respond to this, however.

pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun

• the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
  

I clearly wrote that Depleted wrote the following, and was faithful to provide the

Originally Posted by Depleted

hyperlink. I included the pertinent part of your post that ended with "That's my story", highlighting the parts where you asserted what you thought God did in your life. In NO WAY did I change what you wrote, or claim it as my own writing.

Why on earth would I?! We disagree!

Did I cut your post in half? Well, not quite in half, but I did leave the last couple of paragraphs off, because they did not pertain to what the other person was talking about. If I had a dime for every time someone has chopped off part of my post in quoting it - and many times leaving the hyperlink off so folks can't go check context - I'd be a rich woman! It is common practice on forums, and I've seen you do it too.

In all fairness, (more fairness than you gave), this is the report I sent:

And here we have an example of why I didn't put your post in that instance in a blue quote box: we cannot see the report that you sent. When the next poster hits 'reply with quote', it only copies stuff NOT in the blue quote boxes. My post was such that if someone was going to respond to it, your content (which was fully credited), needed to be included for what I posted to make any sense.

So what did your report say?

"Plagiarism. And I'm the author being plagiarized this time. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, although websites owners are not responsible for the content of the users, they really are responsible for dealing with plagiarist, if the author says she/he did not give permission to use it. And, everything we write anywhere, even on someone else's website, is automatically our copyrighted material, so the website must treat it like what it is -- an illegal act.

Had she posted my complete post and left it as is, I would not object. But I do object for the following reasons:
1. She used only the half that she thinks proves her point, whereas my point was much longer than that half.
2. She changed it by reformatting it to her effects, thus truly plagiarism in all forms it takes.
3. She took it to join in a conversation she had nothing to do with.
4. She lied about what it would cause.

With all those reasons, she had no right to steal my writing!

And, understand, for the first time ever, this isn't merely a report. This is a legal notice of why I want you to deal with a plagiarist. And, it is going public, so she knows, and other people know -- "Don't steal my writing, and pretend you own it to do with it what you want."​

What you did was both illegal and immoral, and yet you're the one claiming what "great harm" is for the sake of... whom?

I am making a legal document over this one.

You're making a legal document over this one?

What does that even MEAN? Are you going to sue someone? CC? JGIG? For JGIG quoting, who wrote, "Depleted did [write/say] on the other thread", with a hyperlink to your post, what you have written on a public forum?


I've done nothing either illegal or immoral.

I simply showed another person on this thread that what she thought you didn't say, you did say. I proved it using your own post, which was identified as your post.

If that makes you mad, well, I guess you'll be mad. Nothing I can do about that, except encourage you to review the definition of plagiarism.




-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

It also wasn't my full story. She just took what she wanted, changed it and pretended it was my point, all in the effort to prove... who knows? But it certainly proved a lot!

Actually, I went back and compared Jgigs post and lynns original post and I DON'T see a single word removed...my mistake. Sorry JGIG.

Lynn, she DIDN'T alter your post. Your original post had all of the "...'s" and was a little fragmented looking.

Once again, JGIG, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Stunnedbygrace. Apology warmly accepted.

-JGIG

 

[Nehemiah6]

Well, nobody is perfect, nor Augustine.

But Pelagius condemned by the church is your horse then, I suppose.

As though those are the only two options! How about just the Bible and leave the theologians out?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Thank you, Stunnedbygrace. Apology warmly accepted.

Yes but this thread has now degenerated into a sniper's nest.

 

[trofimus]

As though those are the only two options! How about just the Bible and leave the theologians out?

Yes, the KJV only and ignoration of everybody in the history, lets just create our own teachings. The church has begun when we were born.

(irony)

 

[FlSnookman7]

Not necessarily. The temptation may have been very real in the eyes of the Tempter (since he did not understand who Christ is), but for Jesus (who had no sin nature) the temptation was meaningless. God cannot be tempted to sin or do evil. Satan thought that because of His humanity and his fasting condition, Christ would be like any other man. But the Son of Man is also the Son of God.

I see it a different way. I agree that Jesus had no sin nature and that any temptation would not be successful. That said we see where Jesus separates Himself when He talks about not knowing the date of His return. I can not put this in any other terms so....no one who has never been an alcoholic or addict or criminal can possibly know enough about it to really understand and be able to empathize with those afflicted. All the college degrees in the world are great but i'll know in less than 5 minutes if you "know"...ya know?

Jesus suffered real temptation and heartbreak and fear and all the rest of it not because He needed to but because He knew that we needed Him to. Probably could've put that better but again, it's 4 am. Shalom.

Must add Jesus is, always was and always will be God.

 

[Depleted]

Yes, lynn, I wouldn't imagine many would actually read calvin because he is difficult to understand. His writing isn't modernized as some of the older spiritual works are. But I have so far found some real gems in his writing so I am willing to struggle through it and dig and labor to understand the arcane words he often uses.

Yes, I have noted the continual "calvin said, calvin said" thing going on with some and have puzzled over why they can't just have a conversation with someone. As you said, to keep bringing up calvin with people who've never even read calvin is...strange. As you know, it was only a few short months ago that I even looked into what TULIP means because I figured after more than 10 years of hearing it, maybe I finally had time to look it up. LOL!

Yes, I also do NOT like when any man, dead or alive, is being attacked based on what another website says about him. And when just a few words of a sentence are used (and ellipses, etc., like you say) instead of the mans complete sentence or hopefully even a paragraph or two for context, I refuse to perpetuate the hearsay and go straight to the horses mouth. I've done it with many men and women being spoken ill of because I feel it is the only respectful thing to do is to let a man speak for himself.

I don't agree that these people are tares just because they are not yet perfect in knowledge or have some inconsistencies or more to learn. I believe they are my brothers and sisters. I'm not against them. Even if I disagree on some things, I'm for them. I don't think you should make this a salvation issue and call them tares. I think you have gone way too far there.

What do you call someone whose fruit encompasses --
- Teaching everyone the horrors that is called The Roman Catholic Church.
- Teaching everyone the horrors that is called "Calvinism."
- Birdogging Catholics or Calvinists specifically to tell how horrible they are? And this is often to the point of pointing out people not even on the current thread. (aka either confronts or gossips.)
- Friendly face only for new people or friends and always with a made meme.
- Defends self, when not offending someone else.

And the missing fruit is --
- Any discussion about God himself. ("My God would never" is not a discussion about God. It is a discussion about what you will or won't accept in a god.)
- Edification.
- Love.
- Concern, care, empathy.
- Any topic at all about God himself -- his attributes, what there is to like about him, something learned when studying the Bible.

I keep saying I have no problems with Arminians, because most Arminians, and most Calvinists, tend to believe what we believe because of what we know about God. So what? We're not getting God perfect. Who does?

BUT, when it comes down to the entire message is "Calvinists bad," that isn't the message. And when someone teaches a false message, that is TARE!

So, no, I don't call Arminians tare. I call Antis tare! When the entire message is anti, it stinks of that ain't the message! God is the message!!!

 

[Depleted]

Best to leave when you get angry at offenses, until you are calmer. Go kick some stuffed animals.
Lynn, I really do think JGIG will apologize for the way she did that posting.

Apparently not!

Where did I say that her testimony was not right?

I did not.

What I did say was that I have a problem with her belief about God's sovereignty. She believes that God caused the awful things that happened to her and that it was a demonstration of God's sovereignty in her life. I think that's a flawed view.

Do not I have a right to express what I think on this, the Bible Discussion Forum?

Are you now the arbiter of who can express what views?





I'm content to let God and the reader judge between us.





How you view God and what He does is certainly your business, as how Depleted views God and what He does is her business.

When you share them here, you open those views up to public discourse about what those views are. That's the nature of forums.





What is not your business is to constantly insult and tell those of us who have a different view than you that we are not allowed to have that view. Or that we're rigid, inflexible, pathetic, sad, gullible (badly influenced) . . . sheesh . . . can you hear yourself?

This is the Bible Discussion Forum, not the 'My Way or the Highway' forum.





How is the following a "man-centered 'all about me' gospel"???

(from the On Death and Dying -- Spurgeon Style thread)
We, as believers, have an eternal perspective in this fallen world, and can walk with great hope in what can seem like a hopeless world. It gives us the ability to love others well in the face of adversity - whether ours or theirs - and share the hope that we have in Christ.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: God works in the midst of and in spite of the trials, tragedies, and sickness that this fallen world throws at us, He does not will those trials, tragedies, and sicknesses to then show His power and sovereignty. God works His will despite the evils in this fallen world, He does not cause, or even allow in a targeted way, those evils to then work His will.

God can take what is meant for evil that originates with the Enemy and reckon it for good and to serve His ultimate purposes. We see that truth all throughout the Scriptures.​

Or this?

We always have a choice to trust God - that no matter what, He will walk through whatever this fallen world throws at us.

There is a lot of peace in that!

And it very much influences how we respond to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.​

Or this?

For me, a good picture of how God meets us in the circumstances of this fallen world is the account of Jesus in the boat with the disciples during the storm.

Just because Jesus is in our boat doesn't mean that the storms of life won't affect us.

Did Jesus/God cause that storm?

No - that storm came about in the normal course of weather patterns and earth systems that are a result of the Fall (along with tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, fires, volcanoes, etc.).

Nevertheless, Christ (God in the flesh) chooses to be present with us in the midst of life's storms.​

Or this?

I guess what I believe about all of this is summed up so very well with the following song. When our son was in treatment for metastatic brain and spine cancer, we did not know how it would all turn out. There were very hard days. For all nine of us - parents and seven children.

And we had to make a choice to trust God. That no matter what, He is good, and He loves us. And that somehow, in some way, He would redeem what life in this fallen world had thrown at us. And even if our son had died, there was value and beauty in the journey. Seeing the love and provision from God and the Body of Christ, how our son - even in the depths of the journey and at the lowest points - literally raised his hands to God in worship from his hospital bed as he listened to worship music - God was indeed doing something beautiful in the midst:

​

[video=youtube;fv6foJHaxLg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=fv6foJHaxLg[/video]


These are things that God has taught me as life has happened, not "an anemic and useless gospel" taught by "the doctrines of evil men". Again . . . sheesh . . . can you hear yourself?


Please just stop with the insults and put downs. You're better than that.

-JGIG

BTW, I'm checking out my legal options.

 

[Depleted]

But I didn't. I know some have come to defend me in this, and thank you. I do need to respond to this, however.

pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun

• the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
  

I clearly wrote that Depleted wrote the following, and was faithful to provide the

Originally Posted by Depleted

hyperlink. I included the pertinent part of your post that ended with "That's my story", highlighting the parts where you asserted what you thought God did in your life. In NO WAY did I change what you wrote, or claim it as my own writing.

Why on earth would I?! We disagree!

Did I cut your post in half? Well, not quite in half, but I did leave the last couple of paragraphs off, because they did not pertain to what the other person was talking about. If I had a dime for every time someone has chopped off part of my post in quoting it - and many times leaving the hyperlink off so folks can't go check context - I'd be a rich woman! It is common practice on forums, and I've seen you do it too.



And here we have an example of why I didn't put your post in that instance in a blue quote box: we cannot see the report that you sent. When the next poster hits 'reply with quote', it only copies stuff NOT in the blue quote boxes. My post was such that if someone was going to respond to it, your content (which was fully credited), needed to be included for what I posted to make any sense.

So what did your report say?

"Plagiarism. And I'm the author being plagiarized this time. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, although websites owners are not responsible for the content of the users, they really are responsible for dealing with plagiarist, if the author says she/he did not give permission to use it. And, everything we write anywhere, even on someone else's website, is automatically our copyrighted material, so the website must treat it like what it is -- an illegal act.

Had she posted my complete post and left it as is, I would not object. But I do object for the following reasons:
1. She used only the half that she thinks proves her point, whereas my point was much longer than that half.
2. She changed it by reformatting it to her effects, thus truly plagiarism in all forms it takes.
3. She took it to join in a conversation she had nothing to do with.
4. She lied about what it would cause.

With all those reasons, she had no right to steal my writing!

And, understand, for the first time ever, this isn't merely a report. This is a legal notice of why I want you to deal with a plagiarist. And, it is going public, so she knows, and other people know -- "Don't steal my writing, and pretend you own it to do with it what you want."​

You're making a legal document over this one?

What does that even MEAN? Are you going to sue someone? CC? JGIG? For JGIG quoting, who wrote, "Depleted did [write/say] on the other thread", with a hyperlink to your post, what you have written on a public forum?


I've done nothing either illegal or immoral.

I simply showed another person on this thread that what she thought you didn't say, you did say. I proved it using your own post, which was identified as your post.

If that makes you mad, well, I guess you'll be mad. Nothing I can do about that, except encourage you to review the definition of plagiarism.




-JGIG

I'm fully aware you couldn't get a reply with quote from it. You could have posted the whole point, instead of half the point. You could have added the link. You could have ASKED me. You could have not lied by omitting portions. You could have caught a clue on how to attribute. You could have caught a clue what plagiarism is. You could have acted like a decent person and leave the thread dead, like it was specifically made. You could have not done it. You could have apologized.

You could have done quite a few Christian things, but it never dawned on you because you're only point is "my god is better."

What does this mean? It means I'm seeking legal options. I don't know if I will sue. I'm still learning the options. But, yes, you specifically. Go check that law to see how that one happens. Because you also brought CC in on this one. All because you want to prove your god is better.

 

[trofimus]

BTW, I'm checking out my legal options.

What about this option:

"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.
Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"

1 Cor 6:7

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Actually, Depleted did, in the other thread (that you said you read):

Originally Posted by Depleted

Let's get this down to personal levels, since you prefer vague levels.

I was raped! I do not know all the reasons God had me go through that, but I know this much.

I was raped because...

-- I was stupid enough to think I was invincible, and God had to show me how much I need him.

-- Five young men thought they could do anything they wanted. They too thought they were invincible.

-- I needed a kick to get me to the point of really quitting drugs. I had been stuck in this circle of "maybe if I just do a little here and there, I can handle it. No. I really need to stop because I've royally screwed up my time in college, and now I have to live with those consequences and start a real life. But real life is too hard, how about just a little stoned? No, how about a lot of stoned? I really should stop. God is not pleased. But, I don't know how to stop. Well, maybe if I just do a little here and there..." That went on for six months. Circle, circle, circle, because I had no idea what to do next. So, the Lord took me to where I never wanted to go, and plunged me in so deep, my last "rock bottom" looked like a cliff high above me. (Do understand, I was a senior in college, had all the courses I needed to get my degree, and yet could not do what that degree was for -- teach high school English -- because no one ever gave me a hint that I stink at grammar so can't teach English at any grade level. And, poof, four years of college wasted, in more than one way. I could get the degree. I couldn't get certified to teach. And, there was no going back to learn something else by then, so my plans since I was 12 years old had already crashed around me before I was raped.)

-- Somehow, someway, just telling a friend that I was raped, opened up something I never knew about him. He was a pastor. (I did know that. lol) But he was also a counselor at a drug rehab. I never knew that, and because he was on the board for that place, he was able to get me in immediately. Not only did they teach me how to quit drugs and how to live life sober, they also helped me deal with the rape.

-- Because they helped me to do that, I've got a foot up on helping other people -- boys, girls, men, and women -- who have been raped, plus know how to help with any form of real abuse, and can give hope to those people.

-- Hope. Aka God. The one who got me where I needed to be by taking me through something I never thought could happen to me.

-- Hope! In God. The God of love. The God of Justice. The God of wrath.

That's my story.


​

​

The picture of that god has done great harm in the Body of Christ and has driven many a lost soul away from a god they want nothing to do with.


-JGIG

I just can't leave this thread alone. I have not given up on thinking we can relate better to each other.

I said I have yet to see anyone say God CAUSES men to do evil to each other. You posted Lynn's post and said she said God caused men to do evil to her. But she didn't say that. She didnt.

Nowhere does she say: God caused 5 men to rape me.

She just doesn't say in this post what you say she said. It's not there.

I can see that you process and interpret her to be saying it, but she does not state it.

I think a better way than insisting someone literally said words that they literally did not say, would be to say: when you say: I don't know why God let me go through that, what I hear is: God caused 5 men to rape me.

Then conversation could proceed in which the other person can say, I didn't intend that to be what anyone would take away from what I said, and you could explain WHY you process " I don't know why God let me go through that" as " God caused 5 men to rape me. "

Because the processing and interpreting is going on in YOUR head, so unless you clearly explain the steps your mind makes and reasons from and to,, how could you expect anyone to understand how one statement from someone becomes a different statement to you?

It's like...if I were to say I don't particularly like cats and you were to the say: jennie hates cats and wishes to kill them all. How will anyone have any clue hhow you arrived at that when I clearly did not state what you say I stated UNLESS you explain. And a better way than changing what I stated would be to say: when you say " I don't particularly like cats" what I hear is: I hate cats and want to kill them all.

But then you would still have to explain the steps of reasoning and interpreting you took to process my statement. But at least it wouldn't devolve into: you're a liar, I never said the words you say I did.

 

[preacher4truth]

As though those are the only two options! How about just the Bible and leave the theologians out?

Oh look who is crying, the one who talks about and attacks theologians perpetually, then decries one for talking about theologians in response. How sanctimonious! LOL!

 

[PennEd]

Thank you, Stunnedbygrace. Apology warmly accepted.

-JGIG

I did not read this whole thread but it seems to me you are missing the forest for the trees!
First off, how about a BOATLOAD more compassion for what Lynn endured?

Secondly, my rendering of what Lynn is saying is that God uses the consequences of our actions and sin, in Lynn's case drug use, to draw us to Him.

C'mon now. We are ALL better than what is going on here. Are we not of the same body?

 

[trofimus]

What I did say was that I have a problem with her belief about God's sovereignty. She believes that God caused the awful things that happened to her and that it was a demonstration of God's sovereignty in her life.

I think she did not say that God caused the awful things. I think she said that God used the awful things for her good. And that is biblical:

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good"
R 8:28

BTW, I think its always better to ask somebody to give clear opinions than to try to prove to him he does not think the way he thinks because he said something somewhere.

On the other hand, its just internet. We should forget it and move on.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Penn and troph, thank you. Such wisdom. And from MEN...!