God orders an execution...

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted_Oplinger

"God had made it their privilege and their duty to enter the land at the ime of His appointment, but through their willful neglect that permission had been withdrawn. Satan had gained his object in preventing them from entering Canaan; and now he urged them on to do the very thing, in the face of divine prohibition, which they had refused to do when God required it. Thus the great deceiver gained the victory by leading them to rebellion the second time."

It isn't a question of works vs faith - it is a question of rebellion against the Lord's specific command they should have executed by faith, then compounding that rebellion by thinking they could say, "I'm sorry God" - I'll get right to it now. The punishment had already been pronounced, what would have been obedience a mere 24 hrs earlier now is bald-faced rebellion.

Quote:

It was not His purpose

that they should gain the land by warfare

,[/quote']so you are saying it was His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare?

What did Moses' recountings of Israel's activites with respect to King Sihon and King Og - with the portioning of the lands beyond the Jordan - say?

I'm not making these passages say anything,other than what anyone would read them straight from the pages themselves.

Those passages in Deuternomy 2 and 3 are quite explicit in detailing God's activity in the account. What is the Word of God saying there?

And since God is written in these and other passages as an active participant in what would appear at first glance to be quite contradictory to His perceived nature...

What are the issues involved wherein God might be required to take such a step?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Hello Teresa :-)

When I consider this, I have to remember that God spoke through the Prophet Samuel and explicitly ordered this.

There are some cases where Isreal do things and it is attributed to God, I agree.

But in this instance, there is a specific command.

Mark :-) [/quote']are you taking into account that the "specific command" came after the people had decided to live by works instead of faith?

It was not His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare, but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392.3}

psalm 78:22Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:

Quote:

7Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

8Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

10Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)... 18And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

it is very possible that one of the reasons we will have to go through the time of trouble is to utterly kill every temptation to "go to war". there is no way we will be able to defend ourselves. the only choice we will have is to learn to trust in God utterly, or fall away.

Quote:

joel 3:2I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

2 chronicles 20:9If, when evil cometh upon us, as the sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we stand before this house, and in thy presence, (for thy name is in this house,) and cry unto thee in our affliction, then thou wilt hear and help.

10And now, behold, the children of Ammon and Moab and mount Seir, whom thou wouldest not let Israel invade, when they came out of the land of Egypt, but they turned from them, and destroyed them not;

15And he said, Hearken ye, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat, Thus saith the LORD unto you, Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God's. ...

17Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the LORD with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed; to morrow go out against them: for the LORD will be with you.

Hello Theresa :-)

So God can order an execution because the Isrealites had disposed themselves to live by the sword.

Isn't then God, in that scenario, commanding them to sin.

That is like God ordering someone who has not entered into the covenant of Grace to steal from someone then condemn them for stealing.

The Law stands whether one is under Grace or not under Grace.

Either way, we have God here (using the scenario you have provided), ordering Isreal to sin.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Quote:

twilight wrote: God ordered King Saul and Isreal to wipe out a whole nation.

i ask again' date=' mark,

did He?

or had the people decided to live by works instead of faith?

If God had not ordered Saul to utterly vanquish the whole nation of the Amelekites, right down to the animals...

...then on what basis was God justified for condemning Saul and taking the kingship away from Saul due to his failure to do so?

And was the prophet Samuel working independent of the Divine will of God when he took the sword and vanquished the Amelekite king Agag right there on the spot?

Quote:

mark, did you notice this statement?

Quote:

They had distrusted the power of God to work with their efforts in gaining possession of Canaan;

yet now they presumed upon their own strength to accomplish the work independent of divine aid.

"We have sinned against the Lord," they cried; "we will go up and fight, according to all that the Lord our God commanded us." Deuteronomy 1:41.

but notice what the messenger of the Lord points out

Quote:

So terribly blinded had they become by transgression.

The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight."

It was not His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare, but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392.3}

first i would like to point out that as many times as ive read this i still did not see it til it was pointed out in the context of these discussions.

so again, my brother, i ask you, did God order the israelites to go wipe out, or murder/kill, anyone?

or had the people decided to live by works instead of faith? [/quote']

The verse is getting taken out of its context.

Deuteronomy 1:41, in the context of the entirety of the chapter, is Moses recounting to Israel their failure to have faith in the power of God when God specifically told them to go up and take possesion of Canaan.

Rather than listen to Joshua and Caleb, they chose to listen to the other ten spies, who told them of the impossibility of Israel to take the land due to the walled fortress cities and the size of the giants who lived there. As a result, God told them to return at that moment to the wilderness, until 40 years would pass. God specifically chided Israel in saying that the very children they feared would be slain by the giants would be the one to take and posses the land.

It was then they decided it was a good idea to go and try to take the land - outside of God's commandment.

Had they listened to Joshua and Caleb's faith in the power of God to take the land, they would have done so in complete obedience to God's commandment.

Now, lets add a little bit more of that context to the Patriarchs and Prophets text...

PP392.3f

"God had made it their privilege and their duty to enter the land at the ime of His appointment, but through their willful neglect that permission had been withdrawn. Satan had gained his object in preventing them from entering Canaan; and now he urged them on to do the very thing, in the face of divine prohibition, which they had refused to do when God required it. Thus the great deceiver gained the victory by leading them to rebellion the second time."

It isn't a question of works vs faith - it is a question of rebellion against the Lord's specific command they should have executed by faith, then compounding that rebellion by thinking they could say, "I'm sorry God" - I'll get right to it now. The punishment had already been pronounced, what would have been obedience a mere 24 hrs earlier now is bald-faced rebellion.

At that time, the Lord had not announced to Moses the method by which Israel was to take and possess Canaan (this is the root of EGW's statement of never commanding Israel to fight - at that particular point in time) - they were to simply obey, and follow where He led. They did not wish to follow where God was leading. That wasn't living by works to achieve the Divine command rather than by faith; that was rebellion.

The Lord had designed that some of the conquest would have been by God sending the hornets in ahead of Israel, to clear the Amorites out. This is seen in Deut. 7:20, and again 40 years later in Josh. 24:12.

However, to use these instances to overgeneralize and say God never commanded His people to slay those who opposed God's purpose for His people, is a point inconsistent with, and not supportable by, Scripture.

Consider these passages in Moses' recounting of Israels wanderings immediately after being told to go back into the wilderness:

Deuteronomy 2:30-31

30 "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.

31 "The LORD said to me, 'See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to occupy, that you may possess his land.'

32 "Then Sihon with all his people came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz.

33 "The LORD our God delivered him over to us, and we defeated him with his sons and all his people.

34 "So we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor."

God is quite clearly using warfare to not just to defend His people, but also to take it beyond mere self-defense and into the anihilation of an entire people.

This is followed immediately by Deuteronomy 3:1-7, where the Scriptures read...

1 "Then we turned and went up the road to Bashan, and Og, king of Bashan, with all his people came out to meet us in battle at Edrei.

2 "But the LORD said to me, 'Do not fear him, for I have delivered him and all his people and his land into your hand; and you shall do to him just as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.'

3 "So the LORD our God delivered Og also, king of Bashan, with all his people into our hand, and we smote them until no survivor was left.

4 "We captured all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.

5 "All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides a great many unwalled towns.

6 "We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city.

7 "But all the animals and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty.

8 "Thus we took the land at that time from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the valley of Arnon to Mount Hermon"

This is pretty bloody stuff, and I understand why some Christians, when confronted by it, are utterly appalled. However, the record is plainly there for all to see - this was done in according to the Lord's desire, as part the conquest of Canaan.

Like with Pharaoh, these two Amorite Kings had their hearts hardened by God. They then propelled their peoples into unwinnable - one could say, suicidal - fights against God and His Israel.

That Moses is relating these events in the context of obedience to God's command should suggest to the reader that maybe something deeper is going on here other than whether or not God is being true to the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit murder"...

And yes, though the Hebrew has several words for how a person's life can end by another's hand - God specifically wrote "commit murder" into the commandment. It's not a simplistic "Thou shalt not kill", as many would think it to be.

With Genesis 1, 2, we must decide whether God is a liar or not.

In these passages, we must decide whether God is true to the commandent against murder...

To answer both correctly, one needs to go beneath the surface appearances, to address the broader issues lurking beneath the sight of our human notions of righteousness.

Enough food for thought for now...

I appreciated that Ted.

The issues seems to be, that if we have a pre-conceived idea that God is a pacifist, then we have a problem and have to re-interpret plain scripture on this simple point.

God ordered the death of countless beings at the hands of Isreal.

Now it seems, that to line God up as a pacifist, the "blame" for that has to be place elsewhere.

1. On Satan.

2. On the Isrealites.

But this ignores a simple fundamental point.

God ordered these executions.

And none of the points raised so far have disputed that, it has been a case of pointing the blame somewhere else.

But that does not deal with the issue.

God commanded those deaths.

Mark

[Guest]

Amen Mark

[Ted Oplinger]

I appreciated that Ted.

The issues seems to be, that if we have a pre-conceived idea that God is a pacifist, then we have a problem and have to re-interpret plain scripture on this simple point.

God ordered the death of countless beings at the hands of Isreal.

Now it seems, that to line God up as a pacifist, the "blame" for that has to be place elsewhere.

1. On Satan.

2. On the Isrealites.

But this ignores a simple fundamental point.

God ordered these executions.

And none of the points raised so far have disputed that, it has been a case of pointing the blame somewhere else.

But that does not deal with the issue.

God commanded those deaths.

Mark

It is an assumption being made concerning the character of God.

Some will make this connection

God = love and peace. War = hate and killing

Because of Exodus 20:13, they determine a God of love and peace cannot possibly wage war and kill. All that war and death must necessarily come from another source.

On the surface, there is an appearance of logic to it - humanly speaking. But I have found this to be superficial, when one begins to study those passages where God explicitly delivers people up for destruction by His representatives here on earth - or worse, those points like Exodus 14, where God anihilates Pharaoh's chariots by allowing the Red Sea to close on them, or Genesis 7, where no one but God is portrayed as the sole responsible Being for the destruction of the human race.

Then there's the debate on the commandment words in Exodus 20:13.

The Hebrew there is explicitly, "You shall not commit murder". That language, I found, has several different words for how life is ended at the hand of another. If it was to mean a general ending of life by one's own hands, it would have said so.

That leads me to conclude that in these passages, such has been listed in Deuteronomy 2,3 and Judges, and others, that there are some very serious issues about how God is handling sinful man's rebellion. Further, there are some serious issues about what Divine Love must do in order to preserve Creation from Sin's destructive power.

It's not a simple issue.

However, I do know that in the end, God will be vindicated for each and every action He is seen taking in these instances. That is why I say there are some very deep issues - these are some extreme actions, and it must have been the only reasonable action Divine Love could take to resolve these instances.

Gotta roll...

[teresaq]

Hello Theresa :-)

So God can order an execution because the Isrealites had disposed themselves to live by the sword.

Isn't then God, in that scenario, commanding them to sin.

That is like God ordering someone who has not entered into the covenant of Grace to steal from someone then condemn them for stealing.

The Law stands whether one is under Grace or not under Grace.

Either way, we have God here (using the scenario you have provided), ordering Isreal to sin.

Mark :-)

[BobRyan]

Page 1 of this thread seems to make the case directly from Bible examples -- very well.

God in some cases orders Israel to kill -- but in other cases as in the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah or Annanias and Saphira or the Lake of Fire -- God does it Himself.

There is no way to gloss over the differences between the two cases -- as if "man caused the flood" or "man creates the lake of fire" or "Sodom found a way to rain fire on itself". None of which are found in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

You mean Sodom and Gommorrah didn't start with a kitchen fire?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I appreciated that Ted.

The issues seems to be, that if we have a pre-conceived idea that God is a pacifist, then we have a problem and have to re-interpret plain scripture on this simple point.

God ordered the death of countless beings at the hands of Isreal.

Now it seems, that to line God up as a pacifist, the "blame" for that has to be place elsewhere.

1. On Satan.

2. On the Isrealites.

But this ignores a simple fundamental point.

God ordered these executions.

And none of the points raised so far have disputed that, it has been a case of pointing the blame somewhere else.

But that does not deal with the issue.

God commanded those deaths.

Mark

It is an assumption being made concerning the character of God.

Some will make this connection

God = love and peace. War = hate and killing

Because of Exodus 20:13, they determine a God of love and peace cannot possibly wage war and kill. All that war and death must necessarily come from another source.

On the surface, there is an appearance of logic to it - humanly speaking. But I have found this to be superficial, when one begins to study those passages where God explicitly delivers people up for destruction by His representatives here on earth - or worse, those points like Exodus 14, where God anihilates Pharaoh's chariots by allowing the Red Sea to close on them, or Genesis 7, where no one but God is portrayed as the sole responsible Being for the destruction of the human race.

Then there's the debate on the commandment words in Exodus 20:13.

The Hebrew there is explicitly, "You shall not commit murder". That language, I found, has several different words for how life is ended at the hand of another. If it was to mean a general ending of life by one's own hands, it would have said so.

That leads me to conclude that in these passages, such has been listed in Deuteronomy 2,3 and Judges, and others, that there are some very serious issues about how God is handling sinful man's rebellion. Further, there are some serious issues about what Divine Love must do in order to preserve Creation from Sin's destructive power.

It's not a simple issue.

However, I do know that in the end, God will be vindicated for each and every action He is seen taking in these instances. That is why I say there are some very deep issues - these are some extreme actions, and it must have been the only reasonable action Divine Love could take to resolve these instances.

Gotta roll...

I agree with your post Ted.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Hello Theresa :-)

So God can order an execution because the Isrealites had disposed themselves to live by the sword.

Isn't then God, in that scenario, commanding them to sin.

That is like God ordering someone who has not entered into the covenant of Grace to steal from someone then condemn them for stealing.

The Law stands whether one is under Grace or not under Grace.

Either way, we have God here (using the scenario you have provided), ordering Isreal to sin.

Mark :-)

God hated slavery and polygamy but still gave guidelines for those institutions.

they were just as much heinous sins as when God made adam and eve as they are to this day.

i dont remember if you responded to this or not

Quote:

2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

it very definitely looks like God had zero regard for these women and just gave them to whomever as if they were cattle.

i dont see God as weak for being a "pacifist, washing the disciples feet, operating inside His law as an example for us, turning the other cheek, standing there not saying a word when He was slapped and humiliated, ad infinitum....do you?

They had distrusted the power of God to work with their efforts in gaining possession of Canaan;

i can get around this or explain it away. it is what it says.

So terribly blinded had they become by transgression.

The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight."

It was not His purpose

that they should gain the land by warfare,

but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392.3}never means never according to my dictionary.

not His purpose means exactly that also

by warfare also means exactly that.

God takes us where we are at and deals with it. havent you seen that in your own life? any of us who have seen where we were and where we are now, knows that to be a reality.

The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight."

But that is the whole point Teresa.

If it is wrong for God to kill, it is wrong for God to order to kill.

Remember the Isrealites did not do something that God went "along" with.

God ordered the death of the Amelakites.

He initiated this response.

It was a direct command.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

Right again Mark.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

God hated slavery and polygamy but still gave guidelines for those institutions.

they were just as much heinous sins as when God made adam and eve as they are to this day.

i dont remember if you responded to this or not

Quote:

2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

it very definitely looks like God had zero regard for these women and just gave them to whomever as if they were cattle.

i dont see God as weak for being a "pacifist, washing the disciples feet, operating inside His law as an example for us, turning the other cheek, standing there not saying a word when He was slapped and humiliated, ad infinitum....do you?

They had distrusted the power of God to work with their efforts in gaining possession of Canaan;

i can get around this or explain it away. it is what it says.

So terribly blinded had they become by transgression.

The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight."

It was not His purpose

that they should gain the land by warfare,

but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392.3}never means never according to my dictionary.

not His purpose means exactly that also

by warfare also means exactly that.

God takes us where we are at and deals with it. havent you seen that in your own life? any of us who have seen where we were and where we are now, knows that to be a reality. [/quote']

The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight."

But that is the whole point Teresa.

If it is wrong for God to kill, it is wrong for God to order to kill.

Remember the Isrealites did not do something that God went "along" with.

God ordered the death of the Amelakites.

He initiated this response.

It was a direct command.

Mark :-)

According to the logic that all killing is evil and breaking the commandment...

...the use of surrogates to do the killing for you is just as evil and breaking the commandment as doing it yourself.

Even sinful man recognizes this as contract killing, and both the contractor and the hitman are chargeable for the offense.

Even if that "hitman" is thought to be Satan himself...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

According to the logic that all killing is evil and breaking the commandment...

...the use of surrogates to do the killing for you is just as evil and breaking the commandment as doing it yourself.

Even sinful man recognizes this as contract killing, and both the contractor and the hitman are chargeable for the offense.

Even if that "hitman" is thought to be Satan himself...

This is a good analogy Ted.

It is like saying:

God knew Isreal was going to sin, so He condoned it because that was where they were "at".

Mark

[Gail]

I'm wondering if we are trying to box God up into something we can understand.

This might be something we just have to take on faith- what we read in the Bible, the words at face value. It might be one of those things we won't understand until He Himself explains it to us.

[Twilight]

I'm wondering if we are trying to box God up into something we can understand.

This might be something we just have to take on faith- what we read in the Bible, the words at face value. It might be one of those things we won't understand until He Himself explains it to us.

I would agree Gail.

But when we are presenting a position on the very nature of God, we have to be sure we can point to the scripture with total certainty.

Either way. :-)

Mark

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

God's work is the same in all time, although there are different degrees of development and different manifestations of His power, to meet the wants of men in the different ages. Beginning with the first gospel promise, and coming down through the patriarchal and Jewish ages, and even to the present time, there has been a gradual unfolding of the purposes of God in the plan of redemption. The Saviour typified in the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law is the very same that is revealed in the gospel. The clouds that enveloped His divine form have rolled back; the mists and shades have disappeared; and Jesus, the world's Redeemer, stands revealed. He who proclaimed the law from Sinai, and delivered to Moses the precepts of the ritual law, is the same that spoke the Sermon on the Mount. The great principles of love to God, which He set forth as the foundation of the law and the prophets, are only a reiteration of what He had spoken through Moses to the Hebrew people: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deuteronomy 6:4, 5. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:18. The teacher is the same in both dispensations. God's claims are the same. The principles of His government are the same. For all proceed from Him "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17. {PP 373.2}

Excellent, and for which to be highly grateful.

The principles of His government are the same. For all proceed from Him "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17. {PP 373.2}they do not change. God just deals with us where we are at.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Quote:

It was not His purpose

that they should gain the land by warfare

,

so you are saying it was His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare?

What did Moses' recountings of Israel's activites with respect to King Sihon and King Og - with the portioning of the lands beyond the Jordan - say?

I'm not making these passages say anything,other than what anyone would read them straight from the pages themselves.

Those passages in Deuternomy 2 and 3 are quite explicit in detailing God's activity in the account. What is the Word of God saying there?

And since God is written in these and other passages as an active participant in what would appear at first glance to be quite contradictory to His perceived nature...

What are the issues involved wherein God might be required to take such a step?

lets start a thread on how many times God said He did something and then later another verse gives clarity as to what actually happened. well start with genesis.

young, who wrote youngs analytical concordance, was so familiar with this that he believed there was a permissive and causative tense in hebrew. some scholars still believe that tho most modern scholars reject that understanding.

our pioneers also understood this fact very well, as evidenced in some of their writings, especially ellen whites where i first learned this principle.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Ted_Oplinger

According to the logic that all killing is evil and breaking the commandment...

...the use of surrogates to do the killing for you is just as evil and breaking the commandment as doing it yourself.

Even sinful man recognizes this as contract killing, and both the contractor and the hitman are chargeable for the offense.

Even if that "hitman" is thought to be Satan himself... [/quote']This is a good analogy Ted.

It is like saying:

God knew Isreal was going to sin, so He condoned it because that was where they were "at".

gentlemen, please explain why God gave directions in "how to sin" when it came to slavery and polygamy.

and please explain why God handed women around like cattle in the above text.

and please explain why ellen white said what she did, unless her writings are not accepted as from one who spoke personally with God.

[teresaq]

...The issues seems to be, that if we have a pre-conceived idea that God is a pacifist, ....

you would have to prove this, otherwise you are lying.

in other words it is a pre-conceived idea to accuse someone else of having a pre-conceived idea without proof.

rght?

it gives evidence that another view is not being considered but merely dismissed in favor of ones own, ummm, -------- view.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

...The issues seems to be, that if we have a pre-conceived idea that God is a pacifist, ....

you would have to prove this, otherwise you are lying.

in other words it is a pre-conceived idea to accuse someone else of having a pre-conceived idea without proof.

rght?

it gives evidence that another view is not being considered but merely dismissed in favor of ones own, ummm, -------- view.

I am not quite sure why you think I am lying Teresa?

Mark :-)

[Tom Wetmore]

I think I have shared this quote before, but it seems to fit right here, right now:

"A God you understood would be less than yourself." - Flannery O'Connor

[Guest]

Should you really be calling anyone a liar here, Teresa? A little civility goes a long way.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

you would have to prove this, otherwise you are lying.

in other words it is a pre-conceived idea to accuse someone else of having a pre-conceived idea without proof.

rght?

it gives evidence that another view is not being considered but merely dismissed in favor of ones own, ummm, -------- view.

I am not quite sure why you think I am lying Teresa? [/quote']are you reading my post as i stated it, or in another manner?

you stated above

Quote:

that if we have a pre-conceived idea...

and i am stating that you need to prove that another has a pre-conceived idea.

do you agree or disagree?

how do you know another has a "pre-conceived" idea?

stating that anything is a "pre-conceived" idea without knowing the person or what they did or didnt believe before, without some kind of proof is, well, what would you call it?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I am not quite sure why you think I am lying Teresa? [/quote']are you reading my post as i stated it, or in another manner?

you stated above

Quote:

that if we have a pre-conceived idea...

and i am stating that you need to prove that another has a pre-conceived idea.

do you agree or disagree?

how do you know another has a "pre-conceived" idea?

stating that anything is a "pre-conceived" idea without knowing the person or what they did or didnt believe before, without some kind of proof is, well, what would you call it?

Teresa, I am not interested in an argument.

I am here to discuss things.

Mark

[Tom Wetmore]

...and the arguing about God here reminds me of the old routine of Steve Martin, "Let's all get small..."