does God condone killing?

[Nicodema]

The Prodigal Son was not truly repentant either, yet the father met him afar off and welcomed him home.

You comprehend nothing of the situation, I see.

Quote:

That's not how it happened.

Were you there?

[David Koot]

The Prodigal Son was not truly repentant either, yet the father met him afar off and welcomed him home.

[Nicodema]

Originally Posted By: Nicodema

The Prodigal Son was not truly repentant either, yet the father met him afar off and welcomed him home.

Yes he was. That is stated clearly in the account.

[Robert]

But the seeds of rebellion were in his heart. He was sorry he lost in his bid for power, but not truly repentant.

No...the issue is not being Lucifer, but Satan. Somewhere he became Satan. The reason there was no going back is because Satan invented the principle of "self".

You see God is "agape" - it's not some attribute He has, it is who He is. The same with Satan. He is "the ego" - "the self"! It is who he is....When he became "the self" there was no going back. His decision was final. He entered into this with his eyes wide open.

Rob

[Nicodema]

And so we are back to claiming God not only can, but indeed does, make a rock He cannot lift, so to speak.

[Nicodema]

And by the way ....

Today, he is the same as he was then--an evil monster, the father of all lies and death and destruction--and, a megalomanica [sic] who loves to be the focus of attention....... Satan is .... a created being, ugly, inherently evil and deserving of no respect.

The "Satan" you describe is the God I see YOU present.

End of issue!!!

[Robert]

Does it seem to you that the Bible portrays God as a "murderous twit"?

Deuteronomy 2:31 The LORD said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.” 32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves.

Okay...let's get a bit for graphic: The men in Israel’s military had to kill not only the men (who were trying to kill them) but women and children. Can you imagine an innocent infant being taken from his mother's breast and then run through by the sword, or worse had its head lobbed off. Defenseless women and children running to the hills for their lives while "God's" warriors ran them down and spilled their guts to dry in the sun. Oh, and by the way, all the material goodies left behind was for the taking of solders.

[David Koot]

He clearly was not repentant in heart, but merely sorry he had fallen upon such deplorable circumstances

[Robert]

He is a liar and the father of lies, and, true to form, he has lied about what happened in heaven.

And in God's name all sort of atrocities have taken place. Why? Scripture gives us a big clue, for those who have ears anyway:

• John 16:2...A time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.

  Luke 9:51 And it came about, when the days were approaching for His [Christ's] ascension, that He resolutely set His face to go to Jerusalem; 52 and He sent messengers on ahead of Him. And they went, and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make arrangements for Him. 53 And they did not receive Him, because He was journeying with His face toward Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went on to another village.

[Nicodema]

Originally Posted By: Nicodema

He clearly was not repentant in heart, but merely sorry he had fallen upon such deplorable circumstances

V. 17 tells us that "he came to himself." Scripture indicates that he experienced genuine repentance.

[Nicodema]

He is a liar and the father of lies, and, true to form, he has lied about what happened in heaven.

(1) He has not lied to Me about it. I have seen it. It was SHOWN to me. I was TAKEN THERE. I was made to experience it FIRSTHAND. It happened TO ME, SO I KNOW. AND I DO NOT LIE. I am pathologically honest, in fact; it is what gets me into such trouble and causes others to despise Me, hate Me, hunt Me, and seek to harm Me. The only time I will resort to dissembling is if I am at risk of having My Prime Directive breached. Then it is a matter of survival and camoflauge -- arts of War as it were, passing through enemy ground -- and not true dishonor.

(2) You are entitled to your opinions. I do not share them. I know better.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

You see God is "agape" - it's not some attribute He has, it is who He is. The same with Satan. He is "the ego" - "the self"! It is who he is....

Hmm. very deep, Robert. I suppose i would be really castigated if i were to suggest that these two personalities are symbols - names for the two attributes in the human heart that give it it's divided quality - . When we can cast out the "ego" from the "kingdom of heaven" that "is within" then what is remaining? agape love. For where there is self..... - love is impossible.

[Nicodema]

Sounds like Buddhism to me. ;-) But that's cool. I've nothing against the Buddhist philosophy.

I do think a distinction should be made between EGO and self, though. We each HAVE a self -- that cannot be helped; it is the way things are. I am not you; you are not me; each of us is himself. Self is simply a generic word referring to the individuality of a person. It does not have to be a nasty, bad, dirty thing.

Ego, on the other hand, generally refers to an inflated sense of self, a mode of placing oneself higher than other selves, and that's where the issue lies in terms of it interfering with the ability to love. However, it must also be pointed out that at times one must appear to do even this, or else one permits others to walk all over himself -- and that is not loving the other, to permit them to stoop so low.

[David Koot]

I have seen it. It was SHOWN to me. I was TAKEN THERE. I was made to experience it FIRSTHAND. It happened TO ME, SO I KNOW.

How do you know you were there? How do you know that what you saw portrayed, actually happened? Were you present at the time the actual events occurred? If so, then how? Assuming they took place thousands, if not more, years ago, you were not yet alive when the actual events transpired.

[David Koot]

That is your conjecture. You are not inside my head and will NOT speak for who I am, what I am, or what I mean by what I state. You will ASK if you are uncertain, and I ALONE will tell you, for I ALONE have the authority to speak upon any matter concerning myself. YOU DO NOT.

The issue is not your, or anyone else's perceptions. The issue is what actually happened. The facts of what actually happened are not observer-dependent. The only issue to be resolved is finding a reliable record of what actually occurred, since no human now living was alive when the events took place. God knows what actually happened, and God has left a record of what happened, both in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy writings. I am not going to take the time right now to dig up the various references, but I do recall a number of places in Scripture where the events in question are touched upon.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

How do you know you were there? How do you know that what you saw portrayed, actually happened? Were you present at the time the actual events occurred? If so, then how? Assuming they took place thousands, if not more, years ago, you were not yet alive when the actual events transpired.

Because I went through it firsthand myself. I experienced the same thing, and I was shown at the same time the meaning of it. You accept that Ellen White was taken back and shown events years before she lived, don't you? You may choose not to believe that about me specifically, and that's fine -- I'm not entering a bid to be your prophet here -- but it doesn't change the fact that yes, such things can happen (even according to your belief system) *OR* that yes, in this case, it happened to me (whether you accept that or not).

[Nicodema]

The issue is not your, or anyone else's perceptions. The issue is what actually happened. The facts of what actually happened are not observer-dependent. The only issue to be resolved is finding a reliable record of what actually occurred, since no human now living was alive when the events took place. God knows what actually happened, and God has left a record of what happened, both in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy writings. I am not going to take the time right now to dig up the various references, but I do recall a number of places in Scripture where the events in question are touched upon.

I call straw man. Nothing you say here in any way has anything to do with anything I said. And as far as I'm concerned the only observers here that matter are God and Lucifer. BOTH know what actually happened, but each may have a different perspective on it, experiencing it from His own point of view rather than the other's. The Great controversy is, after all, a war over control of the definition of reality. And it begins with these fundamental differences. But these cannot be properly explored -- nor can a clear and accurate decision which COUNTS be made -- so long as one perspective is continually misrepresented as something it is not.

[cricket]

Quote:

The Great controversy is, after all, a war over control of the definition of reality.

And that, my **friend**, is most definitely "observer-dependent". The only way to be independent from observation is to analyze without an observer.

Does a falling tree make a sound in the forest if there is no one to hear? Is it a loud sound? A crackling sound? Did it fall of it's own will, or did something knock it down?

Who'll be the first to wipe his mind on his sleeve?

[David Koot]

the only observers here that matter are God and Lucifer. BOTH know what actually happened, but each may have a different perspective on it, experiencing it from His own point of view rather than the other's.

Ha! God tells the truth, and Lucifer is a self-serving liar.

[David Koot]

Because I went through it firsthand myself. I experienced the same thing, and I was shown at the same time the meaning of it.

Shown by whom?

[cricket]

Go rent a copy of Hoodwinked. Truly an eye-opening film.

[Nicodema]

Indeed. The problem with claiming an observer-independent status to reality is .... no one can ever then know what reality is, because there's no one in "observer-independent" space to ascertain it! Once you have someone seeking to ascertain it ... an observer is introduced into the equation, and it is then no longer "observer-independent" ... or else if it is, then the observer can ONLY know what THEY observe OF it.

[Nicodema]

Ha! God tells the truth, and Lucifer is a self-serving liar.

Judging by your posts, I'd say you know neither.

[David Koot]

Quote:

The Great controversy is, after all, a war over control of the definition of reality.

And that, my **friend**, is most definitely "observer-dependent".

The veracity of the statement you are supporting, Chrys, has not yet been established. So far, it is a statement of the poster's opinion.

As for what actually happened in regard to Satan's rebellion in heaven, that is not observer-dependent. Or, do you contend that it is? That Satan's 'perspective' should be given weight? Is that what you are saying?

[Nicodema]

Originally Posted By: Nicodema

Because I went through it firsthand myself. I experienced the same thing, and I was shown at the same time the meaning of it.

Shown by whom?

By firsthand experience and by vision.