Hi everyone,
Delmar said:
A potter who was not perfect in every way could accidently mar a vessel that he was trying to make, but I'm not sure you want to go there, if God is the potter.
What other conclusion is there, though? The analogy suggests God made a marred vessel, and since he would not simply be distracted or careless…
Romans 9:21-22 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction?
God_Is_Truth said:
Lee! How can you deny this?!
Because God says he is not a man? Jesus is God, but God is not simply Jesus, you see.
That's not a problem at all nor does it require the belief that God did not become a man. Jesus and the Father are two different persons in one God. They can therefore pray to one another.
If God is a (singular) man, though, how does Jesus pray to the Father?
Being able to change is freedom.
Well, unless someone is the pinnacle of perfection; as God is!
God himself was changing his mind by cutting Saul off in the first place! It would be absurd to think that just a few verses later we read that God never changes his mind. It's a contradiction if your view is right, and that's not allowed.
Well, no, God can change his response (one area where I believe God changes), and yet not change his nature or his plan. How was it that God did not think Saul would turn out badly? When people said to each other, “Is Saul also among the prophets?!” He had a reputation, I can tell you. God was apparently undiscerning, and picked as the first king a bad candidate, when everyone but him seemed to know Saul was not such a good candidate to be leading. He had a temper, for one, a violent temper, that at least eventually he did not control, and sometimes even gave himself to, and also a streak of what would seem to be cowardice, and so on.
Lee: Yet there is another meaning for this word which fits quite well, why may I not read that meaning in these various places?
I despair of ever being able to get this point across…
God_Is_Truth: That other meaning doesn't help you out! It doesn't matter if you put it in!
But why not? As I explained to Knight, grief can be present even as part of a plan, showing grief can bring a good result.
2 Corinthians 2:4 For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.
I don't have one Lee and it shouldn't be necessary.
But this is remarkable indeed! It is possible that you have found the real interpretation here, and everyone for thousands of years has again and again missed this, but I would consider this well, more than a bit unlikely.
What I’m actually after here is that you seem to adopt more exotic positions the more you are pressed with questions, and I want to try and rein this tendency in here!
Blessings,
Lee