ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Nathon Detroit]

I have a newborn that needs Daddy. Goodnight everyone!

Goodnight.

Tonight when you pray make sure to tell God that you are sorry for calling Him a murderer.

 

[sentientsynth]

Excellent!

And I would agree completely.

Wouldn't you agree that Freak should just say something like.... "OK, OK... I had the story wrong in the first place it was Abimelech who did the killing of the 70 NOT God.

That's a sticky one that I'll let you and Freak sort out. I'd have to go back and read for myself before I gave my opinion on the text, though I do believe that God then used and still todayt uses evil to accomplish His purposes. This specific story, though, I'd have to brush up on.

And I shouldn't have used the phrase 'God murderered as a result of divine judgement.'

If you were Freak wouldn't you just clarify and admit the error?

Yes, I would have.

Sorry, Freak. I have to agree with Knight here. Anyone around TOL can tell you I'm a stickler for words. It was apparent to me what you were saying though, even though I disagree with your use of the word murder. Equivocating upon words leads to these sorts of time and energy wasting flare-ups.

But, now you know.

:cheers:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sorry, Freak. I have to agree with Knight here. Anyone around TOL can tell you I'm a stickler for words. It was apparent to me what you were saying though, even though I disagree with your use of the word murder. Equivocating upon words leads to these sorts of time and energy wasting flare-ups.

But, now you know.

:cheers:

:up:

That's all I am saying really.

After all Freak did ask....

Where did I say, "God is a murderer."

Only a couple posts after Freak asserted...

God murderered as a result of divine judgement.

It just seems to me that it would be such a "no brainer" just to admit the error.

SS, thanks for the honest post! :up:

 

[sentientsynth]

After all Freak did ask....

Where did I say, "God is a murderer."

Only a couple posts after Freak asserted...

God murderered as a result of divine judgement.

It just seems to me that it would be such a "no brainer" just to admit the error.

Yeah, that was pretty dense. He should drink some herbal tea and get back with us later.

SS, thanks for the honest post!

No prob, Knight. I try to always be honest. But sometimes I let my sense of humor get the best of me and I end up just mocking and not really saying anything.

Time for some herbal tea myself.


Peace.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's a sticky one that I'll let you and Freak sort out. I'd have to go back and read for myself before I gave my opinion on the text, though I do believe that God then used and still todayt uses evil to accomplish His purposes. This specific story, though, I'd have to brush up on.

Just to clarify so everyone is up to speed....

Freak was wrong in the first place, God didn't murder Abimelech's brothers..... Abimelech did.

Here is a summary....

Abimelech: A son of Gideon (Judg. 9:1), who was proclaimed king after the death of his father (Judg. 8:33-9:6). One of his first acts was to murder his brothers, seventy in number, "on one stone," at Ophrah. Only one named Jotham escaped. He was an unprincipled, ambitious ruler, often engaged in war with his own subjects. When engaged in reducing the town of Thebez, which had revolted, he was struck mortally on his head by a millstone, thrown by the hand of a woman from the wall above. Perceiving that the wound was mortal, he desired his armor-bearer to thrust him through with his sword, that it might not be said he had perished by the hand of a woman (Judg. 9:50-57).

source

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yeah, that was pretty dense. He should drink some herbal tea and get back with us later.


No prob, Knight. I try to always be honest. But sometimes I let my sense of humor get the best of me and I end up just mocking and not really saying anything.

Time for some herbal tea myself.


Peace.

Peace to you as well! :up:

Did you see my last post about Abimelech?

 

[sentientsynth]

Did you see my last post about Abimelech?

Yes. And I've got Judges open in front of me right now.

Here's a funny part:

9:53
and a certain woman doth cast a piece of a rider on the head of Abimelech, and breaketh his skull,

9:54
and he calleth hastily unto the young man bearing his weapons, and saith to him, `Draw thy sword, and thou hast put me to death, lest they say of me -- A woman slew him;' and his young man pierced him through, and he dieth.​

Now you can't tell me that God doesn't have a sense of humor.

:darwinsm:


All in all, though, I would admit that Judges 9 is a good case of God using an evil spirit to bring about His purposes. The evil spirit was not sent on Abimelech to bring about the murdering his sixty-nine brothers, but the evil spirit was sent in judgement of both Abimelech and the people because they were both guilty.

The most I can render from this section of scripture (reading it in context and not comparing it to other sections of scripture) is that God sent the evil spirit as righteous recompense against evil-doers and then left the wicked to their own devices knowing that that would be bring about a just punishment.

I believe that that is a fair interpretation, in isolation, in context.



Honestly,

SS

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes. And I've got Judges open in front of me right now.

Here's a funny part:

9:53
and a certain woman doth cast a piece of a rider on the head of Abimelech, and breaketh his skull,

9:54
and he calleth hastily unto the young man bearing his weapons, and saith to him, `Draw thy sword, and thou hast put me to death, lest they say of me -- A woman slew him;' and his young man pierced him through, and he dieth.​

Now you can't tell me that God doesn't have a sense of humor.

:darwinsm:

I love that!

I was laughing about that as well. :chuckle:

That's a Bible verse you wont see on any "inspirational verse of the day" lists. :rotfl:

You continue...

All in all, though, I would admit that Judges 9 is a good case of God using an evil spirit to bring about His purposes. The evil spirit was not sent on Abimelech to bring about the murdering his sixty-nine brothers, but the evil spirit was sent in judgement of both Abimelech and the people because they were both guilty.

I agree... kinda, sorta... I agree with....

was sent in judgement of both Abimelech and the people because they were both guilty.

However.....

I don't believe that God will do evil.

I believe that God created us so that we know when we are guilty and we therefore feel guilt and sometimes we try to pass off that guilt onto others. I believe that is the case in Judges 9. Both parties were guilty and the guilt they felt turned them against each other.

Which is why some translations state it this way....

Judges 9:23 God sent a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech, 24 that the crime done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might be settled and their blood be laid on Abimelech their brother, who killed them, and on the men of Shechem, who aided him in the killing of his brothers. NKJV

God wasn't using actual evil spirits to accomplish His goals but instead evil spirits and ill will was flourishing among the wicked.

 

[sentientsynth]

God wasn't using actual evil spirits to accomplish His goals but instead evil spirits and ill will was flourishing among the wicked.

God sent

That pretty much says it all for me.


...oh yeah, and who can forget....

....that the crime done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might be settled...

 

[Delmar]

As with all dictionaries it has numerous entries. Which one would suit you?

The one that logically fits the context.

Come on Knight...

I have stated I do NOT believe God is a murderer in the sense you are thinking. I believe murder can be defined as to kill. God is a murderer not in the sense you are thinking but in the sense that He kills those whom deserve judgement.

God brought forth death to the People of Shecham, re-read Judges 9.

Freak

In English, as in almost every language, there is more than one word that means "to terminate a life". In almost every language one of those words one of those words is
generally used to imply guilt, and the other word is more generally used in a more neutral fashion. People, for example, generally do not use the term murder when discussing a carnivore killing it's prey unless they were trying to make some sort of extraordinary point.
You, in referring to an action of God's, chose to use the word that most commonly implies guilt! Why did you do that?

 

[Delmar]

Since you think we need to move on, perhaps you can answer this simple question...

For example, in Judges 9, He used an evil spirit for His divine purposes:

"Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.

God used evil, in this case an evil spirit that knows nothing but evil for His purposes.

Knight: did God use something evil for His purposes? Yes or no?

I am also wondering about the translation of the word "evil" in this case. Is it possible the phrase could be translated "spirit of calamity" or " destructive spirit"?

 

[sentientsynth]

Judges 9: 23

Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

Then God sent an *Ra`* *Ruwach* between Abimelech....

Ra` ~

King James usage ~ evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2


Examples:

Gen. 2:9 ~ the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Ra`);

Gen 6:5 ~ And GOD saw that the wickedness (Ra`) of man was great in the earth...;

Jonah 1:2 ~ Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness (Ra`) is come up before me.

Hab 1:13 ~ Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil (Ra`), and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked (Ra`) devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
​

So maybe it could be translated "spirit of calamity" or something similar. It's just that the Hebrew word is a very general word that's used in a variety of contexts. I'm no Hebrew scholar or anything, but something tells me that things like calamity, ill will, evil, etc. are all lumped into the same category, Ra`.

The word Ruwach does seem to be understandable as impersonal in this case. In other cases, it is used for the Holy Spirit such as in Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 14:19, and on. It is used as a personal force in many other cases. This word is hard to judge for me.

However, the words "God sent" are literal. And the meaning of the verse is ascertainable no matter which translation you use: that God sent this "ra ruwach" to fulfill the purpose of punishing the wicked.

But, just my two cents.



SS

 

[Delmar]

Judges 9: 23

Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

Then God sent an *Ra`* *Ruwach* between Abimelech....

Ra` ~

King James usage ~ evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2


Examples:

Gen. 2:9 ~ the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Ra`);

Gen 6:5 ~ And GOD saw that the wickedness (Ra`) of man was great in the earth...;

Jonah 1:2 ~ Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness (Ra`) is come up before me.

Hab 1:13 ~ Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil (Ra`), and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked (Ra`) devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
​

So maybe it could be translated "spirit of calamity" or something similar. It's just that the Hebrew word is a very general word that's used in a variety of contexts. I'm no Hebrew scholar or anything, but something tells me that things like calamity, ill will, evil, etc. are all lumped into the same category, Ra`.

The word Ruwach does seem to be understandable as impersonal in this case. In other cases, it is used for the Holy Spirit such as in Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 14:19, and on. It is used as a personal force in many other cases. This word is hard to judge for me.

However, the words "God sent" are literal. And the meaning of the verse is ascertainable no matter which translation you use: that God sent this "ra ruwach" to fulfill the purpose of punishing the wicked.

But, just my two cents.



SS

So it would not be too far fetched to say that God simply "caused trouble" between them, in order to punish the wicked?

 

[sentientsynth]

So it would not be too far feched to say that God simmply "caused trouble" between them them, in order to punish the wicked?

I think we could word it even less strongly, that God simply made them mad with each other. But I would keep in mind that God had a direct purpose for this (...that the crime done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might be settled...) and that if He had not sent the spirit of ill will or evil, then everything may just as well have been fine and dandy in Abimelech's kingdom.

God instigated this scenario. He imposed upon these men's "free will."

It's kind of the equivalent of tying two cats together by their tails and throwing them over the clothes line. "Gee, I wonder what will happen?" :chuckle:

 

[Delmar]

I think we could word it even less strongly, that God simply made them mad with each other. But I would keep in mind that God had a direct purpose for this (...that the crime done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might be settled...) and that if He had not sent the spirit of ill will or evil, then everything may just as well have been fine and dandy in Abimelech's kingdom.

God instigated this scenario. He imposed upon these men's "free will."

It's kind of the equivalent of tying two cats together by their tails and throwing them over the clothes line. "Gee, I wonder what will happen?" :chuckle:

True.

God sent

That pretty much says it all for me.


[/B]

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing that God was the cause of this particular event.

 

[sentientsynth]

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing that God was the cause of this particular event.

Here is Knight's apparent interpretation:

Knight
God wasn't using actual evil spirits to accomplish His goals but instead evil spirits and ill will was flourishing among the wicked.​

I hate to pick a bone with Knight when he's not around, but he does seem to be disagreeing that God was the cause of this particular event. Maybe he'll clarify when he's around later. He was on until pretty late last night and most people (besides insomnal freaks like me) like their seven to eight hours.

What do you think that Knight is saying in that line given above?

 

[Delmar]

Here is Knight's apparent interpretation:

Knight
God wasn't using actual evil spirits to accomplish His goals but instead evil spirits and ill will was flourishing among the wicked.​

I hate to pick a bone with Knight when he's not around, but he does seem to be disagreeing that God was the cause of this particular event. Maybe he'll clarify when he's around later. He was on until pretty late last night and most people (besides insomnal freaks like me) like their seven to eight hours.

What do you think that Knight is saying in that line given above?

I din't think what Knight said is dramaticly different than what I said, but I am willing to wait a few hours so that Knight can speak for himself.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What do you think that Knight is saying in that line given above?

All I am saying is I agree with the NKJV translation of this verse....

God sent a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech, - Judges 9:23

How exactly God does that I am not sure. But I do not believe a righteous God employs evil Spirits. God does at times use what evil spirits have done or are doing on their own freewill for His purposes but I do not think God would actually instruct an evil spirit to do evil, that does not fit the description of a righteous God.

 

[Turbo]

I think what Knight is saying is that the "evil spirit" in this case is not refering to an actual spiritual being (i.e. a fallen angel; a demon), but rather a general mood or emotional state among the people. Like when people refer to the "Christmas spirit," it's not a reference to an actual being.

 

[Z Man]

David suffered tragedy, and David was in judgment!:bang:

I know that; I think that's been established a gazillion times already. Let's focus here and concentrate on David's firstborn son. God killed him after living only for 7 to 8 days. I'm sure we both agree that David's son did nothing to be judged about; he was killed on behalf of David's sins. Therefore - now concentrate, cause this is important - therefore, God caused someone to suffer and experience death/tragedy even though they weren't in judgement. This belief between you and Knight that God only causes tragedy upon the wicked is unbiblical.

This (Exodus 4:11) still doesn't prove exhaustive predestination.

Wow.. that explains everything. No wonder your posts are dumb. You're lost. You're so far out in left field it isn't funny. Do you realize that no one is arguing for exhaustive predestination right now?