Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Buying groceries on sabbath


Guest truthseeker007

Recommended Posts

The Bible teaches that parents are to train up their children and to have rules.

I'm not talking about "autocratic" and dictatorial rule in the home. I'm talking about the kind of parenting that is described in the Bible and in the book, Adventist Home.

But based on what you believe the Word of God teaches, can you give cardw your reasoned response to what he is asking here?

Why does God command obedience, worship, and love?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 674
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • John317

    143

  • cardw

    132

  • Overaged

    90

  • fccool

    79

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Then there is a very large percentage that do not know Christ at all and many that have never even heard of him.

It is hard to have a relationship, positive or negative, with someone you do not know, and certainly more unlikely for someone you have never heard of.

Do you know Akmadin Abdulan from the little village of Simpata in Southeastern Ethiopia? Would you care to describe your relationship with him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a difference between having rules, and understanding the principles behind these rules.

There's a story about a wife who would cut corners of the ham, and husband asked her, "Why do you do that, it's a waste!". She said that her mother always did it, and she went back to her mother and asked her, why did she do that? So she went back and said that her grandmother did it. So, her mom went back to her mother and asked, why did you cut off the corners? So, she said the same thing, and went back to her mother with a question. And her mother's reply was, "My ham never fit in the pan, so I had to cut the corners off."

You can have rules without underlying understanding... and they will not do you much good. Rules are not permanent. They only revolve around certain setting. Principles however are permanent, and can be transferred to any setting. That's why love is not a rule or a law. It's a principle.

You can kill lovingly. I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but it perhaps can be one of the most difficult expressions of love one can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus and "Father" are not separate entities. It's an expression of the same God in a different form.

Jesus is not the same Person as the Father. They are distinct and separate Beings, both of whom are God.

This is exactly the meaning of John 1: 1, and a host of other verses.

The Word is the pre-incarnate Christ, and it says that the Word is God yet is not the same person as the God which is mentioned in that verse. It is speaking of at least two distinct beings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But based on what you believe the Word of God teaches, can you give cardw your reasoned response to what he is asking here?

Why does God command obedience, worship, and love?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible teaches that parents are to train up their children and to have rules.

It also talks a great deal about loving them too.

Originally Posted By: John317
I'm not talking about "autocratic" and dictatorial rule in the home...

Nor am I. That was one variable. What I was talking about was love primarily and secondarily love vs. rules.

Originally Posted By: John317
But based on what you believe the Word of God teaches, can you give cardw your reasoned response to what he is asking here?

I have already. And it seems plenty of others here have thrown in their two cents worth leaving the waters too muddy to see things clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: John317
The Bible teaches that parents are to train up their children and to have rules.

It also talks a great deal about loving them too.

Those things are not mutually exclusive, are they? Of course it speaks of loving them. Teaching them rules and how to respect themselves and others in not antithetical to loving them.

The question here is, why does God command us to love, obey and worship Him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But based on what you believe the Word of God teaches, can you give cardw your reasoned response to what he is asking here?

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore
I have already. And it seems plenty of others here have thrown in their two cents worth leaving the waters too muddy to see things clearly.

Can you point me to the post where you did this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is a very large percentage that do not know Christ at all and many that have never even heard of him.

It is hard to have a relationship, positive or negative, with someone you do not know, and certainly more unlikely for someone you have never heard of.

Hence Romans 2:13-16 regarding those who have never had access to the bible at all and yet "do instintively the things written in the law SHOWING the works of the Law written on their heart" - as a result of the New Covenant work of the Holy Spirit.

in Christ,

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

TW,

What we have is a failure to understand the meaning of words, their context and definitions at time of translation between languages, old and new. Or perhaps certain defs are used because of an effort to support a favorite thought.

bwink

Enjoyed your explanations.....not sure how it got to children from buying food to feed your face!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But all is not lost for the emotionally deprived kids. Love in adulthood can help repair the damage.

It is possible but is very difficult. The damaged person has to be willing to be loved and many have built walls so high and so strong they just won't let anyone in.

I will say that I was damaged as a young child and due to a recovery program started to get the love I needed when I was 16. Yet, most of the emotional damage is done by the age of 7. My local church is great. They really demonstrate that they love me but if I were to build walls, their love for me would have little to no impact on me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is a very large percentage that do not know Christ at all and many that have never even heard of him.

It is hard to have a relationship, positive or negative, with someone you do not know, and certainly more unlikely for someone you have never heard of.

Do you know Akmadin Abdulan from the little village of Simpata in Southeastern Ethiopia? Would you care to describe your relationship with him?

Tom,

We are talking about the Almighty ruler of all who created the universe, not some abstract pizza farmer from the backwoods of Bolivia.

Nature itself does not testify of Akmadin abdulan (Romans 1:20-21). But nature does testify of God, causing everyone to know Him through nature, according to Romans 1:21. Thus everyone has a relationship with Jesus Christ, whether good or bad, obedience or defiance, or indifference. All are "without excuse."

rejoice always,

`oG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bible is known for its symbolism and metaphorical meaning. In fact, this entire passage is a metaphor, calling Christ "Word" (of the Father?).

I don't think there are 3 literal persons of God. I believe that Christ is one of the expressions of God, the one that we can relate to Him through.

By definition, God is not a "person". Person is only applicable to a human being. God is a God. It's an entity that we can't describe. It's beyond description or perception.

To take certain verses about God literally is to completely misunderstand how it relates certain attributes of God. It talks about hand of God... and etc. It's a symbolic description of certain function or event, not literal hands. Etc.

God can be as many "persons" as he wants to. Or he can be none at all. God is beyond an idea of a person, which generally revolves around psychological idea of ego and personality. It's just that without those things, God is not very describable or relatable to humans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about "autocratic" and dictatorial rule in the home...

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore
Nor am I. That was one variable. What I was talking about was love primarily and secondarily love vs. rules.

OK, but how does change the fact that in the home one has to have rules and that these rules are not antithetical to love of the children. In fact, the rules-- if they are the right ones-- are due to the love that one has for the children.

I think you may be assuming something that is not true, which is that I am talking about rules for rules' sake and without love. But that would be a mistake. I am talking about both, of course. Both are necessary. Some want all "love" and no commandments. Others want all commandments and no love. But God gives us His law because He loves us. And he told Moses to have the Sabbath-breaker killed by stoning because of His love for people.

This is what many people evidently aren't able to see, including cardw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bible is known for its symbolism and metaphorical meaning. In fact, this entire passage is a metaphor, calling Christ "Word" (of the Father?).

I don't think there are 3 literal persons of God. I believe that Christ is one of the expressions of God, the one that we can relate to Him through.

By definition, God is not a "person".

I thought you are a Seventh-day Adventist.

Have you always beleived that Christ is the same being as the Father?

John 1: 1 says that "the logos was with God."

If you know Greek, you will realize that the language shows that it is not possible for the logos to be with God if they are not at least two distinct living beings.

The logos, or Word, means that Christ was the communciation of God the FAther. Christ is everything that God has to say to the creatures or to the creaturely world. Christ explains God to us.

But the Word is not merely a mataphor. Christ, the Word, is a divine person. We know Him by the name Jesus Christ.

When Jesus Christ was in the garden and praying to the Father, you can be sure Jesus was not praying to Himself. And on the cross, when Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," Jesus was not crying out to Himself.

Who was Jesus talking about when He said, "I will pray the Father and He will give you ANOTHER Helper"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
OK, but how does change the fact that in the home one has to have rules and that these rules are not antithetical to love of the children. In fact, the rules-- if they are the right ones-- are due to the love that one has for the children.

I think you may be assuming something that is not true, which is that I am talking about rules for rules' sake and without love. But that would be a mistake. I am talking about both, of course. Both are necessary. Some want all "love" and no commandments. Others want all commandments and no love.

True love respects the choices of other. It does not command obedience. The obedience should be a result of understanding that results in desire to do something based on that understanding.

Simply having rules and tell people that these rules are good for them, and then having a threat of punishment hanging over their head... is called dictatorship.

True love respects choices of other, even if these are terrible choices.

(see prodigal son parable to understand true obedience, the punishment, and the way God relates to people)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But based on what you believe the Word of God teaches, can you give cardw your reasoned response to what he is asking here?

Why does God command obedience, worship, and love?

God commands that we obey, worship, and love Him for our own good (much like everything else). We become like what we worship, and we all worship something, and God alone is worthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I thought you are a Seventh-day Adventist.

I guess I have to pass your quiz with a 100% A to be considered one?

Quote:
Have you always beleived that Christ is the same being as the Father?

No. I only came to this realization recently.

Quote:
John 1: 1 says that "the logos was with God."

So do you believe that Christ is literally a "sound" or a word? This is a symbolic text and it is to be interpreted symbolically. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

If you know Greek, you will realize that the language shows that it is not possible for the logos to be with God if they are not at least two distinct living beings.

I did not know you spoke Greek. That's awesome!

I'm going to bring back the example of H20. H20 is both water, ice and steam. But, it's still H20, no matter which form it takes. You can call steam to be "expression" of water, and water to be "expression" of ice. But, even if it has distinctly separate characteristics, we can safely say that aggregate collection of all water, steam, and ice in the universe is H20.

I hope you understand what I'm saying here.

Quote:
The logos, or Word, means that Christ was the communciation of God the FAther. Christ is everything that God has to say to the creatures or to the creaturely world. Christ explains God to us.

Not much different from what I was telling you as far as the meaning of person of Christ. We can't see God. Christ is a visible representation of invisible God. Bible is clear on that.

Christ himself stated that "I and my father are one. If you seen me, you've seen the father". God is not really "Father" of Christ. Fatherhood is only a symbolic relation to the meaning of the relationship. It's not true nature of God. God does not have a gender. Gender revolves around the idea of sexuality. God is beyond sex.

Christ could have been a woman, if the humanity would respond and understand better to that expression, given that it was matriarchal, instead of patriarchal

Quote:
But the Word is not merely a mataphor. Christ, the Word, is a divine person. We know Him by the name Jesus Christ.

If the word is not a metaphor, then Christ is merely a sound, or a collection of letters on the page.

Quote:
When Jesus Christ was in the garden and praying to the Father, you can be sure Jesus was not praying to Himself. And on the cross, when Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," Jesus was not crying out to Himself.

No, that's why I've said that God can be as many distinct personalities and expressions of himself as he desires. When Christ prays, he merely connecting to the source of what He is, which is God that assumes a certain role... or plays in the video game that He created by the rules of that videogame, without using his God powers.

When you play and RPG game, there's really 2 personalities. The one that you "create", and the one that is your true self. Christ is a "created" personality of God. It's an expression. That's why it's dubbed as a "word".

Quote:
Who was Jesus talking about when He said, "I will pray the Father and He will give you ANOTHER Helper"?

God. An indescribable entity that has to be relayed to humans in certain describable functions that they can relate to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By definition, God is not a "person". Person is only applicable to a human being. God is a God. It's an entity that we can't describe. It's beyond description or perception.

Of course Christ and God are persons. They are divine persons. So is the Holy Spirit.

You are mistaken to think that only humans are persons.

A person is a living being, not necessarily only a human. So a person is a thinking intelligent being. That certainly describes God.

A modern dictionary gives definition #7 of "person" as "the separate individualities of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (American Heritage High School Dictionary.)

If you read virtually any Systamatic Theology, you will see that the writers speak of God as a "divine person," of Christ as "the second Person of the Godhead," and of the Holy Spirit as "the third Person of the Godhead."

Here's the definiton of "person" from the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.

.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

Which does not go against anything that I'm saying. God can be as many "persons" as he wishes to be (see example of H20). It does not mean that his true nature is that "person". That's the way we see it, because that's the only way we can understand it. We can't relate to anything else.

God in essence is the true nature of reality which we are a shadow of. We can't perceive that reality. "Person" is the idea relevant to our existence. Explaining God to us is like explaining TV-functionality to a Dog. That's why it is broken down to us in terms of family relationships, and multiple functions. It's something that we can relate to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TW,

What we have is a failure to understand the meaning of words, their context and definitions at time of translation between languages, old and new. Or perhaps certain defs are used because of an effort to support a favorite thought.

bwink

Enjoyed your explanations.....not sure how it got to children from buying food to feed your face!!!!

Yeah, there are a lot of really screwy ideas that develop that way...

And the topic drift is odd, isn't it?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know Greek, you will realize that the language shows that it is not possible for the logos to be with God if they are not at least two distinct living beings.

Originally Posted By: fccool
I did not know you spoke Greek. That's awesome!

A lot of people know NT Greek. It's something you have to do as a theology student in SDA colleges and universities.

So do you know NT Greek? I suspect you might since you know Russian and they are somewhat similar.

John 1: 1 is definitely not talking about an abstact idea or a mere metaphor or illustration. Rather it is talking about a divine being who is in close relationship with another.

Rev. 22: 13 is talking about Christ as a person, and it refers to Him as "the Word of God." He is no metaphor here but is a real living person who is returning to the earth to take His people home with Him.

19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...