thought it was called the GUR

Gur is a set of languages.

.

.

.

Jennifer,

Xythe the way you say it

Its not the way I say it, John 9:3,4,5&7 are Jesus's own words, and John 9:6 is an act of Jesus.

It's not for me to judge what God does and does not do. The man was blind from birth. God did not blind the man. In fact he made the mans life better when Jesus annointed his eyes with the "clay". Far from cruel and unfair? I think so.

Perhaps the man was blind as a consequence of a birth defect, kinda like crack-baby defects. In this case, the defect would be because of some act of free will by a crack-babys parents. It just so happened that Christ came across this blind man, and Gods work was manifest in the blind man when Jesus gave him his sight.

Please Jen, see this miracle. God used this blind man (for what ever reason he was born blind) to show people that Jesus had the power of God to wield. Notice the similarity in Gen 2:7 and John 9.6, where God uses the "dust of the earth" to create the first living man, and Jesus spits on the ground of dust and "made a clay" and annoints the blind mans eyes. This is no mere coincidence!

God did not make the man born blind, but Christ chose him to perform a very important miracle. That alone is a very great blessing for the blind man.

If you look up the word "Child" in Websters I don't think you'll find that it applies to angels very well.

Nor is the word "child" used in Luke 20:36. However the word "childeren" is, and is well defind as to that words meaning if you continue to read the sentence, "and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

I doubt seriously that Jesus even used the word equal since the word didn't exist then,

Dont be silly, of course he did not use the word "equal". He used the word "ισάγγελος" or, "isaggelos", pronounced as "ee-sang'-el-los", translated from the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance to "like an angel, that is, angelic: - equal unto the angels."

Neither Jesus nor the people who translated the Bible had the benefit of a Webster's Dictionary. I hope you literalists haven't taken your idea of inerrancy and applied it to Webster now too, lol.

Again, please do not be silly, we all know Websters did not exist back then any more than the English language.

We simply use the translated bible so we can read the word of God. If we canot understand our own language, then we seek the credible Websters Dictioanry to help us with that.

Is a "literalist" a person whom understands what they read or simply literate?

The OP in this regaurd is a lot better than youir redefining words to suit your own purpose.

...applied it to Webster now too, lol.

Many laughed at Christ and his disiples as well. When you laugh at me, it has the same effect it had on T/them; we pity you:)

"God did not make the man born blind..."

You sure? How? You speak with complete confidence about a lot of things you have no way of knowing is true or not. God blinded other people in the Bible, so I see no reason to believe that given previous blindings that he wouldn't blind this guy before birth.

"God used this blind man (for what ever reason he was born blind) to show people that Jesus had the power of God to wield."

Just like he used the old testament god is described as imposing suffering and death of Job, his family and servants to make a point to satan. Do you really believe a perfect God would abuse his creation to make a point? If you abused your child to make a point we'd call you less than human. Do you really believe God is less moral than we are?

"Nor is the word "child" used in Luke 20:36. However the word "childeren" is, and is well defind as to that words meaning if you continue to read the sentence, "and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Ah, so Webster's is wrong about its definition of children (i.e. more than one child) in this case regardless of context but it is dead on about its definition of equal regardless of the fact that Jesus was talking about one aspect of the afterlife. With what authority do you pick and choose?

"Dont be silly, of course he did not use the word "equal". He used the word "ισάγγελος" or, "isaggelos", pronounced as "ee-sang'-el-los", translated from the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance to "like an angel, that is, angelic: - equal unto the angels."

Like isn't equal. Which is it? You are relying on a nuance of language from a document passed through the centuries, also based upon some man-made concordance. Yet you know with complete assurance based upon this fact that angels have souls.

One vastly subjective word "equal", translated from a more subjective phrase, and you know that you are right and I am wrong.

"Is a "literalist" a person whom understands what they read or simply literate?"

No, a literalist is someone who believes in the literal truth of a man-made, paper and ink Bible as though it is the word of God. I call it idolatry, personally, but the word most often used are biblical literalists.

"Many laughed at Christ and his disiples as well. When you laugh at me, it has the same effect it had on T/them; we pity you:) "

Save your pity. I pity people who sit with glazed eyes and ponder mythology while the world around them suffers. Why not ponder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while you are defining their spiritual makeup and deciding if there is a big pool of souls somewhere...

Ah, so Webster's is wrong about its definition of children (i.e. more than one child) in this case but is dead on about its definition of equal. With what authority do you pick and choose?

I choose part 6 of your definition from Webster...

6 : PRODUCT, RESULT

A PRODUCT of God and a PRODUCT of the resurrection.

If you abused your child to make a point we'd call you less than human. Do you really believe God is less moral than we are?

I beleive the way God thinks is beyond my human scope of comprehention. It is not up to me to judge the morality of a supernatural being. It seems from your statements however that you in fact do place yourself in that regard.

Why not ponder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while you are defining their spiritual makeup and deciding if there is a big pool of souls somewhere...

More sillyness. I'll pray for you child

Just like he used the old testament god is described as imposing suffering and death of Job, his family and servants to make a point to satan. Do you really believe a perfect God would abuse his creation to make a point? If you abused your child to make a point we'd call you less than human. Do you really believe God is less moral than we are?

Ok, I am not going to go through all the scripture quoting or anything of that sort. But you are stating that you believe in God. Or at least you are debating His Word and what it means.

So..As for the statement about God allowing people to suffer, and allowing things to happen. He gave us free will. So if we have free will then we have the choice to worship God, and be one of His children.. Does He not have the right to test us ( through allowing things to happen ) to see how strong are faith in Him is, and if it is true? Many times the only way we learn more about God and become closer to Him, is through the tribulations He allows. He says that He will never give us more than we can handle. As for Job. We have never been put through what Job went through. To lose all, to fall ill, to be left completely alone. Yet Job STILL worshipped God, and kept his faith in Him. He did not say " God this is cruel of you to test me in such a way, and to allow such things to happen".I doubt your or many of us would be able to be so strong as Job was in that situation.And what happened in the end ? Job had everything restored to him.God did not say "Hey thanks Job. Just wanted to prove to Satan that you are Mine, and My child. Sorry about your losses." As for the blind man..when Jesus gave him sight ..did he say " How dare your Father allow me to be born blind in order for you to show His power"??? No.

If God did not allow things to happen, in order for us to see His works and His will, then how would we ever know or learn? Is not the Bible an accont of things said and done in order for us to learn more about God and His way?, and will for us? And also, that is where faith comes into play. If we have faith that there is a God, and we have faith in God, then we need to have faith in the things He allows, no matter what His reason(s) may be for them.

You said " If you abused your child to make a point we'd call you less than human" How can you compare God's actions or allowances to those of our own? We are no where to being on the same level as God.We can be Christ-like when we accept Jesus as our Savior. But even then we could not compare ourselves to God.No one can, nor will ever be comparable to God.

God does not abuse His creation. He allows things to happen for His own reasons. And if we want to sulk and cry about what we feel is unfair then that is our free will to do so. Instead , we could seek God and learn lessons from why such things happen, or maybe our situation that He has allowed will become a testimony to someone else. And probably many things we will never know as to why they were allowed, and that is ok.

Yes God could simply allow everything to happen in a positive way without pain, suffering, anger, grief, and so on. But we live in a sin filled world. How would we understand tribulations and triumphs in life, if God allowed nothing bad to ever befall anyone?

We are down here, God is up there. Why we only see and hear about what happens around us, He sees the whole picture.

Like isn't equal. Which is it? You are relying on a nuance of language from a document passed through the centuries, also based upon some man-made concordance. Yet you know with complete assurance based upon this fact that angels have souls.

You seem not to believe that the Bible is as the true Word of God. Yes it was written by man and things have been translated through the years, but it is STIlL the Word of God.And the Truths of it are as strong as they were when the Bible came into place.

"I beleive the way God thinks is beyond my human scope of comprehention. It is not up to me to judge the morality of a supernatural being. It seems from your statements however that you in fact do place yourself in that regard."

I'm not judging God, I'm judging primitive man's view of God as recorded by your book. In the Old Testament era kings were tyrants and gods were worse. If someone comes you you and tells you that God does x,y, or z, you aren't judging God to question what they say.

You equate paper and ink to God, therefore you think my questioning the Bible is questioning God. Idolatry? I think so. I think there is a lot of good to be found in the Bible, but to put my soul in its hands is to entrust my soul to the works of man.

I don't believe a perfect being acts like a spoiled child or a ruthless despot. The fact that you would swallow anything the Bible says about God, despite the fact that your own moral compass leads you to believe that such behavior is wrong, is telling. To me it says that the paper and ink holds more authority than even that still small voice.

"God does not abuse His creation. He allows things to happen for His own reasons. And if we want to sulk and cry about what we feel is unfair then that is our free will to do so. Instead , we could seek God and learn lessons from why such things happen, or maybe our situation that He has allowed will become a testimony to someone else. And probably many things we will never know as to why they were allowed, and that is ok."

Nor do I think God abuses His creation. It's the people who worship books and barbarian gods that propose worshiping a being who can't even live up to the lacking moral standards of modern society. Like all the supposition of mythological pools of souls and whether angels and people are equal after death, you guys make up your own definition of God, irrespective of the spirit of right and wrong the REAL God cared enough to put in you.

"You seem not to believe that the Bible is as the true Word of God. Yes it was written by man and things have been translated through the years, but it is STIlL the Word of God.And the Truths of it are as strong as they were when the Bible came into place.

Yep, and that's the same thing an Islamic person will tell you about the Koran. That's the same thing you'd hear from people who follow modern religious kooks who pose the idea that they are God's conduit for wisdom into the world. All of them tell you to blindly trust what some people somewhere at sometime said, often against the better judgment God provides us with.

What exactly makes your assertion more plausible or believable? Nothing. Blindly follow and hope for the best. Faith in God? Hardly. Faith in a book.

.

.

All of them tell you to blindly trust what some people somewhere at sometime said, often against the better judgment God provides us with.

Or the poor judgment Satan influences upon some.

More sillyness. I'll pray for you child Xythe - don't do this you are above that you sound like Aeryk now.

I admit, it was a bit tacky...but mostly ment to be a play on words. Baker most likely laughed when he saw it. I apologize if any offence was taken.

we pity you:)

Is that not meant to read - we love you and forgive you?

Forgive them father for they know not what they do? something to that effect? I am not good at remembering quotes or versus, I feel sure you will be able to pull it out of a hat for me though   

Xythe you are having a good debate here and a good thread - do not ruin it by getting this way.   

Walk the talk the way you started out the thread, reasonable and logical, take your time answering the rebuttals.

No point in starting a debate just to get flustered or piffy. Enjoy it and make the most of it.