Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by auggybendoggy

  1. 0, it looks like preach is right then to spend the 80 bucks. It's for video editing. Aug
  2. preach or cooj, is the 2x1mb l2 cache that much better than the 2x512 l2 cache? I'm real tight with money until my business is back up. If the diff is only noticable to the electron microscope then I don't care but if you tell me its a HUGE difference like a 20-30% increase then I'll do it. If its only like a 5% then I'll get the cheaper one Aug
  3. dark, I'll have to dig up the cd's. I lost my only like 3 songs (orchestrations) and I WAS TICKED OFF!!! I'll see if I can put something together though. I'm really tied up as I'm readying up to launch my wed video co. it's a converted LLC and my time is CONSUMED but when I get a chance I'll go through my stash for the mp3's. I've got a few recordings right now on my hd of a singer/songwriter girl from victorville california and man does she sing horrible! her song is alright but bad vocals. I'll email you the link and ftp it up. So what about the 2x1mb l2 cache vs the 2x 512mb l2 cache? is it worth 80 bucks? Aug
  4. dark, whether its theology or DAW's you gotta always spoil my parade man!!! LOL! yea pro tools is HUGE! intimidating. Cube is all I need, it's easy and I don't care to cross platform. However if I buy the new version I'm up to re-learning at that point. I just lack the funds to up or cross grade. As for the more expensive chip preach endorsed...is it really worth the 80 bucks for the 2x1 l2 cache I think the chip I have selected is 2x512 l2 cache? is this truly worth it??? 80 bucks is alot at my wage per hr : ) Aug
  5. a gigabyte mb GA-M61P-S3, i want the firewire full atx for the ram slots. my only prob at this point is does it support xp 64? thats what I'll be using... actually it'll be a dual os xp 32 and xp 64 I use cubase for audio editing and gigastudio/atmosphere/stylus for music composition. so I need xp 32 for that. Aug
  6. I guess a better question would be what better processor power can I get for 125.00 thats a newegg price for the windsor 2.4 ghz dual core amd. If anyone has a better purchase please point me in the direction. Auggy
  7. cooj, I'm going from a 3.0 northwood ht p4 478 aging fast : ) Aug
  8. one last question... what is better. the windsor 2.4 at 90ns or the brisbane 2.1 at 65ns I'm not sure which one to go with? Aug
  9. Guys, I read that when building an intel dual core you must use a dual rail power supply. Is this true of a athlon? I'm looking at a x2 windsor 2.4 64 bit witha gigabyte mb GA-M61P-S3 from newegg. I'm wondering if I need a dual rail power supply? Aug
  10. For all you too young to know this show... http://www.timelife.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=9613 get em and you won't be sorry!!! Auggy
  11. undercover, sorry it took so long to find your post. Brother, I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. My heart only aches as for the loss of a child. Mr. Duke and I have had some dear conversations here at GC concerning such fears. I have a 3 year old and though her problem was minor (soft pallet) her surgery was HORENDOUS and I fead we might lose her due to lack of eating (like near 2 weeks w/o a bite). She has since done well but my heart still feels the pain of remembering. I have not been on playing as my video card is soooo slow and my processor is aged I get like 6 fps a sec : ) But please know that my heart and prayer is with you and your family. I would encourage you by letting you know that God loves your daughter even more than yourself so don't be afraid. God is good and wonderful and your daughter is in good hands. The other good news is that God loves you too every bit as much. God Bless and hopefully I'll get a upgrade soon to my aging system and see you in the servers. Sincerely, Auggy
  12. guys on my p/s unit there is a switch that says HAL (3 positions). Can anyone breif me on this. mine is in the middle on "a". Aug
  13. Ok guys, I'm on my sec mb already. The first was my fault as I misunderstood the cpu compatability chart. I'm not on a asus P5N-E SLI with conroe duo 2 E6700 first prob I read TONS of Memory probs if you did not buy the compatible memory. I didn't. I found this out after I made my purchases. Once I got the asus board to support my conroe I found out the memory is not on the list. However some people have had success with the same mem. However they mention changing the speed settings (cl or cs) which mine is 6-6-6-18 funny how I always get 6-6-6 it's like I'm the devil Asus' site says to avoid bios updates unless I have to. So now my question... when I update my bios do I do it starting from my bios thats in the MB to the next or just install the most recent? Also the MB seems to say in order to run 64bit and 32bit a bios change has to be made. for Em64t support I have to upgrade my bios. I believe this means that XP will not work on a hidden partition to back up the 2 64 bit partitions. My set up was going to be on a 200gb sata2 100 gb vista 64 80 gb xp 64 20 gb xp 32 (to back up the other 2 partitions using ghost or drive image). so I have a feeling xp 32 is out ??? The manual reads: this MB is fully compat with intel p4lg775 proc running on 32 bit OS. The MB comes with a bios file that supports EM64T. You can D/L the latest bios file from the ASUS website. so does that mean the bios only supports one or the other? anyone got some feed back on these 2 things. I think moving the ram to the same colors has helped as I had the 2 nearest (to cpu) slots filled (yellow and black slots) and XP would not install. I moved the memories to slot 2 and 4 (both black) and it seems to be installing as I'm typing this.
  14. Guys, my cousin wants to upgrade to a core duo2 and is wanting vista. When I look at the motherboards they do not say they are vista certified and I read reviews about people with driver issues. heres where I get confused... If I go out and by vista upgrad will may parts of my current system quit working (audio, video, usb, firewire...) and if so then I would stick with XP?? my first inclination is to wait a year and let more selections of MB's and cpus develope and then upgrade??? Aug
  15. Guys, I'm trying to build a old pc from stuff but the foxconn MB I have is dead. Theres not much out there on 462 anymore so I'm hoping someone has something. anyone??? if no one responds then I'll go Ebay. thanks Aug
  16. I dug on this one it's its already been posted my apologies. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5395083952125133994 Auggy
  17. dude i'll still nuke you all hahahahaha LOL we should set up a date and time and all get in on a 8 way war Lets do it. Aug
  18. Dark, I'll try to keep em short as well...I hate long posts Ok, yea, we agree scripture is spiritual and no normal logic can just put together the truths that are deep within. I am totally driven by this fact of the pharisees failure to understand God. So now to your point on the hell passages and your 5 points. LRMEH not tulip... thats love, reconcile, mouth, elect, hell there you've got your own patented system now As stated before I believe scripture points out Gods character TOTALLY. But I don't believe its in a literal chronological format or herm. I could easily quote one verse and tell Jesus "God is unmerciful - show them no mercy, they must die man woman and child". .... this is getting long as well man I'm sorry dark Calvinists commit to this very error on predestination and election. They commit so much to "soverigeinty they omit Love" and claim love is a small componnent of Gods nature. I believe it is the Core nature as it is why grace exists. Jesus (God's grace) came because he loves the wicked (world). So w/o love there is no grace. Nor faith, nore patience, kindness, protections, slow to anger, no records of wrongs or rights (all from cor 13). Paul is clearly showing us Gods nature here. We just think because a verse poetically or figuratively speaks "I will smite them and pour out everlasting destrcution" then he must not LOVE THEM. For who eternally destroys those he loves.... Again he would be skitzophrenic to say in one hand I'm trying to call them to repentance cause I love them on the other I'm gonna work em like the worthless dirt bags they are. it simply cannot be both ways. I'm convinced from the story of A&E that God loves all dirt bads (man). He's loves his son (Jesus) so much he's even called the son of man. which literally is Son of Adam. and Adam is called the Son of God. (awsome I think). so my next post will def cover the most exclusive of the eternal passages on hell. I'll also give you talbott and mcdonald (gregory mcdonald) view on these. But I have to go reasearch talbott a bit and get all the passages. Heres a breif on the ones off my head... 1) depart from me you wicked ones into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. the argument is made from talbott that the word "everlasting" or "eternal" is ION. In greek they claim this word literally means "ages". The response by the traditionalist is that the same must be applied to the sheep. If eternal punishment (torture) is not eternal then niether is the inheritance of the sheep who go unto eternal life. Along with these types of passages are similar ones where like Sodom who (according to Jesus) seems to get eternal punishment is also promised restoration in Ezekiel. 53 " 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. 55 And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before... 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you and those who are younger. I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you. The eternal passages MAY be more poetic to the quality of judgement. For example literally scripture says edoms smoke will rise for ever and ever, also in revelation. Yet you have a new heaven and new earth ALL THINGS are made new......hmmm EXCEPT FOR the bodies left burning....so we say...well their not smoking on the earth they are smoking in hell forever and ever. I believe Talbott is right on this. The point in the poetry is not that they are cast into hell forever and ever but rather that what God does to them destroys the old nature for ever. He thus states that the Cross is EXACTLY that. It's a suicide call of the old self...Die to yourself (the old man) and let God raise up the new man (born again). But God will DESTROY the old sinful man FOREVER. Thats just one verse... I'll have to go back on the Rev passages which are even more "symbolic" from a book of mass symobolism. one last note is that talbott points to a parable of Jesus who says "he will be locked up until the last penny is paid" Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? 58As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. 59I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.[c]" Talbott makes the point that Jesus is not making a literal point of hell is where you pay and get out but that it does imply it is not forever. He takes the position as stated above the Old man must die and he believes Hell is Gods wrath humbling people to the foot of the cross. He takes quite a bit of time to point how God's wrath is not just some agnry greek god who is uncontrolled but rather he is a patient loving God who seeks to reconcile all his creation (1 col). One example is when paul says expel the immoral brother and hand him over to satan. (not just to lose the creep) but so that in the end his soul may be saved. So talbott take the position that the idea of Gods wrath is to save people. Its to humble them like nebechanezzar, or pharoa. Mcdonald also is pointing to how Egypt is sin and not a model of man. That Isreal is a model of men. For Isreal is the first born son of God. I'll cover that later. too long sorry man, Aug
  19. Agreed about the OT except that people dont get the fact that he wasnt making it legal to eat unclean foods at that time but rather he was CORRECTING them that food was ALWAYS for the stomach but they failed to understand God's word. Indeed obedience to the law is special as it points to Gods love (Jesus). But in rule and regulation its just a shadow (hebrews) of realities (Jesus). Jesus states the priests desecrate the day and yet are blameless. I think we are close on these grounds of the law and OT. Indeed Gods Grace (Jesus) is not only the difference but also the completion that nails the rules and regulations to death. I do love that passage of the protstitute as they do try to trap em. Funny though that he didn't ask "wheres the man and let me take them out of the city and I'LL DO THE STONING." - God's holiness must be upheld??? Indeed he shows us Gods holiness is found in forgiveness. mercy triumphs over judgement. So yes he did school em and I love that as well. However he should have asked for the man and stoned em himself (he who is without sin). We are so legalistic that we would read the law and would have said just that. "Wheres the man, we must take em outside the city and stone em". Thats back to my point that if we are all alive in Jesus' time w/o the new testament we SURELY would have hung him if we say ...."it's not scriptual." Major parts of the law were being "changed" or "abolished" by him (so it appears) according to a dogmatic literal reading of the text. for example... My bible says (God speaking to Moses)... "Eye for an eye" Jesus says (speaking in Matt 5) "you've heard it said eye for an eye...but I tell you turn the other cheek" We would SURELY ask him... "if your truly from God why are you changing what he says?" or "if your truly from God why are you aboloshing Gods holy law?" then we would demand OT verses stating such. We would have found him guilty (a false prophet) and hung em. leading me to the next point on UR. We read the text so literal we forget that Isreal is GODS FIRST BORN SON. We think of it as a nation. Indeed it is God's first born son. so these connections take me to a Father who loves his children. Look at romans 8 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. In context Paul is talking about us (christians) but is it not true of the wicked??? We want to say "no" since paul is talking about "us" then it must be that his love for those "not saved" is weak (yet he died for them/us aka wicked) I'm convinced Paul means everyone here that if God loves the world (john 3:16) so much that he would die on a cross for us (to reconcile the world unto himself) then it must be his love for us (those he died for) is so great nothing can break it. Isnt this true of our own children. Talbott makes the stunning point that even when a child grows into a hideous monster (adolph hitler) the parents still love them though they hate what they do. If your child commits a haneous crime, you would probably weep for you love your child. Though you would follow through with "justice" the love cannot be broken. Only God can fix such sorrow by restoing that which is bad (reconciling). thus it proves enough to me that God loves us all like a mother loves her newborn child and NOTHING can stop him from loving us. This point if furthered when asked about whether God ends his love for those he casts into hell? Some say yes he no longer loves them thus does not seek to reconcile them any longer. some say no, he does continue to love them and would reconcile them but hell is locked from the inside (c.s. lewis). Men just choose to stay in hell rather than go with God. I agree with talbott the 2nd option is ludicrous and rationally impossible. People will not be sipping pinnacoladas on the beaches of molten lava No. 1 is more plausible but considering the nature of love it appears to me that it is impossible to truly love a child and then end it. Suffer the little children unto me...WE ARE ALL LITTLE CHILDREN AT SOME TIME. We are descendant of God's son (adam) and he loves us so that he would lay his life down for us (theres NO GREATER LOVE). Dude this UR makes total sense to me Dark, I do appreciate your dialouge, it helps me bounce ideas. so thanks. As for God loving and hating what I mean is, towards us. He hates the sin but loves the sinner. He never hates us but ALWAYS hates the sin. In this same way he ALWAYS loves us and CANNOT act in any other manner (hate) since he loves us. You cannot love and hate your child at the same time, you can hate what they do or say but them in and of themselves. If you do not have a child then wait till you do and you'll understand how much you could love someone so small. It's a perfect touchstone God gives us to him. Indeed God cannot be put into a box that is why I must go with the most plausible and reasonable rendering of text as possible and I have found that literal interpretation is a DEAD END. If the bible is as simple as reading tom sawyer then anyone can understand it but in Luke (the end, I forget the chapter) Jesus opens their minds to the scriptures, meaning it's not just a literal reading but a spiritual one. I think this is a major part of that understanding is realizing God's nature and mysteries are not simple to see but must be revealed and must be sound with other scripture. So "show them no mercy" takes a TOTAL turn on its appearance. Man these are long posts Aug
  20. ok I'll try to tackle the 2 (dark and cong) at the same time. Dark: Pharisees lived and died by their own theology, not the scriptures. They missed God's heart in it all, and lived in 'ungrace'. They were legalistic, and made rules about how to follow the rules, and put their own interpretations on par with the Law itself, such as "dont eat with sinners". Indeed they did but it is not as though "eye for an eye" was something they made up. They lived to the word... 1) eye for an eye 2) dont eat unclean foods 3) dont do ANY work on the sabbath They not only DID NOT MAKE THESE UP they are God's own words yet Jesus says 1) "i tell you" turn the other cheek 2) Nothing that goes into your mouth defiles you, food is for the stomach. 3) it's ok to do Good work While you may think you are not as corrupt as a pharisee (who twists Gods word into a legalistic religion) I believe by your own mechanics you would demand scripture from Jesus to show where in the OT the above 3. In other words I think you too would have condemned him by your own demands of "literal" interpretation and hung him on a cross. the natural response is "Jesus can change these as he is God"... this poses 2 problems 1) did Jesus come to uphold the OT or abolisth it or change it or endorse it, fullfill it? 2) in the time of walking with Jesus it begs the question. You seem to be claiming that scripture MUST support it but what OT scripture do you have for doing good work? My bible says CLEARLY "you do not do ANY work for it is a day of rest" I say your as blind as a pharisee (like me, no offense as I believe we all are) and WE do not read the scriptures correctly. You say all we're called to do or not do is based on what God does or doesnt do. What about God telling us to not take revenge because He will? I definitely think that we are to love because God first loved us (while we were still enemies with Him), and that part of scripture is modelled after Him. Indeed he does but what if he brings vengance not JUST to brutalize them (UNLIKE US) but to turn them from their sin. Indeed there are always scriptures that sound like God does evil... Proverbs 16:4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends— even the wicked for a day of disaster. Hard line Calvinists hold that God indeed makes men for damnation (double predestination) so they use a verse like this to show God does work out the ways of the wicked for the day of disaster... But scripture ALSO says God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked??? So which is it??? Show them no mercy God is compassionate??? Perhaps Jesus didn't study the whole OT when he claims that God is merciful? Perhaps God is a young boy with an ant farm when he tells us he is compassionate (unless you tinkle em off). Point being scripture may sound like God is going to just wack people for the sole reason of rejection of truth but I agree with Talbott who states that scripture shows God is merciful and WILL ACHIEVE his plan to save all. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Do you ever wonder why paul says to tim... Jesus who is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe. due to point no. 3 (many will go to eternal damnation) it is upheld that Jesus is the POTENTIAL savior. Indeed God is not sloppy with scripture though. How about Johns words... He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. Scripture does not say he is the POTENTIAL atonement for the sins of the world but that HE IS the atoning sacrifice. NOT ONLY FOR OURS!!! In our traditional mind we believe he only reconciles some things... Indeed he will reconcile ALL THINGS Indeed we are called to do EXACTLY as God does. For doing any different would be a license to sin. Are you saying God can do what he forbids men to do? (vengance is your example). Thus are saying it is ok for God to hate his enemies while we are called to be perfect like him and love them. You don't seem to see the contradiction... you are holding that God does indeed NOT love his enemies (in contrast that he calls us to love them) YET Jesus says be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (for he loves his enemies). This is my point scripture can have the appearance of God being Vengful, unmerciful, murderous, boastful, ungraceful, hateful I'm saying we read it wrong thats why we COULD NOT tell Jesus God is unmerciful. We could quote "show them no mercy" and say "Jesus you are only reading part of the bible"... Doesn't Jesus say all of the prophets and the law hang on 2 commands.. But Jesus your leaving alot our inbetween....Indeed he is not, we read it wrong, he reads it right. God is merciful, God does want all saved, God can save all men. now to romans 9 Jacob I love, Esau I hated... Read what happens to Esau when he RECONCILES back to jacob. Calvinists use this passage to say God loves some but not all (Esau I hated) but indeed pauls overall point of Romans is that God has not cut off Isreal and that he will save ALL isreal.....For all Isreal will be saved. The question is who is Isreal.. It is a strong argument that 1) moses is the deliverer (model of messiah) 2) Isreal is Gods chosen peopld (those who belong to God) 3) Egypt???? ahhhhh who is Egypt.. Isreal was bound to Egypt (enslaved) for all men were bound to disobedience the messiah comes to unleash all men from this bind Egypt is not people who reject God but rather SIN!!! all men are Isreal, and all Isreal will be saved All things on earth or in heaven (things lost) will be reconciled to him The scriptures read this to me now (I'm writing a screen play on this) God loved his first born son Adam Adam is the son of God Isreal is the firstborn son of God the messiah is the firsborn son of God the messiah is God God (Adams father) has left Eden to save his 2 children (adam and eve) and reconcile them back to himself. For he is able to keep us from falling. Romans 5: for just as THE MANY all dies in Adam so THE MANY will be made alive in Christ. for God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. So all Isreal (who represents the firsborn) will be saved as stated in Romans 11 Now I will tackle the eternal passages tomorrow as I'm out of time If I leave you with anything I challenge you to prove using OT scripture the 3 charges are made up by pharisees. I'll show you in num where a man collecting wood on the sabbath was stoned (where is mercy) and how God's own words say "you shall not do ANY work". I'll show you where God says "dont touch or eat any unclean animal". I'll show you where eye for an eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life is the standard of law. these are all from the Law of God (God's commands) keep them and "i will bless you"...hmmmm Sincerely, Auggy
  21. Dark, pharisees lived and died by scripture as well and it didnt help em one bit. What matters is the truth in scripture. My point about blind faith is that if God cannot be understood as to what is good and bad then we could never ever turn to him. Indeed the tree of knoweldge of good and evil is a dbl edge sword. We do know what is good and we should do it. If someone says God like aduletery you can rest assured that he does not. If someone says God can sin you can be sure he cannot. It's not only spoken in scripture ITS SOUND. The gospel is the Good news and sound doctrine is not only in terms of ONLY the Gospel but rather EVERYTHING that you say and think. If love keeps no records of wrongs or rights then why does paul say love does not. Do you really believe that these characteristics of love in cor 13 are not about God. Thats like saying...."you should follow these attributes but NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE LIKE GOD but becauses I say so". Bro, we follow those attributes because THEY ARE ALL ABOUT GOD and his character. You totally misunderstand the position that it fits God into a box. Morality is STRONGLY endorsed as UR'ists firmly endorse God wants us to be like him and seeks to transform us into the likeness of Jesus. If one reject him God's wrath will come to him INCLUDING HELL. The difference is that they (I) see Gods wrath not being as from some sociaopathic psycho but rather from a compassionate God who seeks to save all men. As for the "God is totally above time" I see no relevance to this discussion. It still does not resolve the point that If someone says Jesus was a liar (Immoral) he has to logically prove it from scripture. To illogically prove it means NO one (like mormonism) woul dbelieve it. In other words God gives us all intellegence to see what is good and bad (tree of k of good and evil) and therfore we can see that Jesus is good, not because of simple words but because of his actions and his "doctrine". UR'ists argue that grace is truly only endorsed in their view (this I am not sure about) they aregue that if it is left TOTALLY up to God to whom he calls and he wants all to be saved then he will eventually save all because he wants to have mercy on them all. For God has bound all men over to disobedience.... Why Dark? Auggy
  22. dark, if we cannot then we cannot say it except for blind faith which is exactly what all men do. That my friend is humanism. It is not valid to say I believe God is good simply because the bible says it. Muslims make the same claim of allah and will willingly blow up a school bus full of children YET we will claim God shows us all the logic is antithetical to his claim that allah is good. In such a system of belief (doctine) it MUST BE SOUND. This paul tells timothy about being true to sound docrtine. Here is what is not sound... God loves all men... God hates his enemies... (men who hate him). God is compassionate God is uncompassionate (to those who resist him) God is love God is hate (to those who reject the truth) God cares for people God cares less for the wicked Yes God hates sin but he loves his enemies thats why Jesus says "love your enemies, therfore be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." He is saying God does not hate his enemies. We conclude he does because our system (doctrine) defines justice as an act of hatred or a abusive retrubution with no attempt of correction. Indeed no father who loves his children will abuse his children that is why Jesus affirms that God loves everyone. Every knee bowing from Phil 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This is not JUST the church... in heaven and under the earth is a phrase not equiv. to "his children" but rather EVERY knee. so the question of Forced admittance or True adoration is raised. I agree with Talbott that forced recognition does not glorify God but rather shows that many still reject his glory. Rather if all admit that he is all beautiful. It is not Prideful at all to say God cannot act sinful. It is perfectly fine to say love does not boast... So does God boast? love is patient... is God patient? Love KEEPS NO RECORDS OF WRONGS OR RIGHTS... does God keep records of wrong or rights? Love always protects Does God proetect? For anyone to say God wants us to love all men but he does not is TOTALLY hypocritical which Jesus makes clear the pharisees embrace such theology. Jesus makes it clear, God shows no favoritism, but rather he loves all. If God does show favoritism, then it would not be a sin and therfore we could also show favoritism (racism, discrimination). I believe Talbott is totally correct on his view of what is true and what is not. In the words of George Mcdonald, "if something looks dark to you, be assured it is." Auggy
  23. actually it's not humanist at all. It totally embraced the FACT that man is sinful. However it also embraces the fact that God's love is greater than sin. It takes more than an equal force of love to save someone. God's love is underestimated by traditionalists. The view does not deny justice but rather see justice that it is an act of Love from God. Talbott argues that if it is Gods nature to hate sin then when does he hate it? He argues that God ALWAYS hates sin since it's his nature to hate sin. He also argues God is Love. He argues that if love is a central core of Gods nature then it WONT act in opposition (skitzophrenia) to his other characteristics. His position is that love is the main characteristic of God. That holiness, righteoussness, faith, grace, mercy, compassion, anger are all extenstion of his love and that God's wrath is to bring people to repentance. The 3 positions cannot co-exist except for a god who is skitzophrenic. It is TOTALLY inadequate to say God is good though he does things he tells us not to do...hate out enemies. if logic cannot be used (we say Gods ways are high that we dont comprehend them) then NO one can say God is good and really believe it. In order for one to believe something (which God wants us to do) we have to be convinced. If I say God sins but commits no sin then it is similar in that we say God can act irrational and violent (not in compassion) since he is God. in other words, God can sin without sinning for he is God. But I agree with Talbott that God cannot sin because it's against his nature (hes not skitzophrenic). Therfore he always acts in love, even when his harsh wrath occurs on us. People still believe we cant see the true holiness of God yet we see it in Jesus. We have seen it. If you've seem me youv'e seen the father. We just don't understand what it means. We're blind and mcdonald is correect about that (I believe). He who sees Jesus sees the WHOLE, PUREFECT Holiness of God. We just don't think so because we believe the atomic structure of his light would obliterate us....as if atoms matter??? the view sees that justice stems from righteoussness which stems from love. Therfore justice is never "eye for an eye" but rather Gods kingdom of justice is "turn the other cheek"....for this is how God is...be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. Therfore IN EVERYTHING Mecry triumphs over judgement and justice is met in mercy not the law. it seems to me you deny 2. You want to uphold that God wants to save all and many will go to hell with no end thus if you uphold number 2 you are in contradiction. If all three can be true than mormons can be right that trinity is not true as well. For if God is hides beyond our comprehension (he doesnt thats a major function in Jesus making God known to us), then mormon doctrine should be logical and reasonable. But in fact many of us deny it because IT MAKES NO SENSE, ILLOGICAL, UNRATIONAL, UNREASONABLE. So I agree with Talbott, the tree of knowledge of good and evil makes us aware and able to see the good but we choose to think of God as a greek god who is both murderess and compassionate, black and white, joy and sad, blessing and curse, love and hate. SKITZO! Talbott is correct, God is not sad, curse, black, hate or dark.... He is love and all goodness is in him. Aug
  24. Justice Talobott argues is an extension of God's love. It is not just some psychotic person who serves evil with evil. Rather God draws men by humbling them with justice. The natural result of rejecting God and his nature is death. Sin results in death and wrath occurs. Therfore like the plauges of egypt it softens hearts till the person is released from sin. The referral of people not entering the kingdom is no different then those who go to hell. Jesus died to change us NOT to change God. God seeks to destroy the old man (sin nature) and give birth to the new man (new creation) NO ONE can be saved or reconciled outside of Christ and all who are saved/reconciled come into the kingdom of God. Hell is still a literal place (though lake of fire, utter darkness, cut to pieces are all metaphors) that people will take on if they reject Jesus. The scriptures are based on literal interpretations of romans, collosians, matt, mark, luke and epeshians. Heres one that most people know. "Every knee will bow and every tounge confess that Jesus is Lord"... UR'ists take this literally. Talbott argues that the knee bowing is not a forced metaphor but rather a form of respect someone has for his king. The glory that God gains is by winning one to confess rather than forcing one to confess. So the view holds that God DOES NOT step on the wickeds neck in order to make them say something they do not believe but rather wins all creation so that all willingly say "God is Lord of all". They take the word of God very serious and Gregory Mcdonald (psudonymn) argues that we read the bible wrong. While he holds that indeed there is direct instruction it also needs to be seen as a whole, that is God loves all. Talbott and Mcdonald both argue this point. 1) God wants all men to be saved and reconciled. 2) God is powerful and CAN save and reconcile everyone. 3) Many will go to eternal destruction with no hope of reconciliation. They argue the three cannot co-exist Thus the calvinist denys no. 1 and says God DOES NOT want all men to be saved. The Arminian denys no. 2 and says God wants all men to be saved but CANNOT save them due to mens free will (choice). The Universalist claims 1 and 2 are true but no. 3 is false. They claim God wants to save them all God can save them all Hell (God's wrath) is nor eternal as there are scriptures that paint these types of pictures. They also claim Eternal punishment is not just for any crime. If one argues "to deny an infinite God inherits an infinite punishment" then why is it better for Sodom and Gam than for koriazan? Thus it is held that if God loves the wicked he will save them all. It's much much deeper than this but this is a VERY basic overview of the position. Auggy
  • Create New...