1. The KillerFrogs

God Has A Plan For Your Life

Discussion in 'Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum' started by ThisIsOurTime, May 4, 2020.

  1. No doubt we are living proof there has been a creation. And there is a reasonable probability there is a creator.

    Does a Creator micromanage our lives. Does the Creator micromanage the 4 year old Bangladeshy girl dying on the streets with a bowling bowl stomach and soft drink straw arms. Did the Creator micromanage Ted Bundy/Jeffery Dahmer's lives.

    There are plenty of people out there that have their opinions, and willing to suggest to you that if you believe the way they do, that you are on the highway to a form of Utopia/Heaven/Paradise/ etc.

    However, isn't it better to live a life of doing the next right thing, therefore living heaven or hell on earth... just in case these prophets/forecasters are ?*&#?@!*%?
    sketchy, satis1103 and 4 Oaks Frog like this.
  2. #102 ThisIsOurTime, May 7, 2020
    Last edited: May 7, 2020
    You can research various claims and do an internal critique to see how each holds up. For example, you can research the historicity of the bible. What I worry about in an answer like yours is that it can be interpreted as there is no way to discover the truth and so to not bother with it. If there is a Creator and you earnestly seek him out, it would make sense that he would guide you to him.

    The trouble is determining what is the next right thing. For example, if you do not believe there is an afterlife compared with someone who does, this is going to influence how you evaluate what is the next best thing. If you believe this is all there is, you are going to be obsessed with stretching life out as far as possible and maybe doing some ethically questionable choices to achieve that end. However, if you believe there is an afterlife, you are more likely to accept death with the realization that this life is a temporary period until you move onto something more permanent and you will put your focus and energies on other "right things."

    Or another practical example is that prior to Christianity, abortion, infanticide, human sacrifice and so on were commonplace. However, with the rise of Christianity we saw the value of human life rise as these things were discouraged. Now, that we are seeing a decline in Christian morality's influence in the West, we are also seeing a return of a decline in the value of human life where abortion, suicide and abandonment of elderly are more common. I don't believe that is accidental. And yet I believe if you asked folks these days who rejected Christian morality, they would tell you they believe in living a life of doing the next right thing.

    So IMO the underlying beliefs do matter a great deal in determining where we end up and what become the values of society and how it shapes the next generation and so on.

    There is also another issue that hasn't been explicitly expressed but it tends to be at the heart of these discussions. Is God meant to serve us or are we meant to serve God? Or if you don't believe in God, you are defaulting to a position that we are our own gods and can do as we please. And how these questions are answered also influences considerably what is considered good and what values should be encouraged.
  3. far, far from a simpleton

    i believe i fully understand your feelings of not connecting, not understanding, not being able to recite verses from memory at the drop of a hat, or having these profound feelings of being connected

    it isn't about others, it is your relationship with God and the only thing you need to do is believe there is something beyond you, beyond this world
  4. @ThisIsOurTime take this [ Cumbie’s red zone playcalling ]e elsewhere man. This is TCU sports forum. And we have a designated thread to talk about random madness.
    satis1103 and Peacefrog like this.
  5. Three threads. One for the usual suspects, one for yoga pants and one for yelling at each other about a virus.
  6. Odin was not a god just a warrior king. He died and was buried. He even lost his eye and wasn't able to grow a new one which should also tell you he was not a god. There is reason the pagans abandoned their pagan gods for Christianity. Hard to believe your pagan god is actually a god when you know where his bones are resting. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
  7. We have ancient non-Christian sources that speak of Jesus and early Christianity too:

    The last gospel to be written was the Gospel of John and they claim it was written in 90 to 100 AD. If Jesus died in 30 or 33 AD, We are talking 70 years or less after his death.

    By antiquity standards, this time estimate is actually very good. Remember this isn't like today when you can go type up a book and have it printed out at kinkos over the weekend. This was an expensive and time consuming process in antiquity.

    And the time was short enough from the death of Jesus that it did not allow for legend building as we saw that in the gnostic gospels of the 2nd Century because people were still around in the 1st Century who could say no that didn't happen.

    How do you know this? This gentleman would disagree with you:
  8. I feel sorry for the rest of this board and thread that cannot see the fact that you’re doing a bit. Bravo. Keep it going steel.
  9. It's not a bit. I hope all come to Christ including yourself. And if there are any lukewarm Christians out there, I hope they renew their faith and become much stronger believing Christians too.
  10. You seem to have a kind and humble spirit which I appreciate so please understand that I write the following with the idea of wanting the greatest good for you:

    I wonder if you have researched the historicity of the bible? I am not asking you to accept Christ on mere faith. Have you actually gone and looked into it? If not, I would recommend you give that a go as it will appeal to your logical mind. Books by Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace, etc. can be helpful. The bible does call on Christians to use reason so don't feel like you are cheating somehow if you do.

    And if you apply your I only go by my 5 senses test across the board, it will greatly reduce what you can claim to know. For example, if you haven't physically been to China, you couldn't know for sure that it actually existed because videos or people's writings of it could be frauds. By your 5 senses test, you would have to say it doesn't exist. And you would also have to deny or cast doubt on the existence of all people beyond a couple generations as you did not physically see them. Heck, you couldn't even accept that the TCU win at the Rose Bowl existed unless you were physically there.

    It is also interesting that you brought up your 5 senses because the fact that they are working properly is an argument for the existence of God. After all, if there is no god, why would we expect them to work properly as it is all reduced to random chance.
  11. Thanks for your concern and your thoughtful opinions.. I did, however, acknowledge that to me God is the creator of all that I get with my senses, so I'm acknowledging God exists, or at least my definition of God exists.. The miracles that others say happened 2+ thousand years ago very well may have occurred as well as miracles claimed by other Hindus and Buddhists, I'm just not going to try to convince myself any more because my European lineage has leaned towards aligning with one of these groups.. I've not researched this historicity of the bible but I've read it cover to cover 3 or more times and remained unsold..
  12. greatly appreciate the feeling and my suggestion would be if you were to choose to do so, read some of the writings of cs lewis.

    my problem with approaching a relationship with god and jesus christ from a historical perspective is the easiest way to attack the bible is through the accuracy of some of the "facts" of the bible.

    my preference for people wanting to learn more is approach it from the philosophy of the relationship.

    just my two cents and will leave it at that
  13. You argue skillfully, even if this discussion is WAY out of place on FrogForum. But when you talk about the historicity of the Bible, you don't remind us that people argued bitterly about which books even belonged in the Bible for more than 300 years after Jesus' life. That's why for the Old Testament we have not only the books we have now, but also the 14 books of the apocrypha and the nearly 50 books of the pseudepigrapha, books which didn't make it in the final decision. Also there are ten or so books that many wanted to be in the New Testament, but didn't make it. That final decision was very man-made, you have to admit, and it wasn't until 326 AD at the Council of Nicea that the church formally identified all the books that made it so that we have the Bible we have now. By "we" I mean Protestants, as the Catholic Old Testament has seven more books in in than the Protestant one does. (And how did God let that happen, anyway?)
    Chongo94 likes this.
  14. What’s wrong with lukewarm Christians? Do they go to hell? Do they go to heaven but get the crappy room?
    ftwfrog likes this.
  15. Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

    "The lukewarm are those who claim to know God but live as though He doesn’t exist. They may go to church and practice a form of religion, but their inner state is one of self-righteous complacency. They claim to be Christians, but their hearts are unchanged, and their hypocrisy is sickening to God.

    The fact that the lukewarm individuals to whom Christ speaks are not saved is seen in the picture of Jesus standing outside of the church (Revelation 3:20). He has not yet been welcomed into their midst. In love, the Lord rebukes and disciplines them, commanding them to repent (verse 19). He sees their lukewarm attitudes as “shameful nakedness” that needs to be clothed in the white garments of true righteousness (verse 18). He urges them to be earnest, or zealous, and commit themselves totally to Him. Our Lord is gracious and long-suffering and gives the lukewarm time to repent.

    The Laodiceans enjoyed material prosperity that, coupled with a semblance of true religion, led them to a false sense of security and independence (see Mark 10:23). The expression “I am rich; I have acquired wealth” (Revelation 3:17) stresses that the wealth attained came though self-exertion. Spiritually, they had great needs. A self-sufficient attitude and lukewarm faith are constant dangers when people live lives of ease and prosperity."

    Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-lukewarm-faith.html
  16. This is totally false. Nicea had nothing to do with bible canon. Technically speaking, the canon of scripture wasn't formally declared until Trent (in response to the Protestant schism, who in turn made their decision around the same time), though in reality it was more or less agreed upon by the late 200's.

    Your greater point that the canon of scripture was ultimately determined by men is true but....so what? Fallible and imperfect people are capable of speaking infallible truth (if I say 2+2 is 4, pointing out that I've done bad things doesn't make that false). Heck that's exactly the reasoning for belief in an infallible scripture itself, as those books were written by men. If we believe the writings of scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, were inspired writings free from error, then it doesn't seem a leap to say that the selection of said writings were similarly inspired.

    At least from a Catholic perspective, the belief is that Jesus appointed the apostles and their successors to continue the Church, and sent the Holy Spirit to protect their teaching from error. That would apply to authoritatively deciding what books belong in scripture just as it would theology on the Trinity or the virgin birth.
    Eight and Showtime Joe 2.0 like this.
  17. Even though the fringes of the canon remained unsettled, there was a high degree of unanimity concerning the New Testament within the first two centuries. In other words, the canon was authoritative before anyone formally gathered them together. The analogy I have heard is the most traveled roads in Europe are the best roads which is why they are so well traveled. The early Church used a number of criteria for inclusion in the canon including:

    1. Books must have apostolic authority: either written by apostles themselves, eyewitnesses or by followers of the apostles.

    2. Consistency with other accepted books of canon. In other words, was the book congruent to the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.

    3. Did the book have continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.

    You will find the above explains why many of the books were not included. The bible does reference some books that it says is fine to read but does not consider them Scripture like the Book of Jasher or Book of Jubilees. And the same can be said for the Apocrypha. These books should be viewed more like a history book that can have errors and is not divinely inspired.

    How did God let that happen? Whether you are asking about why the division between Protestants, Catholics or other groups or that certain suspect books were written, I believe the reason comes down to man's desire for control and power. God gives us free will which on one hand is great because it allows for justice, love and freedom. But on the other hand, it can manifest examples of the worst in people's actions. In this case, it can lead to people creating false books or getting caught up in Titus 3:9 and 2 Timothy 2:23 arguments.

  18. You're right that there is disagreement about exactly what the Council of Nicea did about establishing the canon. But to say it is "totally false" is an overstatement. And to say this: At least from a Catholic perspective, the belief is that Jesus appointed the apostles and their successors to continue the Church, and sent the Holy Spirit to protect their teaching from error. That would apply to authoritatively deciding what books belong in scripture just as it would theology on the Trinity or the virgin birth.[/QUOTE]. You actually believe this? What was the "Holy Spirit" doing when the "apostles and their successors" had bitter disagreements about the canon and other elements of theology? And where was the "Holy Spirit" when the successors to the apostles in Rome condemned Galileo, and insisted that all Christians must believe that the sun revolved around the earth?
  19. And pressing on killer frogs makes you not lukewarm?
  20. I don't know what pressing means. But, in my experience, lukewarm Christians don't tend to trouble themselves with evangelism. However, one of the duties of a Christian is to spread the gospel to all of Creation. And 2 Timothy 4:2-5 says:

    "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
    For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
    They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
    But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."

    That being said, I am sure there are days when I probably should be doing more with regard to my faith. So I have to be vigilant against that as well.

Share This Page