|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:42 am
No I didn't stutter. I was doing a Book of Mormon study with a few friends and otherwise acquaintences and we were discussing I believe Mosiah 3:17-20 I can't remember. So we were talking about what it means to be God's children, how non-believers act more Christ-like than non-believers and how loving God is. Now this woman...Bree claims that we are the adoptive children of God, not his biological children. She makes this assertion by using Romans 9:8 and Romans 9:23. Romans 9:8 NASB 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U)children of God, but the (V)children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Romans 9:23 NASB 23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He (AU)prepared beforehand for glory, `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Now I don't know about you but saying that we are the adopted people of God, pretty much takes away the whole theory that God is benevolent and has unconditional love for us.
So Discuss:
Are we the adoptive children of God?
Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God?
How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God?
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:45 am
Ravynne Sidhe No I didn't stutter. I was doing a Book of Mormon study with a few friends and otherwise acquaintences and we were discussing I believe Mosiah 3:17-20 I can't remember. So we were talking about what it means to be God's children, how non-believers act more Christ-like than non-believers and how loving God is. Now this woman...Bree claims that we are the adoptive children of God, not his biological children. She makes this assertion by using Romans 9:8 and Romans 9:23. Romans 9:8 NASB 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U)children of God, but the (V)children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Romans 9:23 NASB 23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He (AU)prepared beforehand for glory, `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Now I don't know about you but saying that we are the adopted people of God, pretty much takes away the whole theory that God is benevolent and has unconditional love for us.
So Discuss:
Are we the adoptive children of God?
Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God?
How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God?
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Are we the adoptive children of God? I'd say yes and no. No in that ultimately we all possess the seeds of Sophia thus are sons of God within us and are heirs to that heritage. I would say yes in that unless we seek to claim that heritage, how ever it's presented to us, we don't have it, since how can you ask for something that you don't know is available to you? Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God? I would say no in that there are ways to claim this heritage that we may or may not be aware of. Also some don't want to claim that heritage. Why force a role on someone that does not wish to take it? How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God? It doesn't bother me. I mean in Gnostic thought, God is the God that world doesn't know. Most people are stuck in a Bronze Age view of God as a Mighty King in the Sky that rules over every minute detail of our lives and can make our break us at his whim. But the God of Christianity within Gnostic thought is not this being. Until we abandon this Demiurge, this false image we have of God, we hinder ourselves from claiming this heritage or worse, attribute this gift that is our own to this Image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:37 am
rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe No I didn't stutter. I was doing a Book of Mormon study with a few friends and otherwise acquaintences and we were discussing I believe Mosiah 3:17-20 I can't remember. So we were talking about what it means to be God's children, how non-believers act more Christ-like than non-believers and how loving God is. Now this woman...Bree claims that we are the adoptive children of God, not his biological children. She makes this assertion by using Romans 9:8 and Romans 9:23. Romans 9:8 NASB 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U)children of God, but the (V)children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Romans 9:23 NASB 23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He (AU)prepared beforehand for glory, `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Now I don't know about you but saying that we are the adopted people of God, pretty much takes away the whole theory that God is benevolent and has unconditional love for us.
So Discuss:
Are we the adoptive children of God?
Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God?
How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God?
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Are we the adoptive children of God? I'd say yes and no. No in that ultimately we all possess the seeds of Sophia thus are sons of God within us and are heirs to that heritage. I would say yes in that unless we seek to claim that heritage, how ever it's presented to us, we don't have it, since how can you ask for something that you don't know is available to you? Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God? I would say no in that there are ways to claim this heritage that we may or may not be aware of. Also some don't want to claim that heritage. Why force a role on someone that does not wish to take it? How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God? It doesn't bother me. I mean in Gnostic thought, God is the God that world doesn't know. Most people are stuck in a Bronze Age view of God as a Mighty King in the Sky that rules over every minute detail of our lives and can make our break us at his whim. But the God of Christianity within Gnostic thought is not this being. Until we abandon this Demiurge, this false image we have of God, we hinder ourselves from claiming this heritage or worse, attribute this gift that is our own to this Image. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Well I must be weird because I view YHVH as a loving father that looks out for us, and feels some sort of hurt when we sin. Not necessarily from the sky, but from the air around us, walking close behind, but from a distance that we can't see.
And I forgot to add that, do you think that the verses she presented were taken out of context? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:44 am
Ravynne Sidhe Are we the adoptive children of God? Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God? How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' I'd say Christians are the adoptive children of God. The Bible doesn't referto anyone else (except possible Jews) as His children, which means that before being Saved, one isn't isn't a child of God. Not at all. Part of the awesomeness of grace is that we don't deserve God's love, and He Saved us anyway. If you compare the OT to the NT, a lot has to be done for people to get anywhere near God in the OT, and now they just have to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior; it's extraordinary. If you're talking about the non-believers....I don't think them not being His children means He doesn't love them. [/shrugs] It's not my choice of words, but it doesn't really change anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:52 am
xxEverBluexx Ravynne Sidhe Are we the adoptive children of God? Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God? How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' I'd say Christians are the adoptive children of God. The Bible doesn't referto anyone else (except possible Jews) as His children, which means that before being Saved, one isn't isn't a child of God. Not at all. Part of the awesomeness of grace is that we don't deserve God's love, and He Saved us anyway. If you compare the OT to the NT, a lot has to be done for people to get anywhere near God in the OT, and now they just have to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior; it's extraordinary. If you're talking about the non-believers....I don't think them not being His children means He doesn't love them. [/shrugs] It's not my choice of words, but it doesn't really change anything. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Well if you read Romans 9 in it's entirety it says we're the adoptive children of Abraham not God. If we're the adoptive children of God, doesn't that mean that God didn't really create us in his image? If that's the case why do we claim he is the Creator of All Things? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:16 am
Ravynne Sidhe Well I must be weird because I view YHVH as a loving father that looks out for us, and feels some sort of hurt when we sin. Not necessarily from the sky, but from the air around us, walking close behind, but from a distance that we can't see.
And I forgot to add that, do you think that the verses she presented were taken out of context? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' I have two explanations prepared. Do you want one from the Gnostic point of view which may be very lengthy or would you prefer something more on the "orthodox" side?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:24 am
rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe Well I must be weird because I view YHVH as a loving father that looks out for us, and feels some sort of hurt when we sin. Not necessarily from the sky, but from the air around us, walking close behind, but from a distance that we can't see.
And I forgot to add that, do you think that the verses she presented were taken out of context? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' I have two explanations prepared. Do you want one from the Gnostic point of view which may be very lengthy or would you prefer something more on the "orthodox" side? `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Give me both. Reading might keep me awake lol.
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:30 am
Ravynne Sidhe xxEverBluexx Ravynne Sidhe Are we the adoptive children of God? Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God? How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' I'd say Christians are the adoptive children of God. The Bible doesn't referto anyone else (except possible Jews) as His children, which means that before being Saved, one isn't isn't a child of God. Not at all. Part of the awesomeness of grace is that we don't deserve God's love, and He Saved us anyway. If you compare the OT to the NT, a lot has to be done for people to get anywhere near God in the OT, and now they just have to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior; it's extraordinary. If you're talking about the non-believers....I don't think them not being His children means He doesn't love them. [/shrugs] It's not my choice of words, but it doesn't really change anything. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Well if you read Romans 9 in it's entirety it says we're the adoptive children of Abraham not God. If we're the adoptive children of God, doesn't that mean that God didn't really create us in his image? If that's the case why do we claim he is the Creator of All Things? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Uh it's a reference to Galatians. Romans is supposed to be the summary of all of his letters from what I understand. Galatians 4 21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. 24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. Being a son of Abraham is an used as an allegory or metaphor of accepting that one is a son of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:31 am
I think saying we've God's adoptive children is just as ridiculous as saying we're God's biological children. We're obviously not God's biological children since God is not a biological being. And I don't think us being "adopted" removes and love. I mean, parents with adopted children don't love them any less than parents with biological children, right?
The idea that we're "God's children" is a simple metaphor to help us better understand our relationship with him, just like how God isn't really a father because he isn't male. God has motherly qualities as well, as well as female elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:34 am
freelance lover I think saying we've God's adoptive children is just as ridiculous as saying we're God's biological children. We're obviously not God's biological children since God is not a biological being. And I don't think us being "adopted" removes and love. I mean, parents with adopted children don't love them any less than parents with biological children, right?
The idea that we're "God's children" is a simple metaphor to help us better understand our relationship with him, just like how God isn't really a father because he isn't male. God has motherly qualities as well, as well as female elements. Nice post and insight biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:40 am
Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe Well I must be weird because I view YHVH as a loving father that looks out for us, and feels some sort of hurt when we sin. Not necessarily from the sky, but from the air around us, walking close behind, but from a distance that we can't see.
And I forgot to add that, do you think that the verses she presented were taken out of context? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' I have two explanations prepared. Do you want one from the Gnostic point of view which may be very lengthy or would you prefer something more on the "orthodox" side? `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Give me both. Reading might keep me awake lol.
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Actually freelance's summary is consistent with both the orthodox and gnostic world view. I don't think I can say anymore without just being plain confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:51 am
freelance lover I think saying we've God's adoptive children is just as ridiculous as saying we're God's biological children. We're obviously not God's biological children since God is not a biological being. And I don't think us being "adopted" removes and love. I mean, parents with adopted children don't love them any less than parents with biological children, right?
The idea that we're "God's children" is a simple metaphor to help us better understand our relationship with him, just like how God isn't really a father because he isn't male. God has motherly qualities as well, as well as female elements. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - That makes a lot of sense.
In a sense adopted and biological doesn't matter because God loves us regardless. And how HE views us is what matters not how we think he views us. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:53 pm
xxEverBluexx Ravynne Sidhe Are we the adoptive children of God? Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God? How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' I'd say Christians are the adoptive children of God. The Bible doesn't referto anyone else (except possible Jews) as His children, which means that before being Saved, one isn't isn't a child of God. Not at all. Part of the awesomeness of grace is that we don't deserve God's love, and He Saved us anyway. If you compare the OT to the NT, a lot has to be done for people to get anywhere near God in the OT, and now they just have to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior; it's extraordinary. If you're talking about the non-believers....I don't think them not being His children means He doesn't love them. [/shrugs] It's not my choice of words, but it doesn't really change anything. I get ya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:45 pm
It might also be worth mentioning that Romans 9-11 is a notoriously difficult passage to understand. It involves a ton of different parallels that would only have been understood to the intended audience. I've studied it and had it explained to me by professors with doctorates, and I still don't really understand everything it's saying. I did write a paper on Romans 9:14-29 last semester though, and most of my research suggested that passage was about God being a just God. Israel has made mistakes despite being his chosen people, and now salvation has been extended to the Gentiles.
That was my understanding, anyway. Like I said, I still have a really difficult time understanding it despite spending time studying Romans. In any case, I'm not sure the way she's interpreting that passages makes sense when taken in context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:06 pm
freelance lover It might also be worth mentioning that Romans 9-11 is a notoriously difficult passage to understand. It involves a ton of different parallels that would only have been understood to the intended audience. I've studied it and had it explained to me by professors with doctorates, and I still don't really understand everything it's saying. I did write a paper on Romans 9:14-29 last semester though, and most of my research suggested that passage was about God being a just God. Israel has made mistakes despite being his chosen people, and now salvation has been extended to the Gentiles.
That was my understanding, anyway. Like I said, I still have a really difficult time understanding it despite spending time studying Romans. In any case, I'm not sure the way she's interpreting that passages makes sense when taken in context. In the gnostic context it would be read a little different. That all people came from God. Of these people, one group would choose to be enslaved by an image, a god of their own design, and the other group of people would be seek salvation and not be enslaved by this image and seek to know the True God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
