# Andrea Yates - is it possible?



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 3, 2009)

I know this would be sooo 2006 but I wasn't around then.  So I pose the question....is she just misunderstood?  Lowjack's posts got me to thinking about killing family members and whatnot.  I know the lord moves in mysterious was and all, but is this one of them?  At any rate, I think she's correctly diagnosed in the earthly medical sense.  But how does one distinguish between what prophets channel and people like Andrea Yates do?



> Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick testified that Yates believed deeply that killing her children was the right thing to do. Yates, according to defense expert Resnick, believed that Satan had taken over her body and soul and was eyeing her children's souls next.
> 
> Yates told Resnick and others who evaluated her in the weeks after her arrest that she believed that, if she killed her children while they were still innocent, they would be sent to heaven and she would have defeated Satan.
> 
> Yates turned herself in immediately after the drowning deaths, Resnick said, because she thought her own death would fulfill a Biblical prophecy: If she were executed, Satan would be executed.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 3, 2009)

I think another great question would be, "Would all of this have happened if she were not religious?"

Looking forward to the responses to Ham's questions.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 3, 2009)

Can you see any way that someone who's body and soul had been taken over by Satan could be doing God's will?  Could they have been fulfilling biblical prophesy?

Do you think Satan could control her body and soul and then allow her to kill him.....by killing herself?

If her death would result in the death of Satan and her ultimate goal was to prevent him from getting to her kids, why didn't she just pick up a revolver and blow her own brains out?  Game over, she's dead, he's dead and he's not getting to her kids.

Do you see the lunacy in all of this?  No, she's not just misunderstood.  She's insane...



I don't know if she was posessed by Satan.  But she was not, in any sense of the word, doing the will of God or fulfilling biblical prophacy.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 3, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Can you see any way that someone who's body and soul had been taken over by Satan could be doing God's will?  Could they have been fulfilling biblical prophesy?
> 
> Do you think Satan could control her body and soul and then allow her to kill him.....by killing herself?



I don't know what's protocol when fulfilling prophecy.  Maybe God had a hand in the struggle and was stole some control over her body, I don't know.



Huntinfool said:


> I don't know if she was posessed by Satan.  But she was not, in any sense of the word, doing the will of God or fulfilling biblical prophacy.



How can you be so sure?  Of course I'll be burning in hades or something, but won't you feel like a goob if & when God says "Huntinfool, that really was me with Andrea Yates.  It's like Lowjack said with Matthew 10:34-7."


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

This is where the "God told me so" folks fall off the deep end. Had she truly been born of God and a follower of Christ she would not have murdered her children. 

1 John 3:7-9
7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 

 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 

 9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> How can you be so sure?  Of course I'll be burning in hades or something, but won't you feel like a goob if & when God says "Huntinfool, that really was me with Andrea Yates.  It's like Lowjack said with Matthew 10:34-7."



If she was possessed by Satan, as she said she was, then she was not working for God.  I don't know how much clearer that can be.

So, no, I won't feel like a goob because he won't say that.  He'll probably point out a bunch of other things I was wrong about (and I might feel like a goob about that).  But this will not be one of them.  

You did not answer my ultimate question...if she could have killed Satan by killing HERSELF, then why didn't she do it?  Why kill her children to get the state to kill her.  Why not just cut out the middle man?  

Satan does not do the work of God.  That's as clear as it can get.

I'd rather look like a goob in the presence of God any day over "burning in hades or something".

Troll on brother.....troll on.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

You see this is where actually reading the Bible comes in handy... Keeps from making really dumb posts and just trying to troll up an argument.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

Awe come on Celt.  Why would we read the Bible and try to understand it?  That seems silly when we can pull one verse at a time and make Christians look like goobs!

Play along!  It's fun!


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You did not answer my ultimate question...if she could have killed Satan by killing HERSELF, then why didn't she do it?  Why kill her children to get the state to kill her.  Why not just cut out the middle man?



She probably believes that you can't go to heaven via suicide.  Looks like her plan backfired because they won't be executing an individual in such need of psychiatric help.



Huntinfool said:


> Satan does not do the work of God.  That's as clear as it can get.
> 
> I'd rather look like a goob in the presence of God any day over "burning in hades or something".



Fair enough.



Huntinfool said:


> Troll on brother.....troll on.


You're better than that.  No need to sink to that level when you start struggling with these questions.


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> 1 John 3:7-9
> 7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.




  Hey five,  I think I really like this verse.  

Can you maybe provide me with some context for it?  (not trying to be a smart butt)

For instance, who is the "he" referred to?  I am pretty sure it's not God, since I think it would be capitalized.  It's lowercase.   

The way I interpret this is that If your acts are righteous, then you are righteous.  But I don't understand the "even as he is righteous"


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Awe come on Celt.  Why would we read the Bible and try to understand it?  That seems silly when we can pull one verse at a time and make Christians look like goobs!
> 
> Play along!  It's fun!



Yeah...



Ignorance is bliss. Hate for anyone to actually understand verses like:

Luke 17:2 (New International Version)

2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Not only to sin but if you read the whole of the chapter and the book. BUT to cause harm to come to IMO.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> This is where the "God told me so" folks fall off the deep end. Had she truly been born of God and a follower of Christ she would not have murdered her children.
> 
> 1 John 3:7-9
> 7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
> ...



She home-schooled 4 children.  Evidence suggests she "went" crazy due to same.  Do you mean that she could not, as verse 9 asserts, have been born of God?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

> She probably believes that you can't go to heaven via suicide.



But you can via murder?  I agree, she's insane.  



> But how does one distinguish between what prophets channel and people like Andrea Yates do?



To answer one of your original questions:  How do you distinguish?  Read the Bible.  We always should filter things through the Word.  If the act is not consistent with the Word, then we have no reason to believe it is prophesy or the fullfilment thereof.




> You're better than that.  No need to sink to that level when you start struggling with these questions.



Come on man, you know you've been trolling here and there since you got here.  You knew the answer to this question before you asked it.  I'll admit, you've added some things nicely here and there.  But come on....I'm not struggling with this one man.  

You trolled a little bit on this one.  Don't play coy.  It doesn't go well with the pitt bull.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Do you mean that she could not, as verse 9 asserts, have been born of God?



...and kill her children?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)




----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> But you can via murder?  I agree, she's insane.



Go back and read those verses to which I originally referred.  No doubt she's insane, imo.   But those verses seem to greenlight such acts.



Huntinfool said:


> To answer one of your original questions:  How do you distinguish?  Read the Bible.  We always should filter things through the Word.  If the act is not consistent with the Word, then we have no reason to believe it is prophesy or the fullfilment thereof.




Fair enough.



Huntinfool said:


> Come on man, you know you've been trolling here and there since you got here.  You knew the answer to this question before you asked it.  I'll admit, you've added some things nicely here and there.  But come on....I'm not struggling with this one man.
> 
> You trolled a little bit on this one.  Don't play coy.  It doesn't go well with the pitt bull.



Focus a little less on me, por favor.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> ...and kill her children?



People aren't always born insane.  I'm willing to guess she's one of them.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> ...and kill her children?



Abraham took his son up and was ready to kill him because God told him to.  He had 'faith' that God would intervene in some way, and according to the bible, God did.  Maybe Yates thought the same thing, only the intervention didn't come, so she thought that is what she was supposed to do.   I don't know... it's just a hypothesis.  But it's not far fetched to think that God would tell someone to kill their kids since he did do it in the bible...


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 4, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Abraham took his son up and was ready to kill him because God told him to.  He had 'faith' that God would intervene in some way, and according to the bible, God did.  Maybe Yates thought the same thing, only the intervention didn't come, so she thought that is what she was supposed to do.   I don't know... it's just a hypothesis.  But it's not far fetched to think that God would tell someone to kill their kids since he did do it in the bible...



Stop trolling.

J/K


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

All I'm saying is that she killed her children.  I cannot find anything in what I know about God personally nor in the Word that would allow me to think she was "born of God"....meaning she will be in heaven after they strap her to that table (unless, of course, she's had some type of conversion experience between then and now which I don't know).

Focus less on you?  Come on!  Can't take a little good natured ribbing?

I read those verses in Matthew that you referrenced.  I don't see it.  If anything, I see that they say that God is to be first in your life.  It does not say anything about "Moms....go kill your children if you love me."


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Abraham took his son up and was ready to kill him because God told him to.  He had 'faith' that God would intervene in some way, and according to the bible, God did.  Maybe Yates thought the same thing, only the intervention didn't come, so she thought that is what she was supposed to do.   I don't know... it's just a hypothesis.  But it's not far fetched to think that God would tell someone to kill their kids since he did do it in the bible...



I knew you'd bring that up.....troublemaker  


But, no, according to what Ham posted, she said she was possessed by Satan and was fearful that he was going to come after her children.  She did not think God told her to kill them.  She did it because she thought God would approve.  Those are two entirely different things.

God asked Abraham (who was going to be the father of his ENTIRE NATION) to kill his only son....who God had promised would be the first in a line that would never end.  He tested Abraham to see if his faith was strong enough to give his son back to him and still see the prophesy fulfilled.

I never said that God won't ask somebody to kill their kids for him.  You're right, he's done it before.  That is not what happened here....straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.  She thought Satan was going to come after her kids and she didn't want him to get them.  

Were she truly a servant of God, she would understand that Satan has no power where God is involved and that they could have been protected from him without killing them.  She took matters into her own hands to protect them and should have been putting them in God's hands.....like Abraham did.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I knew you'd bring that up.....troublemaker
> 
> 
> But, no, according to what Ham posted, she said she was possessed by Satan and was fearful that he was going to come after her children.  She did not think God told her to kill them.  She did it because she thought God would approve.  Those are two entirely different things.
> ...



The difference is he doesn't ask anymore. He has given us the scriptures. Both old and new.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

But he could...and I think that's DD's point.  I agree with it.  I don't think he will....but he could.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> But he could...and I think that's DD's point.  I agree with it.  I don't think he will....but he could.



Where do you get the idea that he could? Scripture?


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Where do you get the idea that he could? Scripture?




You believe he is omnipotent.  By your definition, there is nothing he could not do.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> You believe he is omnipotent.  By your definition, there is nothing he could not do.



No. God will not and does not go contrary to his nature. In order to know his nature you must know his will and his Word.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

Pnome....you and I agree on something.  What do you know about that?

Celt, there are only certain things that God cannot do.  Why would he not be allowed to ask us to kill our children?  Maybe we should start another thread.  But I can't think of anything that says the rules have changed like that.

No, he won't just randomly do it for his amusement.  I'm not saying that.  But he is God.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Pnome....you and I agree on something.  What do you know about that?
> 
> Celt, there are only certain things that God cannot do.  Why would he not be allowed to ask us to kill our children?  Maybe we should start another thread.  But I can't think of anything that says the rules have changed like that.


Jesus was the Sacrifice for us. THe whole purpose of the story of Abraham and Isaac is to point towards God providing the Sacrifice for us. Why would he ask us to kill or children? Read all the stuff Jesus says about Children in the NT and seriously give this some thought. Also do you believe God is speaking to YOU differently than to the rest of us thru Scripture then?


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> Hey five,  I think I really like this verse.
> 
> Can you maybe provide me with some context for it?  (not trying to be a smart butt)
> 
> ...




It is referring to Christ. Here is the context: 



> 1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
> 
> 2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
> 
> ...



It is obviously then referring to Jesus. The KJV doesn't capitalize...neither does the original Greek. It is something we do today to communicate better when we are talking about God. 

But I do not read this as saying that we are as righteous as Christ, but that when we imitate righteousness, we imitate God. 

-five


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> She home-schooled 4 children.  Evidence suggests she "went" crazy due to same.  Do you mean that she could not, as verse 9 asserts, have been born of God?



Exactly. She was not born of God. 

And no, she did not go crazy because she homeschooled her children. The woman was crazy..period. 

Homeschooling children doesn't make men and women crazy. Sending children to state-sponsored indoctrination camps ( called public schools) might turn children into mindless marxists who favor abominations such as sodomy (homosexuality) and murder (abortion) though.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

I think one thing that has been made clear in this forum Celt....there is no "the rest of us" when it comes to interpreting scripture.  No, God doesn't exclusively reveal things to me that he doesn't reveal to the rest of the world.  That's just silly.

I see your point.  I guess what I'm saying is that he COULD.  He won't.  But he could.  He's God.  We actually have no record of anyone ever killing their children because God asked them to do it, do we?  So, I would say that, based on his interaction with humans, he would never allow us to kill our children in his name.  

But I won't pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do it.  That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Homeschooling children doesn't make men and women crazy.



I don't know.....we do have Banjo as a prime example! 






I'm just kidding Banjo.  Love ya. 
It was just too easy of a set up.  I had to do it.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Exactly. She was not born of God.



How does one distinguish?  Is it a case of one "ah crap" negating 10,000 attaboys?



fivesolas said:


> And no, she did not go crazy because she homeschooled her children. The woman was crazy..period.
> 
> Homeschooling children doesn't make men and women crazy. Sending children to state-sponsored indoctrination camps ( called public schools) might turn children into mindless marxists who favor abominations such as sodomy (homosexuality) and murder (abortion) though.



Thanks.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> How does one distinguish?  Is it a case of one "ah crap" negating 10,000 attaboys?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.




What does the Scripture say? This is easily judged six...

1 Timothy 5:24 
Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.


1 John 3:15 
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I think one thing that has been made clear in this forum Celt....there is no "the rest of us" when it comes to interpreting scripture.  No, God doesn't exclusively reveal things to me that he doesn't reveal to the rest of the world.  That's just silly.
> 
> I see your point.  I guess what I'm saying is that he COULD.  He won't.  But he could.  He's God.  We actually have no record of anyone ever killing their children because God asked them to do it, do we?  So, I would say that, based on his interaction with humans, he would never allow us to kill our children in his name.
> 
> But I won't pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do it.  That's all I'm saying.



And again I will take issue with how you are wording it because I believe IT is very important here in THIS particular discussion.

God cannot go contrary to his nature and that is not the nature of God. Not the revealed God of the Bible. Maybe Allah who can change his mind on a whim but NOT the Trinity. Not the God of Paul, Abraham, and Isaac.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 4, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. God will not and does not go contrary to his nature. In order to know his nature you must know his will and his Word.



You claim to know the will of God? Wow, you are special!!!

As far as the nature of God... by reading the bible you see that it was his nature to tell someone to kill their child.  He did it... even if he didn't end up making them do it.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> You claim to know the will of God? Wow, you are special!!!
> 
> As far as the nature of God... by reading the bible you see that it was his nature to tell someone to kill their child.  He did it... even if he didn't end up making them do it.



DD- trolling for a fight this morning???

Really would be useful to read and pray first about this before posting that.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 4, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> DD- trolling for a fight this morning???



There ya go.  Can't debate, so attack the person or at least their motive.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

Celt, 

I guess, what I'm asking is did his nature change?  You say he cannot go contrary to his nature.  Did his nature change after Christ rose?

I ask because he did clearly ask Abraham to kill his son.  So it clearly was within his nature to ask it at that point.  Are you of the opinion that his nature changed since you say he can't go against his nature (that part I agree with)?

Like I said, I don't think he will.  He never has.





BTW, DD....yes, we can actually know the will of God if he reveals it to us.  What I have suspicion on is when someone tells me that he has revealed his will for ME to THEM.


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> It is referring to Christ. Here is the context:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Interesting.  Sort of another way of saying righteousness is as righteousness does.

That would seem to give credence to the idea of a works based salvation.   No?


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> Interesting.  Sort of another way of saying righteousness is as righteousness does.
> 
> That would seem to give credence to the idea of a works based salvation.   No?



Actually no. 

The Bible does not know of a faith without justifying works. In other words, we are not justified by works, but by faith. Yet, true biblical faith is always evidenced by works. There is no such thing as saying "I know Him." yet not obeying Him. 

The one who says "I love Him" yet does not obey His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him. 

If I say, "I love my wife" but then proceed to disrespect her, commit adultery, neglect her, et. I would be liar. My profession is empty. 

The same is true with the Christian faith and is so taught in Scripture. The one who says to themselves, "I know God, I am saved, I am justified, et." Yet makes a lifestyle of sin is a liar and the truth is not in them.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Celt,
> 
> I guess, what I'm asking is did his nature change?  You say he cannot go contrary to his nature.  Did his nature change after Christ rose?
> 
> ...



No his will has never changed. He was testing Abraham to show him the sovereignty of His will. When Abraham did as he was told He provided the sacrifice. Also IMO he is making a point about human sacrifice.


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Actually no.
> 
> The Bible does not know of a faith without justifying works. In other words, we are not justified by works, but by faith. Yet, true biblical faith is always evidenced by works. There is no such thing as saying "I know Him." yet not obeying Him.
> 
> ...



Ok, but is the converse true?  The one who says to themselves "I don't know God, I am not saved, I am not justified,et." Yet makes a lifestyle of righteousness.  I am asking, what if the works are there, but the faith is not?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok, but is the converse true?  The one who says to themselves "I don't know God, I am not saved, I am not justified,et." Yet makes a lifestyle of righteousness.  I am asking, what if the works are there, but the faith is not?



One without the other is dead.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok, but is the converse true?  The one who says to themselves "I don't know God, I am not saved, I am not justified,et." Yet makes a lifestyle of righteousness.  I am asking, what if the works are there, but the faith is not?



Well, no. God's salvation (knowing Him, being justified, saved, et.) is through Jesus Christ and Christ alone. It is faith alone that justifies, but faith is never alone. 

Sinners need to repent not only of their own sins but also their own righteousness as well. You cannot be justified before God by your own righteousness, even if it is keeping step wtih the Law of God. 

The only righteousness acceptable to God is Christ's righteousness, and that righteousness is imputed (accredited) to the sinner by faith alone. 

It is NOT an infused righteousness, but an IMPUTED rigtheousness. Those whom God has justified, He also sanctified. And those whom He sanctified, He also glorified.

So were are all the glorified Christians today? God speaks of His salvation in the past tense...because IT IS FINISHED. The one truly justified of God will most certainly be glorified by God and is most certainly sanctified by God. 

God's salvation in Jesus Christ is thorough, complete, and indestructable.


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Well, no. God's salvation (knowing Him, being justified, saved, et.) is through Jesus Christ and Christ alone. It is faith alone that justifies, but faith is never alone.
> 
> Sinners need to repent not only of their own sins but also their own righteousness as well. You cannot be justified before God by your own righteousness, even if it is keeping step wtih the Law of God.
> 
> ...




Oh well.  Sorry to take this thread


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> Oh well.  Sorry to take this thread



It was a good bunny trail.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 4, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> BTW, DD....yes, we can actually know the will of God if he reveals it to us.



Hmmm.... interesting.   So you're saying that God could have revealed to Yates that it was his will for her to kill her children.....  after all, it seems that this 'revelation' would be on personal interpretation........


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Hmmm.... interesting.   So you're saying that God could have revealed to Yates that it was his will for her to kill her children.....  after all, it seems that this 'revelation' would be on personal interpretation........



C'mon dixie. The Scriptures are the revelation of God.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> C'mon dixie. The Scriptures are the revelation of God.



He didn't mention anything about scriptures.... he said God reveals his will to people.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> C'mon dixie. The Scriptures are the revelation of God.



And just for the record, I'm not condoning what she did, nor do I believe God told her to do it (or anyone else).  I think she is mentally ill, there is no other explanation.  I'm simply making the point that there is much left here to interpretation, and it seems to be only what is convenient for believers.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

I know he reveals his will for me to me on a consistent basis.  if you're talking about his will in the broader sense, that is what has been revealed in the Bible.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> He didn't mention anything about scriptures.... he said God reveals his will to people.



Fair enough. Most Christians regard the Scriptures as the revealed will of God. And if they have a subjective "impression" most Christians compare it to the Scripture. 

In other words, if Yates was thinking that God was telling her to kill her children, she could have look to the Scriptures which would tell her no. However, if she was truly born of God, she would not have done what she did. 

the fact that she did do this reveals whom she is of.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Fair enough. Most Christians regard the Scriptures as the revealed will of God. And if they have a subjective "impression" most Christians compare it to the Scripture.
> 
> In other words, if Yates was thinking that God was telling her to kill her children, she could have look to the Scriptures which would tell her no. However, if she was truly born of God, she would not have done what she did.
> 
> the fact that she did do this reveals whom she is of.



So are you implying that people who have depression or are mentally ill, are not of God but are of satan?  I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying....


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 5, 2009)

No, I think he's implying that THIS insane person was of Satan.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So are you implying that people who have depression or are mentally ill, are not of God but are of satan?  I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying....



I am saying that we know them by their fruits. No murderer has eternal life, or knows God, even if they say they do. 

Such a person is not mentally ill. They are a murderer.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> No, I think he's implying that THIS insane person was of Satan.





fivesolas said:


> I am saying that we know them by their fruits. No murderer has eternal life, or knows God, even if they say they do.
> 
> Such a person is not mentally ill. They are a murderer.



What's your definition of a murderer?

Is a teenager who joins the army and drops a bomb on some Iraqis a murderer?  Was King David a murderer? Or any of the others in the bible who killed those that God told them to?

Yates is mentally ill.  She believed God told her to kill her children.  A sane person doesn't hear voices.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> What's your definition of a murderer?
> 
> Is a teenager who joins the army and drops a bomb on some Iraqis a murderer?  Was King David a murderer? Or any of the others in the bible who killed those that God told them to?
> 
> Yates is mentally ill.  She believed God told her to kill her children.  A sane person doesn't hear voices.



What is my definition of a murderer? um...seriously dixie, I doubt you are that off base morally. 

Killing in war is not murder.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So are you implying that people who have depression or are mentally ill, are not of God but are of satan?  I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying....



I don't buy into much of the popular psychology.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> What is my definition of a murderer? um...seriously dixie, I doubt you are that off base morally.



I'm not. But the bible seems to be.



> Killing in war is not murder.



Why isn't it?
I'm being totally serious here.  I don't see what the difference is, especially according to the 10 commandments.  Taking a life is taking a life.  I don't see the commandments being specific about it.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> What is my definition of a murderer? um...seriously dixie, I doubt you are that off base morally.
> 
> Killing in war is not murder.



EXACTLY!!!!

The 10 commandments state Thou Shalt not MURDER. BIG difference.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> EXACTLY!!!!
> 
> The 10 commandments state Thou Shalt not MURDER. BIG difference.



So what is MURDER???


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I'm not. But the bible seems to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't expect you to know hebrew. 

But before I try to answer your "questions" why don't you define murder...if taking a life is taking a life, are you suggesting our laws in the US are unjust with having degrees of murder? 

I am glad to hear that you support outlawing abortion as murder.

I want to add too that I am upset or offended by the questioning. It is a child's reasoning, and honest. 

My daugher asked me last night that if I hit a deer with my truck would it be murder. So, I see in her the same questioning.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> EXACTLY!!!!
> 
> The 10 commandments state Thou Shalt not MURDER. BIG difference.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


>



So you mock at God's law in forbidding murder?


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Oh, I will just post the info. lol 



> The Old Testament. Although the Israelites did not have a term that precisely fits our present-day idea of murder, they differentiated among killing, manslaughter, and murder in their legal terminology.





> Discernment in Homicide Cases. The death penalty was posed for one who killed with premeditation, but not for accidental manslaughter (Exod 21:12-13; Lev 24:17; Deut 27:24). In fact, premeditated murder did not require a trial (Exod 21:14; Num 35:19; Deut 19:11-13). Thus, the Old Testament saw a fundamental difference between the two types of homicide (Deut 19:1-13; Joshua 20:1-7), providing two levels of meaning for rasah [j;x'r]. One who killed out of enmity was not allowed sanctuary in the city of refuge. The victim's clan could demand that the killer be delivered up to the blood avenger (2 Sam 14:7-11), who presented the evidence against the individual. Guilt was determined either by the intention of the killer or by the type of object used in the apparent manslaughter (Num 35:16-21; some iron, stone, or wooden objects were considered likely to cause death ). However, there had to be at least two witnesses to convict a murderer (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; 1 Sam 21:4).



I love not re-inventing the wheel. lol 
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T491

Notice how similiar American law is to the Bible in terms of degrees of murder, intent, et.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I wouldn't expect you to know hebrew.



Then you should be surprised that I do know quite a bit of Hebrew.



> But before I try to answer your "questions" why don't you define murder...if taking a life is taking a life, are you suggesting our laws in the US are unjust with having degrees of murder?



No.
But I'm not claiming the bible is infalible, either  
And we aren't talking about the government of men, we're talking about the soverign law of God.  My comment about taking a life is taking a life was said to make a point. The bible is not consistent.  



> I am glad to hear that you support outlawing abortion as murder.



I'm pro-choice.



> I want to add too that I am upset or offended by the questioning. It is a child's reasoning, and honest.



I'm sorry that I upset or offended you.  That wasn't my intention.



> My daugher asked me last night that if I hit a deer with my truck would it be murder. So, I see in her the same questioning.



That would be an accident.


----------



## pnome (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> So you mock at God's law in forbidding murder?




Was it murder when Joshua killed _everyone_ at Jericho?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> So you mock at God's law in forbidding murder?



It's a little difficult to take the God of the bible's idea of murder seriously when he commanded his believers to kill innocent women and children all throughout the bible, yet you want everyone to think abortion is against his will.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> So you mock at God's law in forbidding murder?



No I'm rolling my eyes, virtually of course, at the notion that the commandment is "thou shalt not murder".  I always thought it was "thou shalt not kill".  I guess revisions are convenient that way.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Notice how similiar American law is to the Bible in terms of degrees of murder, intent, et.



That's the purpose of the Gov't in a nut shell.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Then you should be surprised that I do know quite a bit of Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hahaha...I said was offended. I meant to write that your questions, et. do not offend. So much for typos. 

I posted the info on the Bible's definition of murder, and some how it is applied. It is very similiar to our own laws. 

I don't want to begin an aborition debate, but that is taking a life. 

So how do you define murder then?


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> No I'm rolling my eyes, virtually of course, at the notion that the commandment is "thou shalt not murder".  I always thought it was "thou shalt not kill".  I guess revisions are convenient that way.



Tell me you don't believe the Bible was writting in English...


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Tell me you don't believe the Bible was writting in English...



Shakespeare wrote it...


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It's a little difficult to take the God of the bible's idea of murder seriously when he commanded his believers to kill innocent women and children all throughout the bible, yet you want everyone to think abortion is against his will.



It is hard for me to listen to a world or individuals who condone and pracitice the murder of innocents everyday in America. What hypocrisy! Their they sit on the moral high ground looking down, as it were, at God and His elect, saying "YOu are evil!" Then with the bloodlust of a vampire rip the life of the unborn from a mother's womb. 

I say, liars, hyporcrits. You will be judged by your own works.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Shakespeare wrote it...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> It is hard for me to listen to a world or individuals who condone and pracitice the murder of innocents everyday in America. What hypocrisy! Their they sit on the moral high ground looking down, as it were, at God and His elect, saying "YOu are evil!" Then with the bloodlust of a vampire rip the life of the unborn from a mother's womb.
> 
> I say, liars, hyporcrits. You will be judged by your own works.




And yet you claim to follow the God of the bible, who did just that himself.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

The 6th commandment protects all life in general and innocent life particularly. 

Before anyone asks, yes God says who's guilty and who's innocent. He does this through His law. 

DD- to answer your question about dropping bombs on Iraqis is murder if its not a just war. And any soldier put in that situation should refuse to do that. Even if it means going to jail. So...............this ought to stir it up.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Was King David a murderer?


 Yes.




Dixie Dawg said:


> Or any of the others in the bible who killed those that God told them to?



Having no indication of a mental illness being a factor, one would conclude that the actions were, in fact, murder or, in light of the context and recorded information, God's righteous judgment being carried out by His chosen people at His instruction. You will have to decide for yourself what to believe. 



Dixie Dawg said:


> Yates is mentally ill.



Agreed, at least IMHO.



Dixie Dawg said:


> She believed God told her to kill her children.



So she says. Who can know but God? If she is mentally ill, she lacks the faculties to make an accurate determination of the source of any voices or the reasonableness of her actions.



Dixie Dawg said:


> A sane person doesn't hear voices.



Tell that to tens of millions who have had personal experience with "hearing" from God. The Father communicates with His children in many ways including audible perception. Prayer is personal and intimate "conversations" with God, not a monologue.

Peace.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And yet you claim to follow the God of the bible, who did just that himself.



I do not accuse God of such things Dixie. You do. You accuse God of murder yet condone the murder of the unborn. 

That is classic hypocrisy.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

A question: relating to the positive application 

If the Civil Magistrate makes a law that forbids a person from protecting themselves against an unjust attack (gun control laws), should we obey? 

Are they guilty of breaking God's law, the 6th commandment? Do the the CM have a duty to promote and apply God's moral law. 

This commandment requires the positive duty of protecting yourself and others from life threating situations does the civil magistrate have the right to forbid you from doing so?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Tell me you don't believe the Bible was writting in English...



I don't believe it was written in English.  So what now then?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 5, 2009)

Malice....that's what make a murder an murder.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It's a little difficult to take the God of the bible's idea of murder seriously when he commanded his believers to kill innocent women and children all throughout the bible, yet you want everyone to think abortion is against his will.



All that from the assumption on your part that God can not rightly judge the guilt or innocence  of people and require punishment of those who are already dead in their sinful nature? You have, at least in this area, a poor understanding of Judaism and Christianity, DD.

By what authority do you judge God?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

gtparts said:


> All that from the assumption on your part that God can not rightly judge the guilt or innocence  of people and require punishment of those who are already dead in their sinful nature? You have, at least in this area, a poor understanding of Judaism and Christianity, DD.
> 
> By what authority do you judge God?



Good point. Just like to add.

Ever read what God said about those actions and why he commanded them? THere are always reasons given.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Good point. Just like to add.
> 
> Ever read what God said about those actions and why he commanded them? THere are always reasons given.



Careful with that signature of yours!!!!!!


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I don't believe it was written in English.  So what now then?



What translations use the word kill? 

What word in modern english best describes the Hebrew? 

Compare the verse to various translations. 

It is best rendered in the 21st century, murder.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> A question: relating to the positive application
> 
> If the Civil Magistrate makes a law that forbids a person from protecting themselves against an unjust attack (gun control laws), should we obey?
> 
> ...




The answer is no. Such a law would be contrary to both divine and natural law, and therefore citizens do not have a moral obligation to comply with it or obey, and have a right to oppose and resist it.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Careful with that signature of yours!!!!!!



Yeah... Downright revolutionary ain't it!!!

Lord let us reclaim the faith of our forefathers.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The answer is no. Such a law would be contrary to both divine and natural law, and therefore citizens do not have a moral obligation to comply with it or obey, and have a right to oppose and resist it.



What do you mean by Natural Law?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> What translations use the word kill?
> 
> What word in modern english best describes the Hebrew?
> 
> ...



Not sure which translations are which, but they're not very hard to find.

I guess I'm thinking of versions that include "thou" instead of "you".  Are you saying that the antiquated versions are wrong?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The answer is no. Such a law would be contrary to both divine and natural law, and therefore citizens do not have a moral obligation to comply with it or obey, and have a right to oppose and resist it.



Ok, as a christian, how do you define justice? The sixth commandment gives all men the right to preserve their lives and the innocent lives around them. This is not a benefit??


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The answer is no. Such a law would be contrary to both divine and natural law, and therefore citizens do not have a moral obligation to comply with it or obey, and have a right to oppose and resist it.



I read it again. So you agree? Sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yeah... Downright revolutionary ain't it!!!
> 
> Lord let us reclaim the faith of our forefathers.



Well said. Jeremiah called them the old paths. That place which was well trodden by the faithful saints of old.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yeah... Downright revolutionary ain't it!!!
> 
> Lord let us reclaim the faith of our forefathers.







"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

        Thomas Jefferson


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

gtparts said:


> "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson



Yep...

Give me Liberty of Give me Death

Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Well said. Jeremiah called them the old paths. That place which was well trodden by the faithful saints of old.



More and more meaningful every day.

To understand our History is to understand our future. Someone said that who was far more intelligent than me.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I read it again. So you agree? Sorry for the misunderstanding.



haha..yes, I agree. If a law was passed outlawing my guns, my guns would be nowhere to be found. lol


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Not sure which translations are which, but they're not very hard to find.
> 
> I guess I'm thinking of versions that include "thou" instead of "you".  Are you saying that the antiquated versions are wrong?



Was the English language of the 1600s wrong? no....it was the use of language 400 years ago. I am saying that the Bible was not written in English, but Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. 

If I have a semantical question I will look to the original language and then choose the best word that fits that meaning, either denotative, connotative, and by context. 

for our word, translated in the KJV "kill" it is better translated to convey the Hebrew meaning as murder. Does killing take place in a murder...yes. Is all killing murder...no. 

Therefore I would prefer a translation of murder rather than kill to avoid a misunderstanding.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

gtparts said:


> "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson



I'm ready.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> What do you mean by Natural Law?



Check out this article.. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_4_118/ai_70368690

There were certain moral law consider "natural" and plain to all, and applicable everywhere...such as freedom...that did not require divine revelation. 

Divine revelation is first and preferrable. Yet, in the absence of divine law humans exhibit a natural law that often agrees with divine law...it is the Law of God written on their hearts. 

Homosexulaity is contrary to natural law...as it is plain that one cannot pro-create and preserve the specie with such human practices.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Check out this article.. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_4_118/ai_70368690
> 
> There were certain moral law consider "natural" and plain to all, and applicable everywhere...such as freedom...that did not require divine revelation.
> 
> ...




The article is to tomistic for me.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

Sorry I can't follow this one Five. Natural Law makes no sense to me. When did nature give us law? In what revelation?

Now if you want to adhere to the Law of God written on our hearts then I can follow that.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Sorry I can't follow this one Five. Natural Law makes no sense to me. When did nature give us law? In what revelation?
> 
> Now if you want to adhere to the Law of God written on our hearts then I can follow that.




Is the law of God written on everybody's heart?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Is the law of God written on everybody's heart?



Well we are created in his image. Maybe the best way to explain "natural" law.

Also the way we KNOW good from evil.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Sorry I can't follow this one Five. Natural Law makes no sense to me. When did nature give us law? In what revelation?
> 
> Now if you want to adhere to the Law of God written on our hearts then I can follow that.



the law of God written on the hearts is how I understand it. Perhaps the article is explaining something different.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> the law of God written on the hearts is how I understand it. Perhaps the article is explaining something different.



The problem I have with the article is stating it as Natural Law. That has a different connotation than God's Law. God's Law is revealed to us and is a visible and physical standard.

 I am just learning about how freeing it can be too.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

gtparts said:


> All that from the assumption on your part that God can not rightly judge the guilt or innocence  of people and require punishment of those who are already dead in their sinful nature? You have, at least in this area, a poor understanding of Judaism and Christianity, DD.



Babies and children who are 'already dead in their sinful nature'??????
You may be right, I may have a poor understanding of this area in Christianity... but not in Judaism.  Judaisim does not believe we are all born with a 'sinful nature'.  That's Christian theology.



> By what authority do you judge God?



I don't need any authority.  Just one of the benefits of free will, I suppose.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 5, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I know this would be sooo 2006 but I wasn't around then.  So I pose the question....is she just misunderstood?  Lowjack's posts got me to thinking about killing family members and whatnot.  I know the lord moves in mysterious was and all, but is this one of them?  At any rate, I think she's correctly diagnosed in the earthly medical sense.  But how does one distinguish between what prophets channel and people like Andrea Yates do?


What post are you talking about Willis ?
Do me a favor 3 dollar man, don't ever use me or verses that I quoted to form such a diabolic argument, these verses have nothing to do with Killing Children.
Yeshua said;
(Mat 10:34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
That means that he was not going to establish the kingdom that time, but on a later date, a second coming, meanwhile wars would continue, holy wars that were not Holy etc etc.(Mat 10:35) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Mat 10:36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 
This is something that Jesus Himself experienced, his brothers didn't believe in him at first, every Jew that has accepted Christ has being dishonor by the family, even gentiles who accept Christ and move from Cults to Christianity suffer family persecution.

(Mat 10:37) He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 
That is reaffirming Commandment one, Love thy God with all of your heart and all of your mind
How can these verses bring such a thought about killing ones own children ? that is beyond me that you would harbor such junk in your brain.
I ask those with knowledge in this forum can one put someone in here on ignore, is there such a feature in this forum ?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> What post are you talking about Willis ?
> Do me a favor 3 dollar man, don't ever use me or verses that I quoted to form such a diabolic argument, these verses have nothing to do with Killing Children.
> Yeshua said;
> (Mat 10:34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
> ...



With all due respect (and I mean that, because I like you and I do respect you), those are all your interpretation of those verses.

An interpretation that we non-believers are told again and again that we cannot understand because we do not have spiritual discernment.

So if SMDH doesn't see it like you do, it isn't really his fault, because he hasn't been given the revelation that you believe you have been given that allows you to interpret these verses the way that you have.   He (along with other non-believers) read the verses in the literal sense, as most would who were not reading with spiritual discernment.

I don't think he meant it as an offense to you.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 5, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> With all due respect (and I mean that, because I like you and I do respect you), those are all your interpretation of those verses.
> 
> An interpretation that we non-believers are told again and again that we cannot understand because we do not have spiritual discernment.
> 
> ...


With All due respect to you and him as non-believers it is a written fact in the word that says the Natural man cannot understand the Word of God unless he has the Holy Spirit within Him, the Word was written for believers to use as a guide and revelation and to non-believers who are elected to be saved to find the truth.
Only the Spirit filled man can understand the true meaning of god's word, the natural man cannot understand it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 5, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> With All due respect to you and him as non-believers it is a written fact in the word that says the Natural man cannot understand the Word of God unless he has the Holy Spirit within Him, the Word was written for believers to use as a guide and revelation and to non-believers who are elected to be saved to find the truth.
> Only the Spirit filled man can understand the true meaning of god's word, the natural man cannot understand it.




Right, that's what I said  

So you can't really blame him for not understanding or interpreting the verses the same way as you do.

I think that most of the time when believers accuse us of being 'trolls' it is because they have lost patience or don't realize that it isn't that we purposely see and read scripture differently, it's that we simply can't help it.  We read it in it's logical, common sense, and usually literal way.  Believers don't.  

Oh, and yes, you can put someone on 'ignore' on here... it's in your User CP area under 'edit ignore list'.  I've never used it, but if you need help with it I'm sure rangerdave will be more than capable of giving you some help...


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 5, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> What post are you talking about Willis ?
> Do me a favor 3 dollar man, don't ever use me or verses that I quoted to form such a diabolic argument, these verses have nothing to do with Killing Children.



The post I'm referring to are linked in my original post that started this thread.  You may see where the word "posts" is underlined in it.  That's a link.  And it appears you've copied precisely the ones I'm referring to, so I don't get exactly why you're confused about which verses I had in mind.

I hope you'll learn to relax a little.  If you'll carefully read what I wrote, it mentions that those verses caused me to think about something.  If that offends you, well, I bet you're offended a lot because I said nothing improper about you.  No need to take anything out on me.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 6, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Babies and children who are 'already dead in their sinful nature'??????
> You may be right, I may have a poor understanding of this area in Christianity... but not in Judaism.  Judaism does not believe we are all born with a 'sinful nature'.  That's Christian theology.



Judaism, at last check, still holds to the belief in the righteousness and sovereignty of God, even if they never considered man to be born with a sin nature.





Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't need any authority.  Just one of the benefits of free will, I suppose.



Just curious about how you think you fit in the cosmological pecking order.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 6, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Judaism, at last check, still holds to the belief in the righteousness and sovereignty of God, even if they never considered man to be born with a sin nature.



Of course they do. But I'm not sure how that fits in to babies and children and sinful nature.







> Just curious about how you think you fit in the cosmological pecking order.



I wasn't aware that there was one.  I suppose if you tell me who all is in it, I may be able to guess where I'm at.


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 7, 2009)

Of all things I find in Fundamental Christianity I think are contemptible really the original sin concept is about the only thing in all of Christianity I find horribly corrupt and disgusting.  Just flat out creepy.

I mean here you are all against abortion, the killing of a baby cause the baby is innocent and all for killing in capital punishment because they are tainted, but according to the original sin concept the baby is as sinful in the womb as the murderer is in jail.

The Original Sin is a concept created by man to instill fear and guilt in man in as early of age possible so they will flock to church.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 7, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> Of all things I find in Fundamental Christianity I think are contemptible really the original sin concept is about the only thing in all of Christianity I find horribly corrupt and disgusting.  Just flat out creepy.
> 
> I mean here you are all against abortion, the killing of a baby cause the baby is innocent and all for killing in capital punishment because they are tainted, but according to the original sin concept the baby is as sinful in the womb as the murderer is in jail.
> 
> The Original Sin is a concept created by man to instill fear and guilt in man in as early of age possible so they will flock to church.




After reading several posts there seems to be a a huge misunderstanding of original sin. 

OS teaches that man sins because he is a sinner. Not because he has sinned. OS alone condemns man, but, then there is the sin that flows from OS, this is called actual sin. Which are those everyday sins, which brings temporal as well as eternal judgments on the individual. 

How does this have anything to do with abortion??? Where is it documented that the church made up OS to create fear and submission in church??? This is absolutely absurd.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> Of all things I find in Fundamental Christianity I think are contemptible really the original sin concept is about the only thing in all of Christianity I find horribly corrupt and disgusting.  Just flat out creepy.
> 
> I mean here you are all against abortion, the killing of a baby cause the baby is innocent and all for killing in capital punishment because they are tainted, but according to the original sin concept the baby is as sinful in the womb as the murderer is in jail.
> 
> The Original Sin is a concept created by man to instill fear and guilt in man in as early of age possible so they will flock to church.



You should try and provide references for that view. Otherwise it just shows a clear ignorance and lack of understanding.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 7, 2009)

Some of you and you know who you are ,continuously Judge God, well remember God says it is a very hard thing to kick a thorn bush.
God chose Israel as his personal Instrument to do many things, To bring Salvation to The World, to Implement Judgment on the surrounding people, yes those whom you guys seem to feel so much for, that fried their babies alive in the hands of a brass Idol, who attacked everyone ,raped and murdered and kidnapped for ransom, yes those nice people, that God said to kill.
I suppose you would be happier if they had destroyed Israel , you should very happy now that Obama is bringing their descendants to the USA.
Sometimes God has his people do something that he uses for their deliverance. 
Abraham (Genesis 14) raised an army and fought the alliance of kings from the north to save his nephew Lot and the other hostages that the alliance had captured. Abraham fought, but as Melchizedek said, “Blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hands.” 

When Joshua (the whole of the book by his name) led the people into the land of Canaan, they took possession of the land promised to them mainly by military action. Before Joshua ever fought a battle, a man (the angel of the LORD?) appeared to him who was “the commander of the army of the LORD” so that Joshua would never doubt who won the victories for Israel. 

God used David (1 Kings 16 – 2 Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 11 – 29), sometimes singly (David against Goliath), and sometimes with an army, small or large. It was a relatively small company who joined with him in his wilderness years, but he had the whole army of the nation to use later. But, as David told Saul, before he ever put a stone in his sling and faced Goliath, “The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.” Abraham, Joshua, and David are examples of God’s delivering his people by armed force. But who does the delivering? The Scriptures make it clear that it is God working through individuals and groups to accomplish his purposes. 

(2) Other times God has people do something that does not have any direct bearing on the outcome. There is no cause and effect relationship between what God’s people do and what follows, as there is when an army of God’s people fight against and kill their enemies. During the reign of King Jehosaphat (1 Kings 22:41-50; 2 Chronicles 16 – 20) of Judah, a coalition of Moabites and Amonites and some others invaded Judah. Jehosaphat was afraid, and along with the people asked the LORD to deliver them. The LORD sent a prophet who told them what to do: “Do not be afraid and do not be dismayed at this great horde, for the battle is not yours but God’s…Tomorrow go down against them…You will not need to fight this battle. Stand firm, hold your position, and see the salvation of the LORD on your behalf, O Jerusalem and Judah. Do not be afraid, do not be dismayed. Tomorrow go up against them, and the LORD will be with you.”

The prophet told them to go out against the enemy army. The next day the King told the people, “Believe in the LORD your God, and you will be established; believe his prophets, and you will succeed.” Jehosaphat ordered singers praising the LORD to lead and the army to follow. But the army never drew a sword. Their enemies ended up attacking each other. When the King and his people came to the location of the attacking army, they found nothing but dead bodies and the spoils of war. They did what God told them to do. The singers sang, the army marched, but neither of these caused the defeat of the enemy. God did it by other means.

(3) On other occasions God has his people do nothing. When Hezekiah (2 Kings 18 – 22; 2 Chronicles 17 – 20) was King of Judah, Sennacherib and Assyrian army invaded Judah. Assyria was the dominant empire and had already defeated and deported Israel to the north. They had come into Judah, won victories, and now threatened Jerusalem. Messengers from the Assyrian king, called upon Hezekiah to surrender Jerusalem. King Hezekiah went to the temple and laid before the LORD the threatening letter he had received. He also called together the army he had in Jerusalem, and told the men: “Do not be afraid or dismayed before the king of Assyrian and all the horde that is with him, for there are more with us than with him. With him is an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and fight our battles.” 

The LORD said of Sennacherib, “’He shall not come into this city or shoot an arrow there, or come before it, or cast up a siege mound against it. By the way that he came, by the same he shall return, and he shall not come into the city,’ declared the LORD. For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake, and for the sake of my servant David.” The army of Judah never left Jerusalem. One night the angel of the LORD attacked the Assyrian army and killed 185,000. The next morning people from Jerusalem went out to where the Assyrians had been encamped and found it strewn with dead bodies, as though a great battle had been fought there. Sennacherib went home in shame, and later when he was worshiping at the temple of his god, his sons assassinated him. 

Sometimes we face situations where it is clear there is something we can do. You can have the operation; you can put money into your retirement plan; you can arrange a job interview. These are means available to us, which God may be pleased to use to help us. As a general rule, anytime there is something you can do to try to help your situation, so long as it is lawful (does not do what God forbids, or not do what God commands), we should do it. It may be that the LORD will choose to bless our use of the means. They will be secondary causes used by God, the Primary Cause of everything. In these times, we must remember that God did it and give him the praise and thanksgiving for it. 

Sometimes we face situations where there are things we can try to do, though we do not know if they will have any effect. You decide to take the chemotherapy; you put an ad in the paper that you have a car to sell; you get couples counseling for your marriage. These are things that may have some role to play but may not. God may work through them or through some other means. You put the ad in the paper, but nobody calls. Later someone asks you, “You wouldn’t have a car you want to get rid of do you?” You did what you could think of to try to sell your car, and you sell your car, but it turns out that your action had no direct impact on the outcome. 

Sometimes we face situations where there is nothing we can do, or, we have tried everything we know to do and nothing has worked. These situations can be very frustrating. The plant closes, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to save the jobs. You do everything you know to bring your child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, but despite all your efforts, he grows up, turns away from the Lord, and there is nothing more you can do. These are times when there is nothing we can do except put the whole situation before God, tell him if anything is going to happen he will have to do it, and ask him to be pleased to help you. 

When faced by challenges or crises in life, do what you can, pray, and see that the Lord will do.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You should try and provide references for that view. Otherwise it just shows a clear ignorance and lack of understanding.



It's great that you're here to point out his deficiencies instead of addressing the topic.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> It's great that you're here to point out his deficiencies instead of addressing the topic.



OK. You address them. Neither of you provide any substance just regurgitate the stuff people feed you. Never with study.

So feel free to answer my question about his statement.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> OK. You address them. Neither of you provide any substance just regurgitate the stuff people feed you. Never with study.
> 
> So feel free to answer my question about his statement.


I bet you they think you are the prejudiced one,LOL


----------



## gtparts (Mar 7, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Of course they do. But I'm not sure how that fits in to babies and children and sinful nature.


 My reference to Judaism was in regards to the sovereignty of God.



Dixie Dawg said:


> I wasn't aware that there was one.  I suppose if you tell me who all is in it, I may be able to guess where I'm at.



You indicated that by free will, you were at liberty to judge whether God was righteous in His judgment of those with a sin nature. That logic would place you above God, which is entirely ludicrous. All humans since Adam and Eve have a sin nature, even women and babies. If God allows or even commands the death of men, women, or children who have not turned their complete reliance and worship toward God, then the punishment is appropriate for their rebellious sin nature. Of course, this does not preclude God's authority to extend grace as He sees fit.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> OK. You address them. Neither of you provide any substance just regurgitate the stuff people feed you. Never with study.
> 
> So feel free to answer my question about his statement.



Actually you're the one that felt the need to initiate a response there.  Since you didn't choose to address the topic in the first place, nor in the followup, feel free to just bow out gracefully.  

Noteworthy also - you did not ask a question about his statement so there is not one to answer.

Lastly, I'll let you have the last word on this because I genuinely don't care and I know you'll be unable to resist replying.  Unload.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 7, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> OS teaches that man sins because he is a sinner. Not because he has sinned. OS alone condemns man, but, then there is the sin that flows from OS, this is called actual sin. Which are those everyday sins, which brings temporal as well as eternal judgments on the individual.



I'm going to be honest with you....this is a new concept to me.  It's still not clear (specifically the part underlined).

Original sin, actual sin, and everyday sin.  What other kinds are there?

What's the difference in temporal and eternal judgment?  Is that to say temporary vs permanent?  Does that mean some sins are unforgivable?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> I bet you they think you are the prejudiced one,LOL





Six million dollar ham said:


> Actually you're the one that felt the need to initiate a response there.  Since you didn't choose to address the topic in the first place, nor in the followup, feel free to just bow out gracefully.
> 
> Noteworthy also - you did not ask a question about his statement so there is not one to answer.
> 
> Lastly, I'll let you have the last word on this because I genuinely don't care and I know you'll be unable to resist replying.  Unload.



Yep. Lowjack. You nailed it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 7, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You indicated that by free will, you were at liberty to judge whether God was righteous in His judgment of those with a sin nature. That logic would place you above God, which is entirely ludicrous.



I don't agree, but if that's how you see it, then so be it.  The fact of the matter is that God did give me free will and a thinking mind, and I can sit here and question (although you call it 'judging') God all I want to.  It's a fact that I am doing it, so if you think that means I am above God then I guess that's just how you see it.  I don't believe in a sin nature, so the rest of that is irrelevant to me.




> All humans since Adam and Eve have a sin nature, even women and babies. If God allows or even commands the death of men, women, or children who have not turned their complete reliance and worship toward God, then the punishment is appropriate for their rebellious sin nature. Of course, this does not preclude God's authority to extend grace as He sees fit.




Hogwash.  All of it.


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 7, 2009)

"Where is it documented that that the church made up OS to create fear and submission in church?"

Like about over 2000 years of Christian history - why do you think infant baptism was started -  in all my life of talking to Fundamental Christians - then just look at all the posts in here about about a multitude of questions like how do children born or unborn that died go to heaven cause of the original sin - how we are just worthless sinners at birth because of Adam and Eve.  Why did the Christian Church jump through all the hoops it did on the immaculate conception and virgin birth to make Jesus free from the original sin and all pure and everything. I probably could trip trot through the Bible and come up with the usual number of vague verses that can be found with in any religious question, but basically the documentation comes from established Fundamentalist Christian doctrine. And the kingpin of any Fundamentalist doctrine is fear and guilt and the first fear put into place with Fundamentalist doctrine is that of the original sin. Then went confronted with the truth the first retreat of the Fundamentalist is the often used blanket of absurdity.  The the funny thing about original sin is the Jews, from whom the sin originated, have no  doctrine supporting fear and guilt - the belief is it only shows God created a imperfect man, but through that imperfection it allows man to grow, progress and develop.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 7, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> The the funny thing about original sin is the Jews, from whom the sin originated, have no  doctrine supporting fear and guilt - the belief is it only shows God created a imperfect man, but through that imperfection it allows man to grow, progress and develop.



I agree with you on everything you said except this part... the Jews did not originate original sin.  That is a Christian concept.  They don't believe in it at all.


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 7, 2009)

Dixie - you are correct - the Jews never though of Adam and Eve's jaunt in Eden as a sin -  they thought it showed the imperfection of man which to them was an opportunity  to grow and develop the made it into a positive thing.  If man was created perfect there would be no need for man to work and study to improve himself.  The Jews believe it happened; they just do not dwell on it - it just shows a side of the human condition.

It was Christianity that turned it into a sin - a negative experience - something to fear, feel guilt, and be ashamed of, and then drag these concepts through all of their history.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 7, 2009)

Must be Jews I know nothing about .

Judaism teaches that human beings are not basically sinful. We come into the world neither carrying the burden of sin committed by our ancestors nor tainted by it. Rather, sin, het, is the result of our human inclinations, the yetzer, which must be properly channeled.

Het literally means something that goes astray. It is a term used in archery to indicate that the arrow has missed its target. This concept of sin suggests a straying from the correct ways, from what is good and straight. Can humans be absolved of their failure and rid themselves of their guilt? The ideology of Yom Kippur answers: Yes.

These concepts are already found in biblical stories, including those at the beginning of the Torah, those concerning Israel and its sins in the wilderness, and in the teachings of the prophets. These writings contemplate the nature of human beings, the meaning of sin, and the possibility of forgiveness. The early stories in Genesis teach that the "devisings [yetzer] of man's mind are evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). This is the source of the rabbinic concept of the yetzer, human instincts, similar to the Freudian id. Later, the rabbis spoke of the yetzer ha‑tov, the good inclination, and the yetzer ha‑ra, the evil inclination.

The word "forgiveness" or "pardon" (in Hebrew, s‑l‑h) appears for the first time in the story of the golden calf: "Pardon our iniquity and our sin" (Exod. 34:9).The story of the spies contains a similar idea: "Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to Your great kindness, as You have tolerated [carried] this people ever since Egypt" (Num. 13:5).This text is followed by the verse that is central to the Yom Kippur liturgy: "And the Lord said, 'I pardon, as you have asked'" (Num. 14:37).

These narratives establish the concept of the God of Israel as a God of mercy and forgiveness. In revealing His nature to Moses, God indicates His forgiving nature much more fully than He did in the Ten Commandments. God emphasizes mercy, "carrying sin" and extending lovingkindness far beyond the extent of punishment. Thus, Moses learns that God's essence is not only His absolute Being and His absolute freedom, but His fundamental mercy. It is not surprising that the passage in which these attributes of God are detailed (Exod. 34:6‑7) became the cornerstone of the liturgy of forgiveness during the High Holy Day season. 

In rabbinic Judaism, these ideas evolved into the concept of the two attributes of God, the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy, the latter being the dominant mode of God's activity. The Mesillat Yesharim [an 18th century work of ethical literature]suggested that the attribute of mercy means that God gives respite to the sinner, not meting out His full punishment at once, but granting the sinner the opportunity to repent and thus be rid of the power of the evil inclination.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 8, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Judaism teaches that human beings are not basically sinful. We come into the world neither carrying the burden of sin committed by our ancestors nor tainted by it. Rather, sin, het, is the result of our human inclinations, the yetzer, which must be properly channeled.



Thank you!!!!!!!!


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 8, 2009)

Low I think the only Jewish thing you know is  the article you copied and pasted from.  Guess what here it is:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/hol.../Themes_and_Theology/Jewish_View_of_Sin.shtml


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

> Six million dollar ham said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to be honest with you....this is a new concept to me.  It's still not clear (specifically the part underlined).
> ...



Temporal judgment takes place in this life. Before death. We still have an oppurtunity to repent and change our ways. Eternal judgment is final. It takes place after death and there are no second chances. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 11, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Hope this helps.



Yes it does.  Thank you for the answers and the benevolent approach.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 12, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't agree, but if that's how you see it, then so be it.  The fact of the matter is that God did give me free will and a thinking mind, and I can sit here and question (although you call it 'judging') God all I want to.  It's a fact that I am doing it, so if you think that means I am above God then I guess that's just how you see it.  I don't believe in a sin nature, so the rest of that is irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Consider that you do not have to teach a small child to be selfish or hateful towards others. Sharing is not in their makeup. Being demanding comes to all naturally. Yes, they exhibit anger and a lack of patience.

Now, tell me again how we are not born with a sin nature.

Your dismissal is the strongest refutation you can come up with?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 12, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> "Where is it documented that that the church made up OS to create fear and submission in church?"
> 
> Like about over 2000 years of Christian history - why do you think infant baptism was started -  in all my life of talking to Fundamental Christians - then just look at all the posts in here about about a multitude of questions like how do children born or unborn that died go to heaven cause of the original sin - how we are just worthless sinners at birth because of Adam and Eve.  Why did the Christian Church jump through all the hoops it did on the immaculate conception and virgin birth to make Jesus free from the original sin and all pure and everything. I probably could trip trot through the Bible and come up with the usual number of vague verses that can be found with in any religious question, but basically the documentation comes from established Fundamentalist Christian doctrine. And the kingpin of any Fundamentalist doctrine is fear and guilt and the first fear put into place with Fundamentalist doctrine is that of the original sin. Then went confronted with the truth the first retreat of the Fundamentalist is the often used blanket of absurdity.  The the funny thing about original sin is the Jews, from whom the sin originated, have no  doctrine supporting fear and guilt - the belief is it only shows God created a imperfect man, but through that imperfection it allows man to grow, progress and develop.



Your limited understanding of Christian theology is showing. While everyone since Adam and Eve, with the exception of Jesus ( I'll even include Mary in the discussion, for my Catholic friends, though it is not my personal belief), was born with a sin nature. Along with satisfying their appetite and curiosity about the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve brought upon man the curse associated with that knowledge........a nature bent on rebellion to God and the things of God.

Your error lays in your understanding that we are worthless. We know we are valued because we are God's crowning creation. We know we are valued because God did not utterly destroy Adam and Eve for their rebellion. We know we are valued because God sent His only begotten Son to make atonement for our sin and reconcile a sin-corrupted people to a holy God.

So, it might serve you better to do more research before jumping in the fray.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> "Where is it documented that that the church made up OS to create fear and submission in church?"
> 
> Like about over 2000 years of Christian history - why do you think infant baptism was started -  in all my life of talking to Fundamental Christians - then just look at all the posts in here about about a multitude of questions like how do children born or unborn that died go to heaven cause of the original sin - how we are just worthless sinners at birth because of Adam and Eve.  Why did the Christian Church jump through all the hoops it did on the immaculate conception and virgin birth to make Jesus free from the original sin and all pure and everything. I probably could trip trot through the Bible and come up with the usual number of vague verses that can be found with in any religious question, but basically the documentation comes from established Fundamentalist Christian doctrine. And the kingpin of any Fundamentalist doctrine is fear and guilt and the first fear put into place with Fundamentalist doctrine is that of the original sin. Then went confronted with the truth the first retreat of the Fundamentalist is the often used blanket of absurdity.  The the funny thing about original sin is the Jews, from whom the sin originated, have no  doctrine supporting fear and guilt - the belief is it only shows God created a imperfect man, but through that imperfection it allows man to grow, progress and develop.




Your post really clears everything up, thanks for providing documentation that proves the church conspiracy of Original Sin.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Your post really clears everything up, thanks for providing documentation that proves the church conspiracy of Original Sin.



OK, RP, I saw that smirky grin. Your facial expressions are bleeding through my monitor.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

gtparts said:


> OK, RP, I saw that smirky grin. Your facial expressions are bleeding through my monitor.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Your post really clears everything up, thanks for providing documentation that proves the church conspiracy of Original Sin.



Don't you remember. Tom Hanks cleared it up in The DaVinci Code... Geesh RP come on...



This stuff gets funnier every time it is repeated. I mean even the History Channel has done programs providing the evidence it is hookum...


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 12, 2009)

Anybody know what this thread was originally about?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 12, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Anybody know what this thread was originally about?


 Sure, but the OP question(s) were answered over a week ago. DD said Yates was insane, at least at the time of her murdering her children.

That pretty much summed up my take on the subject.








Now, where were we?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Don't you remember. Tom Hanks cleared it up in The DaVinci Code... Geesh RP come on...
> 
> 
> 
> This stuff gets funnier every time it is repeated. I mean even the History Channel has done programs providing the evidence it is hookum...



Forgive me, I am behind. I haven't wasted an hour or two of my life on the DaVinci code. Maybe I can  I can remedy that really soon.  

SoRRRRRRRRRRRyyyyyyyyy.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Forgive me, I am behind. I haven't wasted an hour or two of my life on the DaVinci code. Maybe I can  I can remedy that really soon.
> 
> SoRRRRRRRRRRRyyyyyyyyy.



salright....


Make sure you watch Scooby Doo to learn how cops really work too. I mean we have to keep up with these things.


----------

