God’s Budget and Double Doors .... On the Scarcity of Miracles

[Mike]

3 hours ago, So_crates said:

Or, to put it another way, what does God gain by deferring to a lesser power?

Put in Wayspeak: What profits God, an infinitely powerful being, by deferring his power to a finitely powerful being, angels?

You are trying to crank logic WAY too early.

I'm trying to use actual scriptures as anchors for what I think. So, far this chapter 9 in Daniel is an obvious scene of a close struggle and God's intent delayed.  PERIOD

Now how we interpret that has to fit with other scriptures that are similar. One is the flaming 2 edged sword that guards the tree of life...  another limitation, again to protect man.


I don't see any of these things as limiting God Himself. 

It is limitations that God put on His major interventions in the senses world, and it seems (again from some scriptures) that God then can "legally" or "equitably" limit the major interventions on the world by the devil.

I see these limitations as like PARTIAL INSULATION of the senses world from the devil, and in the way this insulation works, it limits God also.

 

This whole thread is just me working a loose hunch, based on scriptural anchors.

I'm also learning how to express this idea better and better, based on how people get it wrong.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Mike

[So_crates]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

You are trying to crank logic WAY too early.

So you're trying to tell me God is irrational.

So when Saint Vic claimed in the class something was logically logical he was BSing us, right?

3 hours ago, Mike said:

I'm trying to use actual scriptures as anchors for what I think. So, far this chapter 9 in Daniel is an obvious scene of a close struggle and God's intent delayed.  PERIOD

True to form, you refuse to answer the question presented. The chapter you use could have been mistranslated or added. It doesn't fit with what we know about God. Once again, how does God protect us by deferring to lesser beings? What has God to gain by deferring to lesser beings?

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Now how we interpret that has to fit with other scriptures that are similar. One is the flaming 2 edged sword that guards the tree of life...  another limitation, again to protect man.

Still doesn't answer how God protects us by deferring to lesser beings. (You also notice God placed the flaming sword?)

3 hours ago, Mike said:

I don't see any of these things as limiting God Himself. 

That's because you're so enamored with your theory you can't look at it objectively.

3 hours ago, Mike said:

It is limitations that God put on His major interventions in the senses world, and it seems (again from some scriptures) that God then can "legally" or "equitably" limit the major interventions on the world by the devil.

And, once again, what does God gain by limiting these interventions?

3 hours ago, Mike said:

I see these limitations as like PARTIAL INSULATION of the senses world from the devil, and in the way this insulation works, it limits God also.

Now why would God need to limit himself to partially insulate the senses world from the devil? The devil is already limited, as he is a created being. So God can limit the devil and still have unlimited power himself. He's God after all. He makes the rules.

3 hours ago, Mike said:

 

This whole thread is just me working a loose hunch, based on scriptural anchors.

I'm also learning how to express this idea better and better, based on how people get it wrong

So your presumption is you're right and everyone else is wrong. Real meek, Mike. You wonder why you don't get meekness? It's because you don't give meekness.

Edited July 9, 2023 by So_crates

[waysider]

Maybe it's because I'm getting old and forgetful, or, perhaps I didn't pay close enough attention the first time around, but wasn't there a collateral titled Are You Limiting God? If only I could remember the main point it tried to make.

[Nathan_Jr]

"If our wants are light and our needs are heavy, we will never get an answer [from God]."

-- Orange Book p. 19-21
 

Victor limited God right there where he wrote it. He meant what he wrote and he wrote what he meant. No logic. No scriptural proof text to back up his fantasy. Just... a cookie and a jar.

Hey! I didn't write the book.

 

Mike was taught fantastical theories are legitimate theories. You've got to MAKE it fit, especially when it doesn't.

So, if one is unwilling to go beyond what one is taught, then, yeah, after 63 pages it will still be "WAY too early to crank logic."

Edited July 9, 2023 by Nathan_Jr

[cman]

I don't see how you come up with this out of Daniel 9. Do you have any current event in your life to draw this conclusion from?

[Nathan_Jr]

I’m reading Daniel now, and it’s a lot of fun! That furnace scene always gives me goosebumps  

It seems to be a patchwork of at least two different authors or interpolators, but that’s just a hunch right now. Different gods, too! There are Yahweh, El Elyon, and others. I’m enjoying the NASB version right now. Just a quick first read before reading again for absorption.

I’m surprised victor paul wierwille, charlatan, would want anyone reading this book. Lots in there for our learning that directly contradicts victor’s cookie recipes.

His private interpretation of Romans 13 is effectually contradicted. At least two of his walking keys are throughly smashed: tongues are a prerequisite for revelation, and revelation received twice is revelation established.

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Nathan_Jr
Gloved

[Mike]

1 hour ago, cman said:

I don't see how you come up with this out of Daniel 9. Do you have any current event in your life to draw this conclusion from?

I've mentioned recently some of the scriptures that baffled me, until this idea gelled.

One was the flaming sword in Genesis that actually protected man. 

Another was how Paul both saw Jesus and was blinded on the Road to Damascus.  Like in Daniel 9, I see the True God and the devil both at work, and God won, but just barelyh. I believe the devil was trying to kill Paul, but God provided enough protection to save his life, and later his vision.

[cman]

yeah, gotta keep that god versus the devil charade going.. that is such a work of fiction when it's seen for what it is

[So_crates]

31 minutes ago, Mike said:

God won, but just barely

God won, but just barely?!?!?

 

How can God claim we are more than conquerors, when he's winning, just barely?

God is an infinite being going against a finite one. There's no just barely to it. There's no just eeking by. God wins in a landslide.

To the "read only" audience: See? This is what PLAF teaches: God doesn't more than conquerors, he barely eeks by.

Edited July 9, 2023 by So_crates

[Mike]

9 minutes ago, So_crates said:

...he barely eeks by.

Sometimes...He barely eeks by.

And those that are documented are there for our learning.

[Nathan_Jr]

That flame of the whirling sword (literal) in Genesis was set to protect the Tree of Life after man was banished. But, I guess one could read into it that it protected the Tree of Life for later, thus protecting man... hey! A glove!

That sword might have been more effectually protective of man had it been deployed earlier. It could have cut off Adam and Eve's hands right after they were formed/made/created to prevent them from... well, you know.

But I guess that's just another example of God limiting himself. 

[So_crates]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Sometimes...He barely eeks by.

And those that are documented are there for our learning.

Like I said, how can God claim we're more than conquerors, when he barely eeks by?

Can you say BS? I knew that you could.

[Nathan_Jr]

4 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Like I said, how can God claim we're more than conquerors, when he barely eeks by?

 

Yikes!

You are trying to crank logic WAY too early.

[So_crates]

1 minute ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Yikes!

You are trying to crank logic WAY too early.

But...but...but...Saint Vic claimed the Word was logically logical.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, So_crates said:

But...but...but..

I am merely thrashing about an idea here. 
It's not like I bet my life on it.
There are just these odd verses, that seem to want an odd interpretation.

 

[Nathan_Jr]

Sometime the best way way to work odd verses is to just let them sit there.

 

Like a duck.

[Nathan_Jr]

6 minutes ago, So_crates said:

But...but...but...Saint Vic claimed the Word was logically logical.

What did he mean by the Word?

[So_crates]

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

I am merely thrashing about an idea here. 
It's not like I bet my life on it.
There are just these odd verses, that seem to want an odd interpretation.

 

Just thrashing about an idea, huh?

8 hours ago, Mike said:

I'm also learning how to express this idea better and better, based on how people get it wrong

So in your mind everybody but you is wrong and you have to beat what is right into them.

Edited July 9, 2023 by So_crates

[So_crates]

1 minute ago, Nathan_Jr said:

What did he mean by the Word?

Well, my understanding was the bible. But, experience tells me the Word means his translation of what the bible says.

[cman]

Have you ever even read Daniel 9 Mike?

[Mike]

9 hours ago, So_crates said:

Just thrashing about an idea, huh?

So in your mind everybody but you is wrong and you have to beat what is right into them.

No.  You got that condescending Way Brain Condemnation working on overtime. Give it a rest.

Let me explain what you missed with your rotten attitudes blinding you.

(1) I had this odd and cumbersome idea as to how a bunch of these odd verses fit together.

(2) I thrashingly try to express this odd idea, that no one yet knows is true or not because of its oddness and novelty and difficulty for me to express.  Bu

(3) But I try anyway and make a little progress, and take special note of how other posters reacted to it.  If they reacted WRONGLY, that is I could see they didn't get what I had tried to say, then I get to learn how to express this odd idea better the next time.

*/*/*/*

It's not like I am saying "My odd idea is correct and you all got it wrong."

What I am saying is "My odd idea did not get processed properly by you and/or me, so I will try to express it again.

So the "wrongness" I was talking about is the communication of this odd idea from me to you.  From your feedback I can see I still need to try better explanations, as I examine your feedback on how this odd idea works.

I was NOT saying you all are wrong for not understanding me.

Please go back and re-read some of my recent posts with this better perspective in mind.

 

[Mike]

5 hours ago, cman said:

Have you ever even read Daniel 9 Mike?

If you can add to my understanding of it, please teach us all the chapter as you see it.

 

[cman]

you are the one claiming that Daniel backs up your theory, you teach it...lol I'm not going to teach it just so that you have more food for your little food fight

Edited July 9, 2023 by cman

[waysider]

Mike, Can you walk me through how you used the PFAL "steps for rightly dividing the Word" on this one?

[So_crates]

5 hours ago, Mike said:

No.  You got that condescending Way Brain Condemnation working on overtime.

Projecting, aren't we?

Who of the two of us has been repeatedly called out for condescending? And who of the two of us made the claim that he was lovingly condescending like God? And who of the two of us is still in the Way?

Condemnation? From you?!?!

 

How do you get your head through doorways? You're not important enough to make me feel condemnation.

I rest my case.

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Give it a rest.

Good idea. Why don't you give YOUR condescending attitude a rest?

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Let me explain what you missed with your rotten attitudes blinding you.

As I've proven above, it's YOU with the rotten attitude. Hint: Look up the meaning of "thrashing".

5 hours ago, Mike said:

(1) I had this odd and cumbersome idea as to how a bunch of these odd verses fit together.

(2) I thrashingly try to express this odd idea, that no one yet knows is true or not because of its oddness and novelty and difficulty for me to express.  Bu

(3) But I try anyway and make a little progress, and take special note of how other posters reacted to it.  If they reacted WRONGLY, that is I could see they didn't get what I had tried to say, then I get to learn how to express this odd idea better the next time.

Yah, sure. That's why your still using "budget" and "double doors" even though you know they clouds the issue, right? You've been harping on this for five months, ample time to find other words, if your intention was to find a better way to express your idea.

Mike, language can either illuminate or obscure an idea. You seem to want to obscure more than illuminate.

5 hours ago, Mike said:

*/*/*/*

It's not like I am saying "My odd idea is correct and you all got it wrong."

What I am saying is "My odd idea did not get processed properly by you and/or me, so I will try to express it again.

So the "wrongness" I was talking about is the communication of this odd idea from me to you.  From your feedback I can see I still need to try better explanations, as I examine your feedback on how this odd idea works.

I was NOT saying you all are wrong for not understanding me.

"Budget". "Double doors." Five months. 'Nuff said.

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Please go back and re-read some of my recent posts with this better perspective in mind.

 

Please go back and read some of YOUR previous post with this better perspective in YOUR mind.

Edited July 9, 2023 by So_crates