Rembrandt
1658
David plays the harp for Saul
Another super comical moment is when the Phi. try to get the ark back. They are told not to send it back empty handed but with a guilt offering.LOVE the guilt offering.
Shall it be:
money?.............no
food?.................nope
virgin?....................negative
WHAT?
They are to make golden tumors and golden mice that represent the curses God has put on them for taking the Ark.
If THAT doesn't crack you up then you have ZERO sense of humor. I just image these guys running around trying to make a mold for a tumor. Which really wouldn't be that difficult, just a blob of gold would do I imagine. But you just know when they got that order, they looked at each other, rolled their eyes and said "You have GOT to be kidding me!"
So funny.
By and by they return the Ark and all is seemingly well...........or is it?
The Israelites aren't satisfied. They have everything they could want or need but just like a spoiled brat of a child, they heard that "so and so" has a King and THEY WANT A KING!
So they all come to Samuel, who is having parenting problems of his own. His sons, like the sons of Eli, are not upstanding citizens. Are we seeing a pattern here? Aaron's sons? Eli's sons? Samuel's sons? And truthfully the people see these boys and worry a bit for their future leadership, and they feel like a King might be the way to go.
Sam sorta freaks out and speaks to the Lord. The Lord tells him that its not his leadership they are turning their back on, it is God's. If they want a King, let them have one.
Is this an incidence where your child wants to eat the entire package of oreo's and throws a fit when you say "No", so you let them. And in an hour they vomit an entire package of oreos and you sit back and chalk one up to "lesson learned"?
Samuel warns them that they may throw up and entire package of oreos, they weigh the options and choose to eat them anyway.
God chooses Saul. Saul, who has lost his donkey. Saul, who goes to a "seer" to ask for help to find his donkey. Saul, who hides in the luggage when he is to be anointed. Saul who is tall.
In chapter 11 I have two questions.
A. Is Saul, King of the Israelites, plowing a field?
B. Why, when the men are counted in prep for battle, are the men of Judah counted separately?
14 comments:
I can't believe you left out the smiting of the Israelites who looked inside the Ark when it was returned. Our translation says 70 were smote, but the notes say that Hebrew manuscripts say 50,070. What were they think!? I think these people have memory issues, or learning disabilities.
Yeah, I've noticed that pattern of the sons. I don't know what's up with that. Afterall, they usually have good examples for fathers.
Why anyone feels sorry for the Israelites I'll never know. They were chosen, they accepted, they rebelled, they were saved, they forgot, they rebelled, etc., etc. Even when they are warned.
A. Yes, Saul was plowing the field. He was not crowned king yet. Everyone knew he was gonna be, but the deed wasn't done yet. I know what you're thinking...a mere technicality, but nevertheless, I guess. BTW, another pattern....Saul was the least of his family, who was the least of their clan, who was the least of their tribe....this pattern will continue in books to come, too. God like to use very ordinary people to do extraordinary things.
We also see how God changed Saul into a different man. He changed his heart. How great is that? Usually God uses circumstances or "afflictions" to change us when we ask Him, but occasionally He just changes our heart.
B. I think the men are counted separately as a bit of foreshadowing and a bit of prophesy fulfillment, or as a bit of forshadowing of prophesy fulfillment. Explanation: I think we read earlier about the prophesy of this split. Jacob became Israel, I think. Did Esau's line spawn Judah? I don't remember. Maybe it wasn't those two, but I think there were two brothers, and this is where the split began. I'd have to look that up. This is the beginning of that prophesy being fulfilled; we'll see more later.
Tomorrow, 1 Sam 12-14
Jamie Said: "We also see how God changed Saul into a different man. He changed his heart. How great is that? Usually God uses circumstances or "afflictions" to change us when we ask Him, but occasionally He just changes our heart."
How great is that? Uhm, freewill? What happened to free will here? If God is going to "change people's hearts" (read: force people to do his will) how can anyone trust that they have freewill? Jamie, please compare your above statement to your other points about freewill.
Note: Stephen is now Steven. I'm back from vacation, refreshed and ready to continue pointing out Jamie's (and the Bible's) logical fallacies.
Why won't Jaime answer this question? Seems like a purty good one!!!!
Jaime,
How great is that? Uhm, freewill? What happened to free will here? If God is going to "change people's hearts" (read: force people to do his will) how can anyone trust that they have freewill? Jamie, please compare your above statement to your other points about freewill.
Anon, I don't answer S or G's questions cuz I don't read them. You'll have to go back and review to know why, it's too long to explain.
But since you asked, and Crystal explained what S's ques. was, I'll do my best....
Saul wanted and asked God to change his heart. That is free will. You see, S doesn' know what free will is. He thinks it depends on the choices you have, but it doesn't. Either way, Saul was lucky that God changed him the way he wanted without the usual trials and tribulations that most of us have to endure to get that change. God didn't change Saul's heart against his will. Saul didn't even have to become king if he didn't want to. Saul totally agreed TO LET God change his heart. This is where S and G really get goofy. I can hear them now....they'd say, well, if God was such a loving God then why doesn't He do that for all of us - just change us and things for our better without us asking? Of course, THAT, would not be freewill. God didn't want the Israelites to have a king. His will didn't have that as part of the plan, but because they had free will they were able to choose to do that, and God changed His plan of how He would accomplish His will. I hope that explains it, ok. What do you think? What did you think about the other points that were brought up? Did you see anything in there that Crystal or I might have missed?
I think this is the basic question we all have with free will.
When we think of free will, some see it as black and white and some see it as shades of gray.
I personally never assumed free will meant that God never, ever butted in, but apparently some people do.
I sorta just thought you were left on your own, to make your own way.
But maybe God stepped in sometimes?
Maybe?
I guess that's the way I always saw it. Now, of course that doesnt explain the many many devout people who pray everyday for help with something and don't get it?
I know what the answer to that is going to be so I shant waste any time with it.
Here then is the breakdown:
If God NEVER steps in, he's a really mean, hateful God.
If he ALWAYS steps in, then imagine how wacky things would be.
Is there a happy medium? Can there be? Would that be an option?
I don't know?
I guess I just don't understand what you mean by black and white and shades of gray. Free will is simply the ability to choose. If you choose to ask God for help and He does so, how does that take away your right to choose? It doesn't.
Jamie,
Please answer the following questions in relation to free will:
If you agree that God has no limitations and if you agree that God can do anything He deems worthy, why can't God create a world where He isn't REQUIRED to send the vast majority of the inhabitants to eternal hell?
If you agree that God has no limitations, then you must believe God knew before he created the universe that many souls would burn forever in unimaginable torment. What kind of God would do this and why? Also, can it be free will if God destined some souls to hell by the very act of creating the universe?
Finally, how is is free will when the choices are "obey my command" or "suffer eternal torment".
If someone has a gun to your head, it's not free will.
funny that jamie won't answer the questions above...
"believers" always avoid the hard questions.
Be careful Anon, he will start blaming you for not understanding the purpose of this blog and for having a heart of stone!
Then he will ignore you like he pretends to ignore Steven and my posts.
Oh also he will call you an immoral liberal atheist who doesn't want to be held accountable for your actions and has no moral compass!
Seriously, Groman. When push comes to shove, Jamie covers his eyes and hides in plain site like a 3 year old baby.
Anon, the fact is Jamie has no answers for my questions.
If he did, he would have already addressed them in a polite and sensible manner.
But let's give him one more chance...
Jamie, I implore you to answer the questions above. If you ignore them, you are tacitly admitting you have no answers and your beliefs are illogical and absurd.
If you maintain that the God you worship exists, then you worship a mean spirited, evil God who KNOWINGLY created the world so that he could send most to be eternally tormented.
Anon, what question(s) didn't I answer? Are you hard of learning too? I told you, in plain American, that I don't read their comments. They (G and S) can't seem to "get" what the purpose/point of this blog is. They were given an opportunity to debate this kind of stuff on another blog, but declined. They are only attempting to hijack this blog. This blog is not to: debate the existence of God, debate the existence of freewill, to find out what G or S (or you) believe or why as it pertains to our existence or religion. It is: so Crystal (and other skeptics) can better understand why me and other evangelical Christians think the way we think, and view things the way we view them. And to read the entire Bible and share what we think the particular text for that day means and what lessons might anyone learn from them, spiritual or otherwise. That's it. I hope you can get that. I continue my offer to debate ANY of the 10 areas that make up a world view, i.e. philosphy, psychology, biology, theology, etc. on another blog. And God will win. The truth always does. That's why no Christian has ever lost a debate on any significant venue on these issues. I will, however, have to ask that the blog, assuming anyone of these "know-it-alls" who have the world figured out takes up the challenge, not be started til after we finish this one because I am a father of 5 and a small business owner and am very busy at present.
Jamie says: "I will, however, have to ask that the blog, assuming anyone of these "know-it-alls" who have the world figured out takes up the challenge, not be started til after we finish this one because I am a father of 5 and a small business owner and am very busy at present."
Anon,
I have made no assertions. Well, none as big as Jamie who seems to think he has a special, intimate knowledge of the one, all-powerful God. (WOW. Talk about your know-it-alls!)
I have only questioned Jamie's assertions (in a polite and sensible manner) and asked him back them up with logic and reason which he refuses to do for self-serving and cowardly reasons.
Also, Jamie believes I will burn in hell forever but refuses to talk to me. Why? Because he's busy? What's more important than winning souls for God? Nothing, according to the Bible he allegedly cherishes and reads daily.
His actions are tantamount to manslaughter except worse because I will suffer eternal torment for not "obeying" his loving, benevolent God... Wait, what?! I don't think I have to point out the absurdity in that statement.
Jamie is a dishonest person and a hypocrite. He follows the rules when they suit his needs and disregards them when they get in the way.
I hate to say it but, he's a typical Christian....
Post a Comment