Thank you for telling me what God "states."

If a man presumes to speak for God but God has not specifically told that person why an event happened then that man is a false prophet and should not be listened to.

Thanks, false prophet.

Posted by Triumph | February 29, 2008 | 08:16 pm | Permalink

your statement makes no sense the poster was quoting the bible not pretending to be God so he isn't a false prophet...you guys are really strange

God states that "your thoughts are not my thoughts and your ways are not my ways".

Thank you for telling me what God "states."

If a man presumes to speak for God but God has not specifically told that person why an event happened then that man is a false prophet and should not be listened to.

Thanks, false prophet.

If everything that happens is by "God's will", then there is no such thing as "good" or "evil" - could the Nazis be considered "good" (or even indifferent tools) if they were only carrying out God's plan? I think not.

But Scripture is full of examples of people choosing to do evil and God using them to accomplish His will. The Babylonians chose to attack Israel and carried them away into captivity. This is clearly attributed to God's will multiple times in scripture. The Babylonians were not "good" to the Israelites while they were defeating them. Many Israelites suffered and died during the siege of Israel.

The question in this discussion shouldn't be "can God direct mens affairs and allow them free will?" but "can a man declare God's intentions without God directly telling him what they are and to go tell others?" I would answer a definite "NO". God states that "your thoughts are not my thoughts and your ways are not my ways". If a man presumes to speak for God but God has not specifically told that person why an event happened then that man is a false prophet and should not be listened to.

If you are going to publish such an inflammatory smear job, why don't you find something to back it up?

it's perfectly plausible for someone to disapprove of an act (the Holocaust) but recognize that God's hand (or withholding His hand) could have somehow used that horrible act to facilitate something

Its only possible if you are totally lacking in rationality and are an idiot. "God" didn't murder millions of people--other people did.

While I'm no Hagee fan, I think it's a bit sensationalistic to claim that he's "pro-Holocaust." In my experience with theological study, it's perfectly plausible for someone to disapprove of an act (the Holocaust) but recognize that God's hand (or withholding His hand) could have somehow used that horrible act to facilitate something (the movement of the Jewish people back to the Holy Land).

I think there's a difference, theologically, between what you're describing and what Hagee is describing. Hagee seems to be implying that the Holocaust is God's punishment against the Jews, rather than merely facilitating a greater purpose out of it. From a Christian thelogical standpoint, I think it's difficult to argue that God's punishment is unjust. I think that if Hagee views the Holocaust as punishment, then that implies approval of God's act.

I find it hard to refute your other labels for Hagee, though. As a Christian, it's tough to have guys like him representing me on a national level.

My guess is that he had no idea what Hagee was about, but this comes at a time when he should have been hyper-sensitive to the possibility of what he walked right into. We had the Cunningham incident last week which was also probably not McCain's fault but should have been a sufficient wake up call. About the same time Clinton and Obama spent precious minutes of their debate talking about whether to "denounce" or "reject" troublesome supporters.

This smacks of the "timetables" debate where Anderson Cooper had carefully and thoroughly laid out Romney's defense for him and McCain still returned to the same attack twice more in the last half hour of the debate!

You're about to face a politically nimble opponent. You can't be this slow to adjust.