need some help with this

[Jessie]

we went to my grandmas yesterday, and my mother of course left this below with her to give to me.
its not scriptural. I need some scriptures and help to refute this.
thanks!



I asked God to take away my habit.
God said No. It is not for me to take away but for you to give it up.

(this was highlighted in red)
I asked God to make my handicapped child whole.
God said, No.
His spirit is whole, his body is only temporary

I asked God to grant me patience.
God said, No.
Patience is the byproduct of tribulations;
it is'nt granted, it is learned

I asked God to give me happiness.
God said, No.
I give you blessings;
Happiness is up to you.

I asked God to spare me pain.
God said, No.
Suffering draws you apart from worldly cares
and brings you closer to me.

I asked God to make my spirit grow.
God said, No.
You must grow on your own!,
but I will prune you to make you fruitful

I asked God for all things that I might enjoy life.
God said, No.
I will give you life, so that you many enjoy all things.

I asked God to help me LOVE others as much as He loves me.
God said...Ahhhh, finally you have the idea.

[Brandli5]

Question: "Why does God allow birth defects?"

Answer: The ultimate answer to this difficult question is that when Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis chapter 3), they brought evil, sickness, disease, and death into the world. Sin has been wreaking havoc on the human race ever since. Birth defects occur because of sin...not because of sins the parents or the baby have committed - but because of sin itself. The hard part of the question is why God allows people to be born with terrible birth defects and/or deformities. Why doesn't God prevent birth defects from occurring?

The book of Job deals with the issue of not understanding why God allows certain things to occur. God had allowed Satan to do everything he wanted to Job except kill him. What was Job’s reaction? “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him” (Job 13:15). “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised” (Job 1:21). Job didn’t understand why God had allowed the things He did, but he knew that God was good and therefore continued to trust in Him. Ultimately, that should be our reaction as well. God is good, just, loving, and merciful. Often things happen to us that we simply cannot understand. However, instead of doubting God's goodness, our reaction should be to trust Him. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Ultimately, the answer to this question has to be “I don’t know.” We will never be able to fully understand God and His ways. It is wrong for us to presume on why God allows something to occur. We simply have to trust that He is loving, good, and merciful – just like Job did – even when the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. Sickness and disease are the result of sin. God provided the “cure” for sin in sending Jesus Christ to die for us (Romans 5:8). Once we are in heaven, we will be free from sickness, disease, and death. Until that day, we will have to deal with sin, its effects, and its consequences. We can praise God, though, that He can and will use birth defects and other tragedies for our good and His glory. John 9:2-3 declares, "His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'"

[CoreIssue]

Adding to what Brandi said.

God does not say no to any of those things. He just says he will do it on his time frame, not ours.

As with Job, his reasons and thoughts are above our understanding.

But we know with freewill comes sufferings God does not desire us to experience, but must allow or there is not freewill.

We know we bring things on ourselves that we must learn from and by.

In other words, there is no simple answer except God will do it on his timing, not ours.

The one part I really see a bad doctrinal basis behind is this.

I asked God to help me LOVE others as much as He loves me.
God said...Ahhhh, finally you have the idea.

Of course love is an issue.

But it is not THE only issue for us to discern. There are many.

This smacks of the forgive everything out of love doctrine so many are tangled up in.

[Jessie]

what I saw was its all up to me.
God says NO and expects me to do it.

so many things like confess our sin and God is faithful to cleanse us is left out.
it was like I must clean myself up.

when I read it it was like its all up to me, and leaving God completly out of the mix.


even with patience we do ask God for patience and we do get it from trials and tribs.
but we ask Him.

am I making sense?

[eahaddix]

we went to my grandmas yesterday, and my mother of course left this below with her to give to me.

Why? I need the situational context.

(this was highlighted in red)
I asked God to make my handicapped child whole.
God said, No.
His spirit is whole, his body is only temporary

Why was this part highlighted with red? Who could be "my handicapped child"?

what I saw was its all up to me.
God says NO and expects me to do it.

Expects you to do what? What is up to you?

[eahaddix]

I asked God to help me LOVE others as much as He loves me.
God said...Ahhhh, finally you have the idea.

:bored: And "how does God love me"? "Unconditionally"? :nag:

Where does Biblical Scripture teach "unconditional love," or "unconditional acceptance"? To the contrary, these isolated terms are ambiguous, which allows for sliding definitions. For instance, does "unconditional love" mean Universal Salvation? Or the love of evil spirits?

Moreover, this argument is self-contradicting. If one preaches "unconditional love," then how can this person criticize others? If one uses this doctrine as a psychological weapon, then the person in question violates their own doctrinal belief.

[Jessie]

Why? I need the situational context.



Why was this part highlighted with red? Who could be "my handicapped child"?



Expects you to do what? What is up to you?


my friend from Japan is here and wanted to go see my grandmother,
my mother had left this at her house for me.

the highlighted part is obviously referring to me.

if you go back over my first post, what I posted all that stuff seems up to me to do.
God says no, and expects me to do it.

[Jessie]

:bored: And "how does God love me"? "Unconditionally"? :nag:

Where does Biblical Scripture teach "unconditional love," or "unconditional acceptance"? To the contrary, these isolated terms are ambiguous, which allows for sliding definitions. For instance, does "unconditional love" mean Universal Salvation? Or the love of evil spirits?

Moreover, this argument is self-contradicting. If one preaches "unconditional love," then how can this person criticize others? If one uses this doctrine as a psychological weapon, then the person in question violates their own doctrinal belief.

mom has many confusing things....
what can I say?
my stepfather would always tell her she was doing the pot calling the kettle black all the time.

[eahaddix]

the highlighted part is obviously referring to me.

As a spiritual insult? :scratch:

[Jessie]

As a spiritual insult? :scratch:

depression and panic attacks, but I did not have a broken body,
I had a broken spirit....

and she has been NO help in the matter over the yrs!



I know it makes little sense, but thats how she works,
and it could be a way to manipulate me back into a corner.
to control me emotionally.

I want no part of that. perhaps I seem a bit edgy on this to you all,
I know I still have issues to work out.

I want to stay scriptural, not getting drawn into cultish stuff,
pentecostal/charasmaticisms etc.

[eahaddix]

I asked God to take away my habit.
God said No. It is not for me to take away but for you to give it up.

(this was highlighted in red)
I asked God to make my handicapped child whole.
God said, No.
His spirit is whole, his body is only temporary

I asked God to grant me patience.
God said, No.
Patience is the byproduct of tribulations;
it is'nt granted, it is learned

I asked God to give me happiness.
God said, No.
I give you blessings;
Happiness is up to you.

I asked God to spare me pain.
God said, No.
Suffering draws you apart from worldly cares
and brings you closer to me.

I asked God to make my spirit grow.
God said, No.
You must grow on your own!,
but I will prune you to make you fruitful

I asked God for all things that I might enjoy life.
God said, No.
I will give you life, so that you many enjoy all things.

I asked God to help me LOVE others as much as He loves me.
God said...Ahhhh, finally you have the idea.

:shrug: Well, at face value, I have no problem with this poem. The poem itself does not express any theological errors, since this poem utilizes generalistic wording.

To the contrary, I believe that your mom read erroneous presuppositions into this poem, as illustrated by my comments about the last stanza. However, this is a strategical advantage for you, not your mom. Specifically, one cannot logically justify inserting presuppositions into ambiguous language. Hence, in order to defender her viewpoint, she must appeal to more unwarranted assumptions.

Therefore, when your mom asks you about this poem, you can simply say, "Well, I interpreted this poem differently." And from this point in time, you can frustrate her with contrarian questions.

Does this help?

[Brandli5]

What I am reading from that poem is God gives us free will. And all the things we go through on this earth that are trials and tribs ect are the things we are put on earth to go through. We must teach ourselves self control, and how to deal with the dealings we get.

We can hand over all our problems to JEsus and he can help us but we must go through them.

[CoreIssue]

I actually have a great deal of problem with the poem. As in the NO declaration.

In every issue God says he will not do it. Period. You have to do it.

That is not Biblical.

Yes, we have person responsibility. Yes, we must endure. Yes, we learn from hardship. But no, God does not say no in the absolute and dump it totally on us.

[Jessie]

thank you all! I will have to get back to you all later on this,
I sure appriciate the input.

[eahaddix]

I actually have a great deal of problem with the poem. As in the NO declaration.

In every issue God says he will not do it. Period. You have to do it.

That is not Biblical.

"God will not do it" under what context? Imputation or impartation?

Core, you are playing into the trap which Jessie's mother set. You want to dissect this poem, a process which involves arguing presuppositions and assumptions. In doing so, you unwittingly validate the presuppositions that Jessie's mom inserted into the text.

[CoreIssue]

"God will not do it" under what context? Imputation or impartation?

Core, you are playing into the trap which Jessie's mother set. You want to dissect this poem, a process which involves arguing presuppositions and assumptions. In doing so, you unwittingly validate the presuppositions that Jessie's mom inserted into the text.
It says flat God will not do it. That is an all inclusive statement. No qualifiers.

Except for the love one. There God does not refuse to do it.

She is a WoF'er. Such believes if YOU have the faith and love YOU can do it because YOU have the power of words to command it. You don't need God if you have the word power.

God does anything he wants any time he wants if he it fits his Plan. He never tells a Christian they have to do it on their own. Ever.

In fact, he invites sinners to him by telling them they do not have to do be on their own.

[eahaddix]

It says flat God will not do it. That is an all inclusive statement. No qualifiers.

You just proved my point. You are semantically inserting doctrinal presuppositions into the word "no."

If you do not have access to the author's intentions, then this argument is fruitless. In fact, who is the author of this poem?

[CoreIssue]

You just proved my point. You are semantically inserting doctrinal presuppositions into the word "no."

If you do not have access to the author's intentions, then this argument is fruitless. In fact, who is the author of this poem?
Grammatically, as written, no means no. No qualifiers, thus you have no justfication for assuming any qualifiers or so on.

It does not matter the intention of the author, here. It is the intention of the sender that matters.

And the sender is WoF, does not repent, believes in forgiveness with repentence needed, that parents are to backed and held blameless regardless of what they do and believes love is all in all.

So, knowing about the sender added to the grammatical reading of the poem is in complete harmony with no meaning no, period.

[Jessie]

I do not know the author of this poem.

Core my mother in law (husbands mom) is a woffer, but it seems my mom is into it too?
probably but not as deep? mom is'nt one to jump up and down and be loud.
she always pulls the forgive without repentance thing. which almost destroyed me. (literally)
and if I would not do it I payed for it.

I agree it was like the poem was saying that I (or whoever reads it) do it all on my own.
No means no. not maybe later, or leaving room for any other supposition.

I want to write her a letter to explain this. its just not biblical.
now is that defending myself or representing myself????
I'm not sure....
because I dont need to defend myself, but I do need to represent myself.


we do need to go thru things and learn but God is with us.
not NO your out there on your own figure it out.

confusion has been the name of the game she plays.
frankly I'm not game for it. never was but could'nt get past them, now since I've been here,
many things have come to light. many lies.

I'm finally getting to see biblically and I dont want to lose it!
its freeing.

[eahaddix]

:): Well, for Jessie's sake, I will not argue the point. The substance of my contributions remains as is. My position has not changed.

My point is simple: Questioning unsubstantiated presuppositions is strategically better than a big, confusing doctrinal debate.

As of right now, I excuse myself from this thread.

[CoreIssue]

:): Well, for Jessie's sake, I will not argue the point. The substance of my contributions remains as is. My position has not changed.

My point is simple: Questioning unsubstantiated presuppositions is strategically better than a big, confusing doctrinal debate.

As of right now, I excuse myself from this thread.
OK.

And my point remains the same. Read the grammar for what it says. Do not add qualifiers.

[Brandli5]

KJV: (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/philippians/4-13.htm) I (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/i/i.htm) can (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/c/can.htm) do (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/d/do.htm) all (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/a/all.htm) things (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/t/things.htm) through (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/t/through.htm) Christ (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/c/christ.htm) which (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/w/which.htm) strengtheneth (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/s/strengtheneth.htm) me. (http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/m/me.htm)

The only way we do anything good is through the strength Jesus Christ Gives us. God gives us strength and our power. We have free will to do what we choose with it.

[John * Thunder!]

`

I agree with CI. This is not about what the poem says so much as it is about
what the giver (your mom) believes it says, which brings us to the question ....

Why did she leave it there for you to read, Jessie? And it appears that
you already know, and you're right, IMV. She is saying that she accepts
no responsibility for any wrongs which you may feel she has done against you
because you have brought it all upon yourself, and you need to be the one
who accepts the repercussions and also the one who makes the necessary
changes in order to rectify the sitch-eeayshun.

For all you know, she was complaining about you to some friend or neighbor and
they said "Hold on, brb", and then returned with that poem and said "Here.
Give this to her".


I digress. :swoon:

[Jessie]

I agree with what you said John, you nailed it.
she takes NO responsiblity for anything.

now get this, she says no one can make you feel anything.
now they cant control me, but they can hurt one, or uplift one ect...

Lucky I appreciate your imput also, and Brandi yep God is the one who gives us strength,
not me!

[Jessie]

:): Well, for Jessie's sake, I will not argue the point. The substance of my contributions remains as is. My position has not changed.

My point is simple: Questioning unsubstantiated presuppositions is strategically better than a big, confusing doctrinal debate.

As of right now, I excuse myself from this thread.

John got the jist of what my mom was doing!

[Brandli5]

I read what John says.

Now, my question to you, even though its not my business, but I am wondering.

what are you going to do, or what have you done about it??

Did you talk with her yet??