I think men talk just as much about a subject of interest, but they don’t offer up their interests as quickly as women do, so may have fewer occasions to talk much.

I enjoy being treated like a woman.

I like to think that today’s gentlemen are more sincere. I can be sure a man is opening the door out of genuine courtesy instead of a sense of obligation, tradition or social acceptance as might have been the case pre- ERA. I love that the men of today are much more capable of appreciating ALL of a woman’s attributes instead of just their favorite ones. Haha.

For anyone trying to understand how I came to this understanding of this scripture, please keep in mind that there was still much disbelief at this time among Jesus’ followers. They may have loved him and followed him at any cost, but they did not yet fully understand what he was capable of.

Take into consideration that Jesus’ own disciples did not believe him when he told them they would be safe going back to Judea to see Lazarus. They were convinced that he would be stoned. They decided to go with him, so that they could die at his side.

I didn't say that I thought there was any indication that Jesus was overwhelmed with sadness...

What I actually said was..." I know many who believe that He wept for the sorrow of the women and people when he witnessed how hard they took the loss of Lazarus, but I just don't understand Jesus as joining in the weeping from sympathy..."

What I said that I believe is..."...that He saw the weeping of the people as proof that they still didn't get it..."

It was not just Lazarus's family, but all of the people weeping...and not rejoicing for the deed that Jesus was about to do.



Yes, He said this to Martha and she said that she believed him. He also explained this to Mary and she said she also believed. But even after claiming to believe that Jesus could bring him back, they did not rejoice, but wept. Mary went to the grave to weep. Does this sound like someone who believes?

If Jesus told you that he was going to bring a loved one back from the dead...back in the flesh, and you really beleived him, wouldn't you be elated? Or would you continue to mourn?

All of the people doubted him or they would have rejoiced at his declaration, not wept. Instead they told him that he had been dead so long that he already stank. Is this an affirmation of people who truly believe he can do what he claims? No...they were speaking their doubts.

I have no idea what you are all talking about...every guy I’ve talked to here has been absolutely PERFECT!!

I believe that God gave us a conscious as a guide to His will.

We have a bad habit of taking into consideration the trouble our decisions will cause us on earth before considering the trouble that ignoring our conscious will cause our relationship with God.

I need glasses... ...thought you wrote complaints.

I too belive that Jesus was a man, and don't think he knew everything that was going on in the world, but according to John, Jesus knew of Lazarus's death before he set out. He delayed in going to him so that he could resurrect him...that the deciples/people would believe.

So why did he cry later over something he already knew prior?



I think most of us assume that when a man is crying, the cause is usually over the larger sadness, and not the lesser. Don't you think that the fact that the people did not believe was a source of bigger sadness to Jesus than the temporary death of a friend; a death that Jesus had already declared to his deciples as being "but for the glory of God"?

Msharmony and Stefy,

I'm taking your meanings as purpose in a "mankind" since and not so much in an individual sense? Is this correct?

If so, I do think that we have a combined purpose and even though most of us do not chose to follow our individual purposes, the end result will still manifest...whatever that may be.

As CerisRose's contribution in scripture points out...or as I interpret it to mean...if many are called, but few chosen, then we do not all follow our purpose. I don't believe that God would only choose a select few out of the masses, if everyone followed their/His purpose, so I have to assume that many do not.

If we are each individually pre-set to accomplish a purpose, but only have the right to choose how we complete it, then I don't consider ourselves having free will, but rather… a long leash.

I believe that is predestination, which by definition cannot exist alongside free will.

I know this is something that's been debated for longer than we could imagine and it's not to be settled right here in this forum. I just wanted to get opinions off the shelves.

No matter what we believe in regard to this particular topic...we believe, and that's what's important.

Thank you for bringing this scripture as well as the earlier post, but the question is not based on the fact that I have not read the Bible and need to be shown scriptures that clarify the subject, but rather that the scripture is not definitive enough to answer the subject.

In your opinion, what does this scripture say to you?

To me it says we have free will. If many are called, but few chosen, that means most were either unsuccessful or chose not to heed the calling at all. Which means that paths will be set before us, but it is our choice to walk it or not.

To others it means that it's predestined to happen the way that God intended.

What does it mean to you.

Interesting take. Do you not believe we have the ability to walk away from our God given purpose?

In your belief, does this apply to all of us, or just those chosen to be gifted with a plan?

In other words, is an evil dictator playing out his God given role? Did he choose not to follow God's plan? Or is this dictator under the plan of the Devil himself?

Miles,

It looks as if we are all on the same page with this.

Cowboy,

Now, that's something I can grasp....not predestination, but a path given with the choice to follow.

I think it's harder to see for someone who has not seen a calling larger than feeding an occasional homeless man or giving a pregnant lady a lift when her car is broken down in the middle of nowhere.

I also believe that many use the excuse, of waiting for "God's plan"; expecting Him to use them in some way that is unavoidable in their lives, as a source of procrastination.

In not expecting God to "use" me in this manner, I like to think that I try to seek out opportunities to do God's work where I can find it and not wait for my destiny to befall me.

It seems I was a little late posting...as you've already answered my own question for the most part. Sorry...phone rang mid-post. Haha.

BTW...I am 100% in agreement that teachers have no right to inflict their beliefs on the children. My Theology class in high school was a history credit, but was an optional study to other history class options. I probably agree that that is how it should be...unless a child in school is being singled out due to the lack of education of the children about their differences.

I'm curious if you approve or disapprove of Theology being a course study in State funded Colleges? I think we would lose a lot of what history has to teach us if we were to lose this as a study and thus as a historical resource.

I took Theology in high school, before it was taken out of the high schools, and learned a great deal about history, cultures and belief systems in an educational setting...which contained no personal or religious direction whatsoever.

For a teacher to preach or for a course study to be shaped by one religious viewpoint...I disagree with completely.

But I think of it in exactly the same way as politics. A student needs to be taught about political issues and different political beliefs without being swayed to a specific political agenda by the school or its teachers. This same practice can apply to religion too.

So, do you see God’s plan as more of a series of options…it’s still your choice day by day to choose to do what you believe God’s plan consists of today?

Luke did God’s work…no doubt here, but he had that option. Had he not taken up the cross that God gave him the option to bear, wouldn’t God have offered it to someone else?

In other words, do you believe that Luke was born to do this work for God? He had no choice but to take up God’s plan? It was not his Free Will to commit himself to it and carry it out?

I guess I figure that Jesus already knew He was going to resurrect Lazarus and knew of his death several days before going to him...so if it were the pain of his loss, why wouldn't He have wept then? And why would He have wept at all, knowing that death is the fate of every man and knowing that He could/would bring Lazarus back?

I know many who believe that He wept for the sorrow of the women and people when he witnessed how hard they took the loss of Lazarus, but I just don't understand Jesus as joining in the weeping from sympathy, rather than calming the sorrow of the people with the joy that Lazarus had joined His Father and Lord, or for what He was about to do in bringing Lazarus back.

This is what leads me to believe that He saw the weeping of the people as proof that they still didn't get it, which He would have more reason to weep over than the death of His friend.

Do you believe that God has a plan for you? A lot of people latch onto this idea, especially after experiencing a close call with death.

I myself have entertained the idea after, not one, but two car accidents that were considered physically impossible for someone to walk away from. Yet here I am.

Giving much thought after those incidents, I can conceive that while God may have run interference because it was not yet my time, I have trouble believing that He left me here because I had not yet completed my set destiny in life...as for Him to set such a destiny would interfere with Free Will.

What do you believe? Do you think God has a plan for you?

If you are referring to the death of Lazarus, I personally believe Jesus was weeping for the lack of faith of the people.