Originally posted by Qlib:
Perhaps he'd prefer us to use our brains. I'm sure, if you look carefully, you'll find that he has provided you with one.
What if.... you started using it?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How would that change your ideas about salvation? quote:But the premise asks for these questions to be raised--as well as the question "what if a person bore so much abuse in the name of this God you are talking about that they cannot hear the Name without referring it to the abuse"?
. Also, it would be nice if tangents such as "what about the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle" were left out.
quote:I think I'd blaspheme God and kill myself.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:I'm with you hatless. I distinctly remember the time I sat in our car, driving to St Davids in Wales, Mrs linzc asleep, and I was mulling over just this question - what if the conservatives are right. I came to the conclusion that a God like that was not worthy of my worship and I would take the consequences.
Originally posted by hatless:
As a matter of conscience I'd have to make sure I went to hell, even though it might be horrid. Such a god as you describe would be an abomination. I would not want to sink to his level, but would seek to remain true to the values I learnt from my parents and others.
I'd make it quite clear to this god what I thought of him and, futile though it might be, I'd try to witness to a better way.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Then "God" has deliberately deceived us by making the world in such a way as this does not appear to be true.
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation.
quote:Then "God" has allowed a huge body of damnable heretical thought and writing to survive from the patristic period - the Christus Victor tradition.
Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin
quote:"It is not a nice place"? Surely you backtrack on this one! Did you mean to say, "It is a lake of eternal fire where the damned feel the unbearable pain of burning over every square inch of their bodies, day and night for ever and ever"? In that case, I would gladly be damned by your Monster-God, rather than damn myself by using as much as one breath to praise him.
There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
How would that change your ideas about salvation?
quote:Qlib. I was on the verge of starting a thread calling you to Hell. But I thought I'd give you a chance to retract this ridiculous insinuation that to believe the Bible is true one must have disengaged one's brain. Grow up.
Originally posted by Qlib:
Perhaps he'd prefer us to use our brains. I'm sure, if you look carefully, you'll find that he has provided you with one.
What if.... you started using it?
quote:FYI leprechaun, I do think the Bible is true. I just don't think it's true in the same way that you think it's true. And I object to being asked how I would change my (no doubt) wicked heedless liberal ways if I thought this idea through *seriously*.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:Sharkshooter, beyound merely having considered it, the scenario which you present is what I honestly and sincerely believed for a number of years.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What if ...
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation. Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins. Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven. Heaven is where we praise God for eternity. There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
I don't want this to be a discussion of whether or not it is true. Try to stick with the "what if" scenario. Also, it would be nice if tangents such as "what about the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle" were left out.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have a Bible.
Does God care what we believe about that?
quote:It isn't that. It isn't about not being able to accept that we may have got some of the facts wrong.
Originally Posted by Sharkshooter
I am amazed to see people say they would gladly go to hell. I find that unfortunate. Can your beliefs not deal with what would happen if you found out you were wrong on the facts?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:And me. And it rather invites the question: what do people who do/can believe in such a God really think of him? Can you all honestly say - maybe you can - that you don't think such a God morally inferior to normal, well-adjusted people; to yourselves in fact?
I think it is because people find the God mentioned in your OP to be unworthy of worship, as do I.
quote:Yes. Next question.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Can you all honestly say - maybe you can - that you don't think such a God morally inferior to normal, well-adjusted people; to yourselves in fact?
quote:Charlie Brown replied:
If Santa really exists, he's going to be far too nice to not bring me any presents this Christmas, so I don't have to worry about being good! Right?
quote:I wonder sometimes if some people's idea of God isn't all that dissimilar from Schroeder's idea of Santa.
Wrong! But I don't know where...
quote:This would be a different discussion if we were talking universalism vs the possibility of *anyone* missing out on eternity with God. I pray for the former and believe the latter.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wonder sometimes if some people's idea of God isn't all that dissimilar from Schroeder's idea of Santa.
quote:It's not a case (at least for me and I suspect this goes for the others who've posted similarly) of some kind of petulant, "Oh I wasn't right but don't want to admit that I am wrong so I'll go to Hell."
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I am amazed to see people say they would gladly go to hell. I find that unfortunate. Can your beliefs not deal with what would happen if you found out you were wrong on the facts?
quote:But from my point of view if he were like that he wouldn't be trustworthy anyway. You might sneak into heaven by 'staying in the good books' (can a God really be fooled by someone with that attitude) only to discover that a few short millenia later he changes the rules or gets bored of the lot of you or whatever. You don't pay off terrorists. Ever.
Papio said:
If... God were really like that,
And... He was the only God doing the rounds,
And... He controlled your eternal destiny,
Then... wouldn't you be even more keen to stay in His good books than if He was just going to let you into Paradise anyway?
quote:That, I fear dear Grey Face, would take us down the road to the glue factory.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
But I'm interested to see how sharkshooter and Leprechaun can square the idea of God loving all those billions who never heard Jesus' name (because, for instance, they were born before Jesus) with him sending them to eternal torment as a consequence.
quote:I don't believe the church was founded on all the assumptions found in the OP. It was founded because a bunch of people discovered that in Jesus Christ they had found someone who showed them in a unique way what God was really like. Some of what he had said drew on the common heritage of Judaism - a religion which had already spent some 1800 years struggling to understand God and growing and developing as it did so. Some of what he had to say seemed at odds with their religious heritage. They spent the next 100 years or so struggling to make sense of the ways in which this new group was related to their old religion. A fellow named Paul helped by explaining the 'Jesus' story in ways which they might not have thought about but made a lot of sense and did indeed draw on many aspects of their religious heritage.
Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
Wasn't the church founded on just this assumption?
quote:I dealt with that in the OP to the extent I am going to on this thread.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
But I'm interested to see how sharkshooter and Leprechaun can square the idea of God loving all those billions who never heard Jesus' name (because, for instance, they were born before Jesus) with him sending them to eternal torment as a consequence.
quote:It's clear to me that we choose how we're going to read the Bible, and that we choose what we make of our traditions. Even being bound by these things is a choice of a particular kind. (I'd say it's a kind of abdication.) Sometimes we choose to believe in an unworthy and unscriptural picture of God -a nd I think that the portrayal in the OP is both unworthy and unscriptural - because we're too scared not to. It's a lot like capitualting to the bully, because the possibility that he won't hurt us if we do as he wants is slightly more inviting than the certainty that he will if we don't. That's the way the holocaust worked, and all totalitarian systems work the same way. So does Really Bad Religion.
For my money, I think that [this sort of thing] has a lot to do with what Freud calls the 'superego', the largely unconscious part of the mind which is the implanted authority of parental - especially father- figures, which regulates our behaviour towards others. The odd thing, which Freud remarks on, about the superego is that its severity is often way beyond anything that children experience in their actual parents, and that often people with gentle, kindly parents have ferocious, condemning superegos that keep sending them little messages about how unworthy they are, how awful compared with other people, how utterly undeserving and disappointing, etc.
Actually, though, I think that religiously, [this kind of thinking] has a lot to do with Melanie Klein's very different understanding of the superego. She sees this as kicking in much earlier than Freud does (he - surprise, surprise - understood it to arise from the resolution of the oedipus complex, when the (male) child finally realises that it's not going to be allowed to murder its father and have sex with its mother; this is a gross simplification, of course...) Klein, from her work with very young children, came to the conclusion that there is a primordial superego that basically takes the infant's rage at the world for not gratifying it, and its wanting to bite, tear and destroy, and reflects it straight back at the child, in guilt and fear, so that the horrors of apocalyptic wrath which the baby feels towards the world which thwarts it, being unbearable inside the baby, are thrown out into the world as horrible, threatening monsters.
That's why you can't persuade an infant that there's no monster under the bed by just looking, or even (as I've heard done!) by sawing the legs off. The monsters are there, they are incredibly real, and they are in the way the infant understands the world.
Cut to the chase - I think that an awful lot of people think that their superego is God. Whether it's the wounding, censorious, debilitating Freudian superego, or the ferocious, unlimitedly wrathful Kleinian superego. And this conviction is reinforcd for me when I read the more wrathful bits of Christian tradition, like the Edwards passage in the OP, or even bits of Scripture. It's the quality of the fear that makes me tend to Klein rather than Freud in some of these instances.
I think we need to be gentle with so many of the great figures of Christian tradition. They were as human as we are. And maybe we need to have the guts to look at the monstrous God that haunts parts of our tradition and say "Actually, that's not God at all. That's a monster from under the bed..."
quote:Thanks, dude! I always wondered how that was spelled...
Plplplplpl!
quote:Do you mind not misqouting me?
Originally Posted By Linzc
Papio said:
If... God were really like that,
And... He was the only God doing the rounds,
And... He controlled your eternal destiny,
Then... wouldn't you be even more keen to stay in His good books than if He was just going to let you into Paradise anyway?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:If it's a choice between being bullied and pandering to the bullies (which are the only two options in this case), I'd rather pander.
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:It's not a case (at least for me and I suspect this goes for the others who've posted similarly) of some kind of petulant, "Oh I wasn't right but don't want to admit that I am wrong so I'll go to Hell."
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I am amazed to see people say they would gladly go to hell. I find that unfortunate. Can your beliefs not deal with what would happen if you found out you were wrong on the facts?
You see for me, if God really was like that - he wouldn't be a God of love, but just a cosmic bully - no different from Q or any of the other godlike creatures they are forever running into in Star Trek. And you shouldn't pander to cosmic bullies.
quote:Firstly, I said that - not Papio.
quote:But from my point of view if he were like that he wouldn't be trustworthy anyway. You might sneak into heaven by 'staying in the good books' (can a God really be fooled by someone with that attitude) only to discover that a few short millenia later he changes the rules or gets bored of the lot of you or whatever. You don't pay off terrorists. Ever.
Papio said:
If... God were really like that,
And... He was the only God doing the rounds,
And... He controlled your eternal destiny,
Then... wouldn't you be even more keen to stay in His good books than if He was just going to let you into Paradise anyway?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
Just realised that you simply misattributed the qoute. quote:None of us can love God. His Spirit brings any of us to love him. As he is. "With God all things are possible" etc.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
It is that we are commanded to Love God first of all. I cannot therefore jump through the hoops that the OP version of God sets up, because whatever I can force myself to accept about God, if He's like He's described in the OP, I can't love Him, so I'm still screwed. .
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Because ISTM that the rules lack justice, let alone the grace and mercy He says that he's all about. So he's unjust and deceptive. How can I trust him?
Marvin said:
why would He not be trustworthy for setting up rules and then enforcing them?
quote:Doesn't that reduce the Christian faith to being in the bully's gang? Are you really that happy with the idea of God as a bully? Do you really think that bullying's OK as long as God does it?
If it's a choice between being bullied and pandering to the bullies (which are the only two options in this case), I'd rather pander.
quote:Of course he should. Because he has already shown by his words and actions that his conception of God is the cosmic bully who saves you if you jump through the right hoops. So his deathbed repentance is acting in integrity with his beliefs - jumping through the hoop so the bully will forgive him.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's take a hypothetical example. A man has said a number of times that he's not in the least bit interested in "all that God crap", but that on his deathbed he's going to "repent like a bastard, just in case". Should he not bother?
quote:Personally I see it as being more like the law on earth. In such a case "the bully" is the Judge, and "his gang" is all the law-abiding citizens of the world. Hell is jail in this example, except you get let off if you swear never to do it again.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Marvin the Martian:quote:Doesn't that reduce the Christian faith to being in the bully's gang? Are you really that happy with the idea of God as a bully? Do you really think that bullying's OK as long as God does it?
If it's a choice between being bullied and pandering to the bullies (which are the only two options in this case), I'd rather pander.
quote:I mean both. I mean:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:None of us can love God. His Spirit brings any of us to love him. As he is. "With God all things are possible" etc.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
It is that we are commanded to Love God first of all. I cannot therefore jump through the hoops that the OP version of God sets up, because whatever I can force myself to accept about God, if He's like He's described in the OP, I can't love Him, so I'm still screwed. .
I think, what you mean is (and correct me if I'm wrong - I know you will) that you don't want to become the type of person who loves a God like that. Which is an entirely different matter altogether.
quote:That's fascinating. It seems to me to echo very closely Walther Benjamin's subtle point that in modernity, the Law is founded on violence, which is masked from us by our willingness to believe in the institutions of the Law and of society. What you've done, inadevrtantly perhaps, is to unmask this, and to point out that the modern concept of God - and I think that the OP is steeped in modernity! - is itself also founded on violence.
Personally I see it as being more like the law on earth. In such a case "the bully" is the Judge, and "his gang" is all the law-abiding citizens of the world. Hell is jail in this example, except you get let off if you swear never to do it again.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Well, thanks for that lovely description of an evangelical Christian.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
(b) I don't want to become the sort of bully's sycophant who is capable of loving such a God.
quote:Yes. That is why I titled the thread the way I did.
Originally posted by Papio.:
Shark Shooter - I'm curious. You ... broadly affirm the God of the OP? (please don't be offended if you don't, I am just trying to suss out people's positions here.).
quote:Yes. But I disagree with the bases on which such a conclusion rests.
Originally posted by Papio.:
Do you understand why some of us find such a God unattractive?
quote:What do you perceive them to be? I can only see that you disagree with them because they refute the proposition that anything that God does must be good, lovely and moral simply because it's God doing it.
Yes. But I disagree with the bases on which such a conclusion rests.
quote:seems to suggest not - and I'm not sure where his last two sentences leave him:
As to your last question - as far as I'm concerned, God can do what he darn well likes. He built this place, He controls it, who am I to question His decisions based on my own pitiful idea of morality or justice?
quote:Even Abraham had a go at God on the grounds of the morality of what he proposed to do to Sodom in Genesis 18.
I don't believe He would ever act in such a way, but if He actually did, I'd be shocked, but I sure as hell wouldn't call Him out for it.
quote:I think we might be getting to a definitional point of "God" here. I don't think anyone is questioning God on our own ideas of morality or justice, I think we're questioning based on God's ideas of morality and justice as we have found them in scripture. What I think the more "liberal" posters seem to be saying is that God, by definition, could not be internally inconsistent, which, if we take scripture seriously, would be the case when the OP is compared with the scriptural witness as interpreted by the people making this argument. As usual, it all comes back to hermeneutics.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As to your last question - as far as I'm concerned, God can do what he darn well likes. He built this place, He controls it, who am I to question His decisions based on my own pitiful idea of morality or justice? I don't believe He would ever act in such a way, but if He actually did, I'd be shocked, but I sure as hell wouldn't call Him out for it.
quote:You can take it that way if you wish. I was not trying to make a detailed theological argument - rather simply setting the stage for the hypothetical scenario I proposed.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Did you mean to say, "It is a lake of eternal fire where the damned feel the unbearable pain of burning over every square inch of their bodies, day and night for ever and ever"?
There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:I'm not enough of a philosopher to argue in such terms. I've just never seen what use rules are without punisment to back them up. Why obey them otherwise?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
That's fascinating. It seems to me to echo very closely Walther Benjamin's subtle point that in modernity, the Law is founded on violence, which is masked from us by our willingness to believe in the institutions of the Law and of society. What you've done, inadevrtantly perhaps, is to unmask this, and to point out that the modern concept of God - and I think that the OP is steeped in modernity! - is itself also founded on violence.
quote:People are walking away.
It seems to me that the postmodern fate of such a God will be like the postmodern fate of the Berlin Wall - people will just say "Stuff this for a game of soldiers!" and walk away. The only people left will be people who have some sort of need to be bullied.
quote:Then why do we still have to repent/go to church/fast during lent/give to charity/any other myriad things "good Christians" should and shouldn't do? If Jesus means freedom, why are there still rules? For show?
Of course, from a Christian perspective, Jesus Christ killed this violent God stone dead by dying on the cross. After the resurrection, all is different. Except for those who are still being bullied. For the rest of us - as Ernst Kasemann says - Jesus means freedom.
quote:Abraham had two things I don't - a heck of a lot of guts, and the fact that he'd already spoken directly to God a number of times before. If you like, he was one of the bully's mates saying "Chill dude, this kid's kinda cool", rather than one of the little kids coming over out of the blue and squeaking "stoppit".
Even Abraham had a go at God on the grounds of the morality of what he proposed to do to Sodom in Genesis 18.
quote:Broadly. I'm not so sure about Adam and Eve. But broadly.
Originally posted by Papio.:
Leprechaun and Shark Shooter - I'm curious. You both broadly affirm the God of the OP? (please don't be offended if you don't, I am just trying to suss out people's positions here.).
quote:Yes. But I think there are other routes out apart from saying that this God doesn't exist.
Do you understand why some of us find such a God unattractive?
quote:I consider it daily, and I continue to believe it and accept it as the Truth.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:I hope not, because the nature of God is one of the (if not the) major things I struggle with regarding Christianity on a daily basis, and as I don't see a thread about it in the equine graveyard.
Originally posted by Custard123:
I suspect this is heading, as Lep so wisely said, to the place the glue comes from.
quote:It was not intended to be.
Originally posted by Qlib:
I still feel it was just a minor variation on ‘you liberals are all going to hell and you’d better wake up and realise it’,
quote:Some have - I know that. Perhaps some have not. A question is not an insult - at least in my circles.
Originally posted by Qlib:
with the added insult to injury of questioning whether we had ever actually seriously thought through our position.
quote:I expect your appology is acceptable to any who were offended - I am not one of those who was offended by your comments. However, if this is an appology, in any way, to me, it is certainly accepted in the spirit of honesty and community with which it was given.
Originally posted by Qlib:
I felt, therefore, that I was merely paying back in kind. I regret if my response - which was directed exclusively at Sharkshooter and was not meant to be a personal attack on fundamentalists as a species - fell somewhat short of Purgatorial standards.
quote:Interesting - that is the way I take it. However, I have been accused of it directly and indirectly enough times that it doesn't really bother me anymore.
Originally posted by Qlib:
However, I do think that the belief in the literal truth of the creation story is something that requires one to leave one’s intellect at the door. That’s not the same thing as saying fundamentalists are stupid.
quote:That is scriptural. But if you want chapter and verse, you will have to ask for it because I don't think you really want it.
Originally posted by Qlib:
Maybe we over-value intelligence in the modern world, maybe simple faith is better. Maybe. It’s a valid position, I suppose – I just don’t happen to agree with it.
quote:I didn't ask you to believe it. I asked what would you do differently if you did believe it. A purely hypothetical question which you were unwilling or unable to answer. And that is OK.
Originally posted by Qlib:
I think God gave us brains so we could use them and, as Adeodatus has said, a literal belief in the story also makes God a liar. But my original point was that one’s position on this is irrelevant to salvation, isn’t it? If not, please tell me where Jesus says you have to believe that the Bible is literally true.
quote:That is what I was looking for. Would you like to expand on that to answer "Why not?"
Originally posted by Qlib:
Now Grits is my kind of fundamentalist – like her, I would change nothing, even if my beliefs altered
quote:Exactly. That is how I wanted it dealt with here.
Originally posted by Qlib:
And, Sharkshooter, you didn’t deal with the point about people who have never heard of Jesus – you just asked us to avoid it.
quote:Eh...? Er - out of love for the will they express?
I've just never seen what use rules are without punisment to back them up. Why obey them otherwise?
quote:But don't you accept that bullying is always, under every conceivable circumstance, utterly morally wrong? And that being the bully's mate is merely being a party to the crime? I know you say that you're playing a sort of Devil's Advocate here, but wouldn't you agree that Your Work Here Is Done? You've basically produced - as a thought-experiment, I know - a version of Christianity with a bully-boy at the heart of it, and his corruption spread through the whole system. Surely we can all agree that - to put it mildly - it's a pretty horrible travesty of Biblical faith?
Abraham had two things I don't - a heck of a lot of guts, and the fact that he'd already spoken directly to God a number of times before. If you like, he was one of the bully's mates saying "Chill dude, this kid's kinda cool", rather than one of the little kids coming over out of the blue and squeaking "stoppit".
quote:I'm really struggling to differentiate morally between the God of the OP and Hitler.
Anyone else - what would God do to Hitler?
quote:WHy would you want to take them? This isn't the God of Scripture. It's a God cobbled together out of an arbitrary selection of Scripture highlighted with an arbitrary set of emphases. It isn't remotely the God of Jesus Christ.
I think there are other routes out apart from saying that this God doesn't exist.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Do you mean besides the purpose of the thread?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Or am I missing something?
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Nope. Got that. Loud and clear.
Do you mean besides the purpose of the thread?
quote:And, yet....God humanized himself. I feel that I can attribute certain human characteristics to God because God has been human.
Originally posted by Grits:
I believe one of the biggest mistakes people make in developing their faith is when they begin to humanize God in any way.
quote:I couldn't agree more. And then you say:
I think there are those of us who are content to let God be God -- however He chooses to be.
quote:I think that's what the understanding of God in the OP is actually doing. It's presenting God as an arbitrary, angry, bullying man (sic!). The ease with which Marvin the Martian can develop his 'bully' analogy is, I tghink, the proof of that.
I believe one of the biggest mistakes people make in developing their faith is when they begin to humanize God in any way.
quote:Here there is a difference between us, and it's on the understanding of what faith is. I don't see how faith can possibly be the accepting of propositions taught on authority. That's just 'belief-that'. Christian faith is trusting acceptance of the Christ the Church's preaching and teaching holds out to us. But there is also the Biblically-attested faith that is known only to God. There will indeed be surprises on the Day of Judgement.
We cannot expect to live for eternity with the creator of the universe if we have not been willing to uphold His teachings and trust in His grace and His power and His decisions for His creation, whether or not we like them or whether or not they make good sense to us or seem like the "right" thing to do.
quote:And to that extent I agree with you. But the OP clearly doesn't. There is no way you can square this:
I have never, ever equated hell with the premise of an unloving God. If it were an indiscriminate, unjust, unwarned against hell, that might be different. But it's not.
quote:with that.
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:I agree with you, but it seems to me that there are a lot of different human senses of justice and mercy. Who's to say whose sense most closely approximates God's?
Originally posted by paigeb:
And, yet....God humanized himself. I feel that I can attribute certain human characteristics to God because God has been human.
And since God has experienced love, pain, loss, hunger, thirst, etc.---physically experienced them---then I'm not sure it's out of line to attribute a human sense of justice and mercy to Him.
quote:Precisely. I simply cannot conceive of a God who would be less merciful than a human being. Unless, as has been suggested, that God is a cosmic bully---and then I fall in line with the others who say such a God is not worthy of worship.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It seems to me to be a thoroughly conservative idea that our sense of justice is derivative of God's justice, implanted in us by him. His, of course, is more perfect, being free from the self-centeredness and other faults that go with being a fallen human. But to suggest that God might do something that outrages our sense of justice seems to me to completely abandon the idea that humans can know what justice is in any meaningful way at all.
quote:There are human beings less merciful than the God of the OP. The God of the OP may be a cosmic bully, but at least that God will let you into Heaven if you follow the rules.
Originally posted by paigeb:
I simply cannot conceive of a God who would be less merciful than a human being. Unless, as has been suggested, that God is a cosmic bully---and then I fall in line with the others who say such a God is not worthy of worship.
quote:Then maybe my question should be: What does He have to do to prove to you His mercy?
Precisely. I simply cannot conceive of a God who would be less merciful than a human being.
quote:How about not sending good people to everlasting torment on a technicality?
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Then maybe my question should be: What does He have to do to prove to you His mercy?
Precisely. I simply cannot conceive of a God who would be less merciful than a human being.
quote:I guess that question doesn't mean much to me. I worship God because I believe Him to be a God of love and mercy---as evidenced in the person of Jesus Christ. The God who loved us so much that He was willing to live as a human---with all the pain, loss, and suffering that entailed. The God who was willing to die to show us how much He loved us.
Originally posted by Son of a Preacher Man:
So again, how much different (or worse, for lack of a better word) does God have to turn out to be from your current notion of God to no longer be worthy of worship?
quote:
If Jesus could extend mercy and forgiveness under those circumstances---and if Jesus was God---then I'm not sure how I could come to any other conclusion about the nature of God. If Jesus was not God, then I'm probably in trouble with the Cosmic Bully upstairs.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
This is theology founded on revelation.
quote:Ah... now we get more down to it. What do you consider a technicality? What are your qualifications for determining a person's "goodness"?
How about not sending good people to everlasting torment on a technicality?
quote:Again: What does He have to do to prove His mercy?
If Jesus could extend mercy and forgiveness under those circumstances---and if Jesus was God---then I'm not sure how I could come to any other conclusion about the nature of God.
quote:Where does it say in the Bible that there will be good people in Hell?
There will be a lot of good people in hell, and a lot of sinners in heaven.
quote:And that's something else he isn't under the assumptions of the OP. Also it's only an infinite crime if man has infinite capacity to reject. Man does not have infinite capacity for anything.
Originally posted by Custard123:
After all, if God is inifintely good, then rejecting him is an infinite crime.
quote:No, just that if he exists, he's a nasty bully. Fortunately I think that such a God is a serious misunderstanding (and I've met one Satanist who believes in the God of the OP and thinks that his only possible moral response is satanism).
quote:Leprechaun:
Papio:
Do you understand why some of us find such a God unattractive?
Yes. But I think there are other routes out apart from saying that this God doesn't exist.
quote:Please. At least please give anything remotely as strong as the first half of the Golden Rule: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind"
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:That is scriptural. But if you want chapter and verse, you will have to ask for it because I don't think you really want it.
Originally posted by Qlib:
Maybe we over-value intelligence in the modern world, maybe simple faith is better. Maybe. It’s a valid position, I suppose – I just don’t happen to agree with it.
quote:No. Parents bully children to e.g. prevent them playing in the road.
...psyduck...
But don't you accept that bullying is always, under every conceivable circumstance, utterly morally wrong?
quote:I couldn't put it better myself (so I won't bother).
...psyduck...
But to say that God rigs the whole history of the universe as a game the rules of which he only discloses to a few people, then he corrupts those few into accepting that their salvation, achieved by their kow-towing to his bullying, is not only a good thing, but is made even better by the eternal sufferings of everyone else, even people they have loved, meted out to them in some cases just because they never knew, and in others because there was no way that they could come to a conventional faith, is surely a bit different.
quote:Even if God is evil? I don't follow the logic there.
qlib:
I wouldn’t change because…. A living relationship with God is what counts.
quote:I think that's something we can all agree on. However what conclusions we then get to about God differ widely and I'd say that the God of the OP has large numbers of traits borrowed from humanity, and the darker side of humanity at that.
Grits:
I still think the "fundamental" difference at the core of this argument is how one views God. I think there are those of us who are content to let God be God -- however He chooses to be. We must conquer our humanism, our rationale, our self-ness, all things that can separate us from a true spiritual understanding of the Alpha and the Omega. It's not that we do not question; it's that we do not require the answers to fit our preconceptions.
quote:So why does he not just permit it to happen, but even make others perish or burn?
Grits:
As I've said before, His love is evident in the fact that He is not willing that any should perish,
quote:Whether hell is real, and the nature of hell gives a huge clue into the nature of God. If hell is real and God condemns people there for eternity, that says a lot I don't like about God.
Grits:
Personally, I could care less whether or not hell is real. I don't have to. And that's what Sharkshooter wants to know from you.
Elizabeth Anne.
quote:Did I say it was in the Bible? Does it have to be in the Bible to be true? You sola scriptura guy, you.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Sharkshooter -quote:Where does it say in the Bible that there will be good people in Hell?
There will be a lot of good people in hell, and a lot of sinners in heaven.
quote:So are the people in heaven.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
If there's anyone in Hell, I'm quite sure they are sinners.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I honestly don't think that the thread has drifted. I think that the OP spawned two responses:
Unfortunately, this thread has drifted so far, I expect it will not return. Carry on.
quote:Well yes, but I left that part out because I didn't want to get into the whole
So are the people in heaven.
everyone but God and Jesus, everyone but God, Jesus and the BVM, everyone but God, Jesus, the BVM and all the saints, nobody because everyone who gets there gets there through purgatory thing...
quote:But I thought I answered that. If God, in the person of Jesus Christ, could endure something most of us would consider a supreme injustice (i.e., the torture and murder of a complete innocent) and not only refrain from punishing the perpetrators, but actively forgive them----I would say that was both a proof of God's mercy and a proof of God's nature.
Originally posted by Grits:
Again: What does He have to do to prove His mercy?
quote:I don't know, but Jesus did say that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven (the chapter and verse escapes me) which is a point against the all-you-have-to-do-to-go-to-heaven-is-believe-the-right-things theory.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
OK, where does it say anywhere that there will be good people in Hell?
quote:1: It's not proof of his mercy, it's proof of his resilience
Originally posted by paigeb:
quote:But I thought I answered that. If God, in the person of Jesus Christ, could endure something most of us would consider a supreme injustice (i.e., the torture and murder of a complete innocent) and not only refrain from punishing the perpetrators, but actively forgive them----I would say that was both a proof of God's mercy and a proof of God's nature.
Originally posted by Grits:
Again: What does He have to do to prove His mercy?
quote:I've been reading along with the thread (even posted once or twice) but in reviewing the OP I have discovered something I hadn't noticed before. The OP says that "Old Testament people were saved." It also says that "Jesus ... is the only way into heaven." This leaves me with three ideas. First, if this is what was really meant, then getting into heaven and salvation are not necessarily the same thing. While this is logically possible, it doesn't seem particularly likely that this is what is meant given what I know about what the people holding this view believe. Second, given my understanding of those views, it could be that sharkshooter didn't mean that Old Testament people were saved. I can't make a judgment on that, I will leave it to sharkshooter to respond. Third, the idea of Old Testament people being saved is inconsistent with the last sentence of the statement. It would be helpful if some or all of the people who have said they believe the statement could clarify.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What if ...
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation. Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins. Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven. Heaven is where we praise God for eternity. There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:Two very good questions which I wish I had an answer to. I don't, and I won't pretend that I do.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Ah... now we get more down to it. What do you consider a technicality? What are your qualifications for determining a person's "goodness"?
How about not sending good people to everlasting torment on a technicality?
quote:"enduring... something most of us would consider a supreme injustice..." is parhaps proof only of resilience - though I think that you have to ask about motivation, and the standard Christian answers are love and grace. But "not only refrain[ing] from punishing the perpetrators, but actively forgiv[ing] them----I would say that was both a proof of God's mercy" well, me too.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by paigeb:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Grits:
Again: What does He have to do to prove His mercy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I thought I answered that. If God, in the person of Jesus Christ, could endure something most of us would consider a supreme injustice (i.e., the torture and murder of a complete innocent) and not only refrain from punishing the perpetrators, but actively forgive them----I would say that was both a proof of God's mercy and a proof of God's nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: It's not proof of his mercy, it's proof of his resilience
quote:It's at least plausible that the Word from the Cross was directed as much to him as to any of the others who were involved in the execution. In fact, if he is to be placed there, at the foot of the cross, it's kinda' inescapable. So I wouldn't be surprised if Caiaphas were not in hell...
2: Who said he didn't punish them? Do you think Caiaphas went to heaven or hell?
quote:"Sure I forgive you! Now throw the book at'im, Dad!" I don't really think so...
An eternal being can afford to wait for its revenge. (Yes, I know that there's "Father forgive them...", but whether forgiven for that act or not, under the terms of the OP, Caiaphas and Pilate are still going to hell.)
quote:"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" As Karl Barth says, Godforsaken God - God at the furthest point of remove from God.
3: What is Death to God?
quote:No, the OP is a reading -trajectory. It's a set of exrabiblicl preconceptions controlling the way the Biblical evidence is strung together.
Essentially, my objection is that it is only one piece of evidence and if you accept the OP, the rest of the evidence goes in the other direction.
quote:I think it's more helpful to ask about criteria than qualifications. Here's one.
Ah... now we get more down to it. What do you consider a technicality? What are your qualifications for determining a person's "goodness"?
quote:Emphasis mine. And Jesus' too, I think...
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live." But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, `Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.' Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed mercy on him." And Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
quote:I think it might be nice, albeit not for them, but I also think making that -- would God let someone burn in Hell for all eternity, in a mind-staggeringly horrific blaze of torment and far away from His "everlasting arms" of love, merely because of a geographical accident, as opposed to whether or not they even had a chance to accept His free gift of salvation? -- into a mere tangent just staggers my imagination...
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Also, it would be nice if tangents such as "what about the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle" were left out.
quote:1. Showing, once again, that any two people can read the same thing in the Bible and walk away with completely different viewpoints. I see mercy, you see only resilience. I guess we'll have to wait to see which one of us was right.
Originally posted by Justinian:
1: It's not proof of his mercy, it's proof of his resilience.
2: Who said he didn't punish them? Do you think Caiaphas went to heaven or hell? An eternal being can afford to wait for its revenge. (Yes, I know that there's "Father forgive them...", but whether forgiven for that act or not, under the terms of the OP, Caiaphas and Pilate are still going to hell.)
3: What is Death to God?
quote:Only if God counts it as one.
Originally posted by Custard123:
After all, if God is inifintely good, then rejecting him is an infinite crime.
quote:The same as She would do with anyone else: help him get well, help him face what he did and make peace with the people he hurt, help him grow, love him.
Anyone else - what would God do to Hitler?
quote:Exactly. We have no idea what kind of creative ways God has of reaching people, or what criteria God has as to what response is.
And does anyone truly reject God? They may reject *ideas about* God, but no one really *knows* what God is like. And everyone sees through the lenses of their experiences, culture, biochemistry, etc.
quote:"I expect to see you in Heaven, young man!"
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My vision of heaven is this: A gate with an atrium to the side of it. The gate is unlocked. The wise try the gate, and get in. The others wait in the atrium arguing with each other, each insisting the others shoudn't be there.
quote:No. There is only one way for people to be saved, and that is through faith in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 4, etc. In the OT, this faith was demonstrated partly through participation in the sacrificial system, which prefigured Jesus.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins.
quote:"Acknowledge" does include the possibility of more than just saying the words.
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:In normal circumstances and speaking as myself with my own beliefs rather than trying to accept the (hopefuly mistaken) beliefs of others, I'll agree. Forgiving those who kill you and flinging others, who simply don't acknowledge you as Lord into lakes of fire seems somewhat unjust and capricious.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Justinian:quote:"enduring... something most of us would consider a supreme injustice..." is parhaps proof only of resilience - though I think that you have to ask about motivation, and the standard Christian answers are love and grace. But "not only refrain[ing] from punishing the perpetrators, but actively forgiv[ing] them----I would say that was both a proof of God's mercy" well, me too.
quote:
1: It's not proof of his mercy, it's proof of his resilience
quote:"Forgive John for [foo], but not for [bar]" is a perfectly consistent statement. And if anyone in the NT deserves the title Goat, Caipahas must be near the top of the list. To do other makes the Just part of God far weaker, assuming that that's the way hell works (I'm one of those who believes that Heaven and Hell are the same place).
quote:"Sure I forgive you! Now throw the book at'im, Dad!" I don't really think so...
An eternal being can afford to wait for its revenge. (Yes, I know that there's "Father forgive them...", but whether forgiven for that act or not, under the terms of the OP, Caiaphas and Pilate are still going to hell.)
quote:So Jesus couldn't feel God. Sounds like most humans much of the time. Possibly it's only at that point that the incarnation was truly complete. (Note: This point started as a cheap shot and ended as a point to ponder)
quote:"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" As Karl Barth says, Godforsaken God - God at the furthest point of remove from God.
3: What is Death to God?
quote:I'll accept the correction (mostly because I can't be bothered to split hairs here), but find the preconceptions contrary to the notion of God the merciful, the just, the kind or even the good.
quote:No, the OP is a reading -trajectory. It's a set of exrabiblicl preconceptions controlling the way the Biblical evidence is strung together.
Essentially, my objection is that it is only one piece of evidence and if you accept the OP, the rest of the evidence goes in the other direction.
quote:I agree completely. NONE of that has much to do with "acknowledging that Jesus is Lord here on earth" and my understanding of God at least practices what he preaches w.r.t. The Good Samaritan (and that doesn't mean flinging people into lakes of fire).
Grits:quote:I think it's more helpful to ask about criteria than qualifications. Here's one.
Ah... now we get more down to it. What do you consider a technicality? What are your qualifications for determining a person's "goodness"?quote:Emphasis mine. And Jesus' too, I think...
Golden Rule and Parable of the Good Samaritan snipped
quote:I felt you were being very generous to the position laid out in the OP, and that it could only be construed as a preconceived treading-strategy which did violence to the texts you were attempting to expound in the light of it.
Essentially, my objection is that ... if you accept the OP, the rest of the evidence goes in the other direction.
quote:No, the point is that there are circumstances in which to exclude from the scope of God's saving work in Christ people who never had the chance to hear of it would make God unjust. Enter Lost Amazonian Indian Tribe, stage left... In any case, what God does in Christ is a cosmic event, which renews the whole relationship of creation to God. Christ is as much the actuality in which Amazonian Indians live - and Brazilian street-children and British drug-addicts die - as He is the actuality in which we believe and go to church. Your premiss is that faith is the way we cling to God, and is measurable in terms of words, attitudes and affirmations. Salvation is the way God grasps us, and its extent is known only to God.
Can anyone who rejects to the idea of life-changing faith Jesus being the only way to God explain how they see God as just?
quote:Are you claiming Love to be the same thing as Faith?
Originally posted by Custard123:
Hang on, the original post isn't even classic evangelical.
quote:No. There is only one way for people to be saved, and that is through faith in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 4, etc.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins.
quote:Would you care to explain exactly how or even why?
In the OT, this faith was demonstrated partly through participation in the sacrificial system, which prefigured Jesus.
quote:Yes I did! (Albeit in the middle of a long post) Man is finite therefore man can not sin infinitely. I can steal gold for the rest of my life from an infinite supply, but I won't have stolen an infinite amount. You are therefore punishing infinitely for a finite sin.
No-one has yet (as far as I can see) answered my challenge about in what sense God can be said to be just if he doesn't punish those who reject Jesus' death.
quote:No. He's far, far worse than that. He makes us flawed and then punishes us for the flaws. Even Hitler did not create Jews and then kill them for being Jews.
And why is God different from Hitler? Where to start?
How about this - God does not punish innocent people.
quote:In short, it's near arbitrary with a silly method of avoiding damnation. Just?!?
There will be no good people in hell, no-one there who does not totally deserve it.
And I do deserve hell. Yet God is also a God of love and sent Jesus to die so that I don't have to go there. And ditto anyone who turns to him, even though they deserve hell.
quote:I'm sure PSA is a dead horse (and if not, it ought to be). Suffice to say I find it icky.
Yes, this kind of view does need PSA to hold together, but in this view, PSA is wonderful news.
quote:All this despite God's Omniscience meaning that he knew it was coming and it being God who set the rules up that he had to sacrifice his son. It looks like poetic justice and a supreme apology to me.
I think the prob with this not seeming just is that we don't see the seriousness of our own sin. I mean, it was so bad that God's way of dealing with it was for the eternal Son to be killed on a cross.
quote:Being a way, no. Being the only way, I can not see that God even can be just- there are those who haven't heard of Jesus, there are those who have life-changing faith and are better people than almost any Christian, there are those who have been poisoned by so called Christians and many others who either don't have a God or don't have the Trinity.
Can anyone who rejects to the idea of life-changing faith Jesus being the only way to God explain how they see God as just?
quote:That's one of the parts of the Christianity I actually believe in (during my less fearful moments) which I have the greatest problem with. I simply don't feel that compulsion to do right out of love for God. Rather I seem to often feel relief that I can have a good old time down here and then have the rest of eternity to thank Him for His mercy in Heaven after I die.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Marvin the Martian:quote:Eh...? Er - out of love for the will they express?
I've just never seen what use rules are without punisment to back them up. Why obey them otherwise?
quote:I would indeed agree that that particular angle has been taken as far as it will go. I still find myself hoping your version proves to be correct rather than having absolute faith in it though. That's the struggle I have with Christianity as a whole.
I know you say that you're playing a sort of Devil's Advocate here, but wouldn't you agree that Your Work Here Is Done? You've basically produced - as a thought-experiment, I know - a version of Christianity with a bully-boy at the heart of it, and his corruption spread through the whole system. Surely we can all agree that - to put it mildly - it's a pretty horrible travesty of Biblical faith?
. 'Course, then I get really worried about envy being a mortal sin ...
quote:Justice is defined here in terms of punishment for "those who reject Jesus' death" that doesn't line up with the justice I find in Jesus in the NT who says "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" amongst a lot of other things. God's justice is not human justice and nothing Jesus said seems to imply that God has an interest in punishing. Now, there may be those who remove themselves from the Kingdom, but that is their doing, not God's punishment. I would compare it to a student flunking a class. The professor is not punishing them by giving them an F, they flunked themselves and earned an F. It goes farther than that though because the mercy God showed through Jesus on the cross (see psyduck's post above) means that even though we flunk, we are forgiven. That is a definition of justice that is merciful even to those who don't deserve mercy. Ultimately, the question revolves around the definition of justice. God defines justice by God's very nature as love.
No-one has yet (as far as I can see) answered my challenge about in what sense God can be said to be just if he doesn't punish those who reject Jesus' death.
quote:Actually, my position takes sin very seriously. Sin is something that is offensive to God and would keep us apart from God were it not for the love, mercy, and forgiveness found in Christ that predicates God's definition of justice.
I think the prob with this not seeming just is that we don't see the seriousness of our own sin. I mean, it was so bad that God's way of dealing with it was for the eternal Son to be killed on a cross.
quote:Yes, but it's more like even those students who flunk get given A grades just for turning up.
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
God's justice is not human justice and nothing Jesus said seems to imply that God has an interest in punishing. Now, there may be those who remove themselves from the Kingdom, but that is their doing, not God's punishment. I would compare it to a student flunking a class. The professor is not punishing them by giving them an F, they flunked themselves and earned an F. It goes farther than that though because the mercy God showed through Jesus on the cross (see psyduck's post above) means that even though we flunk, we are forgiven.
quote:I think you are. I see it as proof of resilience, but evidence of mercy- and from other evidence, an act of mercy is almost certainly correct.
Originally posted by paigeb:
1. Showing, once again, that any two people can read the same thing in the Bible and walk away with completely different viewpoints. I see mercy, you see only resilience. I guess we'll have to wait to see which one of us was right.
quote:Neither would I- but if the God as presented in the OP who throws people into lakes of fire is a reflection of reality, then I would be amazed to see him in heaven.
2. I have no idea where Caiaphas went---It can be a very satisfying game to play "Who's going to Hell?", but I think we play it at our peril. As psyduck says, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to meet up with him in Heaven---along with a lot of others.
quote:Here I'd agree. I also wouldn't think that such a God would throw people into lakes of fire for eternity for not accepting him as Lord.
Jesus didn't seem to be a big believer in revenge, BTW, as evidenced by his injunction to forgive 70 X 7, and his healing of the high priest's servant after Peter cut off his ear. If Jesus was God, how do you work that revenge thing out?
quote:A symbol of inspiration? Christus Victor? To help God truly understand being mortal? One big apology? I can think of a good half dozen reasons (all of which I hope are either wrong or only a partial truth)
3. If this is true, then what was the point of the cross? If death was no big deal, then what was the point of Jesus' sacrifice?
quote:Well, I quoter one parable in full already, so here's another one:
Yes, but it's more like even those students who flunk get given A grades just for turning up.
Does life really boil down to a huge caucus race, where all shall get prizes? Is that just?
quote:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the market place; and to them he said, `You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and he said to them, `Why do you stand here idle all day?' They said to him, `Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, `You go into the vineyard too.'
And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, `Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, saying, `These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' But he replied to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you.
Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?'
quote:As I grew up believing this as a matter of course, it was never a sudden revelation, or something I had to suddenly react to, and I don't remember this concretely affecting my relationship with God or others too much. However, I was very 'young in the faith' so perhaps this isn't surprizing?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What if ...
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation.
quote:I think in my conservative days I would have questioned this understanding of OT salvation - because if it were true I would have wondered, as a 'Bible-believing' evangelical Christian, why one apparently effective method of salvation as described in this quote needed to be replaced by any other.
Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins.
quote:As a liberal I do still believe this but would obviously interpret this comment in a very different way from myself when a conservative. The difference would have been significant.
Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven.
quote:
Heaven is where we praise God for eternity. There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:Obviously I've lived it (or most of the above), not just seriously considered it. But I don't think I can even imagine going back to some of the literal beliefs that have faded over the years, or return to the particular conservative interpretation of scripture that I once held. A bit like Pandora's box perhaps?
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:Again, that depends on your definition of justice.
Yes, but it's more like even those students who flunk get given A grades just for turning up.
Does life really boil down to a huge caucus race, where all shall get prizes? Is that just?
quote:Bad psyduck, very very bad.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Original Sin - er, sorry, Post.
quote:Very true. But if your definition of justice is where everyone gets exactly the same reward/punishment/whatever, no matter what their deeds, then I'm glad you don't run my country.
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:Again, that depends on your definition of justice.
Yes, but it's more like even those students who flunk get given A grades just for turning up.
Does life really boil down to a huge caucus race, where all shall get prizes? Is that just?
quote:And I'm glad you don't run heaven.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Very true. But if your definition of justice is where everyone gets exactly the same reward/punishment/whatever, no matter what their deeds, then I'm glad you don't run my country.
quote:Touche
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:And I'm glad you don't run heaven.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Very true. But if your definition of justice is where everyone gets exactly the same reward/punishment/whatever, no matter what their deeds, then I'm glad you don't run my country.
quote:Heretic
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
I think I've heard it as Opening Post also...
quote:I've just been reading a book by J.B Phillips, bible translator and self-described Conservative Evangelical. He soundly rejects the OP's view of God on three main grounds.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The amusing thing is that I don't buy Sharkshooter's original screed - ahem, post, and on the other hand I'm not a liberal, not by a stretch.
quote:Bingo!
Originally posted by GoldenKey:
And does anyone truly reject God? They may reject *ideas about* God, but no one really *knows* what God is like. And everyone sees through the lenses of their experiences, culture, biochemistry, etc.
quote:For any notion of God you can come up with, you can find people who are offended by such an image. People are offended by the notion of a liberal God (the prodigal son's older brother for example.) People are offended by the notion of an aloof God, or an active God, or a multitude of Gods, or a Goddess, or whatever.
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
A thought, though perhaps not the most well-formed one:
If our sense of justice comes from God, and we are offended by the hypothetical God posited in the OP, might this suggest that the true God and the God of the OP are not one and the same?
quote:If I were absolutely, firmly convinced of this scenario- which I have certainly considered, given that it is pretty close to the version of christianity which I have been exposed to, by close family members, and the teaching of the churches that I have attended- I think I would be a total nervous wreck.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What if ...
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation. Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins. Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven. Heaven is where we praise God for eternity. There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
I don't want this to be a discussion of whether or not it is true. Try to stick with the "what if" scenario. Also, it would be nice if tangents such as "what about the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle" were left out.
quote:I would have to quit believing in science. Completely.
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans belly button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation.
quote:Now that's a very interesting formulation. It reminds me so very much of Roland Bainton's exposition of Martin Luther in Here I Stand. It was precisely the Cosmic Bully God, who couldn't be satisfied, and who keeps us cringing and hating him, from whom Justification by Faith liberated Luther.
My last effort to believe, to really believe, against all sense, reason and evidence, was in college, when the effort to confess my sins every morning to a God I could never please made me so depressed that one day, while trying to pray, I snapped and chucked the whole thing.
quote:In other words, he accepts that all this has to be, in order to make some kind of sense of his life. What is, and what is ultimately real, is not the Soviet Union he sought to found, with Lenin, but the Soviet Union he actually saw come into being with Stalin. It must have been a lot like the OP's postulation, of believing in a loving, forgiving God, only to find, just before the end, that a hideous monster is unmasked. At that point comes the choice.
Why? Because while In prison I made a revaluation of my entire past. For when you ask yourself: "lf you must die, what are you dying for?"-an absolutely black vacuity suddenly rises before you with startling vividness.. There was nothing to die for, if one wanted to die unrepented. And, on the contrary, everything positive that glistens in the Soviet Union acquires new dimensions in a man's mind. This in the end disarmed me completely and led me to bend my knees before the Party and the country.
quote:In other words, "We believe in a God who doesn't want us to suffer this, not in your gods who want to inflict it on us for not worshipping them the way they - you- say we should. But even if it doesn't go that way (possibly 'even if there is no such God' - but that's a Kerygmania item) - we still won't worship your bully-boy gods. Do your worst."
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego answered the king, "O Nebuchadnez'zar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.
But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up."
quote:late in the day - but i'll give it a go
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What if ...
quote:I once thought this. I now don't. In neither state did/do I think my salvation or conduct depended on this belief.
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation.
quote:i have always thought Paul made it clear this was not the case - again I don't think this is a 'salvation threatening' belief. Although it might change my conduct with Jews - perhaps just a little.
Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins.
quote:this i believe - those who don't believe in hell are not denying christ. But I think Jesus death means much more than just some sort of cosmic deal for sin - it reconciles us, binds us to God....but you didn't want this discussion so I'll stop.
Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven. Heaven is where we praise God for eternity. There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place.
quote:i once almost thought this - but the story of those welcomed into heaven despite not realising they had fed, clothed, and visited in prison the lost always prevented me completely believing.
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:so far i think i've done as requested. (with a little aside)
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
I don't want this to be a discussion of whether or not it is true. Try to stick with the "what if" scenario. Also, it would be nice if tangents such as "what about the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle" were left out.
Sungara.
quote:To show a recognition of the seriousness of sin. I'd be interested to know how you understand Hebrews 8.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:I am saying that love is a necessary consequence and part of saving faith.
Originally posted by Custard123:
Hang on, the original post isn't even classic evangelical.
Are you claiming Love to be the same thing as Faith?
quote:Would you care to explain exactly how or even why?
In the OT, this faith was demonstrated partly through participation in the sacrificial system, which prefigured Jesus.
quote:Sorry, I saw that but didn't think it was an answer. Sin against God is infinite not because of who we are but because of who God is. If someone rejects the authority of their teacher at school, that is bad. If they reject the authority of their parents, that is worse. If they reject the authority of the UN rules on war crimes, that is probably worse still. And how much greater is God than parents, teachers or human institutions!
quote:Yes I did! (Albeit in the middle of a long post) Man is finite therefore man can not sin infinitely. I can steal gold for the rest of my life from an infinite supply, but I won't have stolen an infinite amount. You are therefore punishing infinitely for a finite sin.
No-one has yet (as far as I can see) answered my challenge about in what sense God can be said to be just if he doesn't punish those who reject Jesus' death.
quote:I should chuck in here that I agree with Christus Victor too, but this issue is a dead horse.
quote:I'm sure PSA is a dead horse (and if not, it ought to be). Suffice to say I find it icky.
Yes, this kind of view does need PSA to hold together, but in this view, PSA is wonderful news.
quote:I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here. So why would you say that Jesus had to die?
quote:All this despite God's Omniscience meaning that he knew it was coming and it being God who set the rules up that he had to sacrifice his son. It looks like poetic justice and a supreme apology to me.
I think the prob with this not seeming just is that we don't see the seriousness of our own sin. I mean, it was so bad that God's way of dealing with it was for the eternal Son to be killed on a cross.
quote:Let me make this clear. I deserve to go to Hell because of the way I've treated God. So do you. So did Gandhi. So does everyone else on this planet. If anyone goes to heaven, it is totally and only because of God's grace.
quote:Being a way, no. Being the only way, I can not see that God even can be just- there are those who haven't heard of Jesus, there are those who have life-changing faith and are better people than almost any Christian, there are those who have been poisoned by so called Christians and many others who either don't have a God or don't have the Trinity.
Can anyone who rejects to the idea of life-changing faith Jesus being the only way to God explain how they see God as just?
quote:I think you simplify my position to the point where it is crazy, probably because I'm not too good at communication.
If you are correct: God set the rules. God made man. God is perfect. God needlessly tortures (and make no mistake, hell is a form of torture and has no redeeming benifits for the victim) his creations for being as he made them. One starts wondering whether God actually enjoys inflicting suffering on others.
quote:Here are a few I found quickly said by Jesus:
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:Justice is defined here in terms of punishment for "those who reject Jesus' death" that doesn't line up with the justice I find in Jesus in the NT who says "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" amongst a lot of other things. God's justice is not human justice and nothing Jesus said seems to imply that God has an interest in punishing.
No-one has yet (as far as I can see) answered my challenge about in what sense God can be said to be just if he doesn't punish those who reject Jesus' death.
quote:No-one can deserve mercy. That's what makes it mercy.
That is a definition of justice that is merciful even to those who don't deserve mercy. Ultimately, the question revolves around the definition of justice. God defines justice by God's very nature as love.
quote:So would you then say that everyone is saved by the death of Jesus? Absolutely everyone, including Hitler, Ian Huntley, etc?
quote:Actually, my position takes sin very seriously. Sin is something that is offensive to God and would keep us apart from God were it not for the love, mercy, and forgiveness found in Christ that predicates God's definition of justice.
I think the prob with this not seeming just is that we don't see the seriousness of our own sin. I mean, it was so bad that God's way of dealing with it was for the eternal Son to be killed on a cross.
quote:With respect, that's not how I read it.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
My Biblical contrast with this would be with the Three Men in the Furnace, in Daniel 3quote:In other words, "We believe in a God who doesn't want us to suffer this, not in your gods who want to inflict it on us for not worshipping them the way they - you- say we should. But even if it doesn't go that way (possibly 'even if there is no such God' - but that's a Kerygmania item) - we still won't worship your bully-boy gods. Do your worst."
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego answered the king, "O Nebuchadnez'zar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.
But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up."
quote:
I think part of the problem here is the postmodern assumption that suffering in this life is bad.
quote:
Here's a question that may be somewhat along the lines of the original OP in question:
To those of you who do not believe in hell, what DO you think happens on judgment day? What do you do about all the scriptures that refer to hell, and those who will spend eternity there, and the parting of the goats and the sheep, etc.? Do you think everyone who ever lived is going to heaven? And, if so, then, as sharkshooter said, what is the point of living this life as a Christian? Why did Jesus come to earth, live, die and be resurrected if we were all already saved anyway?
Just seriously curious... and concerned.
quote:<deliberate self-stereotyping>
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the problem here, Custard, is that by any rational justice measure, Ghandi does not deserve to go to Hell.
quote:In some ways, Ghandi is the issue, because he is an example that shows the weaknesses of the OP's theology.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:<deliberate self-stereotyping>
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the problem here, Custard, is that by any rational justice measure, Ghandi does not deserve to go to Hell.
But Gandhi isn't the issue here. You are. I am.
quote:Out of curiosity, Karl (and not because I have a going-in-hell agenda to push) would you agree that all of us have rebelled against God in some way or another and don't deserve fellowship with him? My problem with playing down the idea of sin and deserving separation from God is that is also plays down the atonement and grace. Not that I'm saying you are doing this, just that I'd be interested to know how you get around this.
Originally posted by Karl:
Nor do most of my family. You may be able to come up with some piece of sophistry to argue how they do, but the simple fact is they don't. The injustice of it is so obvious it's blinding.
quote:Well, not really, because he was only introduced as a counter example to Hitler who was introduced to show the weakness of not holding to the OP's theology.
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
In some ways, Ghandi is the issue, because he is an example that shows the weaknesses of the OP's theology.
quote:It is the language of just deserts which makes this view problematic for me. I would quite happily say, we are all partially blinded by sin and hence often rebel against a God we do not truly understand. I affirm that we are all unable to love God and our neighbour perfectly. I would also happily say that we are all unable to be in full communion with God as a consequence of our human limitations. For all those reasons it required an act of grace on God's part to bridge the gap and the Incarnation event was that act of grace - Christ needed to come and die and be raised.
Originally posted by Se‡n D:
Out of curiosity, Karl (and not because I have a going-in-hell agenda to push) would you agree that all of us have rebelled against God in some way or another and don't deserve fellowship with him? My problem with playing down the idea of sin and deserving separation from God is that is also plays down the atonement and grace. Not that I'm saying you are doing this, just that I'd be interested to know how you get around this.
quote:Yep, that's where I am.
Originally Posted by Psyduck
b) If this is what God turns out to be, then I want no part of him, and will be privileged to burn in hell for defying him.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Either sharkshooter is being a lot cleverer than I originally thought, or a lot stupider. Let's look at the above quote.
There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:The thing is, if God's love for you from before the beginning of time, is truly gracious love, then you can't deserve it. If you deserve it, and he loves you, well he's not really that loving then, is he?
Originally posted by linzc:
But I reject the idea that eternal separation from God (the source of all good gifts including life) is what I deserve. On the contrary, I am someone made in the image of God and someone for whom God has had infinite love from before the dawn of time.
quote:By this reckoning, this would mean the authors of the 'Lament' Psalms in the OT are postmodernists. Cool
Originally posted by Custard123:
I think part of the problem here is the postmodern assumption that suffering in this life is bad.
!
quote:Thanks Linzc, that's helpful. I guess where we would differ would be that I would put the emphasis on human rebellion and pride being the main reason why we are separated from God and need grace and revelation, and you would put it more on our finiteness. However, I certainly also believe we cannot truly comprehend God without revelation anyway even had we never sinned, just as you also believe in the blinding effect of sin. So it's a difference of emphasis. I recently heard someone suggest that even if we had never sinned, God the Son would still have become flesh. This is not a new idea, of course (I think Ignatius or someone has it) but it makes excellent sense to me. But whether he would have had to die or not is another question.
Originally posted by linzc:
It is the language of just deserts which makes this view problematic for me. I would quite happily say, we are all partially blinded by sin and hence often rebel against a God we do not truly understand. I affirm that we are all unable to love God and our neighbour perfectly. I would also happily say that we are all unable to be in full communion with God as a consequence of our human limitations.
quote:I disagree that hard cases necessarily make bad law. A good law will lead to the Right Thing™ in the corner cases, whereas a bad law will break down into absurdity and even let its letter contradict its spirit.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Well, not really, because he was only introduced as a counter example to Hitler who was introduced to show the weakness of not holding to the OP's theology.
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
In some ways, Ghandi is the issue, because he is an example that shows the weaknesses of the OP's theology.
Hard cases make bad law.
quote:How does it take away from his grace? After all, it was God who (in grace) made me. I don't deserve his love because I am some self-made person worth loving. I deserve his love because he made me to deserve his love.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I utterly refute one that says, I will escape punishment because I don't deserve it. Not just because I think it is an unduly optimistic view of humanity, but because it actually takes away from the grace of God.
quote:Well, on that logic, God can't possibly love Jesus Christ, and the Trinity can't possibly be bound together by love.
The thing is, if God's love for you from before the beginning of time, is truly gracious love, then you can't deserve it. If you deserve it, and he loves you, well he's not really that loving then, is he?
quote:The intention of the OP was not to be a new creed. It was to lay out simply the basics of (a particular brand of) theology for the purpose of discussing how a the acceptance of it would change your life vis-a-vis how you live your life under the (particular brand of) theology, or lack thereof, which you now accept.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by sharkshooter:quote:Either sharkshooter is being a lot cleverer than I originally thought, or a lot stupider. Let's look at the above quote.
There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
"Hell ... is not a nice place."
...
And what would I do if the everlasting fires were true? I would declare war on "Heaven" - and consider it a privilege to burn with Gandhi.
quote:Er... no...
Some have given answers, along the lines of "I would rather go to hell". This may be true, however, inherent in it is the refusal to accept my challenge - that being to put yourself in a position in which you are not now.
quote:It's still love if it is loving the lovable, but it is not grace or mercy. Sorry, I may have confused the terms. God certainly has no claim to boast about his love (as he does, quite a lot) if he is merely doing what is expected of Him. If he created us lovable, and he loves us. Big deal.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Well, on that logic, God can't possibly love Jesus Christ, and the Trinity can't possibly be bound together by love.
I always thought that God's love for the unloveable was one of the hard things to grasp. It never crossed my mind that God might have problems loving the lovable!
quote:I would agree theologically with all of it bar the Satan living in hell bit. Personally I fluctuate in my personal, moment to moment attendance to that belief but that equivocation I believe perhaps naively is part of my ‘sanctification'. In fact, it affected me to the point that I felt I needed to say I agreed with the statement.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What if ...
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation. Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins. Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven. Heaven is where we praise God for eternity. There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:Justice and punishment seems to be the key point at issue here. Only once we've established what is just can we begin to consider and appreciate mercy - being let off with a less painful outcome than we deserve.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I can understand (if not agree with) a theology that says, I won't face punishment because God is too loving (after all that is the bottom line of evangelical theology) I utterly refute one that says, I will escape punishment because I don't deserve it.
quote:I agree with Sharkshooter's statement.
Originally posted by linzc:
Huh?
quote:Yeah I think I got that bit.
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:I agree with Sharkshooter's statement.
Originally posted by linzc:
Huh?
quote:This is exactly what I am saying. What others seem to be saying is that the punishment, as God reveals it, does not fit the crime, therefore that God cannot be trusted. Ergo he must be different than he has revealed himself to be. I trust God that his judgments are true. ISTM others don't. Fair enough.
Originally posted by Russ:
Which is not for a moment saying that the whole idea of God's punishing us is mistaken. But, if the Power behind the Universe is a God worth worshipping, we can trust Him that any punishment that comes our way will be truly deserved - proportionate, related only to our deliberate choice, mitigated by allowance for our unchosen weakness/feebleness/blindness, and for the offsetting good that we have done, however minimal. Russ
quote:I truly admire the level of conviction that would cause someone to choose eternal torment over Paradise because they didn't like the latter's entry criteria. Personally my instinct for self-preservation would trump any moral outrage at the hoops which would have to be jumped through.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Some have given answers, along the lines of "I would rather go to hell".
quote:But surely if the being in question is truly Godlike then s/he will not be fooled by your self-preservation and will recognise your underlying moral outrage and get you anyway.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Personally my instinct for self-preservation would trump any moral outrage at the hoops which would have to be jumped through.
quote:I semi-agree. I would argue that there are numerous possible reasons for punishment, and a certain concept of hell makes little sense of most of them. They are:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Isn't the purpose of punishment to deter bad behavior? In which case eternal punishment with no hope of abrogation isn't just, it's merely sadistic.
quote:You mean different from what YOU believe he has revealed himself to be. Scripture is not self-interpreting. Your particular interpretation is not in some way privileged over all others, but is rather one among many.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ergo he must be different than he has revealed himself to be.
quote:Amazon tribes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would have said that knowing such a punishment awaited the wrongdoer was a pretty good deterrent myself!
quote:Other posters have noted the contradiction between the Jews receiving salvation through the law, and salvation being only through Jesus.
Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins. Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven.
quote:Why precisely? What does this have to do with the Gospel? I see nothing in the words of Christ that demand we do this. This implies that someone can love God but still be condemned to Hell. Why should anyone worship such a God?
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:Paigeb, sorry for jumping back in after an extended absence, but I wanted to say I liked your answer.
Originally posted by paigeb:
If Jesus could extend mercy and forgiveness under those circumstances---and if Jesus was God---then I'm not sure how I could come to any other conclusion about the nature of God. If Jesus was not God, then I'm probably in trouble with the Cosmic Bully upstairs.
quote:MT, while I don't agree about Scripture, on this occasion it was not just evangelical arrogance! The argument has not been made on revelatory terms (rather it has, but only in passing) but rather what our sense of justice admits as just. It is a short step from there to admitting that actually one is elavating one's preferences over Scripture.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
You mean different from what YOU believe he has revealed himself to be. Scripture is not self-interpreting. Your particular interpretation is not in some way privileged over all others, but is rather one among many.
quote:Well said.
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
Salvation may be only through Christ, but that comes from loving your neighbour, feeding him when he is hungry etc.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Amazon tribes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would have said that knowing such a punishment awaited the wrongdoer was a pretty good deterrent myself!
quote:For the sake of arguemnt, when people say that they couldn't worship a God "like that", aren't they basing that on a rejection of other possible interpretations of Scripture? One can read Scripture to say that God is a cosmic bully or cosmic fluffy bunny out of a sense that God is just and merciful according to one's own definitions of justice and mercy. And it seems from reading this thread that many (both liberal and fundamentalist) are not willing to entertain the thought that this might not be true.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:You mean different from what YOU believe he has revealed himself to be. Scripture is not self-interpreting. Your particular interpretation is not in some way privileged over all others, but is rather one among many.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ergo he must be different than he has revealed himself to be.
quote:I see where you are coming from, Marvin, and I'm afraid in the clinch that I would feel the same way. If the prospect of Hell were really nigh, I'd probably opt for the weasel approach. But I can't see it as anything but a catch-22 if we are to believe the two-fold commandment. We are enjoined to love our God with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our mind, and our neighbors as ourselves. If this is true, and I truly can't love what I perceive as unlovable -a God who damns people to eternal torment- I'm still screwed. By these standards a sullen, self-serving aquiescence won't do; love is the demand. Only people like Sharkshooter, Grits, and Leprechaun, who somehow can hold this God in esteem and love, will make it.
I truly admire the level of conviction that would cause someone to choose eternal torment over Paradise because they didn't like the latter's entry criteria. Personally my instinct for self-preservation would trump any moral outrage at the hoops which would have to be jumped through.
Hence the answers I've been giving on this thread.
quote:I've had no real difficulty putting myself into the position asked of us by the OP.
Originally posted by Son of a Preacher Man:
How is the liberal position in this thread any different from the fundamentalist position in that regard?
).
quote:I know what you mean. But sometimes it's worthwhile to think about what I'd do if I ended up in some crazy Firesign Theater-esque world where Everything You Know Is Wrong.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've had no real difficulty putting myself into the position asked of us by the OP.
The ease with which I've been picked apart by psyduck et al simply shows that I can't bring myself to truly follow that path (when I don't really believe I have to
quote:'Course, the bugger with trying to get this sort of thing right is, by the time you actually find out for sure which way you should go it's already too late to do anything about it
Originally posted by Son of a Preacher Man:
I know what you mean. But sometimes it's worthwhile to think about what I'd do if I ended up in some crazy Firesign Theater-esque world where Everything You Know Is Wrong.
After I spend a lot of time curled up in a ball repeating "This is not happening" over and over, that is.
quote:Some shipmates will undoubtedly remember that my theology is pretty standard Calvinist - but we still have at least 3 threads on that on the ship - this was not intended to be another one.
Originally posted by LydaRose:
If, as Sharkshooter says, he is right, maybe the Calvinists were, too.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Wow, that's a whole lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Why do these passages refer, necessarily, to the eschaton? Theologically, there are two nonincommensurate concepts of salvation, historical and eschatological. Historical salvation is the fruits of salvation as experienced in the historical framework in which we live. Eschatological salvation is the fruits of salvation as experienced after death and/or after the second coming. How do we decide which Jesus is talking about at any given point? (That's a question for anyone as it goes right to the heart of the hermeneutical problem that this whole thread, in some ways, revolves around). Case in point, the John 5:29 passage that was quoted makes salvation works based. If Jesus is talking about historical salvation, that makes much more sense.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:Here are a few I found quickly said by Jesus:
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:Justice is defined here in terms of punishment for "those who reject Jesus' death" that doesn't line up with the justice I find in Jesus in the NT who says "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" amongst a lot of other things. God's justice is not human justice and nothing Jesus said seems to imply that God has an interest in punishing.
No-one has yet (as far as I can see) answered my challenge about in what sense God can be said to be just if he doesn't punish those who reject Jesus' death.
Mt 8:12, 11:21, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30
Mk 9:43, Lk 10:13, 12:10, 12:46, 20:16, 20:18, 13:28, Jn 5:29
quote:Yup, I agree completely. Which is why what I said makes sense. My understanding of the justice in the OP is that it is merciful only to those who have earned it by doing something that is required, in this case fulfilling a formula. As you pointed out, that's not mercy. My definition is, because it doesn't rely on what someone has done/said/fulfilled.
quote:No-one can deserve mercy. That's what makes it mercy.
That is a definition of justice that is merciful even to those who don't deserve mercy. Ultimately, the question revolves around the definition of justice. God defines justice by God's very nature as love.
quote:It doesn't matter what I say. As I pointed out to Marvin, I'm glad he doesn't run heaven and I'm glad I don't either. I try not to draw lines and I try not to tell God where to draw lines. I'm not sure God draws lines at all. I let God be God and try not to worry about it too much.
quote:So would you then say that everyone is saved by the death of Jesus? Absolutely everyone, including Hitler, Ian Huntley, etc?
quote:Actually, my position takes sin very seriously. Sin is something that is offensive to God and would keep us apart from God were it not for the love, mercy, and forgiveness found in Christ that predicates God's definition of justice.
I think the prob with this not seeming just is that we don't see the seriousness of our own sin. I mean, it was so bad that God's way of dealing with it was for the eternal Son to be killed on a cross.
And if not everyone, where do you draw the line?
quote:This, with a few qualifications, about covers it for me, too. I don't know if and how God punishes - although by reading the Bible I can see how past generations have imagined he punished people and, hardly surprising, it resembles very closely our own ideas and practice of vengeance and punishment
Originally posted by Russ:
Which is not for a moment saying that the whole idea of God's punishing us is mistaken. But, if the Power behind the Universe is a God worth worshipping, we can trust Him that any punishment that comes our way will be truly deserved - proportionate, related only to our deliberate choice, mitigated by allowance for our unchosen weakness/feebleness/blindness, and for the offsetting good that we have done, however minimal. And having once handed down a sentence that we truly deserve, God will then bring His undeserved mercy into play.
Russ
. quote:Whereas in the Golden Rule, Love is both necessary and sufficient.
Originally posted by Custard123:
Ok - I'm going to try and do a mammoth reply - thingy, then probably quit as I'm away for a few days.quote:I am saying that love is a necessary consequence and part of saving faith.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Are you claiming Love to be the same thing as Faith?[/qb]
quote:As an epistle written to the Hebrews to explain things in the idiom of the Jews. The Jewish Law was a good system, but not the be all and end all, and I see Hebrews 8 as good evidence there is more than one way.
To show a recognition of the seriousness of sin. I'd be interested to know how you understand Hebrews 8.
quote:Bait and switch. If they reject the authority of a teacher to teach things like "Creation Science", that is probably right. If they reject the authority of their parents to force them to vote BNP (thinking of one of my friends), they are almost certainly right. If they reject the UN rules on war crimes in order to save far more lives than they would take (is assassination counted as a war crime?), they are again almost certainly right.
If someone rejects the authority of their teacher at school, that is bad. If they reject the authority of their parents, that is worse. If they reject the authority of the UN rules on war crimes, that is probably worse still. And how much greater is God than parents, teachers or human institutions!
quote:They continue to sin because they can do no other because God made it impossible for them to do otherwise.
I also tend to take the line attributed to Don Carson from Rev 22:11 that those in hell continue to sin and be punished, and what is removed is God's work by his Holy Spirit in bringing them to repentance.
quote:He didn't. On the other hand, if you want the reasons he died (which isn't the same thing at all), first there's Christus Victor. I don't believe that God can or will directly undo his own works, probably for the sake of the universe- meaning that other methods are necessary. Secondly death is the end of mortal incarnation, meaning that for the incarnation to be true and complete, Jesus had to die. Thirdly there's the sign and the symbol it presents.
quote:I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here. So why would you say that Jesus had to die?
quote:All this despite God's Omniscience meaning that he knew it was coming and it being God who set the rules up that he had to sacrifice his son. It looks like poetic justice and a supreme apology to me.
I think the prob with this not seeming just is that we don't see the seriousness of our own sin. I mean, it was so bad that God's way of dealing with it was for the eternal Son to be killed on a cross.
quote:So everyone deserves to go to hell, and yet a life changing faith in Jesus is the only way to God and God only expresses his grace in this way? Me confused.
quote:Let me make this clear. I deserve to go to Hell because of the way I've treated God. So do you. So did Gandhi. So does everyone else on this planet. If anyone goes to heaven, it is totally and only because of God's grace.
quote:[SNIP]
Can anyone who rejects to the idea of life-changing faith Jesus being the only way to God explain how they see God as just?
quote:Possibly. On the other hand, I've yet to hear anyone else answer my points here. At least assuming God both set the rules and is omnipotent.
quote:I think you simplify my position to the point where it is crazy, probably because I'm not too good at communication.
If you are correct: God set the rules. God made man. God is perfect. God needlessly tortures (and make no mistake, hell is a form of torture and has no redeeming benifits for the victim) his creations for being as he made them. One starts wondering whether God actually enjoys inflicting suffering on others.
quote:Hmmm... How close can you get?
I would not for one minute start to deny human responsibility, as you seem to understand that I do. I'd just say that the whole issue of God's sovereignty and human responsibility is one where there is a tension (I can see how a resolution is possible, but don't think I can explain it due to lack of words and literacy on my part).
quote:Would you care to explain that one?
quote:
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
God defines justice by God's very nature as love.
quote:He just has a straaaange way of showing it if you are true. Love involves throwing people into lakes of fire with no way they can get out?!?
I totally agree that God is love,
quote:Everything about God is seen supremely in the person of Jesus? Unless you mean that Jesus was the easiest aspect of God to see, you are on extremely shaky ground.
and that that love is seen supremely (as is everything else about God) in the person of Jesus.
quote:I'd agree. I would, however, say that that's NOT the acts of Jesus I read from your posts. He only dies for those who call him Lord- which is a completely different situation.
To die for those who killed you when they already owed you everything is quite something and is far more loving and merciful than anyone I know.
I should also add here that there is perfect assurance outside universalism, because the Christian can know that Jesus died and took the punishment for all their sins, past, present and future.
quote:Hmmm... Ever heard of selling someone the idea that they are ill so you can sell them the cure?
Posted by Leprechaun:
I can understand (if not agree with) a theology that says, I won't face punishment because God is too loving (after all that is the bottom line of evangelical theology) I utterly refute one that says, I will escape punishment because I don't deserve it. Not just because I think it is an unduly optimistic view of humanity, but because it actually takes away from the grace of God.
quote:Sure. If, by nature, God is love, then divine justice is defined by love since it is part of love. Divine justice means, above all, doing the loving thing. And keep in mind, that this is divine love and not a mere conception of love from a human viewpoint, so anything we can say about it, while possibly true, is ultimately inadequate.
Originally posted by Justinian:quote:Would you care to explain that one?
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:
God defines justice by God's very nature as love.
quote:Christian faith isn't about being miserable.
Psyduck - I just knew you'd quote that parable to me. Every time I read it or hear it preached I find myself somewhat angry at God for choosing me so early in my life - I could have had another half a day of sitting in the market, then doing only an hours work and still getting the same 'wage' as the poor suckers who worked all day...
quote:I'm puzzled by this one. In my book good parents don't bully (because bullying is always morally wrong). Parents have to teach their kids how to behave but doing so by bullying them is counter productive (If a child lives with bullying, they learn to bully -- can't remember if that is in the if a child lives ... or not but it works).
quote:No. Parents bully children to e.g. prevent them playing in the road.
...psyduck...
But don't you accept that bullying is always, under every conceivable circumstance, utterly morally wrong?
quote:Maybe not, but it still feels like a job to me. I see others running round having a whale of a time, and every time I go to join in I get a little voice in the back of my head saying "don't do it - it's sin". So I miss out. And I resent it, because I hate missing out.
Originally posted by Carys:
Marvin the Martian quoth (someway back on p. 3)
quote:Christian faith isn't about being miserable.
Psyduck - I just knew you'd quote that parable to me. Every time I read it or hear it preached I find myself somewhat angry at God for choosing me so early in my life - I could have had another half a day of sitting in the market, then doing only an hours work and still getting the same 'wage' as the poor suckers who worked all day...
quote:I empathize with this view very much! As I said on the sister thread I'm a very selfish person. But I believe, myself, that one of the strongest messages Christianity can send out to the world is that hedonism (or whatever the harmful self-indulgence may be) is not the way to fulfilment as a human being, but the knowledge of Christ is.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Maybe not, but it still feels like a job to me. I see others running round having a whale of a time, and every time I go to join in I get a little voice in the back of my head saying "don't do it - it's sin". So I miss out. And I resent it, because I hate missing out.
Originally posted by Carys:
Marvin the Martian quoth (someway back on p. 3)
quote:Christian faith isn't about being miserable.
Psyduck - I just knew you'd quote that parable to me. Every time I read it or hear it preached I find myself somewhat angry at God for choosing me so early in my life - I could have had another half a day of sitting in the market, then doing only an hours work and still getting the same 'wage' as the poor suckers who worked all day...
quote:Psst! It's not God. It's your superego.
every time I go to join in I get a little voice in the back of my head saying "don't do it - it's sin".
quote:`I came that you might have life and have it in abudance'?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Maybe not, but it still feels like a job to me. I see others running round having a whale of a time, and every time I go to join in I get a little voice in the back of my head saying "don't do it - it's sin". So I miss out. And I resent it, because I hate missing out.
Originally posted by Carys:
Marvin the Martian quoth (someway back on p. 3)
quote:Christian faith isn't about being miserable.
Psyduck - I just knew you'd quote that parable to me. Every time I read it or hear it preached I find myself somewhat angry at God for choosing me so early in my life - I could have had another half a day of sitting in the market, then doing only an hours work and still getting the same 'wage' as the poor suckers who worked all day...
quote:Saying that is not a refusal of your challenge. It's a statement of what people would do if they actually believed all those things to be true--they would conclude that God was unworthy of worship and that they would rather go to Hell than jump through the hoops for him. A refusal of your challenge would be to simply say 'you are wrong, I will not bother to reply'.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Some have given answers, along the lines of "I would rather go to hell". This may be true, however, inherent in it is the refusal to accept my challenge - that being to put yourself in a position in which you are not now.
I do appreciate those who have been willing to look at their lives from the perspective I asked them to.
quote:Does it? Does it really? So everything and person and action in the world is lovable? Has intrinsic value such that it ought to be loved? Or God didn't create it? Or God isn't love? Do you really mean that?
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, if God created anything that wasn't lovable, it proves that he is NOT love.
quote:What an awesome post, Anselmina.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But I believe, myself, that one of the strongest messages Christianity can send out to the world is that hedonism (or whatever the harmful self-indulgence may be) is not the way to fulfilment as a human being, but the knowledge of Christ is.
...
the gospel is one long warning that what's currency for the 'world' is not legal tender for the citizens of heaven.
... what God has called us all to is not simply to a life of painful, party-pooping self-denial (occasionally true as that may be), but a life of growing in Christ, and becoming the very people we were created to be. I can't tell you how much more that motivates me than the death-bound, be nice or otherwise, doctrines of hell-fire!
It is those who are not in relationship with their Creator who are 'missing out' and not the Christian who feels deprived because she won't give herself the same freedom to indulge in sinning, or abusing her humanity, in the same way as others.
That we often feel it's the other way round is surely human nature. I know I've felt that way often, and will continue to until I die no doubt!
Hell - even if it exists - is not to be viewed as the booby prize one doesn't get just because one decided not to screw around and to be pious and miserable instead! It is the promise of Christlike fulfilment, building and expanding our God-given humanity, leading to an authentic humanity, connected intimately to the Creator, that will last eternally, that is the reward for seeking God.
quote:LOL
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:Yeah I think I got that bit.
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:I agree with Sharkshooter's statement.
Originally posted by linzc:
Huh?
I wasn't quite clear on the bit about "fluctuating in attendance to that belief" (about Satan?) and how that was part of your 'sanctification', or why a belief about Satan that made you feel you needed to say you agreed with Sharkshooter.
quote:Why did you think that?
Originally posted by ScaredOfGrasshoppers:
Anselmina's post hit on what I had been thinking since near the beginning of this thread. The idea that christians do the right thing because they're afraid of going to Hell is so far from the gospel message it's disturbing.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:You get there in your final paragraph. My problem is not that I think everyone is deserving of Heaven (although there are people that I think do from what I know of them), I don't know many people who deserve Hell. It's the all or nothingness of the options presented by this OP that I have a problem with. Most people seem to be not good enough for heaven but not bad enough for Hell.
Originally posted by Seán D:
quote:Out of curiosity, Karl (and not because I have a going-in-hell agenda to push) would you agree that all of us have rebelled against God in some way or another and don't deserve fellowship with him? My problem with playing down the idea of sin and deserving separation from God is that is also plays down the atonement and grace. Not that I'm saying you are doing this, just that I'd be interested to know how you get around this.
Originally posted by Karl:
Nor do most of my family. You may be able to come up with some piece of sophistry to argue how they do, but the simple fact is they don't. The injustice of it is so obvious it's blinding.
Of course, you might well agree that everyone does deserve to be separated by God - but it is a long step from that to eternal hell, of course.
quote:Person and thing, yes. Also, I can't think of a person or a thing that is completely unlovable. (Actions are usually controlled by this little thing called free will and are hence not directly the work of God).
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Does it? Does it really? So everything and person and action in the world is lovable? Has intrinsic value such that it ought to be loved? Or God didn't create it? Or God isn't love? Do you really mean that?
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, if God created anything that wasn't lovable, it proves that he is NOT love.
quote:Never said you did
Why did you think that?
I didn't say it.
quote:There were a few other comments along the way along these lines, "Just on the chance that Hell is real, shouldn't you live as best you can, just to avoid it?" OK, not exactly like that, but short of reading the whole damn thread again, that's pretty close.
I seem to alternate between the hope that God is, as our more liberal brethren say, ultimately forgiving and willing to overlook my worst parts; and the fear that He is ultimately judgmental and thus I'd better keep my slate cleaner than clean if I don't want to burn.
Of course, I also worry about whether hope and fear are the right things to base my religion on, but at the moment I don't have a lot more to offer...
quote:I understand that you're refering to the original post, but did you know that there is an idea that Heaven and Hell is not all there is? In fact, if you go to many of the places in the bible that people assume refer to Hell, it's quite possible that it's something else entirely.
It's the all or nothingness of the options presented by this OP that I have a problem with.
quote:So what are you saying to the person who is Christian for such a reason? That they're not going to win anyway? What then would you have them do?
Originally posted by ScaredOfGrasshoppers:
I was just saying that anyone (i'm not pointing fingers sharkshooter) that is claiming to be a christian (or any other religion for that matter) for the sole purpose of avoiding hell is going to be no use to God whatsoever. The parable of the talents is useful here, the one guy that acted out of fear got squat. Actually, he got less than squat.
quote:Au contraire!!! C'est neither! I always find it rather strange that many - I said 'many' -self-proclaimed Biblical Inerrantists aren't pulled up short by the thought that many of the things that they believe the Bible to teach inerrantly aren't actually to be found at any one place in the Bible: i.e. the Bible doesn't actually say these things. My first take on the OP - and yes, I did grasp Sharkshooter's intention - was that it looked an awful lot like a summary of things that are believed out of the Bible but aren't actually in there.
In fact, if you go to many of the places in the bible that people assume refer to Hell, it's quite possible that it's something else entirely.
The parable of the talents I mentioned above talks about 'the outer darkness'. Doesn't make sense to equate that with the lake of fire that the bible tells us is under the earth, does it?
Sorry, this is a tangent, not a challenge. Carry on.
quote:Wee Frankie of Assisi:
Does it? Does it really? So everything and person and action in the world is lovable? Has intrinsic value such that it ought to be loved?
quote:
All creatures of our God and King
Lift up your voice and with us sing,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou burning sun with golden beam,
Thou silver moon with softer gleam,
O praise Him! O praise Him!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou rushing wind that art so strong
Ye clouds that sail in Heaven along,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou rising moon, in praise rejoice,
Ye lights of evening, find a voice!
Refrain
Thou flowing water, pure and clear,
Make music for thy Lord to hear,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou fire so masterful and bright,
That givest man both warmth and light.
Refrain
Dear mother earth, who day by day
Unfoldest blessings on our way,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
The flowers and fruits that in thee grow,
Let them His glory also show.
Refrain
And all ye men of tender heart,
Forgiving others, take your part,
O sing ye! Alleluia!
Ye who long pain and sorrow bear,
Praise God and on Him cast your care!
Refrain
And thou most kind and gentle Death,
Waiting to hush our latest breath,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou leadest home the child of God,
And Christ our Lord the way hath trod.
Refrain
Let all things their Creator bless,
And worship Him in humbleness,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Praise, praise the Father, praise the Son,
And praise the Spirit, Three in One!
Refrain
quote:Yes, I used to believe it.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What if ...
Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation. Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins. Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven. Heaven is where we praise God for eternity. There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:Think about it. If a person were in such a position, how strong would their relationship with God be? My guess? Not too strong, because they keep avoiding Him out of fear. So then you have to ask how much better that is than someone who doesn't acknowledge God at all?
So what are you saying to the person who is Christian for such a reason? That they're not going to win anyway? What then would you have them do?
read the bible and ask themself what they really see there.quote:Not even as a Christian who was able to find everything lovable? Sad...
I ough to warn you Psyduck that I am unlikely to find the middle ages' Dr Dolittle a source of inspiration on this or anything else.
quote:Au Contraire. He found everything lovable therefore everything was, to him, lovable, therefore everything was lovable.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I ough to warn you Psyduck that I am unlikely to find the middle ages' Dr Dolittle a source of inspiration on this or anything else.
quote:And you're still caught on the point of the same sword. If we are worthless other than that, then God deliberately creates that which is worthless for the purpose of redeeming it by his love. Think about that for a second, please.
The point is, God loves, because he loves. It is HE who loves. But we are, as St Paul says, worthless outside of that.
quote:I won't disagree with that, but that does not mean that we don't have value.
He sets his grace upon us not because we have value, but because he chooses to have grace on us.
quote:And because everything he created is inherantly lovable. If a single human (Francis of Asissi is a good example) were to find something lovable that God did not, then it would be proof positive that God was not love.
You cannot possible claim that every action and person DESERVES love - that is a throughly modernistic notion, and I know your feelings on modernism. Yet God loves, because he IS love.
quote:Ok.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And you're still caught on the point of the same sword. If we are worthless other than that, then God deliberately creates that which is worthless for the purpose of redeeming it by his love. Think about that for a second, please.
quote:Really? So God is not love because he hates injustice and bullying? Some people love those. God has to love racism, violence, rape to be love? There are people who love all of those things.
And because everything he created is inherantly lovable. If a single human (Francis of Asissi is a good example) were to find something lovable that God did not, then it would be proof positive that God was not love.
quote:Why doesn't that surprise me? It's interesting that you hold such contempt for St. Francis, surely one of the great spiritual masters and certainly a key figure in Christianity; furthermore one that most non-Christians find admirable and attractive, one who truly seemed to echo the values of our Founder.
Originally posted by Leprechaun: I am unlikely to find the middle ages' Dr Dolittle a source of inspiration
quote:That your God is so insecure and puny that he must prove himself by deliberately creating things as flawed in order to "prove" his grace rather than just getting the job right in the first place.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Ok.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And you're still caught on the point of the same sword. If we are worthless other than that, then God deliberately creates that which is worthless for the purpose of redeeming it by his love. Think about that for a second, please.
tick tick tick.
Now. Your point?
quote:Don't make me reach for Exodus, Numbers, Judges, Samuel and Kings. There are examples of God looking positively on all the things you mention in there. (Let's wipe out the Caananites, the treatment of foreign women, the plagues etc. etc.)
quote:Really? So God is not love because he hates injustice and bullying? Some people love those. God has to love racism, violence, rape to be love? There are people who love all of those things.
And because everything he created is inherantly lovable. If a single human (Francis of Asissi is a good example) were to find something lovable that God did not, then it would be proof positive that God was not love.
quote:There is a HUGE difference between being "Exceptionally Loving" and being "Love".
The fact that people love things God hates, yet he still loves them, proves even more that God is exceptionally loving and people are exceptionally wicked, and deserve nothing.
quote:Qlib, we could play this game all day. I could say your God is a fabrication wrought out of your own head to massage your own ego, make you feel worth something, who sent his Son in a feeble attempt to get our attention and make us love him, that you whole world view is irresistibly skewed to put yourself and your middle class suburban help the poor morality at the centre, not God. That your God is nothing but the creation of a bunch of humanist scholars who wanted to deify their own preferences. That you don't obey the Bible because you don't want to but you dress it up in religious piety.
Originally posted by Qlib:
Your God is the God of Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’: a self-exalting, humourless, pompous prig. You’re positing a brand of Christianity which teaches the worthlessness of humanity. A snivelling miserable little religion, kow-towing to a cruel and pompous tyrant who has incomprehensibly designed the sacrifice of his ‘Son’ to redeem a world where people die horribly all the time - and is then going to punish people who fail to see this great ‘truth’.
quote:You will struggle to find anyone who believes what I believe who is miserable, superstitious or fearful of God. Far from it in fact.
Thank God for St.Francis’s teaching which shows us that there might be more to a faith founded on Jesus of Nazareth than your narrow gospel of misery, superstition and fear.
quote:The Apostle Paul wrote
Justinian wrote
People, in your theology, deserve nothing because God made them so that they deserved nothing. Every single sin that has been committed is a direct response of God having wrought amiss when he made Adam and Eve, despite both omnipotence and omniscience. As such, the responsibility for all sin belongs to God.
quote:Apparently, yes.
But who are you, O man to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it "Why did you make me like this?"
quote:Yes, we could play the game all day - but I think we'd be playing to different rules. You see, I've taken my picture of your God from what you've posted - including that IMHO rather creepy sig of yours - and from others who agree with you, such as Marvin - who sounds pretty cheesed off with the path he's chosen to walk. None of the 'whose yolk is easy and whose burden is light' from him. You, on the other hand have just made patronising assumptions about my views. Knock down liberal Aunt Sallies all day if it amuses you, but don't imagine it amounts to a coherent argument.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Qlib, we could play this game all day.
quote:Thank and praise God, whoever we might all think He is, that St Francis didn't- he thought about God and His creation, was amazed at both, and recorded his thoughts in case they might inspire others.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
St Francis of Assisi should have kept his thoughts to share with the ickle wickle bunnies.
quote:And quite right too! Should we genetically engineer slaves? After all, we will have formed them, so who are they to talk back to us? Should parents be able to do anything they want to their children?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The Apostle Paul wrote
quote:Apparently, yes.
But who are you, O man to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it "Why did you make me like this?"
quote:All of those points depends on the most ridiculous anthropomorphism, that just doesn't carry. If WE do anything, it is still ultimately God's creation, and he can do as he pleases. All of your points rest on us being to something we "create" as God is to us. They also assume that we can argue God out of what he wills to do. Which, I believe, we can't.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And quite right too! Should we genetically engineer slaves? After all, we will have formed them, so who are they to talk back to us? Should parents be able to do anything they want to their children?
quote:Indeed, although he wasn't created by God was he? Presuming you mean Jesus, or were you setting up a Psalmist vs Paul competition?
Also have you ever read any of the OT? Specifically the instances where a number of the prophets rail at God for different reasons. Or even "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me?" (And I think that by any hierarchy, the speaker of that outranks St Paul)
quote:That's so lame. The point of Purgatory, as I take it, is to answer each others' points. Why not just say you are incapable of rational debate and stay away? Instead you choose to interact here, and part of interacting here is answering the points that others make. It is, in fact, your job, which you took on when you entered the debate.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I could try and answer some of your points - but its not my job.
quote:But Mousethief, there are questions to which there are no answers. I could speculate, but why would anyone want to listen to that? (It'd be mostly drivel, as you could probably tell) On some of these issues of theodicy God tells us so much and no more, and I'm saying it is our responsibility to obey, even when we don't understand.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
That's so lame. The point of Purgatory, as I take it, is to answer each others' points. Why not just say you are incapable of rational debate and stay away? Instead you choose to interact here, and part of interacting here is answering the points that others make. It is, in fact, your job, which you took on when you entered the debate.
!
quote:In which case I apologise profusely, both for that and not being clear enough to profess my own lack of ability to answer, Mousethief.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And JFTR I think the first para of Lep's post to Qlib beginning 'we could play this game all day' was arguably one of the most insulting posts I've seen on this thread to date. It came across as a very sly way of saying 'what's the point of me sticking to my Bible-believing truth, when clearly you're not enough of a Bible believer yourself to listen or understand.'
quote:Thanks for blaming God for the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Atomic Bomb and every other example of evil in this world.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
All of those points depends on the most ridiculous anthropomorphism, that just doesn't carry. If WE do anything, it is still ultimately God's creation,
quote:I don't think anyone's denying your God the physical ability to do as he pleases. This does not mean that it is right that he does so unless your only standard of morality is "Might Makes Right".
and he can do as he pleases.
quote:If not, then St Paul's analogy is meaningless.
All of your points rest on us being to something we "create" as God is to us.
quote:Nonsense! I can't influence the actions of Adolf Hitler, but that doesn't stop me condemning him.
They also assume that we can argue God out of what he wills to do.
quote:First counter-example that comes to mind from the Bible is Jonah 3- when God sees the Ninevites wearing ashes and sackcloth and repents of his decision to destroy them. There are several others.
Which, I believe, we can't.
quote:Jesus, of course. My point is that neither Peter, Paul nor any other human in the bible is infaliable- and even God repents a few times.
quote:Indeed, although he wasn't created by God was he? Presuming you mean Jesus, or were you setting up a Psalmist vs Paul competition?
Also have you ever read any of the OT? Specifically the instances where a number of the prophets rail at God for different reasons. Or even "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me?" (And I think that by any hierarchy, the speaker of that outranks St Paul)
quote:My God, yes. If I believed in yours, the only respect I would have for him would be respect for his sheer power. None at all for his morals.
Do you have ANY respect for God?
quote:Of course. He's much bigger than I am, and I'd fear your God far more because he is capricious and evil. All these are good reasons for fearing entities.
Is there any sense in which you fear him?
quote:I think he can do whatever he pleases that's not directly logically impossible. (I don't believe he can e.g. square the circle).
Do you really believe the God who sent Jesus to the cross, for whatever reason cannot do as he pleases? Do you really think his thoughts cannot outweigh your thoughts?
quote:I can't respond to that one without calling you to hell.
I could try and answer some of your points - but its not my job. Its God's, and for some of them, he has chosen not to. That's his prerogative.
quote:That's a defence? Reading things into my post that aren't remotely there? Or do you think I bracketed you with Milton because I think he's stupid too? Perhaps you think you're above Milton? You evidently think you are above St.Francis. Dream on.
Originally posted by Leprechaun: In my defence Qlib's post read to me "you must be sad miserable person without an ounce of intelligence because you have an evangelical faith."My italics
quote:Zen koans, quantum uncertainty - I don't necessarily disagree with this... I think... But I presume you mean 'in principle' - and you really need to state your principle, or it just sounds like a rhetorical device. On what grounds are you saying that there are questions to which there are no answers? It sounds to me that you are saying that there are questions to which there are no answers because God won't give answers to them, so tough. And that's OK because it's God. It must be apparent to you that there are lots of people on these boards who aren't going to be fobbed off like that. Even by God. And you may think that that's just the arrogance of the creature towards the creator, but that's your assertion.
.... there are questions to which there are no answers.
quote:Maybe because that's what this board, in particular, is for.
I could speculate, but why would anyone want to listen to that?
quote:Well, give it a go. See what we all think. Except that that isn't the reason you won't speculate, is it? Because you say:
(It'd be mostly drivel, as you could probably tell)
quote:Don't you see how much this looks like being at the mercy of the cosmic bully? In fact, like being part of his gang, and passing on his intimidation? Don't you see that that explains at least some of the reaction you're getting?
On some of these issues of theodicy God tells us so much and no more, and I'm saying it is our responsibility to obey, even when we don't understand.
quote:Psyduck, I appreciate your peacemaking approach, I really do.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
What's the difference between that and being intimidated by God?
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I think there are those of us who are content to let God be God -- however He chooses to be.
quote:Not sure exactly what the pair of you mean by "letting God be God".
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In some of these things I am resigned to letting God be God. If that means I can't debate properly, so be it.
quote:I've been thinking about this. I think its a good question. I think it all boils down to what you think the bottom line of the universe is.
Originally posted by Russ:
And if your trust is indeed based on His goodness, aren't you logically bound to stop and reconsider your allegiance at the point where the apparent evilness of what He seems to be asking you to do or condone outweighs the apparent goodness which attracted you to Him in the first place ?
Russ
quote:Um...but if "that's the nature of the world", if that's the way God is...is God worth dealing with?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So the outcome - God glorifying himself may involve him doing things that if he were a person we would think evil. That's the nature of the world.
I realise that far from answers every question, and is far from intellectually watertight. But I think that's what I mean by "letting God be God".
It certainly means that I cannot justify doing things which, as a creature, it is not my right to do, "on God's behalf" as such. Because attempting to dethrone him, and do his job for him, is the essence of sin.
quote:But where is God 'evil' in the Bible? As St Paul says God sometimes gives us over to our own sin, to show us the destructiveness of sin and its consequences, as a loving warning to us. We ought to thanks God for this. I believe this is why some people will go to Hell, to show us there are consequences to sin, and indeed our fallen world is a result of Adam and Eve's sin. All this is tied in with God's Justice. In order for God to show us real love, like a good parent ought to, he ensures there is ultimate justice in his universe, and if justice isn't fulfilled on this earth (i.e. killer never gets caught) we know that the killer (non-repentant, non-believing that is) will pay the price in Hell. I feel If God didn't love us, he would let us get up to all sorts and not bother warning us about the consequences of sin for ourselves on this world, and the afterlife. Therefore I would be more fearful of a God without justice, I fear the alternative would be universal chaos.
Originally posted by GoldenKey:
quote:Um...but if "that's the nature of the world", if that's the way God is...is God worth dealing with?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So the outcome - God glorifying himself may involve him doing things that if he were a person we would think evil. That's the nature of the world.
I realise that far from answers every question, and is far from intellectually watertight. But I think that's what I mean by "letting God be God".
It certainly means that I cannot justify doing things which, as a creature, it is not my right to do, "on God's behalf" as such. Because attempting to dethrone him, and do his job for him, is the essence of sin.
Would there be any good reason, other than sheer fear of destruction, for dealing with such a being???
quote:There is one absloutely characteristic way in which God is glorified in the NT - and this is it. In self giving love on the cross. God is glorified in the saving work of Christ. God is not glorified equally in saving the saved and in damning the damned. Otherwise - to speak from inside the language that I think Leprechaun is using - it would have been just as glorious for God to have folded his arms (metaphorically, of course!) and done nothing to save the world.
But if you think the rule is "God must be seen for who is" or as one of my favourite writers puts it "the chief end of God is to glorify God" then that's different.
Why? Because me glorifying God as a creature will be different than God glorifying himself as creator. Me honouring him as obedient servant will look sometimes the same as him glorifying himself by serving us, and sometimes different. Because in some way we are like him, and in some ways not at all.
quote:In explicitely hardening Pharoah's heart to give himself a chance to show his greatness. That is not giving Pharoah over to his own sin, but actively making Pharoah sin so that he can e.g. destroy the firstborn of all Egypt and claim some shred of justification.
Originally posted by philo25:
But where is God 'evil' in the Bible?
quote:But hell only happens in Eternity, by which point such object lessons are rendered meaningless.
I believe this is why some people will go to Hell, to show us there are consequences to sin, and indeed our fallen world is a result of Adam and Eve's sin.
quote:But the whole point is that Hell is not just - it is too far out of proportion with any possible crime that can be committed on earth. It is an excercise in sheer sadism.
All this is tied in with God's Justice. In order for God to show us real love, like a good parent ought to, he ensures there is ultimate justice in his universe, and if justice isn't fulfilled on this earth (i.e. killer never gets caught) we know that the killer (non-repentant, non-believing that is) will pay the price in Hell.
quote:I don't. I believe that any intellegent species would have to develop at least a rudimentary notion of justice in order to get along. Anarchy is simply too unstable at a sociological level.
I feel If God didn't love us, he would let us get up to all sorts and not bother warning us about the consequences of sin for ourselves on this world, and the afterlife. Therefore I would be more fearful of a God without justice, I fear the alternative would be universal chaos.
quote:This gets to my epiphany about Sharkshooter's OP---if the God of that post is the "real" God, then Jesus was not God.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
In other words, the God of the OP cannot be the God of whom I John speaks, when it states that "God is love".
quote:I don't see how you can mean that God is so alien that the concepts of "good" and "evil" as commonly understood cannot meaningfully be applied to Him at all. Because
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Because in some way we are like him, and in some ways not at all.
So the outcome - God glorifying himself may involve him doing things that if he were a person we would think evil. That's the nature of the world.
quote:I think there is an element of this in God.
Originally posted by Russ:
So I can only conclude that you mean that we live in a universe totally controlled by a supremely powerful Being whose value system rates self-glorification higher than goodness (in the common usage of the word). Who a prudent man may collaborate with for reasons of self-preservation but no moral being can morally look up to.
.
quote:In order to imagine that, I'd need to know what you mean by that "acknowledge".
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:I'm not going to try to define it, but describe how it would look if one were to "acknowledge Jesus as Lord."
Originally posted by Russ:
You're asking us in this thread to imagine what we would do if we believed a number of things, including thatquote:In order to imagine that, I'd need to know what you mean by that "acknowledge".
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:Unless you believe there is nothing you can do about it after you are dead. Which was the point of the thread.
Originally posted by Rat:
I'm not sure what this leads me to think, except that I suppose we'll all find out the truth after we're dead and perhaps there is little point fighting about it now?
quote:Unless it's about truth rather than Divine Ego
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I think there is an element of this in God.
Originally posted by Russ:
So I can only conclude that you mean that we live in a universe totally controlled by a supremely powerful Being whose value system rates self-glorification higher than goodness (in the common usage of the word). Who a prudent man may collaborate with for reasons of self-preservation but no moral being can morally look up to.
If there wasn't, why would the first two commandments be all about worshipping Him, and Him alone? I think God has quite an ego
? I always thought God wanted us to worship him, and him alone, because it was the truthful and right thing to do, and that giving worship to anything else was at best useless and at worst harmful. I don't think I ever saw it as fulfilling a 'need' in God's flagging ego !
quote:In the absence of incontrovertible proof one way or the other there's not a great deal you can do about it now, either. Other than live according to your conscience and beliefs while never forgetting that you might be wrong.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Unless you believe there is nothing you can do about it after you are dead. Which was the point of the thread.
Originally posted by Rat:
I'm not sure what this leads me to think, except that I suppose we'll all find out the truth after we're dead and perhaps there is little point fighting about it now?
quote:God did use rather harsh words for something that might be "useless or at worst harmful":
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I always thought God wanted us to worship him, and him alone, because it was the truthful and right thing to do, and that giving worship to anything else was at best useless and at worst harmful
quote:Jealous, punishing, loving - all in One. I didn't write it - I just believe it - all of it.
Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
quote:There is a story in the doctrines of my church, in which Christians who had recently arrived in the next life were gathered together to a conference. The topic of the conference was "What heaven is like." Everyone was asked to give their opinion of what happens to a person after death.
Originally posted by Rat:
I suppose we'll all find out the truth after we're dead and perhaps there is little point fighting about it now? (Unless of course those who think we'll all get what we expect are correct, then we'll all be able to go to heaven, hell, eternity or oblivion with smug looks on our faces, and God will have a good chortle at us all).
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Hello sanc, welcome
Originally posted by sanc:
the post began on a bad premise. no wonder a lot of people don't like the god the premise is describing.
first stop, we are not saved by by obeying all the commandments of the bible. salvation by grace means, we are not the savior of ourselves. their is a GOD who is loving and is ever ready to save us if we let HIM. if you want a life free of sin he will give you a chance. satan wants you to believe its impossible to live a sin free life. GOD says you can. JESUS led a sin free life with GOD's help.
2nd, people in old testament are not saved by doing the guidelines set out in scripture, for then this would be considered their savior. their is only one SAVIOR for humanity for all time, that is JESUS. the ceremonies that they perform points to JESUS' sacrifice on the cross. old testament people should believe that JESUS' sacrifice in the future will pay for the penalty of their sin.
3rd, there is no real hell NOW. satan is not in hell now. GOD threw that dragon satan here on earth as described in revelation. he is not in charge of hell. who gave him the authority? GOD is the absolute ruler of the universe, the future hell included. at the end of the world when HE comes, he will judge the world, those who permitted GOD to save them will given eternal fellowship with HIM, those who chose to continue to perpetuate their depraved and sinful existence will not be permitted to continue. "they will be thrown in the lake of fire."
4th, the purpose of hell is to burn sinners, to put an end to their existence. the fire of hell will consume them. just like the eternal fire that ravaged sodom and gomorrah consumed them, the inhabitants and their works. GOD does not take enjoyment from the torment of the wicked. GOD wants to save all people, a hitler included. but a lot of people dont want to be saved.
people should not be scared by the torment of hell to take refuge in the gates of heaven. they should be won by GOD's love and sacrifice. that's salvation by grace 101.
). I hope to see a large number of people in heaven I am not expecting. Frankly, there are some who have had such appalling lives down here that they deserve it and the God I believe in would not cast them away. I hope to be there and what an honour it will be to be amoungst them.quote:Much.
Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,
but how much confidence do you have in your interpretation?
quote:This is too much of a tangent - it has lost any sense of the purpose of the thread.
Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,
if you were a doctor, would you try and witness to each dying patient - for as long as necessary to acheive conversion. would you withold painkillers in the last hours lest they prevent a conversion?
or would your god given common sense tell you that whatever your interpretation of a passage, this didn't seem like the right way to act?
quote:My apology if in some way i'm too sharp with my typing.
Hello sanc, welcome
First, I'd appreciate it if you didn't type as if you are stabbing me in the chest with your finger. Thanks.
Second, I think you make some interesting points, although I don't really think you have adequately answered the Hitler issue. Surely grace is rather severely cheapened if Hitler can do all the things he did, say sorry and get into heaven.
Third, do you really think God wants to burn sinners? Maybe it is not what you meant, but suggesting that God was the 'absolute ruler' of all the universe including hell implies to me some level of preplanning. It might well be crap theology but my impression is that at the last God will have tried every way he knows to lovingly convince people to chose life, but some will be so wrapped up in themselves that they will not want to know. Like a broken hearted father, God will watch them leave with tears in his eyes.
Hope you enjoy the ride, sanc.
Freddy - that is interesting. I have heard a philosophy before that said people experience the afterlife they believe in (uh-oh I think it might have been from Terry Pratchett
C
quote:you started the thread by asking
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Much.
Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,
but how much confidence do you have in your interpretation?
quote:This is too much of a tangent - it has lost any sense of the purpose of the thread.
Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,
if you were a doctor, would you try and witness to each dying patient - for as long as necessary to acheive conversion. would you withold painkillers in the last hours lest they prevent a conversion?
or would your god given common sense tell you that whatever your interpretation of a passage, this didn't seem like the right way to act?
quote:well the scenario i give is how i would need to behave if i really believed that. so tell me - would you advise me to do that?
What if ...
There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:Where does it say in Matthew 25 that people who do not profess Jesus as Lord go to heaven?
Originally posted by sungara:
i am fundamentalist and inerrantist. because of my fundamentalist, inerrantist interpretation of Matthew 25, i do not believe that only those professing Jesus as Lord will go to heaven.
quote:I'm sorry. I thought you were expressing a hypothetical - I should have read your profile.
Originally posted by sungara:
so tell me - would you advise me to do that?
quote:No. I think I described what I meant by evangelism earlier when I said:
would you withold painkillers in the last hours lest they prevent a conversion?
quote:I am not a doctor, and therefore do not subscribe to the same set of guidelines in my professional life that you do, in fact I am not even aware of what ones might apply in this type of situation. Indeed, I am not familiar with the culture in which you live. That being said, should you ask a terminal patient (out of the blue) about their religious beliefs etc.? If they expressed concerns about death and the after-life, I don't see any reason not to discuss your beliefs. Beyond that, get in touch with someone more fimiliar with your particular situation for advice.
I see a person living a life in accordance with the teachings of scripture - a person who has dedicated his/her life to following Christ. I see a person who is sharing his/her faith in Jesus with family/friends/etc. - with words, too. I see someone daily reading the Bible and praying. I see someone who is active in his/her church and working for the betterment of the community because of a belief that that is what the Bible teaches. I see someone actively involved in promoting Christianity locally and worldwide - and willing to take the heat for it.
quote:No - it doesn't define them as righteous because of their actions. It describes them as righteous, then lists some of their actions.
Originally posted by sungara:
it says that those who did not recognise they were doing anything for the lord will nevertheless enter heaven because of their actions (feeding hungry, visiting prisoners)
they are defined as righteous, and worthy of heaven because of their action, not their profession - and given that they did not recognise they were doing it for christ, it is hard to see that they were professing him as lord.
quote:Punishment isn't 'harmful'? Have I not embellished the word 'harmful' with enough overtones of fire and brimstone? Forgive the understatement. Let me elaborate, then. By 'harmful' I mean engaging in behaviour which is destructive either to others', or to one's own, humanity. Is that a wide enough catch-all to satisfy even the most sadistic rendering of what God would like to do to people who get on his wrong side?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:God did use rather harsh words for something that might be "useless or at worst harmful":
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I always thought God wanted us to worship him, and him alone, because it was the truthful and right thing to do, and that giving worship to anything else was at best useless and at worst harmful
quote:Jealous, punishing, loving - all in One. I didn't write it - I just believe it - all of it.
Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
!
quote:they only seem to get called righteous after their actions are first described - and it does seem to be on the basis of their actions that they get into heaven. and as i say above, they do seem completely unaware that their actions were done for christ until told.
Originally posted by Custard123:
No - it doesn't define them as righteous because of their actions. It describes them as righteous, then lists some of their actions.
Besides, basic prinicple of understanding scripture for inerrantists (and others) is that you understand scripture in the light of scripture. Hence the word "righteous" in Matthew is defined by Matthew as a whole (maybe even bringing in the rest of the Bible), of which the last bit of Matt 25 is only a part.
Custard
quote:Could, not would.
Originally posted by sungara:
...believing someone just needs to make an acknowledgement of christ on their death bed to escape hell would lead to some of the kinds of behaviour i describe.
quote:why not? wouldn't you want to save them from hell with just a quick prayer? so what if a few people get upset - what is that compared to eternity?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Could, not would.
Originally posted by sungara:
...believing someone just needs to make an acknowledgement of christ on their death bed to escape hell would lead to some of the kinds of behaviour i describe.
quote:Or should??? Imagine further that now it's Judgment Day, and you've just been put over with the sheep, and you see one of these patients getting herded over with the goats. Wouldn't you thing, "Why didn't I just witness to him or her on his/her deathbed?"
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Could, not would.
Originally posted by sungara:
...believing someone just needs to make an acknowledgement of christ on their death bed to escape hell would lead to some of the kinds of behaviour i describe.
quote:The "wall" I had in mind had nothing to do with Leprechaun giving or not giving "honest answers and thinking carefully." Rather, it's that it seems that those who agree with the OP (and that is not just Leprechaun!) look at it fundamentally differently from those who disagree.
Originally posted by Russ:
JJ - I don't see a wall; I see Leprechaun giving honest answers and thinking carefully about what he/she believes.
quote:Ideally I'd spend a few days looking at the passage now, but don't have the time.
Originally posted by sungara:
how else should we interpret this passage?
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Ideally I'd spend a few days looking at the passage now, but don't have the time.
too....quote:Me neither. Can you imagine a parent throwing their child into a fire for not respecting them? No? Funny that...
But where does love fit into the explanation of Hell? I know the argument resembling the classic parents' line: I love you so much that I punish you. But that doesn't entirely explain it I don't think.
quote:I agree with this...
If God has an unquenchable love for every person he has created, why would he let it be extinguished for people who have neglected, overlooked, or been influenced away from it for whatever fortuitous reasons?
quote:... but not this. To me, God gave us free will so we could love fully. If we are without a will of our own, it is not our love that we show, but someone else's. With complete free will, we are given the opportunity (i'd actually call it a really powerful and scary gift) to experience real love. And with free will comes responsibility, which means that you are responsible for your own actions and their consequences. How this impacts the question of Hell is up to the reader, but personally, I'm not sure Hell is what the OP suggests (see psyduck's comments above), and therefore have less of a problem with the idea that someone can choose to spend their eternity without God.
Logic fails: if there is a traditional Hell then there is a limit to Love. If there is not then there isn't truly a free will.
quote:I think the point is that your view makes God's love conditional on our actions- just like humans love conditionally. "I won't love you anymore, if you don't love me." "If I can't have you, nobody can (including you)!
Originally posted by Grits:
It seems to me that everyone continues to ignore the most basic of all answers to these queries about God's love.
He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.
His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Our love is shown in our response to that gift. The reward is eternal life in heaven with Him.
To me, this is one of the most basic and (excuse me) fundamental of all Christian beliefs. I still cannot get used to it being questioned as it has been here.
" Many of us think God is much better than human.
quote:But they weren't all given the opportunity, were they, Grits? Amazon tribes, Amazon tribes!
He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.
quote:You really believe that God punishes people for things their parents, not them, did?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jealous, punishing, loving - all in One. I didn't write it - I just believe it - all of it.
quote:I agree with you that it is pretty fundamental. However I think the God in the OP is not the God revealed through Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
It seems to me that everyone continues to ignore the most basic of all answers to these queries about God's love.
He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.
His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Our love is shown in our response to that gift. The reward is eternal life in heaven with Him.
To me, this is one of the most basic and (excuse me) fundamental of all Christian beliefs. I still cannot get used to it being questioned as it has been here.
quote:As I'm sure I've said before, my view of God is not literalist. I'm putting myself into the position of a literalist for the purposes of this thread.
Originally posted by Qlib:
Marvin - forgive me, but, if it weren't so sad, it would be hysterically funny that your view of God is so literalist - and therefore so vile - that you're struggling with the first and second commandments. I thought Anselmina's response was spot on.
quote:Bravo! Encore! I'd picked this up, and I hope you picked up that I'd picked it up. Trouble is that if you put in a bravura performance, people will respond to you as though you embodied what you're acting out. In a sense, you do "embody" it....
I feel like I'm an actor in a play, and you actually think I am the character...
quote:I think that your interpretation is exactly correct. This is completely consistent with everything else Christ says.
Originally posted by sungara:
they only seem to get called righteous after their actions are first described - and it does seem to be on the basis of their actions that they get into heaven. and as i say above, they do seem completely unaware that their actions were done for christ until told.
how else should we interpret this passage?
quote:But what about all your other posts? If you're adopting the role for the sake of this thread, then stay in role. Don't take up a role and then, when you're challenged, say, "Oh, but this isn't really what I believe anyway."
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm putting myself into the position of a literalist for the purposes of this thread...I feel like I'm an actor in a play, and you actually think I am the character... Besides, my post on the first two commandments was very tongue in cheek. I thought the smilie gave that away, but apparently I was wrong.
quote:were you really an inerrantist, the discussion would then go towards which conclusion was what Jesus was actually saying there. Yes, Bible study is hard work. But the Bible is consistent, and studying it is worth doing.
Originally posted by sungara:
but my point is that with an inerrantist, fundamentalist approach, i arrive at very different conclusions about the nature of judgement.....which seem to be not instantly dismissable.......although you clearly have arguments to support your different interpretation.
quote:unfortunately wasn't that realistic. It's not me who "achieves a conversion" - it's God.
Originally posted by sungara:
my other point (above) was the kinds of behaviour i would logically get drawn into by believing the OP.
quote:I felt that you were beginning to get too personal, rather than talking about the ideas themselves. I thought a clarificaton was necessary.
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:But what about all your other posts? If you're adopting the role for the sake of this thread, then stay in role. Don't take up a role and then, when you're challenged, say, "Oh, but this isn't really what I believe anyway."
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm putting myself into the position of a literalist for the purposes of this thread...I feel like I'm an actor in a play, and you actually think I am the character... Besides, my post on the first two commandments was very tongue in cheek. I thought the smilie gave that away, but apparently I was wrong.
quote:I don't see it that way. The reason I do it (and this isn't the only thread I've ever done it on) is to gain a greater understanding of other people's positions by putting myself "in their shoes".
Who benefits when you adopt a role for the sake of the argument? Both sides (and there are clear 'sides' here) are diminished.
quote:Why not? If we relate to God only in reverence and fear (Biblical sense!), I think that is an incomplete relationship. God's someone you can laugh with, cry with, be angry or content with and yes, even take the mickey out of occasionally
Why bother making 'tongue-in-cheek' comments about God?
quote:Yes, the God of the OP is pretty much an egotistical tyrant. The biggest problem I have with Christianity is the lingering fear that this (or something very like it) may actually be true. This thread has been (and hopefully will continue to be) extremely useful to me by allowing me to work my way through this issue with several folks who are much wiser than I.
So - do you think the God of the OP is an egotistical tyrant or not? Why not come out of role and tell us what you think?
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
- We are not in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
This is because the God described in the OP is really God and thus the author of morality, and any criticism of his morality is a failure of understanding on our part.- We are in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
I suggest two reasons why this can be so:
quote:Grits I'm not aware that anyone is questioning the fact that God's gift of his Son shows his love. Quite the contrary, I think that what some of us are saying is that the love shown by God-in-Christ is foundational to God's character, and if this is so, then other parts of your story (eg only saving those who profess belief in him) are unworthy of the God of love.
It seems to me that everyone continues to ignore the most basic of all answers to these queries about God's love.
He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.
His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Our love is shown in our response to that gift. The reward is eternal life in heaven with Him.
To me, this is one of the most basic and (excuse me) fundamental of all Christian beliefs. I still cannot get used to it being questioned as it has been here.
quote:Ah.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I'm not going to try to define it, but describe how it would look if one were to "acknowledge Jesus as Lord."
quote:I wouldn't say it is merely based on saying words. God looks at the heart/mind, and it is acknowledging Jesus there that matters. And if we do, then that should change the way that we live.
Originally posted by Russ:
Now you see, I thought you were asking us to imagine that we believed that there was a strict rule that the acknowledgers go to Heaven and the non-acknowledgers go to Hell, with "acknowledging" being some well-defined action.
But in the light of your response, perhaps that's not what you mean at all. Perhaps what you want us to believe is not that there's a hard-and-fast rule, but that instead we are to be judged by a living personal God who will take account of our entire life. So that (for instance) we can't make a deathbed conversion and get in on a technicality.
Is that closer to what you intend us to imagine ?
quote:i was studying and discussing it - and i do genuinely believe the interpretation i gave.....
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:were you really an inerrantist, the discussion would then go towards which conclusion was what Jesus was actually saying there. Yes, Bible study is hard work. But the Bible is consistent, and studying it is worth doing.
Originally posted by sungara:
but my point is that with an inerrantist, fundamentalist approach, i arrive at very different conclusions about the nature of judgement.....which seem to be not instantly dismissable.......although you clearly have arguments to support your different interpretation.
quote:as you say, it is hard work. are you an inerrantist?
Ideally I'd spend a few days looking at the passage now, but don't have the time.
quote:sounds good to me as a response.
unfortunately wasn't that realistic. It's not me who "achieves a conversion" - it's God.
<snip>
Would I do that by forcing my point of view onto them? No, because I can't give faith. God does that as the person turns to him.
Would I pray that I would get an opportunity to talk gently about Jesus with a terminally ill patient? Of course.
Would I withhold treatment to force such an opportunity? No, because that wouldn't be doing my job properly.
quote:D'you suppose He'll settle for one, rather than both?
Originally posted by Custard123:
God looks at the heart/mind, and it is acknowledging Jesus there that matters.
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
- We are not in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
This is because the God described in the OP is really God and thus the author of morality, and any criticism of his morality is a failure of understanding on our part.- We are in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
I suggest two reasons why this can be so:
</font>
quote:Grits I'm not aware that anyone is questioning the fact that God's gift of his Son shows his love. Quite the contrary, I think that what some of us are saying is that the love shown by God-in-Christ is foundational to God's character, and if this is so, then other parts of your story (eg only saving those who profess belief in him) are unworthy of the God of love.
It seems to me that everyone continues to ignore the most basic of all answers to these queries about God's love.
He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.
His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Our love is shown in our response to that gift. The reward is eternal life in heaven with Him.
To me, this is one of the most basic and (excuse me) fundamental of all Christian beliefs. I still cannot get used to it being questioned as it has been here.
quote:Marvin, respectfully, if you're going to pretend a particular position for the purpose of a thread, TELL US! Otherwise, you may anger folks on both sides of the argument.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As I'm sure I've said before, my view of God is not literalist. I'm putting myself into the position of a literalist for the purposes of this thread.
I feel like I'm an actor in a play, and you actually think I am the character...
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Sigh. You really haven't read my post have you? I've never said that we are entitled to 'judge' God by our standards of morality. What I've said is that we are entitled to 'judge' God by God's standards of morality. Or to put it another way, we can expect God to be self-consistent, consistent with his own character.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I disagree with your premise that we are entitled to 'judge' God by our standards of morality. I disagree because man's concept of morality is subjective and relativist whereas God's is objective and unchanging.
quote:But you see, for those of us looking at the big picture, that sounds like an absolute absurdity. It's like saying "Well, yes that guy isscrewing the head off live hamsters, but the love and mercy bit is that he lets one in every hundred go!"
The love and mercy bit, as Grits has rightly said, is that God has provided us all (including Hitler if he wanted it) an undeserved way out of that predicament through Jesus, for those who wish to accept it. That goes beyond justice.
quote:And I am afraid that you have also misunderstood me: I am saying that we are not entitled to judge God at all. Period. Partly because of Who He is and partly because our view, interpretation or concept of even His standards is going to be flawed.
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:Sigh. You really haven't read my post have you? I've never said that we are entitled to 'judge' God by our standards of morality. What I've said is that we are entitled to 'judge' God by God's standards of morality. Or to put it another way, we can expect God to be self-consistent, consistent with his own character.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I disagree with your premise that we are entitled to 'judge' God by our standards of morality. I disagree because man's concept of morality is subjective and relativist whereas God's is objective and unchanging.
And when we find an apparent inconsistency in God's character, again, we do not 'judge' God, but we should recognise that we have misunderstood or misinterpreted his revelation to us.
As I said, the fundamental difference between us is that you see the word of God (the Bible) as foundational, whereas I see the Word of God (Christ) as foundational.
quote:But you see, for those of us looking at the big picture, that sounds like an absolute absurdity. It's like saying "Well, yes that guy isscrewing the head off live hamsters, but the love and mercy bit is that he lets one in every hundred go!"
The love and mercy bit, as Grits has rightly said, is that God has provided us all (including Hitler if he wanted it) an undeserved way out of that predicament through Jesus, for those who wish to accept it. That goes beyond justice.
quote:yes. And I believe that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of Scripture, which is what makes it especially hard work.
Originally posted by sungara:
as you say, it is hard work. are you an inerrantist?
quote:No - simply that the long term effects of doing a good job as part of my responsibility to God and my witness to the world also need to be considered as well as the short term witness of speaking to people.
but it seems to go against the world view of the OP. are you arguing that doing your job properly might be more important than the individual going to hell?
quote:Absolutely - it needs me to speak.
saying that god achieves the conversion not you is true - but surely you need to open your mouth for god to do that?
why wait for the terminally ill to provide an opportunity? or would you also wait for the well and walking to provide an opportunity before evangelising?
quote:So I guess I'd count opportunities if they came up in the context of a conversation about, for example, what they think happens after death, and I'd willingly initiate such a conversation.
We should only explain the gospel in response to a direct request. Of course, such a direct request might take the form of an affirmative response to the question "Would you like me to explain to you how we can be made right with God?"
quote:UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL!
And I am afraid that you have also misunderstood me: I am saying that we are not entitled to judge God at all. Period. Partly because of Who He is and partly because our view, interpretation or concept of even His standards is going to be flawed.
quote:1) Abraham is calling God to account on moral grounds.
Genesis 18:25 Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
quote:Why? Can't he take it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I am afraid that you have also misunderstood me: I am saying that we are not entitled to judge God at all. Period. Partly because of Who He is and partly because our view, interpretation or concept of even His standards is going to be flawed.
Matt
quote:
John Stott aparently said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should only explain the gospel in response to a direct request. Of course, such a direct request might take the form of an affirmative response to the question "Would you like me to explain to you how we can be made right with God?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And he saith unto him "By the way - would you like me to explain to you how we can be made right with God?"
quote:I have already explained why. To judge implies that God somehow gets it wrong, which is incorrect.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:Why? Can't he take it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I am afraid that you have also misunderstood me: I am saying that we are not entitled to judge God at all. Period. Partly because of Who He is and partly because our view, interpretation or concept of even His standards is going to be flawed.
Matt
C
quote:We all deserve it - you, me, them. That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Matt - so what you're saying is that not only is God going to burn my sister and parents for eternity in hell, but that they deserve it?
Bottom line - they don't. The God of the OP is unjust. Period.
quote:Let's be absolutely clear about this. You're not saying "Our fallen nature separates us from God, and hell is the threat that this separation become permanent." You're saying "Our fallen nature means that we all deserve hell as I conceive it and I am saved because I have the correct sort of faith as I conceive it whereas others, as I conceive it do not, and so will go to this richly-deserved hell. I overlook the alternative construals available to me in Scripture, and in the various Christian traditions, including those Protestant ones which place Scripture above tradition and still don't see things the same way.
We all deserve it - you, me, them. That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
quote:Funny concept of justice you have. I can't buy it. My options at this point appear to be Buddhism or Atheism.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:We all deserve it - you, me, them. [That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Matt - so what you're saying is that not only is God going to burn my sister and parents for eternity in hell, but that they deserve it?
Bottom line - they don't. The God of the OP is unjust. Period.
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:My own take on this is that God does everything that's necessary to remove all barriers between us and him - and us and each other too. To use Barth's language, all is election - but we're talking "classical" election, in which God in Christ chooses us as a "classis" - a group. It seems to me (and I think that this is what Barth was saying) that we can't say "Yes" to God until God has said "Yes" to us - but that God does indeed do this, in Christ. But God's "Yes" to us may open up the posssiblity that then we might say "No" to God - which is something we couldn't do before.
I think I see what you mean, although surely the unjust thing is giving people what they don't deserve - ie heaven. Are you saying that seperation from God is unjust (or are you reacting to the fire and brimstone picture of hell)?
quote:I find that interpretation of the discourse to be unlikely; likewise Moses' discourse in Ex 32. More likely that God was testing the characters of both men to see how they interceded for others - possibly to demonstrate a kind of antitype of Christ (cp His testing of Abraham re Isaac). Abraham appears to have thought he was presuming to judge God, hence his approach - rightly if that's what he really thought (lesson for us there) - with much fear.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Matt Black:quote:UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL!
And I am afraid that you have also misunderstood me: I am saying that we are not entitled to judge God at all. Period. Partly because of Who He is and partly because our view, interpretation or concept of even His standards is going to be flawed.
quote:1) Abraham is calling God to account on moral grounds.
Genesis 18:25 Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
2) Abraham is clearly invoking the concept of righteousness as applying to 'people who are living good lives'.
That's what the text means.
quote:I am primarily saying the former statement where you are endeavouring to quote my stance. The first phrase of the latter statement is I guess a subsidiary part of the former, examining in greater detail on aspect of it, namely the issue of justice and fairness,hence the use of the word 'deserve'. It does not IMO contradict the former.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Matt Black:quote:Let's be absolutely clear about this. You're not saying "Our fallen nature separates us from God, and hell is the threat that this separation become permanent." You're saying "Our fallen nature means that we all deserve hell as I conceive it and I am saved because I have the correct sort of faith as I conceive it whereas others, as I conceive it do not, and so will go to this richly-deserved hell. I overlook the alternative construals available to me in Scripture, and in the various Christian traditions, including those Protestant ones which place Scripture above tradition and still don't see things the same way.
We all deserve it - you, me, them. That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
If so, where Marvin the Martian was 'acting out' this stance to examine it, and the OP was setting it up as an intellectual exercise, you are actually saying "This is my take on it. This is how I string together the elements of tradition. Oh, and I'm right." Is that basically it?
Just checking.
quote:That makes no sense at all to me. I just don't see how you can read the text that way. I think you're reading that into the text. In any case, it's a flawed argument. If God wanted to see "how [Abraham] interceded for others, then one of the things he'd want to see was on what basis. And Abraham tells him on what basis:
I find that interpretation of the discourse to be unlikely; likewise Moses' discourse in Ex 32. More likely that God was testing the characters of both men to see how they interceded for others - possibly to demonstrate a kind of antitype of Christ (cp His testing of Abraham re Isaac).
quote:No amount of eisegesis can get round that.
Far be it from thee to do such a thing... Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
quote:You said it!
Abraham appears to have thought he was presuming to judge God,
quote:Nevertheless, he did it. I think that, I think that that's what the passage means, you think that that's what Abraham thought he was doing - so it does indeed flatly contradict your position in the post to which I referred earlier. Abraham is calling God to account according to a principle of justice established between them on the basis of what Abraham knew of God. Which is exactly what you were saying we aren't allowed to do. Abraham may have done it in fear and trembling - but he did it. And the text clearly implies that he was justified in doing it.
hence his approach - rightly if that's what he really thought (lesson for us there) - with much fear.
quote:- a rhetorical question clearly expecting the answer "Yes! He shall do right!" rules out the faith of the OP. It's unbiblical, for all that it's cobbled together - for the most part (but not exclusively) out of bits of the Bible.
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
quote:But that is Abraham's opinion. It does not mean that it is right or that he is right to think it. The concept of man presuming to judge God is still just that...presumptious
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Abraham expresses shock at the disparity between what God is going to do and what he knows of God's justice.
Trouble is, Abraham's attitude towards God is obviously greeted with complete approbation by both the text of Genesis and by God. Notice particularly that it's Abraham who stops pressing God when he's argued him down to 10 just people. It isn't God who cuts him off. In any case, if God disapproved of this line of talk, he'd have stopped it at the beginning. Abraham is morally interrogating God. God clearly doesn't object to Abraham's attitude, but Abraham's attitude is clearly founded on shock at what God seems to be proposing to do - in other words on a moral judgement about God. quote:Twice in fact - well the other time was to Abimelech of Gerar (with that lieutenant with the disinfectant-like name of Phicol! Never could understand why - given the way dagesh forte works, that wasn't Picol: which still sounds like disinfectant!) Oh, and Isaac did it too! Like father...
So was Moses. Abraham, don't forget, is the guy who gives his wife to Pharaoh and pretends she's his sister
quote:I think the idea is that there are no innocent people.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So if God does decide to destroy the innocent along with the guilty, that's not unjust?
quote:Kill 'em all.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:I think the idea is that there are no innocent people.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So if God does decide to destroy the innocent along with the guilty, that's not unjust?
Custard
quote:this post suggests the irony of our exchange is lost on you? i post an interpretation of Matthew 25, you post that its hard work reading scripture, I think implying that I haven't done it properly through laziness rather than just honest disagreement with you, when I press you on the interpretation, you then reply that you don't have time for it
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:yes. And I believe that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of Scripture, which is what makes it especially hard work.
Originally posted by sungara:
as you say, it is hard work. are you an inerrantist?
quote:On the contrary Matt. Some of us are suggesting that the God of the OP is not worth worshipping and so we are wrestling with our understanding of him. I think you are splitting hairs
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That isn't what is being said; what is being said by some is to the effect of "That God is not worthy of my worship/ some kind of monster" etc. That very much IS judging God, not merely wrestling with Him
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:Only if the God in the OP is the real one. I really hope He's not.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That isn't what is being said; what is being said by some is to the effect of "That God is not worthy of my worship/ some kind of monster" etc. That very much IS judging God, not merely wrestling with Him
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:This is right on the mark. The issue is not really judging God. The issue is, is the god of the OP really God? In answering this question, one must make a judgement of what constitutes God. This is not the same as judging God. Some are judging that the description given in the OP is an accurate description of God and others are judging that it is not. Both sides are claiming their position based on justice, which they define differently. I would suggest, therefore, that the discussion of judging God is a bit off topic.
On the contrary Matt. Some of us are suggesting that the God of the OP is not worth worshipping and so we are wrestling with our understanding of him. I think you are splitting hairs
C
quote:And some of us think you're wrong.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I see where you are both coming from on this but to me the God of the OP IS the real deal, and if He is, I don't think we have the locus standi to judge Him
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:Actually that probably needs a new thread.
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
Perhaps a more interesting question (and possibly more on topic) would be whether, if the god of the OP is the real deal, the nature of god as described in the OP necessitates the belief that one cannot judge god.
quote:...as is your privilege. But what if I'm right?
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:And some of us think you're wrong.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I see where you are both coming from on this but to me the God of the OP IS the real deal, and if He is, I don't think we have the locus standi to judge Him
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:That's the whole point of this thread!! Haven't you read the first seven pages?! This is why I asked the question I did in the previous post, whether the characterization of god, as stated in the OP, necessitates not judging God. By the way Mousethief, I think it still fits on this thread because it is trying to work out a specific scenario in relation to "What if" the statements in the OP are correct.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...as is your privilege. But what if I'm right?
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:And your interpretation is strangely consistent with John 3:17 which people seem to love to ignore. "For God send not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved."
I am aware of the exact words of John 3:16. It can only mean to me that the Jews who founded Christianity needed a way to bury the idea of animal sacrifice, and all sacrifice as an atonement for sin and postulated that an extension of Abramham's willingess to sacrifice Isaac, namely God's willingness to sacrifice his own Son, has buried this issue forever. Ancient Jewish views of God did in fact show him as jealous, desiring of worship. Jesus was the pivot point for a new revelation of God. I think
quote:And, while we're being literal, let's not forget that this single act of disobedience, which could condemn so many of us to an eternity of torture, was eating an apple from the wrong tree.
Originally posted by JimT:
... all humans deserving eternal torture because of the fallen nature they passively inherited from ancient ancestors who engaged in a single act of disobedience is what the one I know as Satan would do.
quote:JimT, I understand that is probably hypothetical, what exactly is Satanic about the nature of this scenario. I would agree that it seems difficult, inconsistent, harsh, etc..., even deceptive. But I wouldn't venture as far as to assume that this "God" is actually Satan. I would assume faults in my logic way before that. I just don't know how you arrived at the idea that this would be Satan.
giving your Son up for torture and death on behalf of all humans deserving eternal torture because of the fallen nature they passively inherited from ancient ancestors who engaged in a single act of disobedience is what the one I know as Satan would do.
quote:Not a Care, let me tell you that I am being only slightly provocative in making this assertion. I do not really mean to seriously paint all "Sharkshooter Doctrine" believers as pentagram-painting, chicken-killing Satan worshippers. The OP asks me to be literal. So I am being literal. It asks what I would think and how I would behave; what the impact would be if I thought it true. I already know; I was brought up on the Sharkshooter Doctrine by Pentecostal Protestants. I could not help but conclude that the God of the Sharkshooter Doctrine would be Satan and not God. Therefore, the Sharkshooter Doctrine was false; I did not really see Fundamentalists as Satan worshippers. Only Christians in error. But I did not then, nor do I now, assume that I was making an error in logic when deciding on the "Satanic" qualities of the God described by that Doctrine. I can expand the logic and explain more, which is what the OP asks me to do.
Originally posted by Not a Care:
quote:JimT, I understand that is probably hypothetical, what exactly is Satanic about the nature of this scenario. I would agree that it seems difficult, inconsistent, harsh, etc..., even deceptive. But I wouldn't venture as far as to assume that this "God" is actually Satan. I would assume faults in my logic way before that. I just don't know how you arrived at the idea that this would be Satan.
giving your Son up for torture and death on behalf of all humans deserving eternal torture because of the fallen nature they passively inherited from ancient ancestors who engaged in a single act of disobedience is what the one I know as Satan would do.
quote:But sadly not with John 3:18, which people also love to ignore
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:And your interpretation is strangely consistent with John 3:17 which people seem to love to ignore. "For God send not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved."
I am aware of the exact words of John 3:16. It can only mean to me that the Jews who founded Christianity needed a way to bury the idea of animal sacrifice, and all sacrifice as an atonement for sin and postulated that an extension of Abramham's willingess to sacrifice Isaac, namely God's willingness to sacrifice his own Son, has buried this issue forever. Ancient Jewish views of God did in fact show him as jealous, desiring of worship. Jesus was the pivot point for a new revelation of God. I think
Wesley's commentary on that is amusingly pithy: "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world - Although many accuse him of it."
Now where is that chap who wanted more reasons to be a Methodist?
quote:Advantage....
And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
quote:Game....
For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
quote:To me, that is blasphemy and highly offensive. I really hope you don't actually believe that. I really don't.
Originally posted by JimT:
Matt, if you're right, the one I know as Satan is in charge of the universe. By your own words, you have no way of knowing that you are worshipping God instead of Satan because you have no capacity or standing to question the morality of the entity you are addressing: whatever the Bible seems to be saying, it must be saying, and if it imparts seemingly Satanic qualities to God, then God has "apparent Satanic" qualites. Deal.
It is not about my judging God and putting myself above Him in pride; I do no such thing. I only try to know if I am talking to Satan or God, because Satan is perfectly capable of deception so deep that he can appear as God to anyone even Bible-believing Christians of all stripes, and convince them that he is in fact God. Although the Bible claims itself to be true on the face of it, it also says to prove all things and hold fast that which is good. It does not say to accept all things, to quote all things, and hold on to Satanic qualities within God that may emerge over the course of interpretation. The OP seems to define exactly how to fall into this kind of error. What better place for Satan to hide than in an easy interpretation of Holy Scripture?
It has been said, by implication, that the ultimate sign of God's love is His willingness to give his Son over to torture and death on behalf of all humans deserving eternal torture because of the fallen nature they passiblely inherited from ancient ancestors who engaged in a single act of disobedience. I am challenging that front and center. I said on the twin thread that giving your Son up for torture and death on behalf of all humans deserving eternal torture because of the fallen nature they passively inherited from ancient ancestors who engaged in a single act of disobedience is what the one I know as Satan would do. The frosting on the cake is that the sacrifice of the Son is so that all who believe will worship the Son sacrificer forever while those who don't will proceed to eternal torture.
I'm not being a smart-ass Christian basher. If such a hideous act as giving your Son up for torture and death on behalf of all humans deserving eternal torture because of the fallen nature they passively inherited from ancient ancestors who engaged in a single act of disobedience is what their God would do, in order to separate his subjects into those who will be afforded an opportunity to worship him forever or burn with torture, someone please tell me the more hideous acts of their Satan. Is it any wonder that someone would try to overthrow such a monster? I tell you truthfully: if the OP is true I would believe that Satan had temporarily gained control of the universe and I would suffer in Hell with God, believing with all my heart that one day we would marshal the forces in Hell and the sympathizers in Heaven in order to bind God and throw him in Hell for eternity.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
.
quote:You've lost me here. How is this?
The alternative universe being proposed by some here does amount to a form of gnosticism...
quote:Major insight. Now, start from there, and you wind up with a completely different attitude - and maybe a completely different sort of faith - to what's generated by the thread title: "What if I'm right?"
There is the distinct possibility that we are all wrong
quote:No indeed - unless the election of this group of people was for the sake of the others. That's one of the things that the prophets keep reminding Israel. She has been elected for the showing-forth of God to the whole world. And if she gets snotty about her election, she can be de-elected.
He wasn't fair in chosing one group of people over anyone else.
Jim T.quote:Matt,
Originally posted by Matt Black:
what is being said by some is to the effect of "That God is not worthy of my worship/ some kind of monster" etc. That very much IS judging God, not merely wrestling with Him
quote:I, as you know, would reject premise #2. All of us, outwith Jesus, condemn ourselves to Hell;that fact stems from our very nature and God's very nature rather than anyone particularly 'condemning' us. That's the justice bit; the mercy bit is God offering us a way out of that mess.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Matt,
Originally posted by Matt Black:
what is being said by some is to the effect of "That God is not worthy of my worship/ some kind of monster" etc. That very much IS judging God, not merely wrestling with Him
I think the logic being employed here is of the form:
Premise1: God is never less than just
Premise2: Condemning X { = babies / Amazon tribesmen / atheists I know who are good people / whoever } to eternal torment is unjust.
Conclusion: God does not condemn X to eternal torment.
For brevity I'm equating justice to everyone getting what they deserve; mercy is giving someone better than they deserve, and being less than just is treating someone more harshly than they deserve.
I suggest to you that the logic is valid, as logic.
Clearly some people do reject premise 2, believing that we all deserve Hell. And we can argue with them, and demonstrate that such usage of "deserve" is inconsistent with what humans consider to be justice in every other context.
Some people - those who would "let God be God" - seem to reject premise 1, and assert that the fact that God is sometimes unjust won't stop them worshipping Him. But it's not quite clear to me why they worship Him or why anyone else should join them in such worship. I worship God because I conceive Him to be good...
But we can argue about these things.
With the logic this way round, what is being rejected is not God - it is the proposition that He condemns certain classes of people to eternal torture.
Assuming that the logic is correct, the question Sharkshooter has asked us requires it to be applied in reverse. If we believe his doctrine - i.e. that the conclusion is false - we must either disbelieve premise 1 or premise 2.
The version you seem to be objecting to is the one that goes:
negation of conclusion: God causes X to suffer eternal torment
strengthened premise 2 : eternal torment for X is monstrously unjust
=> strengthened negation of premise 1: God is monstrously unjust.
Now, the question I'm putting to you is "who - if anyone - here in this process is setting themselves up as judge over God Himself ?"
Is it the person who holds that premise 1 is true, that God is perfectly just except insofar as He is merciful ? Is that what you object to ?
Is it the person who examines the logic and concludes that it is valid, without taking any position on the truth or otherwise of the premises and conclusion ?
Is it Sharkshooter for asserting something that leads - via valid logic and a true premise which is about justice and doesn't mention God at all - to a conclusion that God is monstrously unjust ?
Does it not seem to you inconsistent to praise God, saying that He is good, and then turn around and accuse of presumption those who say that in certain circumstances He would not be good ? How can it be presumptuous to agree with a proposition but perfectly OK to disagree with it, or vice versa ?
No-one's saying that they think they'd make a better job of running the universe...
Russ
quote:Matt replied:
I think the logic being employed here is of the form:
Premise1: God is never less than just
Premise2: Condemning X { = babies / Amazon tribesmen / atheists I know who are good people / whoever } to eternal torment is unjust.
quote:Yes, we do. But, methinks thou dost complain too much.
I, as you know, would reject premise #2. All of us, outwith Jesus, condemn ourselves to Hell;that fact stems from our very nature and God's very nature rather than anyone particularly 'condemning' us. That's the justice bit; the mercy bit is God offering us a way out of that mess.
The bit in particular to which I am objecting vis a vis 'judging' God, is the bit about describing Him (as laid out in the OP, which I regard to be accurate) as a 'monster' ,'sadist',' Hitler' and, worst of all, 'Satan'. Now, these words happen to be describing the person Whom I believe to be God. This, to me, is about as sensitive and inoffensive as me running past Finsbury Park Mosque shouting "Allah? He's a bit of a bastard, isn't he?". Now do you see where I'm coming from?
quote:A few years ago we spent a long weekend in Prague. One of the places we visited was a synagogue in Prague. Synagogues there are not places of worship, any more. They are museums of Jewish life and memorials to the victims of the Shoah. The Jews of Prague were, quite simply, wiped out.
I, as you know, would reject premise #2. All of us, outwith Jesus, condemn ourselves to Hell;that fact stems from our very nature and God's very nature rather than anyone particularly 'condemning' us. That's the justice bit; the mercy bit is God offering us a way out of that mess.
quote:It is more that our sinful nature makes us suffer, rather than God Himself. THe Hitler analogy is entirely the wrong end of the stick
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:A few years ago we spent a long weekend in Prague. One of the places we visited was a synagogue in Prague. Synagogues there are not places of worship, any more. They are museums of Jewish life and memorials to the victims of the Shoah. The Jews of Prague were, quite simply, wiped out.
I, as you know, would reject premise #2. All of us, outwith Jesus, condemn ourselves to Hell;that fact stems from our very nature and God's very nature rather than anyone particularly 'condemning' us. That's the justice bit; the mercy bit is God offering us a way out of that mess.
Now all of us would agree that the Shoah was a terrible crime. Those people did not deserve to suffer. No decent or humane person would have made them suffer. The people who tormented them during their lives and killed them were evil.
Would you agree with this? If so how is it deeply and appallingly wrong for the Nazis to make children suffer for being Jewish but quite reasonable and acceptable for God to make people suffer for being human? Your argument appears to be one of legality - the Nazis did not have the authority whereas God is sovereign - rather than moral. The objection to murder - because all humans deserve to suffer - is an argument about due process rather than about the inherent wrongness of the act which is apparently acceptable if it is carried out by the appropriate authority (i.e. God).
This is where the Hitler analogy comes in. It is ordinarily believed to be wrong to make people suffer on an industrial scale. How much more so to make people suffer on a cosmic scale?
quote:Tender, kind, caring, and compassionate Matt: I know you from previous posts to be as tender, kind, caring, and compassionate as Sharkshooter, who started this thread, Grits, and many others who are close to me in my personal life. My views are blasphemy to them, and theirs to mine. It is a sad truth, but there is no other way to describe it except as competing blasphemies.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The bit in particular to which I am objecting vis a vis 'judging' God, is the bit about describing Him (as laid out in the OP, which I regard to be accurate) as a 'monster' ,'sadist',' Hitler' and, worst of all, 'Satan'. Now, these words happen to be describing the person Whom I believe to be God. This, to me, is about as sensitive and inoffensive as me running past Finsbury Park Mosque shouting "Allah? He's a bit of a bastard, isn't he?". Now do you see where I'm coming from?
quote:This is but another side to the same argument. You see the God of Genesis 3 as a deceiver, a liar, a curser. I would like to suggest that: a) He did not hide the tree. It was there for all to see and behold, and apparently, it was quite accessible. What He did do was give rules concerning it that would prevent the fate that befell them. Adam and Eve chose to disobey and suffered the consequences, just as some of us feel will happen if we chose to ignore the way of life God has presented to us; b) Do you not feel the “death” spoken of here is spiritual death? I do. And that is exactly what happened upon their decision to disobey God; 3) What secret? What truth? God made no secret of the consequences of their actions. Eve was very well versed in the dos & don’ts of the garden. There was no truth in Satan’s words. Their eyes were opened, yes; but they were not like God. Their eyes were open to the sins and guilts and woes of this world. The purity and innocence and communion with God they had enjoyed was gone forever.
Originally posted by JimT:
the false God of Genesis 3, who hid the tree of eternal life, lying that the knowledge of good and evil would kill humankind, then cursing the serpent who spilled the truth of his secret. Yes, I would say: I have considered it; it is blasphemy; it is a primitive conception of God and nothing like the God I know.
quote:
Tender, kind, caring, and compassionate Matt: I know you from previous posts to be as tender, kind, caring, and compassionate as Sharkshooter, who started this thread, Grits, and many others who are close to me in my personal life.
quote:Matt, it's blasphemy and highly offensive to everyone including Jim- but most of us consider the real blasphemy to be the belief in a God describable as Jim described him and yours certainly qualifies.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:To me, that is blasphemy and highly offensive. I really hope you don't actually believe that. I really don't.
Originally posted by JimT:
Matt, if you're right, the one I know as Satan is in charge of the universe.
[SNIP]
The alternative universe being proposed by some here does amount to a form of gnosticism, as ChristinaMarie has suggested. If so, that is nothing new; Christianity has had to contend with this since the beginning...
Yours in Christ
Matt
) BECAUSE it was, is and certainly shall be the best of all possible worlds - for He is GOOD and gracious beyond belief.
quote:Then lied about what that fate would be.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:This is but another side to the same argument. You see the God of Genesis 3 as a deceiver, a liar, a curser. I would like to suggest that: a) He did not hide the tree. It was there for all to see and behold, and apparently, it was quite accessible. What He did do was give rules concerning it that would prevent the fate that befell them.
Originally posted by JimT:
the false God of Genesis 3, who hid the tree of eternal life, lying that the knowledge of good and evil would kill humankind, then cursing the serpent who spilled the truth of his secret. Yes, I would say: I have considered it; it is blasphemy; it is a primitive conception of God and nothing like the God I know.
quote:They did not die on the day they ate the fruit. You can't even wriggle out of it and claim that eating the fruit made it certain that they would die.
Genesis 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
quote:Hence eating from the tree would not have made them die- it was only the direct actions of a God who failed to account for the nature of humanity (despite (a) having made it and (b) being omniscient) that made it certain they would die.
Genesis 3:22-23
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
quote:We will be tortured by a jealous God, under the principles of Might Makes Right because he doesn't want a rival. Is that what you mean?
Adam and Eve chose to disobey and suffered the consequences, just as some of us feel will happen if we chose to ignore the way of life God has presented to us;
quote:If spiritual death is becoming as God, I hate to think what you consider God (or Gods- that passage is overtly polytheistic) to be. Is God spiritually dead? (Gen 3:22 again)
b) Do you not feel the “death” spoken of here is spiritual death?
quote:We've been through this. God said they would die- implying that the fruit was poison. The consequences of eating the fruit weren't death- they were the knowledge of Good and Evil.
3) What secret? What truth? God made no secret of the consequences of their actions.
quote:False.
Eve was very well versed in the dos & don’ts of the garden.
quote:vs.
Genesis 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
quote:Eve thought she wasn't supposed to even touch the tree, never mind eat from it. (There's even a midrash about the serpent pushing Eve into the tree to disprove the theory, but I digress)
Genesis 3:3
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
quote:False.
There was no truth in Satan’s words.
quote:The serpent (who is usually taken to be Satan) spoke the truth- afterwards, Eve could have eaten of the tree of life (Gen 3:22 again).
Gen 3:4
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
quote:False, biblically. Gen 3:22 says the exact opposite of this.
Their eyes were opened, yes; but they were not like God.
quote:Agreed. They became more like God and God got upset about this. God therefore didn't want Man to be like him. (Gen 3:22 as usual)
Their eyes were open to the sins and guilts and woes of this world. The purity and innocence and communion with God they had enjoyed was gone forever.
quote:Shall I dig up my copy of "The Last Battle" and find Lewis' quote about good things done supposedly in the name of Tash being done in Aslan's name?
Why, Jim? Why do you think this statement is true? I know, but I’m asking you. How can people who believe in this vengeful, hate-filled, Satan’s brother of a God be kind and caring and compassionate, while the rest of you are so filled with repulsion and venom to the point that you say you’d give up your eternal souls before believing in this God?
quote:And the tradgedy for us is that you have no discrimination or understanding, hence your ability to live or die with either a God who is good or one who is not.
Hint: It’s because we can live – and die – with either God. You cannot. And that is the heartbreak for me.
quote:I said that if Matt is right, many here are Gnostics!
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Matt Black:quote:You've lost me here. How is this?
The alternative universe being proposed by some here does amount to a form of gnosticism...
quote:Yes they did. They also taught a lot of other things that most (are there any Gnostics on the ship?) people on the ship do not believe. Therefore, the people who do believe that the god of the OT is not the father of JC, and I am not convinced that this is what people like JimT and others believe, are not Gnostics, they are people who hold a belief in common with the Gnostics.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
The Gnostics taught that the God of the OT was not the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some even taught that the god of the OT was Satan.
quote:And the Allah of Finsbury Park mosque?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
But it also needs to be said that the God of the Old Testament is also the God of Judaism,
quote:Psyduck!
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Sorry, I ought also to say that my point was that the Jews read the same OT as the Sharkshooterettes, but don't come up with anything like the OP. I find that very interesting.
quote:Interesting. The thing that keeps driving my response to discussions here on the Ship is my anger at people who think they know about G-d: what G-d is like, how G-d acts, where G-d will turn up. It doesn't seem to happen in other places, but on the Ship I am constantly recalled to a sense of the freedom of G-d, to my understanding that G-d will do as G-d chooses, and not be bound, not behave like a natural force whose laws can be found out.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
the kind of God that the OP speaks of seems to be generated when the OT and NT are put together in a certain way.
Odd, that...
quote:Yes, absolutely! I'm glad somebody finally mentioned this, and I would also mention that, in Jewish tradition, it is considered virtuous to go so deep into the text that you are essentially 'wrestling' with it. (Kind of like you guys do here on the Ship!) One can see that it is the continuation of the tradition started by Abraham- of questioning, even arguing, with G-d.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:Psyduck!
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Sorry, I ought also to say that my point was that the Jews read the same OT as the Sharkshooterettes, but don't come up with anything like the OP. I find that very interesting.
It speaks volumes, IMO!
Christina
quote:The "let God be God" are not rejecting premise 1, but rather allowing that God can be just without appearing to be just--which requires rejecting premise 2.
Originally posted by Russ:
I think the logic being employed here is of the form:
Premise1: God is never less than just
Premise2: Condemning X { = babies / Amazon tribesmen / atheists I know who are good people / whoever } to eternal torment is unjust.
Conclusion: God does not condemn X to eternal torment.
For brevity I'm equating justice to everyone getting what they deserve; mercy is giving someone better than they deserve, and being less than just is treating someone more harshly than they deserve.
I suggest to you that the logic is valid, as logic.
Clearly some people do reject premise 2, believing that we all deserve Hell. And we can argue with them, and demonstrate that such usage of "deserve" is inconsistent with what humans consider to be justice in every other context.
Some people - those who would "let God be God" - seem to reject premise 1, and assert that the fact that God is sometimes unjust won't stop them worshipping Him.
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The catch in this whole discussion is that attacking the God of the OP on moral grounds implies an epistemological problem for anyone believing in ethical monotheism, because one is, according to one's own worldview, using God-given moral intuition to judge the one who is arguably the giver of that intuition. Those who believe that the God of the OP is not truly God feel free to judge the God of the OP because according to their worldview, it is not the source of their moral intuition and so the epistemological problem is avoided. Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God recognize (at least intuitively) the epistemological problem and therefore find fault with judging God and choose instead to justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part. This is the "wall" that I tried to articulate in a previous post.
quote:The article is exceptionally wordy and difficult to distill into a snippet. But it makes interesting reading with respect to what kind of Christianity is expanding in the Third World and why.
For better or worse, the dominant churches of the future could have much in common with those of medieval or early modern European times.
quote:So if people want to dismiss an "anti" view of the OP as inevitable Gnosticism, which has already been declared wrong and heretical, they should point out that the biblicism of the OP has also been rejected by the same authority, which rejects belly buttonless Adams and Eves based on Reason overturning literal interpretation of scripture. By the same standard, biblicism should also end discussion.
The pope describes biblicism as a view that:
Tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone <snip>.
Scripture is not self-interpreting and the required interpretation proceeds according to the canons of rationality that one must bring to the scriptural text. An interpreter may wish to let the sacred text speak for itself, free of any alleged distortions introduced by philosophical principles. In reality, the most any interpreter can hope for is to bring philosophically sound principles of interpretation to the text.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, this is just about completely the wrong way round.
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The catch in this whole discussion is that attacking the God of the OP on moral grounds implies an epistemological problem for anyone believing in ethical monotheism, because one is, according to one's own worldview, using God-given moral intuition to judge the one who is arguably the giver of that intuition. Those who believe that the God of the OP is not truly God feel free to judge the God of the OP because according to their worldview, it is not the source of their moral intuition and so the epistemological problem is avoided. Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God recognize (at least intuitively) the epistemological problem and therefore find fault with judging God and choose instead to justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part. This is the "wall" that I tried to articulate in a previous post.
quote:Granted I wasn't talking there about a moral intuition, but about a revealed understanding of morality: God isn't like that.
Abraham is calling God to account according to a principle of justice established between them on the basis of what Abraham knew of God.
quote:Hi Jim,
Originally posted by JimT:
So if people want to dismiss an "anti" view of the OP as inevitable Gnosticism, which has already been declared wrong and heretical, they should point out that the biblicism of the OP has also been rejected by the same authority, which rejects belly buttonless Adams and Eves based on Reason overturning literal interpretation of scripture. By the same standard, biblicism should also end discussion.
quote:are they or are they not committing this supposed sin of "judging God" ?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He is GOOD and gracious beyond belief.
quote:To that extent that God's standards are not ours - and I don't think anyone's saying that there is no overlap - it seems to me that the standards to which He holds Himself should be higher.
contouredburger said:
he is the one whose ways are not our ways, and by implication, he whose standards are not ours either. Similarly, first and foremost, in the New Testament it is the holiness of God, not his justice or injustice, that is revealed in the life, death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation of Christ. The holiness of God precludes the tolerance of sin and evil
quote:IMO, slightly modify that question to "Could a person be so lost to Love (capital deliberate) that they would prefer to be in hell forever rather than be forgiven?" In this life, I name that "depression" and I think the answer is "yes".
could a person be so hardened against God that they would prefer to be in hell forever rather than be forgiven?
quote:
Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God recognize (at least intuitively) the epistemological problem and therefore find fault with judging God and choose instead to justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part.
quote:I take this to mean "Those who believe that the OP is the truth about God." Thus when Russ says:
Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God
quote:if I can strain the analogy, the Sharkshooters would be in the position of saying "Yes indeed, she does do all that you say our belief about her implies that she does. And yet she is still by definition good, loving and just, because she is Grits - and she herself is the definition of these things." Note that they aren't saying "Well, it may look this way, but in the end it will turn out to be that, when we know even as we are known (I Cor. 13) we shall be able to see that God actually is good and loving and just in ways that make sense to us." They are saying "God is loving and good and just because loving and good and just are what God is. He is the definition of these things - at least as far as he is concerned. You may have human notions of these things, but (1) they don't apply to God, and (2) they aren't much help to you either, because you can be as good, just and kind as you like, but unless you do the contingent, arbitrary thing that God tells you to - viz. in this case confess Jesus as Lord (it might just as well be something else) - then you'll burn in eternal hell forever.
If I pass on a rumour that Grits tears the heads off hamsters, is it not entirely reasonable for you to reject such a notion on the grounds that it doesn't square with what you know of her character ?
quote:Now he's talking about my position vis-a-vis the Sharkshooter Doctrine here, so I feel no compunction in rejecting what he says. My position is that God is the source of our moral intuition - in fact, more broadly, our moral understanding, deposited in our culture and mediated through conscience, which is not a direct moral intuition; I'm an agnostic about Frances Hutcheson's "Moral Sense", though I'd like to believe in it - and that God is the source of this both through "Common Grace" - which preserves a fallen world in which knowledge of him is obscured - and also by revelation, specifically in Christ, which also lays down a deposit of moral understanding in the culture. In other words, what we know of right, wrong and justice, we know because God is the source of these things, and has not kept them to himself. The idea that human moral ideas outwith the propositions of Scripture - and all the propositions of Scripture, no matter how much they conflict! - are from a theological point of view some sort of meaningless babble with no connection with God is just potty.
Those who believe that the God of the OP is not truly God feel free to judge the God of the OP because according to their worldview, it is not the source of their moral intuition and so the epistemological problem is avoided.
quote:I see what you mean, but I don't think that this is the way the thread is working. The thread title is "What if I'm right?" and I think that the Sharkshooters are basically saying "We are right. This isn't a concept, this is the reality of God. In other words, the distinction between concept and reality is constantly being collapsed, and I think that's because the distance between concept and reality isn't allowed to exist in attitudes towards Scripture. Scripture is held to "teach it like it is". That, I think, is where the distinction you rightly make is destroyed. The possibility of saying "But maybe God isn't like this. Maybe this isn't really how things are." is foreclosed. It harks back to hatless's point about people who claim to know all about God.
I get the feeling that there is an important distinction between God and various ideas about God, that isn't always being made explicit in the discussion.
quote:Arabic-speaking christians, including the Arabic-speaking Baptists I have met, use Allah for the God of both the OT and the NT. Allah is simply the standard Arabic word for "God".
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:And the Allah of Finsbury Park mosque?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
But it also needs to be said that the God of the Old Testament is also the God of Judaism,
quote:Thank you! Exactly! That's the whole point of all the bickering on this thread, in a nutshell!
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
What is crucial is the meaning given to the word Allah. It is at that point Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims part company.
quote:Er... no ... !
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
What is crucial is the meaning given to the word Allah. It is at that point Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims part company.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! Exactly! That's the whole point of all the bickering on this thread, in a nutshell!
quote:He judges and condemns sin, no doubt -- but does it follow from this that he judges and condemns sinners? That's the sticky bit for me.
Originally posted by contouredburger:
Such commandments I feel do imply that in Christ God does judge and condemn sin, but first and foremost through the fact that Christ is himself made sin and judged for our sakes.
quote:Just kind of musing out loud to see what I think....There may be people who are evil with no reason, but mostly I think not. I think most people hurt others because they have been hurt. Perhaps some think that makes me a raving sociological liberal, but I'm not arguing that having been hurt removes responsibility for our free will or for sinning. I'm not arguing "excuse that person's evil action and sin because they've had a hard upbringing". But I think I'm arguing "There but for the grace of God go I".
That's not what I meant at all. I'm thinking of people who murder, rape, Hitler, etc, not depressed people.
I believe every action, whether good or bad, has some amount of free choice, some conditioning, etc and God judges the free choice bit. There may be exceptions though. (to the free choice)
quote:Which is another way of putting my question as to whether Hell is purgative or punitive? What ends up in the eternal fire? The sin or the sinner?
He judges and condemns sin, no doubt -- but does it follow from this that he judges and condemns sinners?
quote:Adeodatus,
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a quick post at this stage (I'm putting off writing Sunday's sermon).
ChristinaMarie - the OP does not ask us to believe that serial killers, paedophiles, etc, will end up in Hell. It asks us to believe that ALL those who do not "acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord here on earth" will. Some of those people will undoubtedly be serial killers and the like. Others will be, say, babies. Or the Amazon tribes we're not allowed to mention.
quote:I'm also troubled by why, oh why, belief in the condemnation of sinners is so dearly and passionately held. Why can't we just leave the giving out of grace or punishment to God and simply agree that it is sin that is the issue?
He judges and condemns sin, no doubt -- but does it follow from this that he judges and condemns sinners? That's the sticky bit for me.
quote:How could I have missed this one?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I like Fred. "I believe in Fred, the Father almighty...." Has a certain something, don't you think, and would save a lot of this confusion.
quote:I'm arguing the opposite of what you state in the last para. I stated that all actions are a mixture, but there may be some where free choice is not available. I'm thinking of psychosis and things like that. I certainly do not believe in anyone acting out of pure evil, because we are all made in God's image, and our likeness is damaged but not completely obliterated. I don't think Hitler was pure evil.
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:Just kind of musing out loud to see what I think....There may be people who are evil with no reason, but mostly I think not. I think most people hurt others because they have been hurt. Perhaps some think that makes me a raving sociological liberal, but I'm not arguing that having been hurt removes responsibility for our free will or for sinning. I'm not arguing "excuse that person's evil action and sin because they've had a hard upbringing". But I think I'm arguing "There but for the grace of God go I".
That's not what I meant at all. I'm thinking of people who murder, rape, Hitler, etc, not depressed people.
I believe every action, whether good or bad, has some amount of free choice, some conditioning, etc and God judges the free choice bit. There may be exceptions though. (to the free choice)
It seems to me that by thinking that there are people who are evil for no reason other than the pure enjoyment of evil, that we can very easily distance ourself from them. They are enjoyers of evil whereas we are better than that. God can forgive "someone like me" but not "someone like them".
quote:In my head, I came to no conclusions about what you think about people. I was musing in hypothetical space, using what I apparently misunderstood you as saying. It doesn't seem we're that far off agreeing with each other. Rather than trying to explain myself at this stage - which usually just ends up resulting in more confusion - I'll just bow out.
So, you are reading what I've written, then come to conclusions about how I think about people, which aren't true.
quote:I heard dismissiveness due to gnosticism and I didn't hear you argue against dismissiveness until your reply to me on this page. I thank you for that reply and would say that we seem to be very much on the same page with respect to gnosticism (what little I really understand of it, which is not much).
The alternative universe being proposed by some here does amount to a form of gnosticism, as ChristinaMarie has suggested. If so, that is nothing new; Christianity has had to contend with this since the beginning...
quote:"What if they never want to be saved?" In the context of this discussion, we are talking about "saved from eternal torture" right? It is the image of God willing to countenance eternal torture or to actually implement eternal torture that is at the heart of the Sharkshooter doctrine of the OP. It is the image of God requiring periodic blood sacrifice of animals to assuage his righteous wrath at the disobedience of the original bellybuttonless man and woman that offends; requiring the torture of a son in place of the animals; the threat of eternal torture for those who do not believe or accept this blood sacrifice as a righteous and just punishment for a distant ancestor eating a fruit that they were not supposed to after putting it in place as a temptation. The Sharkshooter doctrine says that this is what we are "saved" from: eternal torture for a single act of disobedience in response to temptation and deception.
The serial killer, rapist, Hitler, could all be saved, is what I believe. The question I'm asking is, 'what if they never want to?' The question is not 'what about those who won't want to because they are so evil?' There's a difference. My question is hypothetical.
quote:Wow. So, in a dispute of two versions of the Christian God that kind of statement passes muster, but as in past disputes on this board, saying that the God of Islam is not the same as the Christian God earns a verbal pummeling? I sense a disconnect here.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But it really sums up this whole argument for me: it's not about what we believe about God, it's about what God we believe in. And I believe there comes a point where, whatever superficial similarities our Gods might have, and hedged about though they may be with the same creeds and scriptures (well similar ones anyway), they are actually not the same God.
quote:Probably both. Our understanding will never be sufficient to grasp all there is of God. If you hold that your conception of God is the be-all and end-all of understanding that closes the book on theology, then it is definately an idol.
The question then becomes, which one is God, and which is the idol? Or are they both idols (since they can't both be God)?
quote:I'm happy to admit the point was trite, but not inaccurate. An analogy: a person says, "I believe in a place called Hollywood. It is a wonderful and terrible place in California where people make movies." Another says, "I believe in a place called Hollywood. It is a rather ordinary little village near Durham."
So, in a dispute of two versions of the Christian God that kind of statement passes muster, but as in past disputes on this board, saying that the God of Islam is not the same as the Christian God earns a verbal pummeling?
quote:Actually - and this is my point - I think we're talking about different Christianities. And that's why the debate is taking the form it is. However different Allah as a (Muslim)concept may be from God as a Christian concept, (or from Allah as a Palestinian Christian concept, as has been pointed out) no-one who is a professing Christian has a right to tell a muslim that they're doing Islam the wrong way. The two sides on this thread, however, are deeply engaged in telling each other that the other side is doing its Christianity the wrong way. And both sides have a legitimate stake in this. What the anti-Sharkshooters are saying is: what you're offering is a parody of Christianity which is a brush that tars us all. You are saying that the Christian God is a monster, and that the
But it really sums up this whole argument for me: it's not about what we believe about God, it's about what God we believe in. And I believe there comes a point where, whatever superficial similarities our Gods might have, and hedged about though they may be with the same creeds and scriptures (well similar ones anyway), they are actually not the same God.
quote:faith is a monstrosity. You are misrepresenting what the faith we all believe amounts to.
Christian
quote:Despite it being the only reading I can come up by taking the bible literally, unbound by preconceptions? I thought that's what you claimed the rest of us did wrong.
Originally posted by Grits:
Justinian, I find your response to my post so convoluted and incorrect that I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say, I disagree with every exception you have taken.
quote:I don't write the God of Genesis off as a complete fable (although I certainly don't think it happened exactly in the way described). I do, however, think that the writers of Genesis had a glimpse of something important- but that they didn't fully understand what they were seeing.
However, I do see now how you arrive at some of your justifications for your beliefs. By writing off the God of Genesis as a fable (or worse), you completely exonerate yourself of moral responsibility, as "your God" would never make you responsible for any actions, since He made you, and loves you, etc., etc., etc.
quote:If I've got children, I want to know about it!
This all makes me very curious as to how you do your parenting. If you rear your children the same way you think God "parents" us, they must all be ring-tailed tooters.
quote:I'm not 100% sure I want Him to be the way I see Him
And, if I haven't made it clear enough before now, I hope God really is the way you see Him. I really hope He is.
quote:The Jews don't just work off the OT. They have various other sources like the Mishna and the Gemara (known colloquially as the commentary and the commentary on the commentary) as part of the religion. Wrestling with the text rather than finding it inerrant is therefore the default position.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Sorry, I ought also to say that my point was that the Jews read the same OT as the Sharkshooterettes, but don't come up with anything like the OP. I find that very interesting.
quote:No, I do not care to do so.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Perhaps you'd care to post your interpretation of those passages and then explain how it is an interpretation that does not reject the literal wording of those passages and apply your preconceptions, formed with the aid of tradition, reason and interpretation to the bible.
I thought about it for this last time around, then decided I had already expressed my thoughts on my first post. But you'll have to trust me -- I have no preconceptions, and everyone knows I don't use tradition, reason nor interpretation for reading the Bible! (Sorry -- I'm punchy from wardening in the Church of Fools 'til 2 a.m.)quote:I agree with this -- except I think we flunked.
My interpretation is that the garden of eden was a test, and that we passed.
I know this is serious, salvation-based stuff, and I have truly hurt over this thread. But my love for the individuals involved outweighs my need to continue to say the same thing over and over. You know what I believe, I know what you believe -- I still love and want the best for us all.quote:My children are past those ages and have turned beautifully, thankyouverymuch. Seriously, though, I have mentioned on other threads that my life is not bound by my earthly relationships, and I love no one more than I love the Father and the Son. In fact, I am so committed to this choice that I am certain I would have had no problem cutting off communication with a wayward child. Quit loving them? No. Quit praying for their soul's salvation? Never. I just believe that it's all about choices and consequences, both here and beyond. That is the true test that we all must pass.
I hope that you don't look at your children when they reach 18 or 21 and, if they don't measure up to your standards, shoot them. That would be the nearest equivalent I can find of condemning people to hell when they die. I certainly hope you don't make this your default decision, then tell your children they should be greatful because you arbitrarily haven't done it in their case.
quote:But why not? Tell me what you would change.
I'm not 100% sure I want Him to be the way I see Him.
quote:You can't mean that! No problem?
In fact, I am so committed to this choice that I am certain I would have had no problem cutting off communication with a wayward child.
quote:I'm speaking out of a "let's stand back and try to answer this objectively" place. Not an emotional place.
May I ask, particularly of JimT, what is "wrong", if anything with my fundamentalism, if that's what it is, in the light of outrageous grace as will be exercised in Judgment?
quote:No problem, but you've just highlighted the real problem I have with fundamentalists of all stripes- not using any interpretation is a psychological impossibility, as is not using any reason in places where the bible conflicts with itself (of which there are plenty). I therefore find such claims dishonest.
Originally posted by Grits:
But you'll have to trust me -- I have no preconceptions, and everyone knows I don't use tradition, reason nor interpretation for reading the Bible! (Sorry -- I'm punchy from wardening in the Church of Fools 'til 2 a.m.)
quote:My understanding there is pretty heretical. *shrug* My other interpretation may be closer to the truth anyway- that it wasn't a pass/fail issue, but one of which future would fit us best. (I'd rather have this one)
quote:I agree with this -- except I think we flunked.
My interpretation is that the garden of eden was a test, and that we passed.
quote:Two questions: temporarily or permenantly? and how is this equivalent to condemning them to eternal torment?
In fact, I am so committed to this choice that I am certain I would have had no problem cutting off communication with a wayward child.
quote:There I'll agree. I just won't agree that the consequences in your scheme are, by any measure, just, merciful or loving.
I just believe that it's all about choices and consequences, both here and beyond. That is the true test that we all must pass.
quote:A sense of humour in an omnipotent being is an extremely dangerous thing. I think what I'd change would depend on my state of mind at the time.
quote:But why not? Tell me what you would change.
I'm not 100% sure I want Him to be the way I see Him.
quote:My remark did sound a little cavalier. By "cut off" I guess I meant to be unapproving and physically unsupportive. (I mentioned that love and prayers would continue.) But I am a total advocate of the old "Tough Love" theory. I also believe there is no earthly relationship that should usurp our obedience to God. Jesus told us that "anyone who loves mother, father, etc. more than Me is not worthy of Me." His whole ministry concerned teaching us to "leave the dead to bury the dead", dropping our nets and following Him. I have too many friends who value earthly relationships more than they do their spiritual relationship with God.
Originally posted by pysduck:
You can't mean that! No problem?
quote:I totally agree with the first part of this passage, and totally disagree with the latter. (Is that possible?) I have tried to explain the "interpretation phenomema" to several Shipmates by PM -- don't know how successful I was. I still concede that there is some confusion about the actual term "interpretation". Yes, the scriptures have to be read in context, in light of the times in which they were written, etc. Who would have a problem with that? The interpretation I refuse to do is deciding "This part can't be true" or "This part couldn't be inspired of God" or "This part's pure crap." That's the kind of interpretation I see being used quite often, and that's the kind that I find worse than dishonest.
not using any interpretation is a psychological impossibility, as is not using any reason in places where the bible conflicts with itself (of which there are plenty). I therefore find such claims dishonest.
quote:And once again I will play the "You're putting your concepts and measure of justice, mercy and love on the God who created the universe" card.
I just won't agree that the consequences in your scheme are, by any measure, just, merciful or loving.
quote:Interesting. Really, really obscure, but interesting.
A sense of humour in an omnipotent being is an extremely dangerous thing. I think what I'd change would depend on my state of mind at the time.
quote:Don't worry- there are days when I don't get where I'm at. Would it help if I were to repeat my statement in hell and say that I'm trying to seek the right question rather than the right answer?
Originally posted by Grits:
I'm still not totally getting where you're at, Justinian, but that's OK.
quote:It's not worse than dishonest if you work under the assumption that the scriptures are the divinely inspired work of man, and as works of man they have attributes of any work of man and are therefore flawed, making it ones duty to try and work out what's direct divine inspiration, what's misunderstood divine inspiration, what's hyperbole and what's the work of man. You are, however, on extremely shaky ground as you can then use the bible to prove pretty much anything.
quote:I totally agree with the first part of this passage, and totally disagree with the latter. (Is that possible?) I have tried to explain the "interpretation phenomema" to several Shipmates by PM -- don't know how successful I was. I still concede that there is some confusion about the actual term "interpretation". Yes, the scriptures have to be read in context, in light of the times in which they were written, etc. Who would have a problem with that? The interpretation I refuse to do is deciding "This part can't be true" or "This part couldn't be inspired of God" or "This part's pure crap." That's the kind of interpretation I see being used quite often, and that's the kind that I find worse than dishonest.
not using any interpretation is a psychological impossibility, as is not using any reason in places where the bible conflicts with itself (of which there are plenty). I therefore find such claims dishonest.
quote:And I'm going to play the obvious counter and say that God tries to use such human terms for a reason, and that there is no way he can be less than man- the definitions I'm giving are (to me) bare minimums- being Love is a completely different issue from being loving.
quote:And once again I will play the "You're putting your concepts and measure of justice, mercy and love on the God who created the universe" card.
I just won't agree that the consequences in your scheme are, by any measure, just, merciful or loving.
:quote:Well, first thing: I certainly think/hope God has a sense of humor. If She doesn't, we're all in big trouble.
I'm not GK and don't see punishment as completely contrary to the nature of God (and my God certainly has a sense of humour- something far more dangerous for creation). There is a vast difference between not punishing and not doling out eternal punishments.
quote:(Italics for emphasis.)
Originally posted by Custard123:
After all, if God is inifintely good, then rejecting him is an infinite crime.
Only if God counts it as one.
Is God really going to say, "Boo hoo! You don't like me. Bad human. BAD! Take your toys and go home to hell. Hope you get a nice tan"?
I swear, we often make God sound like a two year old with a tantrum.
And does anyone truly reject God? They may reject *ideas about* God, but no one really *knows* what God is like. And everyone sees through the lenses of their experiences, culture, biochemistry, etc.
Anyone else - what would God do to Hitler?
The same as She would do with anyone else: help him get well, help him face what he did and make peace with the people he hurt, help him grow, love him.
And I do not say this lightly.
quote:I'm well aware of the evil that happens in this world. But the more I grow and get to know people, the more I understand that there are reasons for the way a person is, that only God can see how much choice a person has in a particular situation, and that everyone matters.
Perhaps...
What if God made us out of love, and She knows us as we are, and She loves us as we are?
What if She's like a healthy mom watching Her kids grow and learn--seeing us fall and go boom, get into fights, break each other's toys, get sick, even make Her laugh and smother Her with kisses?
What if we've somehow misheard and misunderstood, and She's not about judgement? She may say "clean up your act/planet/marriage/whatever", but She's not about to throw anyone way--both because She loves us and because it would break Her heart.
Maybe She just says, "Whoops, sweetie, you fell down" and waits as long as it takes for us to get up again.
Maybe She really is LOVE, and we've gotten most of it wrong all along.
quote:That still amounts to the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine trying to, as I said before, "justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part." You just pointed out a couple different ways of justifying these apparent injustices, and noted that the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine who posted on this thread used one of those ways rather than the other.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
JJRamsey:quote:
Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God recognize (at least intuitively) the epistemological problem and therefore find fault with judging God and choose instead to justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part.quote:I take this to mean "Those who believe that the OP is the truth about God." Thus when Russ says:
Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed Godquote:if I can strain the analogy, the Sharkshooters would be in the position of saying "Yes indeed, she does do all that you say our belief about her implies that she does. And yet she is still by definition good, loving and just, because she is Grits - and she herself is the definition of these things." Note that they aren't saying "Well, it may look this way, but in the end it will turn out to be that, when we know even as we are known (I Cor. 13) we shall be able to see that God actually is good and loving and just in ways that make sense to us."
If I pass on a rumour that Grits tears the heads off hamsters, is it not entirely reasonable for you to reject such a notion on the grounds that it doesn't square with what you know of her character ?
quote:You misunderstand. Let me rephrase slightly (addition in square brackets):
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
JJ Ramsey says:quote:Now he's talking about my position vis-a-vis the Sharkshooter Doctrine here, so I feel no compunction in rejecting what he says. My position is that God is the source of our moral intuition
Those who believe that the God of the OP is not truly God feel free to judge the God of the OP because according to their worldview, it is not the source of their moral intuition and so the epistemological problem is avoided.
quote:Given that you clearly deny that the God of the OP is actually God, is it not fair to say that as far as you understand it, the God of the OP did not give you your moral intuition?
Those who believe that the God of the OP is not truly God feel free to judge the God of the OP because according to their worldview, it [that is, the God of the OP] is not the source of their moral intuition and so the epistemological problem is avoided.
quote:The point I was making , unless I misunderstand it, was that the Sharkshooterettes aren't saying "All this may seem unjust now, but one day we shall see clearly that it is just. They're not even saying (and this too is a fairly classical theological/philosophical position) "All this may seem unjust, but that's because we can neve hope to have all the information on which to understand the moral basis of God's actions here. He is omniscient, we aren't, and never shall be, so we can never have all the information, and in principle, we can never understand. We just have to trust that God is just - in the sense (or something pretty much like it, only purer and better) in which we, too, understand justice.
That still amounts to the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine trying to, as I said before, "justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part."
quote:You mean, in the sense that I don't beieve that Kali, or Apollo, or Optimus Prime gave me my moiral intuition? This harks back to the confusion I mentioned earlier. The God of the OP is not Allah, or Kali. The God of the OP is a candidate for the "This Is God - The Christian God - As All Christians Should Believe In Him™" Award; this is a postulate that if you are a Christian, this is how you should believe. And what I'm saying isn't that I disbelieve in the God of the Op, but that the OP is wrong about God. Wrong about the Christian God. Wrong about what Christianity is.
Given that you clearly deny that the God of the OP is actually God, is it not fair to say that as far as you understand it, the God of the OP did not give you your moral intuition?
quote:I don't think there's much argument about that, contouredburger. I've certainly said that I believe that our moral 'sense' is compromised by our fallenness, and in specific ways.
Could somebody explain to me why our moral perception is to be regarded as such an important and valid tool for this discussion? Surely if sin distorts our very nature then this faculty must be distorted as well?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:I think a lot stands or falls by what you mean by "revealed" here...
The real issue is one of internal consistency - does either the OP or any other theological position on the Atonement/salvation/etc. maintain a consistency between the nature and actions of God revealed in Christ and the nature and actions of God revealed elsewhere in the NT and in the OT?
quote:Pretty much, yes.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:You mean, in the sense that I don't beieve that Kali, or Apollo, or Optimus Prime gave me my moiral intuition?
Given that you clearly deny that the God of the OP is actually God, is it not fair to say that as far as you understand it, the God of the OP did not give you your moral intuition?
quote:Six of one, half a dozen of the other. You disbelieve (and IMHO, rightly) that the OP is right about God, so that entails disbelieving in the God described in the OP.
And what I'm saying isn't that I disbelieve in the God of the Op, but that the OP is wrong about God. Wrong about the Christian God. Wrong about what Christianity is.
quote:I think for many Sharkshooterettes, the second statement grew from the first and replaced it as a sufficient explanation. As we make the attempt to reconcile our perception of injustice with God's justice by first defining our ignorance and limitations, and then pointing to the One who is perfect and infinite in power, knowledge, love, justice, mercy, etc., for the eventual balancing of the scales, it can quickly get summarized into an appeal to a higher authority. From there, some boil it down further to Might makes Right.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
The point I was making , unless I misunderstand it, was that the Sharkshooterettes aren't saying "All this may seem unjust now, but one day we shall see clearly that it is just. They're not even saying (and this too is a fairly classical theological/philosophical position) "All this may seem unjust, but that's because we can neve hope to have all the information on which to understand the moral basis of God's actions here. He is omniscient, we aren't, and never shall be, so we can never have all the information, and in principle, we can never understand. We just have to trust that God is just - in the sense (or something pretty much like it, only purer and better) in which we, too, understand justice.
No, they are saying - at least some of them , quite explicitly - "Hey, this is God we're talking about! He's not accountable to you! Anything he does is OK, because this is his universe, and you are nothing! How dare you suggest that God is unjust. Justice is whatever God says it is!"
quote:No, it doesn't. Disbelieving a postulate that the moon is made of green cheese isn't disbelieving in a green-cheese moon, that other people may believe in. It means disagreeing with people about what the moon is made of. The argument you were advancing about the epistemological status of our moral 'sense' rested on your being able to assume that I didn't believe that the God of the OP was the origin of that moral sense. My position is that my moral 'sense' (however defined) is something that does have its ultimate ground in God. You can't turn that round by saying "Ah, but even you would have to agree that your position is that the God of the OP is not the originator of your moral sense (because you don't believe that the God of the OP exists) so you're basically agreeing with those pro-OP people, for whom the God of the OP exists, that the God of the OP is not the origin of your moral sense."
You disbelieve (and IMHO, rightly) that the OP is right about God, so that entails disbelieving in the God described in the OP.
quote:Hmmm. Well... The difficulty is that the line of attack that most of its opponents have taken against the Sharkshooter Doctrine is that it formulates the relationship between God's deeds and his justice in such a way that it completely abuses the notion of justice, and makes it impossible that anything could ever come to light that could redeem this God, or explain what we [purport, under the Sharkshooter Doctrine, to] know about his actions. In other words, if God is and does as the OP says he is and does, no amount of further expanison of our moral sense by broadening of context, knowledge of circumstances, etc. could ever persuade us that these things are just.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
The point I was making , unless I misunderstand it, was that the Sharkshooterettes aren't saying "All this may seem unjust now, but one day we shall see clearly that it is just. They're not even saying (and this too is a fairly classical theological/philosophical position) "All this may seem unjust, but that's because we can neve hope to have all the information on which to understand the moral basis of God's actions here. He is omniscient, we aren't, and never shall be, so we can never have all the information, and in principle, we can never understand. We just have to trust that God is just - in the sense (or something pretty much like it, only purer and better) in which we, too, understand justice.
No, they are saying - at least some of them , quite explicitly - "Hey, this is God we're talking about! He's not accountable to you! Anything he does is OK, because this is his universe, and you are nothing! How dare you suggest that God is unjust. Justice is whatever God says it is!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think for many Sharkshooterettes, the second statement grew from the first and replaced it as a sufficient explanation.
quote:And the bottom line is unearthed. You don't question God.
When backed into a corner, one often pulls out the "big gun", ergo the "God is God and He can be anyway He wants to be" argument. When understanding becomes implausible, the nitty-gritty is often unearthed.
quote:Yes, but that's the problem. The Might makes Right argument reduces God to The biggest bully on the block who takes your lunch money, breaks your glasses, pushes you into the mud puddle and then says it's the Right Thing to do, just because he can.
Originally posted by Grits:
When backed into a corner, one often pulls out the "big gun", ergo the "God is God and He can be anyway He wants to be" argument. When understanding becomes implausible, the nitty-gritty is often unearthed.
quote:I think that is a valid thesis as part of an examination of God's sovereignty. Whether it is defensible on its own is the question. I think that is where much of the disagreement comes from, because sovereignty or justice or holiness is taken out and examined separately and leads to a false (and often unconscious) either-or situation. Our understanding of each of God's attributes must be informed by all the rest, as well as by our understanding of what God is not.
....You don't question God.
quote:Which is what you get when you value one attribute out of proportion to all the others. Sharkshooterettes put the bar very high for sovereignty. Any theology which challenges that would be, by definition, inferior.
Which really means - you don't question the Sharkshooter Doctrine.
quote:Bad example. Disbelieving a postulate that the moon is made of green cheese is disbelieving in a green-cheese moon. That's just shy of a tautology.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
JJ Ramseyquote:No, it doesn't. Disbelieving a postulate that the moon is made of green cheese isn't disbelieving in a green-cheese moon, that other people may believe in.
You disbelieve (and IMHO, rightly) that the OP is right about God, so that entails disbelieving in the God described in the OP.
quote:Where did you get the idea that I was trying to say that you were "basically agreeing with those pro-OP people"?!!!
The argument you were advancing about the epistemological status of our moral 'sense' rested on your being able to assume that I didn't believe that the God of the OP was the origin of that moral sense. My position is that my moral 'sense' (however defined) is something that does have its ultimate ground in God. You can't turn that round by saying "Ah, but even you would have to agree that your position is that the God of the OP is not the originator of your moral sense (because you don't believe that the God of the OP exists) so you're basically agreeing with those pro-OP people, for whom the God of the OP exists, that the God of the OP is not the origin of your moral sense."
quote:My reply (using your paraphrasing) was:
The argument you were advancing about the epistemological status of our moral 'sense' rested on your being able to assume that I didn't believe that the God of the OP was the origin of that moral sense. My position is that my moral 'sense' (however defined) is something that does have its ultimate ground in God.
quote:That's where my reply ends. This part
"Ah, but even you would have to agree that your position is that the God of the OP is not the originator of your moral sense (because you don't believe that the God of the OP exists)"
quote:is your misreading.
so you're basically agreeing with those pro-OP people, for whom the God of the OP exists, that the God of the OP is not the origin of your moral sense."
quote:I wasn't solving anything. I was pointing out the difficulty, which I described as a "wall."
It doesn't address, let alone solve, the epistemological difficulty you see here.
quote:This really struck me as quite funny. I think this was the whole premise of the OP -- to question that doctrine. I think he was really trying to dig into the "whys" of the different beliefs here.
Originally posted by pysduck:
Which really means - you don't question the Sharkshooter Doctrine.
quote:I agree with what you're trying to say here. But I wouldn't have put it like that. And this has been my point throughout. I'm not saying "I don't believe in this God." I'm saying "I don't believe that God is as you say he is."
Here's the problem. Here's the "wall." From your perspective, there is no epistemological difficulty, because you are simply using God-given moral intuition to judge what isn't God in the first place.
quote:No. (In any case, why would that be more circular for them than for me? I'm not just proposing to judge their conception of God by a moral standard - let's use that term instead of 'sense' - deriving from God. I'm proposing to judge my own conception too. What's inherently circular about proposing to judge the source of a moral intuition on the basis of that moral intuition? "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" is Abraham doing just exactly that. It's no different from saying to someone "That's not like you...")
However, as far as the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine are concerned, you are using God-given moral intuition (and a fallen version of it, at that) to judge the source of that very intuition, and for them, that is, on its face, circular, and therein lies the epistemological problem.
quote:They are criticizing me for using moral intuition to judge God. At all. God is not to be judged. Not by me, not (incredibly!) by Abraham, who, whatever Scripture says, was a Very Naughty Boy™ for talking back to God. That is their position. The epistemological wall you describe isn't there. They understand that their opponents are saying that their conception of God in immoral, and they are saying "We don't care! Goodness, justice and love, applied to God, mean whatever we say they do, because whatever God is, these things also are. God can be loving, good and just, and still condemn finite beings to an infinity of torture and suffering because they don't make the correct formal confession of faith in him."
using God-given moral intuition (and a fallen version of it, at that) to judge the source of that very intuition...
quote:Grits, if you were questioning this doctrine, I missed it.
This really struck me as quite funny. I think this was the whole premise of the OP -- to question that doctrine.
Your privilege, I know...quote:That, I admit, was a bit sweeping. The formal procedures by which Sharkshooterettes dismiss the moral objections of their opponents, though perfunctory, do bear some resemblance to a rather violent epistemology according to which what we know of God is derived from infallible propositions contained in Scripture, which are to be accepted and correlated on the basis that each has the status of absolute truth. All roads through this kind of "epistemology" lead in short order to Dead Horse Country. If you want to call this "epistemology", I admire your charity.
Epistemology has nothing to do with it.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:I, of course, have no idea who Moltmann is, but let's do look at this "God is love" quotient that many seem to think is the negating factor in the OP:
Originally posted by pysduck:
then presumably they reject Moltmann's assertion (which I accept as fundamental) that God is love is The Basic Christian Statement.
quote:Exactly. So... what happens to them on judgment day?
It's only grinches who do not love at all that do not dwell in God and have God dwell in them.
quote:Only if one has allowed the love of God to dwell in him will the fear of torment be cast out.
Therefore God will not torment for he is [perfect] love. Kinda makes the hell of the OP look a bit odd.
quote:God heals 'em, same as everyone else. If you are a grinch, with a heart "seven sizes too small", it's because you've been hurt and damaged.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Exactly. So... what happens to them on judgment day?
It's only grinches who do not love at all that do not dwell in God and have God dwell in them.
quote:And again, does anyone ever really, truly reject God?
quote:Only if one has allowed the love of God to dwell in him will the fear of torment be cast out.
Therefore God will not torment for he is [perfect] love. Kinda makes the hell of the OP look a bit odd.
This has never been about people who have accepted that love. It's about the ones who have rejected it.
quote:I've yet to meet any humans incapable of love and I'm not even sure such a thing classifies as human. On the other hand, I dont think the judgement is going to be comfortable for anyone.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Exactly. So... what happens to them on judgment day?
It's only grinches who do not love at all that do not dwell in God and have God dwell in them.
quote:But a being who is Love will not torment. He may let you torment yourself, but that is a completely different thing from throwing you into hell and tormenting you that way. (There goes the Hell of the OP)
quote:Only if one has allowed the love of God to dwell in him will the fear of torment be cast out.
Therefore God will not torment for he is [perfect] love. Kinda makes the hell of the OP look a bit odd.
quote:Not entirely.
This has never been about people who have accepted that love. It's about the ones who have rejected it.
quote:You can accept the love of God under the premises of 1 John 4 without ever acknowledging that Jesus is Lord while here on earth. You can accept the love of God under those premises while thinking that Jesus was a false prophet.
From the OP:
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:I don't think so. What breaks in my view is the OP.
Originally posted by Grits:
I understand all that you say, Justinian. I just feel you are stretching your beliefs to the point of breaking, trying to encompass your definitions.
quote:Agreed. But being Love is a much much stronger statement than God is loving. If God is Love, he can do nothing incompatable with being Love.
Love isn't God. God is love. There's a HUGE difference.
quote:May I ask upon what this teaching is based? And please don't say the Bible.
Originally posted by Justinian:
We shall all find ourselves to be one of the sheep and we shall all find ourselves to be one of the goats. The light shall strip away all illusion and pretense and show ourselves who we truly are. Such shall be the judgement and almost all shall despair, to be healed by the love of God.
quote:And show thusly by sending His Son.
If God is Love, he can do nothing incompatable with being Love.
quote:My but this is awkward. I've only been asked for my blessing one time before, by a coworker who had unwittingly committed a terrible atrocity in Vietnam, was too ashamed to confess to a priest, and therefore confessed to me when he found out my father was a "priest" (country preacher and high school second shift janitor).
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
May I ask, particularly of JimT, what is "wrong", if anything with my fundamentalism, if that's what it is, in the light of outrageous grace as will be exercised in Judgment?
Is there a philosophical, theological, moral, Christian flaw or problem in accepting the Bible as "erring" on the side of literal, especially with regard to the multiply (y = ee not I) lethal God revealed from one end of it to the other, who whilst incarnate was distinctly not and who is revealed as determined to save the vast majority of mankind after death?
quote:Must admit I'd never thought this through before, and it might even deserve its own thread, but wait a minute, if God is love, then isn't love, truly understood, God?
Originally posted by Grits:
Love isn't God. God is love. There's a HUGE difference.
quote:Trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Part bible, part Lewis and keeping heaven and hell as the same place, part mysticism of various forms, part intuition, part reason and part me.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:May I ask upon what this teaching is based? And please don't say the Bible.
Originally posted by Justinian:
We shall all find ourselves to be one of the sheep and we shall all find ourselves to be one of the goats. The light shall strip away all illusion and pretense and show ourselves who we truly are. Such shall be the judgement and almost all shall despair, to be healed by the love of God.
quote:Which was a big bit of evidence, but only one bit of evidence and far outweighed by the existance of hell to which people are condemed for all eternity. If people are condemed to hell for all eternity, then Jesus can be seen as a further way of tormenting humans by seeming to offer them a path and by inducing guilt. There is a good reason Hope was hidden in Pandora's Box.
quote:And show thusly by sending His Son.
If God is Love, he can do nothing incompatable with being Love.
quote:i was with you until here - why do not need such a Christ? I do.
Originally posted by JimT:
But I have no such Christ, nor a need for one.
quote:After going back again and again to find a direction for this thread, I'd have to agree. The OP was written generically enough that it functions as a spiritual Rorschach test. Over the last ten pages, the discussion has ranged (or perhaps raged?) through predestination vs. free will, particular election, Hell as eternal torment vs. limited torment vs. annihilationism vs. universalism, and at one point threatened to shoot the pony over Calvinism proper once again.
Psyduck (From way back):
I think, for the record, that that's why the thread kept veering away from his intentions; the OP read like someone putting their own construal on what the Bible says, insisting "This actually is what the Bible says..." and asking - thread title - "What if I'm right...?" Which annoyed the karaoke out of people whose position was "Well, I read the same Bible, and I don't see this in there..."
quote:I think that's charitably optimistic! I don't think that all the OPers share this sense of unbalance! I think that Willyburger is correct here. For the Sharkshoorterettes, something like God’s glory, holiness, sovereignty is so privileged that it informs the whole of the theology of this position.
It seems that there is general agreement at this juncture that it is an unbalanced theology that exalts one divine attribute over any other - e.g. divine sovereignty over divine love.
quote:One of them, certainly. But subtly so. So absolute sovereignty is seen as the cardinal divine attribute, to the extent that God has to be seen as arbitrary in order to be God. It has to be denied that anything at all can be a factor in determining who is saved and who is lost other than God’s sovereign freedom. Note that even Augustine says that God is just, even though his justice is inscrutable – a formal co-ordination of the attributes of sovereign freedom and justice even though its outworking in Augustine’s predestinarian thought is pretty vacuous! But the Sharkshooterettes won’t even concede this. Their criterion is not God’s love, not God’s justice, not God’s mercy, but a formal acknowledgement – and the form is approved by them! – of the Lordship of Jesus. It’s the contingent acceptance of an arbitrary condition of salvation. I think overwhelmingly, the anti-Sharkshooters take greatest offence at the last clause of the credo:
This would appear (and I am of course willing to apologise if this is a misapprehension on my part) to be precisely the criticism of OP theology (sovereignty>love).
quote:because it enshrines this.
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:Noted. Mebbes aye, mebbes naw. I think you have your work cut out here!
However, whilst I would agree that there are OPers who are guilty of this, I would disagree that it is some global weakness in such a theology.
quote:Some, maybe… But as you well know, that’s not a counter-argument.
Moreover, it strikes me that precisely this weakness can be found in alternatives to OP theology.
For instance, it’s not found in mine! quote:I think this is very fair. I think it's a salient criticism of a fair amount of liberal theology. But only if the selected attribute is used to characterize God exclusively. If the highlighted attribute is deployed to co-ordinate and interpret the other attributes of God, then such a theology needs to be judged on its merits, in the terms you suggested earlier, of faithfulness to revelation. (We still haven’t defined revelation, though, have we! Don’t think I haven’t noticed…) I’d go so far as to say that every last theology ever constructed highlights a fundamental attribute of God. If you can think of one that treats all attributes equally, I’d love to hear about it! But of course, to do that, you’d need a complete and authoritative inventory of divine attributes as either a starting-point, or as a check at the end that you’d actually done justice to them all. Oh, and just to cut off one avenue of escape, if anyone was thinking of saying that Scripture is such an inventory of divine attributes, and an inspired, authoritative one, then be it noted that that is almost certainly (though it’s unstated) the starting point of the OP, and look at how unbalanced that theology is from its highlighting of one attribute.
For instance, God is love, and therefore God sends his Son to die for sinners. This is God acting consistently with his own nature as love. But, as an OPer, I see "the wall" arising at precisely this point in some non-OP theology, because there is a sudden chariness with other aspects of the divine character or nature.
quote:The question, though, arising out of your own very valid observatoions above, is “What happens when God’s actions in defence of his holiness are co-ordinated by his attribute of love?” I don’t think that the answer to that is anything like the OP.
"God would not act in a manner that would contradict his loving nature" is a common refrain, and rightly so, but but why not "God would not act in a manner inconsistent with his holiness" also?
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Willyburger:
[this doctrine] put the bar very high for sovereignty. Any theology which challenges that would be, by definition, inferior.
My point, if anybody has been kind enough to remain with me through this ramble, is that it is quite possible to co-ordinate the love of God through holiness/sovereignty and IMHO this actually accentuates the love of God, insofar as it affirms that God did - but did not have - to become incarnate and redeem us. quote:JimT, I don't know where you came up with that interpretation, but it would make a fascinating discussion. I have never heard anyone say that the death of Adam and Eve was to be immediate (which you stated in a later post than the quoted one) because the fruit was poison. Indeed, man was created to live forever (and that is why early man lived some 900 years), and death did come, not from the eating of the apple, but from the desire to become more like God, knowing good from evil. That sin to which Satan previously gave into, was thus passed on to mankind. This was the sin that caused the fall.
Originally posted by JimT:
... The OP asks me to be literal. So I am being literal. It asks what I would think and how I would behave; what the impact would be if I thought it true. ...
I already know; it would give me a very, very literal view of the Creation Story. So let me think:
1. God says that if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die. A serpent tells Eve that she will not in fact die, but will simply know good and evil, as God does, and that God does not want this. What happens? They eat, they do not die, and they know good and evil. God now says, man has eaten of the tree of good and evil and become like us; he must not also eat of the tree of life or he will live forever. The original lie of God, that they would die if they ate of good and evil is now completely exposed. Man was going to die all along; eternal life requires eating from a second tree. "God" is a liar and the serpent was telling the truth.
quote:I would like very much to have that discussion and will start a thread in Kerygmania.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:JimT, I don't know where you came up with that interpretation, but it would make a fascinating discussion.
Originally posted by JimT:
... The OP asks me to be literal. So I am being literal. It asks what I would think and how I would behave; what the impact would be if I thought it true. ...
I already know; it would give me a very, very literal view of the Creation Story. So let me think:
1. God says that if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die. A serpent tells Eve that she will not in fact die, but will simply know good and evil, as God does, and that God does not want this. What happens? They eat, they do not die, and they know good and evil. God now says, man has eaten of the tree of good and evil and become like us; he must not also eat of the tree of life or he will live forever. The original lie of God, that they would die if they ate of good and evil is now completely exposed. Man was going to die all along; eternal life requires eating from a second tree. "God" is a liar and the serpent was telling the truth.
quote:No disagreement on that. However, possessing an attribute does not require the blind exercise of that attribute, nor is it clear to me that sovereignty demands a higher place than mercy or love within the Godhead. Is God subordinate to His attributes?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Willyburger:
[this doctrine] put the bar very high for sovereignty. Any theology which challenges that would be, by definition, inferior.
If God is not sovereign, is He God, or is he a god? Is a non-sovereign god worthy of worship? Not in my mind - for that is not God.
quote:Give this man the Templeton Prize for Progress in Science and Religion immediately. Or at least a cigar...
Is God subordinate to His attributes?
quote:Is that even a meaningful question.
Originally posted by Willyburger:
Is God subordinate to His attributes?
quote:Well, if it's not - how come you gave it a meaningful answer? See -
Is that even a meaningful question.
quote:
Sharkshooter, God is sovereign and hence doesn't need to go round pointing this out. It's only the insecure who need to demonstrate their power.
quote:Search page 8 for a reply I made to Grits, complete with proof texts. (One reason I consider proof-texting silly)
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
JimT, I don't know where you came up with that interpretation, but it would make a fascinating discussion. I have never heard anyone say that the death of Adam and Eve was to be immediate (which you stated in a later post than the quoted one) because the fruit was poison.
quote:So it's a choice between breathing and not ever gaining anything (if you can't tell good from bad, you've just got knowledge, without either understanding or living) and a short life in which you grow, gain understanding and wisdom and actually do things. I'll take the short but meaningful life, thanks and if this isn't what God wants, he is an incredibly bad craftsman.
Indeed, man was created to live forever (and that is why early man lived some 900 years), and death did come, not from the eating of the apple, but from the desire to become more like God, knowing good from evil.
quote:Tell that to Jonah! God either is not omniscient with respect to events in the future or lied to him.
But then, you don't believe any of it, for if you believe God lies, you do not know God.
quote:Sovreignty as I understand it is not so much an attribute of God as one of the Universe that God is sovreign to it. (Sort out the sovreignty within the Trinity...) For all practical purposes there is no difference for us mortals, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:Well, if it's not - how come you gave it a meaningful answer? See -
Is that even a meaningful question.
quote:My first question would, predictably enough, be "which one holds the keys to Heaven and Hell?"
Originally posted by Russ:
Just for a moment, suppose I set aside my insistence that what we are arguing about is different ideas of the one God, and which are true and worthy descriptions of Him. What if we do consider the matter as if these really were different gods that we are talking about ?
Imagine for a moment that you believe in the existence of three gods, named Sovereignty, Holiness, and Love respectively.
How do you envisage them ? Which would you worship, and why ? Which should you worship ?
Russ
quote:Indeed. Last night, the sermon in Chapel was about the `Prodigal Son' (or should that be the `Prodigal Father') as the last of a series of `But God's (But God saw him from a distanc) and as I listened I thought about this thread and about how Jesus describes God in that parable and I could not reconcile them. The Father in that parable is not Tyrannical; his son half expects that as he heads back to beg to be a servant but that's not what he gets. His Father sees him from afar off and rushes to meet him and lavishes him with gifts and celebrates his return, much to the chargrin of his elder brother. To me, the description of God in the OP seems to be far more similar to how the elder brother wanted his father to behave than the way which the Father did behave.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sovereignty is an attribute of God vis-a-vis not-God, i.e. creation. A God who was primarily sovereignty would presumably need a creation to be sovereign over, and if his prime need was to relate to that creation in terms of sovereignty, he would be at root a bully, no matter how nice he was to his children when they grovelled appropriately. He would treat them in such ways that their own perceptions of good, bad, right, wrong, were seriously skewed,a nd their self-esteem was zero. He would be a Tyrannical Father™.
quote:Love.
Originally posted by Russ:
Imagine for a moment that you believe in the existence of three gods, named Sovereignty, Holiness, and Love respectively.
How do you envisage them ? Which would you worship, and why ? Which should you worship ?
of it, so apologies if what I'm saying has been discussed already and I've missed it.quote:God the Sovreign I try to appease in the hope he'll leave me alone[1]. God the Holy I worship although I probably don't take him too far outside church. God who is Love I love, obey and follow gladly with all my heart.
Originally posted by Russ:
Just for a moment, suppose I set aside my insistence that what we are arguing about is different ideas of the one God, and which are true and worthy descriptions of Him. What if we do consider the matter as if these really were different gods that we are talking about ?
Imagine for a moment that you believe in the existence of three gods, named Sovereignty, Holiness, and Love respectively.
How do you envisage them ? Which would you worship, and why ? Which should you worship ?
Russ
quote:It has. Repeatedly. The problem with your statement if you mean it the way I believe you to mean it (if not, my apologies) is that an eternal hell is not just and can not be a just punishment for any action performed by mortal and inherently falliable man in his finite time on this earth.
Originally posted by The Cake Detective:
I've come rather late to this discussion, and so I must confess I haven't read all 11 pages
For me, it seems that if you take God's justice out of the equation, then you're diminishing his greatness, including the greatness of his love.
[SNIP]
) but might be powerless to assist/save that which it loves.quote:Let him say his piece in peace. I suspect there are few of us who have read the entire thread.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:It has. Repeatedly. The problem with your statement if you mean it the way I believe you to mean it (if not, my apologies) is that an eternal hell is not just and can not be a just punishment for any action performed by mortal and inherently falliable man in his finite time on this earth.
Originally posted by the Cake Detective:
For me, it seems that if you take God's justice out of the equation, then you're diminishing his greatness, including the greatness of his love.
[SNIP]
...(For more on the subject, read the rest of the thread).
quote:Then why does the Bible, and Christ Himself, teach that it does?
As such, a God that will subject people to eternal torment doesn't fit.
quote:Don't you mean to ask, "Then why am I able to find so many quotes that clearly indicate to me that it does?"
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Then why does the Bible, and Christ Himself, teach that it does?
As such, a God that will subject people to eternal torment doesn't fit.
quote:Which really just brings us back to the same old sticking point - how we treat the Bible. If the Word (Christ) is the ultimate revelation then we have to try to make other bits of the Bible fit that revelation of God as ultimate self-giving love. If the word (Bible) is the ultimate revelation then we have to try to make our understanding of God's love stretch to encompass what seem on the surface to many people to be extremely unloving acts and decisions.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Then why does the Bible, and Christ Himself, teach that it does?
As such, a God that will subject people to eternal torment doesn't fit.
quote:But that's the whole point. It's not asking you to devalue the Scriptures, but to re-evaluate your interpretation of the Scriptures.
Originally posted by Grits:
If that's how you want to put it, Jim. I personally can't devalue the scriptures that way.
quote:Don't give up your day job.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Translation of the above post by Sharkshooter: <snip>
quote:I'd just like to point out that I already said this, AT THE TOP OF PAGE 2!!
Originally posted by linzc:
Which really just brings us back to the same old sticking point - how we treat the Bible. If the Word (Christ) is the ultimate revelation then we have to try to make other bits of the Bible fit that revelation of God as ultimate self-giving love. If the word (Bible) is the ultimate revelation then we have to try to make our understanding of God's love stretch to encompass what seem on the surface to many people to be extremely unloving acts and decisions.
quote:[Edited to fix UBB]
Posted by moi
As usual, it all comes back to hermeneutics.
quote:Yeah, yeah. And it was implied in my post about the origins of Christianity on page one. But clearly some people still don't get it.
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:I'd just like to point out that I already said this, AT THE TOP OF PAGE 2!!
Originally posted by linzc:
Which really just brings us back to the same old sticking point - how we treat the Bible.
quote:[Edited to fix UBB]
Posted by moi
As usual, it all comes back to hermeneutics.
quote:I understand, Alex, but how, oh how, can you take scriptures that are so completely unmisinterpretable (not a word, I know) and make them be only "symbolic" or "metaphorical" or "just another way of saying..."
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But that's the whole point. It's not asking you to devalue the Scriptures, but to re-evaluate your interpretation of the Scriptures.
quote:Even my Evangelical friends tell me that He didn't spend a lot of time talking about hell, at least not as recorded in the Gospels. Mind you, once would be enough, if that is what he said...
Originally posted by Grits:
wanting to know why Jesus wasted so much time warning us about the eternal fires of hell
quote:Well, I'm ignorant of any language but English, and I'm sure these points have been made before by more qualified people, but my reading of J.B Phillips tells me that Jesus's references to "eternal punishment" are mistranslated. I think J.B Phillips is a respected linguist and scholar, though am willing to be corrected...but surely, in any case, the English translations of the Gospels cannot be regarded as definitive. Even if- or perhaps especially if- you believe in a literal understanding of the scriptures, the English versions cannot be anything more than a guide to what they say. They just can't.
Originally posted by Grits:
eternal
quote:Possibly because He used both the carrot and the stick in his teachings?
Originally posted by Grits:
If it does, I will be in the Q&A line, wanting to know why Jesus wasted so much time warning us about the eternal fires of hell, if that really wasn't going to be an issue.
quote:One day, I'll get round to going through the gospels and noting Jesus' references to hell and to whom he is talking at them time. Currently, my impression is that most of his warnings about hell are made to the scribes and the Pharisees and I'm not convinced he ever talks about `eternal fires' per se. I certainly get the impression that the Church has got far more hung up on hell than Jesus ever was. I do wonder how much the hell imagery used by the evangelicals today draws on the mediaeval conceptions of hell even when they believe they are drawing solely on the Bible.
Originally posted by Grits:
If it does, I will be in the Q&A line, wanting to know why Jesus wasted so much time warning us about the eternal fires of hell, if that really wasn't going to be an issue.
quote:I understand your position Grits, I really do.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Then why does the Bible, and Christ Himself, teach that it does?
As such, a God that will subject people to eternal torment doesn't fit.
I went offline to write a reply in notepad and had the reply pages for a couple of threads opened, and posted my previous post in this thread rather than the thread on the Second Coming Could some kindly host delete it?quote:Why do you think you have to understand something for it to be true?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I don't see why ...
quote:How can you decide whether or not something is true if you do not seek to understand it?
Why do you think you have to understand something for it to be true?
quote:Thank you. I was trying to figure out how to put that.
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
How can you decide whether or not something is true if you do not seek to understand it?
quote:Whether I think something is true or not is irrelevant. It either is true or it is false. Things I do not understand require faith.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Thank you. I was trying to figure out how to put that.
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
How can you decide whether or not something is true if you do not seek to understand it?
Worse, if you seek to understand it and it remains completely opaque, how can you possibly decide whether you think it's true or not?
quote:
John 20:
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
quote:Do you?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Do you just take your list of scriptures up to your pastor and have him (or her) tick the "literal" or "figurative" box?
quote:I gotta ask: Do you honestly believe that the God who made heaven and earth would allow the preservation, distribution, and teaching of His Word as we have it if it were not in a "translation" that He wanted made available to us? Is He trying to "trick" us by not giving everyone access to the "original language" and promoting these bogus translations which have stood the test of time? Do you not see how that comes across as ludicrous to me? Do you not exercise any faith of any kind about anything?
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
If they were translated accurately, the Bibles wouldn't sell though.
quote:My initial reaction is that it's nonsense.
Originally posted by The Cake Detective:
what do people make of the argument that to sin against an infinitely holy and perfect God deserves an infinite punishment
quote:I would argue that justice has some objective existence. Even though
Sharkshooter himself said:
The problem in saying something is just/unjust is that we see things from the human perspective. Is justice to be determined by Canadian standards? Iranian ones? Somalian ones? Your standards? My standards? etc. I would argue they are all different. Why would one of those be better than the other? The answer is, in my opinion, they are all imperfect, therefore all wrong (at least to some degree), and so cannot be applied to God.
quote:.
why does the Bible, and Christ Himself, teach that it does?
quote:I assume you'd accept that the Bible which was printed containing as one of the Ten Commandments 'Thou shalt commit adultery' was in error?
Originally posted by Grits:
I gotta ask: Do you honestly believe that the God who made heaven and earth would allow the preservation, distribution, and teaching of His Word as we have it if it were not in a "translation" that He wanted made available to us? Is He trying to "trick" us by not giving everyone access to the "original language" and promoting these bogus translations which have stood the test of time?
quote:Ermm! Are you arguing that the KJV is God's preserved Bible?
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:I gotta ask: Do you honestly believe that the God who made heaven and earth would allow the preservation, distribution, and teaching of His Word as we have it if it were not in a "translation" that He wanted made available to us? Is He trying to "trick" us by not giving everyone access to the "original language" and promoting these bogus translations which have stood the test of time? Do you not see how that comes across as ludicrous to me? Do you not exercise any faith of any kind about anything?
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
If they were translated accurately, the Bibles wouldn't sell though.
What is it like to have nothing but your own understanding to lean on and what do you ever feel you have to offer people? A God who may or may not keep His word? A guide from Him which may or may not be true? A sacrificed Son who may or may not provide the way to eternal life?
I don't think you do understand my position. I believe in the God of the masses. A God who makes His Word available to all as it has been preserved through the centuries. A God who wouldn't allow His "true meanings" to be available to only a handful who might have access to the "original language". How selective. How sociopathic. How false.
quote:It's a bit beyond "not understanding" - it's more like trying to accept black is white although I don't understand how.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Why do you think you have to understand something for it to be true?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I don't see why ...
quote:Let's please tone this down a bit, please. While I started this thread with a statement of some beliefs, I in no way intended for it to be referred to as my doctrine. Neither did I intend for people who agree with me to be called sharkshooterettes or anything similar to that. These kind of comments (together with the phrase quoted above) make me rather uncomfortable, so please let's find some other way of saying it.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Sharkshooter himself said:
quote:Wrong. Colours are known - except to the blind.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:It's a bit beyond "not understanding" - it's more like trying to accept black is white although I don't understand how.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Why do you think you have to understand something for it to be true?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I don't see why ...
quote:That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying Christianity is some kind of mystery religion in which only the chosen few have really "got it'. I was quoting a holy and faithful evangelical Christian who had devoted himself to translating the scriptures specifically so that "the masses" could have greater access to them. He strove with all his gifts to find the right words.
Originally posted by Grits:
A God who wouldn't allow His "true meanings" to be available to only a handful who might have access to the "original language". How selective. How sociopathic. How false.
quote:Not at all. I rarely use it myself, except to revisit some familiar passages or enjoy the language. I'm saying that almost any translation can be used for discerning God's word. It doesn't take having access to the original language, or volumes of study aids, or the Dead Sea Scrolls! I believe it is complete and perfect, however it stands.
Ermm! Are you arguing that the KJV is God's preserved Bible?
quote:And I also know what "love" and "justice" mean. If God's meaning for these words is so different from mine that there is no overlap - and if His "love" and "justice" is compatible with eternal conscious torment then there is indeed no overlap - then why use the words, except to confuse me? This God is not "loving" or "just" in any sense which those words communicate to me. He might as well have said He was "Fnart" and "Floodle" - I'd still have no idea.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Wrong. Colours are known - except to the blind.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:It's a bit beyond "not understanding" - it's more like trying to accept black is white although I don't understand how.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Why do you think you have to understand something for it to be true?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I don't see why ...
If you were blind, accepting that something is black is showing faith in someone else's representation to you that it is in fact black. You would never know for certain whether it is black or not - it may well be white. Of course, you likely would not even know what the word "black" meant.
quote:Soory for inventing that one. I actually did so because it seemed preferable to calling them Sharkshooters, as it distanced them a bit from you personally. I honestly don't think anyone is being personal about this - and I'm sure you don't either, notwithstanding the discomfort you have every right to say that you feel.
sharkshooterettes
quote:No problem.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sharkshooter:quote:Soory for inventing that one.
sharkshooterettes
quote:Fine with me. It's better than the one suggested on the other thread.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
How about FOTOP - Faith Of The Original Post?
Work with me here...
quote:I do appreciate what is being said here with the word "devalue." But I'd like to give another perspective to it.
Originally posted by Grits:
If that's how you want to put it, Jim. I personally can't devalue the scriptures that way.
quote:I believe that's exactly what I've been doing. As has been stated, I have no personal fear nor concern about Hell, be it real or not.
Originally posted by JimT:
Just believe that the blood of Jesus saved you from this fate, forget about Hell, and get on with your life.
quote:I have made neither statement mentioned here.
Stop saying it's unfair: you don't make the rules for the universe. Stop coming up with all kinds of stumbling blocks like what if someone never gets a Bible in their hands.
quote:The "fuss" is that, while we seem content to let you have your beliefs, you continue to ridicule, criticize and completely disregard ours. We have discussed how things would be if you are right; but, in turn, you have refused to have any reasonable discussion from the other side of the coin, i.e. the OP. All Sharkshooter wanted was a discussion, trying to get others to try and see things through the eyes of the OP. We are called on to do that all the time here on the Ship. Why should we not expect the same courtesy and respect, instead of the inevitable tongue-lashing and eye-rolling?
It's not your problem; save yourself first; if you're really worried, give to missions. What is it with you people? What's the fuss? Where's the mean ogre being followed by simpletons like me? Sheesh already.
quote:I hope you're not including me in that number, Jim. I'm not the one who is imprisoned.
I hope someday to convince Christian Fundamentalists to break through this barrier
quote:Yes, indeed. As was the OP.
But still worth considering I would say.
quote:I think this sounds more personal than I intended, and I apologize. I should have just said that I don't feel I am impeded in anyway.
Originally (and sadly) posted by Grits:
I hope you're not including me in that number, Jim. I'm not the one who is imprisoned.
quote:I find it hard to respect, as scholars, scholars who reduce the complexity of Scripture to the "it" of "the Bible".
However, I know there are highly respected Bible scholars who do say it teaches eternal punishment.
quote:What, you believe the OP and yet you don't have fears or concerns for people you care about who haven't yet confessed Jesus as Lord in the way the OP implies?
Originally posted by Grits:
As has been stated, I have no personal fear nor concern about Hell, be it real or not.
quote:That would not be a personal fear, as I so plainly put it. That would be a universal fear, and as I have also plainly stated in several previous posts, I certainly do have heartache and concern for the lost. If I didn't, I most assuredly wouldn't be taking the time to argue the viewpoints of this particular thread, now would I?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What, you believe the OP and yet you don't have fears or concerns for people you care about who haven't yet confessed Jesus as Lord in the way the OP implies?
The Viagra can be saved for someone more needy.
quote:You only "know" what they mean in an abstract way. That is, you have found a definition of them that you choose to accept.
And I also know what "love" and "justice" mean. If God's meaning for these words is so different from mine that there is no overlap - and if His "love" and "justice" is compatible with eternal conscious torment then there is indeed no overlap - then why use the words, except to confuse me?
quote:I just said that I couldn't personally respect the Biblical scholarship of scholars who simplified things so outrageously in the interests of a dogmatic stance.
Oh, my gosh. Now you're going to take exception to who is truly a "scholar" and who isn't? (And you know good and well that's not how the post was intended -- it was just a matter of semantics.)
quote:Well, I'd have thought that followed as night follows day. After all, you said exactly the same thing about a named scholar - Jurgen Moltmann - not that many posts ago.
So, not only is the way we read the Bible incorrect, but the scholars that we just happen to read who actually agree with us are incorrect, as well?
quote:
See, it's always your way or the highway. And it's just that attitude that may prevent you from convincing others of your viewpoint.
quote:Jesus Christ.
You only "know" what they mean in an abstract way. That is, you have found a definition of them that you choose to accept.
Why would you expect God to conform to your expectations/definitions?
quote:Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
Originally posted by Grits:
Yes, I grew up on the KJV, of course, and many times that's the only version of certain scriptures I can remember.
And I do agree that "the Word of God is living and active", and we must read in the Spirit and the understanding. God will always reveal His truths to those who seek.
quote:Yeah. What truth is that, since many of us disagree with what it is?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
Originally posted by Grits:
Yes, I grew up on the KJV, of course, and many times that's the only version of certain scriptures I can remember.
And I do agree that "the Word of God is living and active", and we must read in the Spirit and the understanding. God will always reveal His truths to those who seek.
quote:This is unfair.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
Originally posted by Grits:
God will always reveal His truths to those who seek.
quote:I take extreme exception to this. I did not resort to "your statement is so convoluted I'm not even going to respond." I did not go around in circles playing this card--he sent his Son--then the 'big gun'--God is Sovereign. As a sidelight, I can't believe given your repetitive "Big Gun" argument that you would say that you never said (paraphrase) "stop saying it's unfair: you don't make the rules for the universe." It's true the other statement about one who never gets a Bible in their hands came from the Shark. I was summarizing the opposing position not just yours.
Originally posted by Grits:
We have discussed how things would be if you are right; but, in turn, you have refused to have any reasonable discussion from the other side of the coin, i.e. the OP.
quote:How so? The difference on this thread is almost as fundamental as it gets, but I'd hesitate to pick people who aren't seeking on this thread.
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:This is unfair.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
Originally posted by Grits:
God will always reveal His truths to those who seek.
quote:Sorry. I read wrong. I thought you were suggesting that some people, and I took you to mean Grits among others, were not seeking the truth. Apologies.
Originally posted by Justinian:
How so? The difference on this thread is almost as fundamental as it gets, but I'd hesitate to pick people who aren't seeking on this thread.
, but certainly not . quote:was said in response to and agreement with Peppone's observation about reading vs. studying, and letting the scriptures "work" for you. It was nothing more than a belief and an observation. It was not intended as a revelation or denouncement. Just a prayer for all of us.
And I do agree that "the Word of God is living and active", and we must read in the Spirit and the understanding. God will always reveal His truths to those who seek.
quote:No generalization there. Nope. None.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, SS, I use the meanings of the words as everybody uses them.
quote:So you insist that God use language the way you want Him to - retroactively. Just checking.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I say again, what's the point God using these words if He means something with no resemblence to what they mean to anyone else?
quote:Good answer. But, I'm not sure if it is an answer to the question asked. Care to explain?
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sharkshooter:quote:Jesus Christ.
Why would you expect God to conform to your expectations/definitions?
quote:Given? By who? God? So the Miraim-Webster was inspired and is inerrant? I don't claim that. That was the point I was trying to make. It seems I did not do it well.
Originally posted by Zeke:
...why are we given completely different meanings for the same words?
quote:Actually, that's what a Buddhist bodhisattva does--pledges not to enter ultimate bliss until they've helped all other beings achieve it.
Originally posted by hatless:
'I refuse to enter heaven until I am in company with the last person left.'
Something like that is a quote I was once told; it's by a Jewish theologian, apparently - can't remember who. Wouldn't a person making such a statement be a morally better person than a God sorting people out for salvation or damnation?
quote:Well, I don't want to fall foul of a perfectly fair hostly ruling, but I think it is to do with the question of what constitutes revelation.
quote:Good answer. But, I'm not sure if it is an answer to the question asked. Care to explain?
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sharkshooter:
quote:Jesus Christ.
Why would you expect God to conform to your expectations/definitions?
quote:I don't want to pick a fight over inerrancy, which is properly a Dead Horse, but it does seem to me to be crucial that we acknowledge what counts as revelation, and how, if we really want to understand each other.
In Christian theology, [love is] the principle of God’s action and man’s response… In the OT, the loving character of God was recognized, notably by Hosea, but it was only in the NT that the doctrine that love constitutes the essential nature of Godwas developed. As the bond between the Father and the Son it is especially associated with the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, you have the types who think they can get such a grip on biblical prophecy that they can tell you what time of the afternoon Judgement Day/the Tribulation/the Rapture will start on. ) I am aware that non-OPers might simply agree with the dictionary definition and claim that divine love is clearer as we move from the OT to the NT. As such, the OPers hold an inconsistent view of Christ with respect to other biblical images. Inconsistent and fragmented it may well be, but I still think we are trying to hold them together!
quote:"Jettison" is a good word, that perhaps addresses what we're concerned about here.
Originally posted by contouredburger:
It just seems to me that non-OPers aren't always trying to harmonise or reconcile their interpretations of Christ with uncomfortable concepts in the Bible, but instead find the latter incompatible and so jettison them.
, "at the end of the day", having striven our best for reconciliation and failed, which way should we jump ? earlier; it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment on the way your name had become attached to one side of the argument, and should have had a smilie attached accordingly)quote:Liberalism being what it is, there are any number of liberal positions on the ideas contained here - but I think this probably manages to misrepresent them all. It's one of the most ignorant and ill-informed parodies of the liberal position that I have ever seen posted on the ship. I'm disappointed in you, Martin.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:The nice liberal, Buddhist, hands-off since the big-bang, you'll-all-get-there-in-the-end through countless aeons of tongue chewing, meaningless ignorance and agony, once you've evolved a bit, God?
quote:Even though this is Purgatory, not Hell, I have to say that that is fucking bollocks, Martin.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: The liberal God could not care less about our pain. Suffering with us just makes Him a masochist as well as a sadist.
quote:Indeed Qlib. This is probably NEARLY the nadir of descriptions of the evanglical position too. However, I think the prize for that, despite Martin's best efforts, still belongs to you. For this effort:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yer hyper-Calvinist, callous, careless, insouciantly, casually genocidal, unempathic, psycho, arbitrary, racist, sexist, classist, sadistic bastard God still makes 'itler look like the second coming, or a more consistent version of the first one, but what is yer theodicy for yer wishy-washy God?
quote:Annoying, when someone deliberately does that to your view, isn't it?
Your God is the God of Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’: a self-exalting, humourless, pompous prig. You’re positing a brand of Christianity which teaches the worthlessness of humanity. A snivelling miserable little religion, kow-towing to a cruel and pompous tyrant who has incomprehensibly designed the sacrifice of his ‘Son’ to redeem a world where people die horribly all the time - and is then going to punish people who fail to see this great ‘truth’.
quote:What evidence do you have for this Martin? It’s a lie.
The liberal God could not possibly care about our pain.
quote:
originally posted by DoD: ...the God suggested by many liberal accounts both cares about our pain and (in the divine nature) shares it, it's just that (S)He can't do very much about it.
quote:I am one of the 'many' who believes in 'limits on divine omnipotence' (though both you and I know that it is not a simple as that). But, you see, the thing is this: these are explanations or interpretations of what we all observe, which is that, in this world, Evil often flourishes, 'like the green bay tree'. Your God is no more or less powerful than mine
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf: (a.) Divine passibility.
(b.) Limits on divine omnipotence.
(c.) Suspicion of grand historical narratives, and therefore of universal eschatological salvation.Thus my criticisms.
quote:Not so. Why else the incarnation?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Rot in Hell alone Qlib.
The liberal God could not possibly care about our pain.
It is insensate to it or worse. Just like the hyperCalvinist one.
quote:Necessary or desirable.
If it cared it would do something about it.
Unless it is NECESSARY.
quote:Not hyper-liberal certainly, but most liberals acknowledge that bowing before the laws of physics is necessary.
Which isn't very liberal.
quote:It is one explanation, I agree. Whether it is the best explanation is something we clearly disagree on.
Originally posted by Qlib:
But, you see, the thing is this: these are explanations or interpretations of what we all observe, which is that, in this world, Evil often flourishes, 'like the green bay tree'.
quote:Agreed. Only I think that God is not functionally omnipotent in 'the World', either because He 'chooses' not to be... or because that's just the way it is. I'm not sure that, from our present perspective, we can distinguish between those two alternatives and neither do I think there is much point in trying. But we digress.....
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I think God's goodness entails that all evil is conquered eschatologically, which is why I think that there can be no definitive answer to the problem of evil until the end of history. I also think that omnipotence, understood as dominion over all that exists, is probably entailed by the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
quote:Edited to say: *And that's still a gross over-simplification, but this isn't the place to go into detail.
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:Agreed. Only I think that God is not functionally* omnipotent in 'the World', either because He 'chooses' not to be... or because that's just the way it is. I'm not sure that, from our present perspective, we can distinguish between those two alternatives and neither do I think there is much point in trying. But we digress.....
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf: I think God's goodness entails that all evil is conquered eschatologically, which is why I think that there can be no definitive answer to the problem of evil until the end of history. I also think that omnipotence, understood as dominion over all that exists, is probably entailed by the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I think our langauge falls apart at this point!
quote:is completely unacceptable in Purgatory. Kindly apologise to Qlib for it.
Rot in Hell alone Qlib.
I was referring to the infernal region on this site. Under no circumstances would I want anyone jumping through the fiery hoop of Gehenna to oblivion. I will continue my responses on this thread and invite Qlib to do the same, unless the indifferent powers, consensus, custom, practice and etiquette decree otherwise.
quote:No. Just because God is omnipotent (and therefore can act) doesn't mean he must act. (Actually if he had to act in such a situation, it would be more of a challenge to his omnipotence).
Originally posted by sanc:
can GOD's omnipotence be brought into question if a few of HIS creature endowed with freewill decides not to do HIS will? the connotation that this argument suggests is that the evildoer can be omniponent as well if not more so, in that he continue to exist inspite of a powerful GOD who frowns on his ways.
quote:To provide an example (Abelard IIRC). The whold Christus Victor model.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Justinian, my esteemed co-denizen, shall we continue here appropriately while our ids battle it out below?
Me1: The liberal God could not possibly care about our pain.
It is insensate to it or worse. Just like the hyperCalvinist one.'
You1: Not so. Why else the incarnation?
Me2: Good point. Why indeed? 'I'll join you in this arbitrary meaningless slough of pain that I let happen, sorry about that' Why? We certainly don't need salvation, forgiveness, anything except our 'rights' to eternal paradise. Or what? I can speculate about many reasons, some quite 'nice'.
quote:Learning? Wisdom? It's a necessity for free will to work effectively? Pick one or think of another.
The avoidance of pain is not the highest goal there can be.
Me2: A useless analogy. Good meaningless rhetoric. So what higher goal is achieved with pain?
quote:One of the reasons God acts in the way he does- so as not to disturb creation and hence make it meaningless.
Me1: Which isn't very liberal.
You1: Not hyper-liberal certainly, but most liberals acknowledge that bowing before the laws of physics is necessary.
Me2: What has that got to do with anything? Can you join up the dots please?
quote:If it is it isn't, but it isn't so it is.
billions of years of arbitrary, random, meaningless agony
Why is that desirable?
quote:Does that make you an optimist or a pessamist?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What do I believe?
That this is the best of all possible worlds. Right now. That it always has been. That there is no alternative, no better way, no easier way.
quote:I have few problems with that.
That God does not patronize us. That His biblical self-disclosure at every point and all points is accurate and not subject to fundamental type change, revision, rationalization: that Eden isn't a metaphor for evolution. That He isn't bound by our literary genres. That He killed and will kill again. That He has impossible standards for human behaviour, including our sex lives, desires and fantasies, which condemn us all. That He is Righteous Judge, King, warrior, conqueror, perfect, jealous, saviour, father, brother, mother, lover, outrageously liberal in grace, in forgiveness and mercy, capable of saving all but the theoretical fully free willed post-mortem reprobate.
quote:And that's a deft way of putting what I've been trying to get at.
That His intervention in history and individual lives and minds is minimal, absolutely minimal. Deftly so. With enormous impact too big for most to see on both scales.
quote:Not sure what you mean by 'soon'. Otherwise we seem to be in basic agreement.
That He helplessly shares all suffering.
That He will make it all, all right, soon.
quote:You're right, it isn't. Being cast out of Eden is a metaphor for being cast out of the womb, which every living one of us was. Not our fault, but necessary for our growth and development. Which I think is what you're saying about pain in general.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Eden isn't a metaphor for evolution
quote:Yes again. If the only things that can be morally right or wrong are the choices that intelligent beings make, then the goodness of God-as-Creator is precisely the question of how this universe compares with all the possible universes that he chose not to make instead.
this is the best of all possible worlds. Right now. That it always has been. That there is no alternative, no better way, no easier way.
quote:...rather than a more general metaphor for the human condition, you mean?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You're right, it isn't. Being cast out of Eden is a metaphor for being cast out of the womb, which every living one of us was. Not our fault, but necessary for our growth and development. Which I think is what you're saying about pain in general.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Eden isn't a metaphor for evolution
quote:Yes, but the 'how we get there' and the why are in many ways more important than the what
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ah, we agree then! '...the many, many things accomplished by the incarnation.' United at that point regardless of how we get there?
quote:So how is your position different to mine - except that you hold that Scripture is the primary revelation, and I hold that Jesus Christ is?
We simply trust the Scriptures to be valid and the revealed God to be Who He is.
quote:Serious question: why then, do you expect a finite Scripture to be able to?
Our finite minds will not be able to deal with Who God is ...
quote:Now you should now this isn't true. All any "liberal" has done on this thread is discuss why the God of the OP does not fit into what they see as being God as revealed in scripture and elsewhere.
The problem of the liberal is that he/she wants to redefine the eternal God and Creator in their own ways.
quote:Neither does anyone else!
Conservative Christians do not have a higher understanding of God.
quote:Serious point: why should we worship a creator merely because he is the creator? Surely as Christians we worship God because he is incarnate in Christ primarily. It is God's actions and his love that are cheifly worthy of worship, not his position as creator.
will you accept and worship the one who made you...
quote:Why not? If we are created in God's image does that not include a rational intelligence that is capable of making decisions? God did not create us as some kind of worship-fodder robots.
The created never can decide anything about the creator.
quote:True, but how are we to know what God's definition is without forming opinions, and acting upon them. Many of these opinions may be wrong, but we still have to have them.
God will define Himself.
quote:Just imagine that one day a large green-tinged figure with a bolt through his head comes up to you and confesses that he was made by a mad scientist, who wants him to kidnap innocent girls and be an accomplice to their rape and murder, murder and conceal the body of anyone who stumbles across the secret laboratory, and, just for fun, catch hamsters and tear the heads off
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The problem of the liberal is that he/she wants to redefine the eternal God and Creator in their own ways. "If God is this way - I can't accept Him."
... quote:1. It is different in that I do not hold to any contradiction between inerrant Scripture and te presentation of Christ as revealed therein.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Matt Black:quote:So how is your position different to mine - except that you hold that Scripture is the primary revelation, and I hold that Jesus Christ is?
We simply trust the Scriptures to be valid and the revealed God to be Who He is.quote:Serious question: why then, do you expect a finite Scripture to be able to?
Our finite minds will not be able to deal with Who God is ...
quote:Taking your last point first, the "word" of God means two specific things in scripture - either that "word" handed down at Sinai, the Torah, or the Incarnate word, Jesus himself. Applying the title "word of God" to the finalised Christians scriptures is a later tradition. It is not biblical. The Bible may be "God's word written" but it is not the totality of "God's word".
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is. I really don't see where this artificial 'conflict' lies between the Bible being the Word and Christ being the Word.
quote:My point is that we should allow Scripture which in any event reveals God to shape our opinions of Who God is, rather than allow what we think God should be to shape or reject our opinion of Him or Scripture. We should worship Him as Creator because He created us in love, because we are His creation and that is what we are created to do.
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
Some more questions for Matt:
quote:Serious point: why should we worship a creator merely because he is the creator? Surely as Christians we worship God because he is incarnate in Christ primarily. It is God's actions and his love that are cheifly worthy of worship, not his position as creator.
will you accept and worship the one who made you...
quote:Why not? If we are created in God's image does that not include a rational intelligence that is capable of making decisions? God did not create us as some kind of worship-fodder robots.
The created never can decide anything about the creator.
quote:True, but how are we to know what God's definition is without forming opinions, and acting upon them. Many of these opinions may be wrong, but we still have to have them.
God will define Himself.
quote:Er...only if you're a hyper-charismatic?!
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:I'm puzzled by your first sentence. We know who Christ is because of the Spirit, not a book.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is. I really don't see where this artificial 'conflict' lies between the Bible being the Word and Christ being the Word.
quote:Isn't that a tautology? Take out "inerrant" and aren't you left with "I don't see any difference between what the Bible says about Christ and what the Bible says about Christ?"
It is different in that I do not hold to any contradiction between inerrant Scripture and te presentation of Christ as revealed therein.
quote:But a finite word nonetheless, as I'm sure you would agree...
2.Scripture is the word of the infinite God.
quote:Is this why the disciples has such trouble recognizing him? Ah, if only they'd stayed at a hotel the Gideons had been to!
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is.
Once again, there are several points in the NT at which it's quite clear that in a real sense Christ transcends all the categories of the OT - Peter's confession is one such. Every OT category applied to Christ is reinterpreted in the NT, including Messiah. They are made to derive their new meaning from him; they are not a Procrustean bed onto which he is forced. quote:It isn't artifical. It arises from making Scripture determinative of Christ, rather than letting it witness to him in its own way. It subordinates God and Christ to a finite set of infallibly true propositions about them.
I really don't see where this artificial 'conflict' lies between the Bible being the Word and Christ being the Word.
quote:....none of which we would know without Scripture!
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:Isn't that a tautology? Take out "inerrant" and aren't you left with "I don't see any difference between what the Bible says about Christ and what the Bible says about Christ?"
It is different in that I do not hold to any contradiction between inerrant Scripture and te presentation of Christ as revealed therein.quote:But a finite word nonetheless, as I'm sure you would agree...
2.Scripture is the word of the infinite God.
quote:Is this why the disciples has such trouble recognizing him? Ah, if only they'd stayed at a hotel the Gideons had been to!
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is.
quote:But in the NT, the work of the Spirit is always associated with the Word of God and/or the word of God. The Spirit makes the Word of God known to us through the word of God (as an inerrantist I'm tempted to add "in the words of God").
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I'm puzzled by your first sentence. We know who Christ is because of the Spirit, not a book.
quote:Actually, the overwhelming "anti" response was "I could not worship God if that was what He was like." A position which, to me, says "I will only worship God if He is what I want Him to be." Which has solidified my belief that liberal Christianity is so far removed from what I believe, that I see no chance of meaningful debate on theological issues - at least none that would ever resolve any differences.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And by the way, I don't think this is a deviation from the OP, which posited a small number of propositions - ... - as a summary of faith. "What if God's like this? What if I'm right?" And that's why the overwhelming 'anti' response has been "A God like that is far too small to be the God revealed in Jesus Christ."
quote:No, you're a case in point. I've heard it suggested that universalism is one of the diagnostics of liberalism; it's a test you fail and so do I. (I'm agnostic on this point.) I think it's unfair on both of us that we're labelled 'liberals' - and I think it's unfair on the real liberals that we're all lumped together under a term they apply to themselves in a principled way, and which is rapidly becoming an insult.
So am I a liberal, because I disagree with Sharkshooter's Creed?
quote:We haven't found it dificult- we've just come to the conclusion that the God of the OP is evil (by their fruits shall you know them) and are working out where to go from there. There are three basic options: ignore God and hope for eternal oblivion, worship him out of fear or for a reward and try to oppose him- they've all been suggested.
Originally posted by Grits:
What are we to conclude from your proposed "evil God"? That this is all a game? That He intends to do the exact opposite of what He has promised? That He doesn't know the meaning of mercy and grace?
If God were evil, I would not change how I live. But I would hope that, in the end, there is only death.
Now, if I can answer yours to the point and in the manner you intended, why have some found it so difficult to just answer the original question?
quote:Right.
Originally posted by Grits:
"Drawing a conclusion" is not the same as "answering the question". I have drawn the conclusion that the idea of God that you support is not an "option" for me, yet I have been willing to discuss the possibility of it and the insuing ramifications it would have. You have not returned the courtesy. I have also proceeded to answer your latest obscurity about an evil God. I didn't make fun of it, nor pronounce it absurd -- I told exactly what I would do and how I would feel.
That is answering a question.
quote:Uh...
Originally posted by Grits:
"Drawing a conclusion" is not the same as "answering the question". I have drawn the conclusion that the idea of God that you support is not an "option" for me, yet I have been willing to discuss the possibility of it and the insuing ramifications it would have. You have not returned the courtesy. I have also proceeded to answer your latest obscurity about an evil God. I didn't make fun of it, nor pronounce it absurd -- I told exactly what I would do and how I would feel.
That is answering a question.
quote:OP equated with Satanism.
Originally posted by Justinian:
No, just that if he exists, he's a nasty bully. Fortunately I think that such a God is a serious misunderstanding (and I've met one Satanist who believes in the God of the OP and thinks that his only possible moral response is satanism).
quote:OP negates deity of God.
Originally posted by GoldenKey:
It makes God into a blood-thirsty monster. I can think of many deities I'd rather worship.
quote:OP creates suicidal tendencies.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I think I'd blaspheme God and kill myself.
quote:Well, let's say this is what I really think. What would be a gracious way of saying it?!
Originally posted by Grits:
Telling someone that their God is evil, fueled by hate, and that you would rather spend eternity in torment with Satan than be in heaven with Him is just not very gracious way of selling your opinion.
quote:You know I know this, Ruth. I guess it's just still so astounding to me how something can be so right for one person, yet so wrong for another. And does that make it right? Or does it make it wrong? Can we make God fit our own experiences?
Originally posted by RuthW:
So it's just too bad if that's not nice, not gracious, not selling my opinion. It's my lived experience.
quote:We answered that, very seriously. We said how it would affect us--perhaps more graphically than you wanted, but we said it. We weren't asked to pretend that we thought those beliefs were good.
Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?
quote:We weren't asked for objectivity; we were asked for our very personal opinions about what WE would do if it were true. The very essence of the question the OP asks us to answer is personal and subjective. Not sure how you got that it had anything whatever to do with objectivity.
Originally posted by Grits:
So forgive me for inferring that there wasn't going to be a great deal of objectivity on your parts.
quote:Ya'll are still not getting my underlying point: It's not about agreeing with, it's about allowing. While my beliefs allow for your God, yours do not allow for mine. For me, that has been one of the biggest sources of contention in this thread.
Grits, it seems like you object to our answers because they don't agree with your beliefs.
quote:I don't think it's about allowance. My experience doesn't negate yours. And neither of our experiences create God, obviously.
Originally posted by Grits:
Ya'll are still not getting my underlying point: It's not about agreeing with, it's about allowing. While my beliefs allow for your God, yours do not allow for mine. For me, that has been one of the biggest sources of contention in this thread.
quote:This seems to have caused lots of mystification - it had me completely flummoxed for a good while. Then I spooled back up the thread and read this:
Ya'll are still not getting my underlying point: It's not about agreeing with, it's about allowing. While my beliefs allow for your God, yours do not allow for mine.
quote:
But do you see the difference? In these answers and those? This time, you are answering without all the condemning and naysaying you offered with your first answers. You are just stating your beliefs, how they would or would not change with the OP, with just a tiny stab at how hideous you think the idea to be. I really think that's all that was ever expected.
quote:Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be objecting to is that people posting on the other side of the argument are professing to be repulsed, morally and spiritually, by the God you profess to believe in. Whereas you seem to say that you aren't repulsed by the God(s! - not polytheism, just a variety of God-concepts) they profess to believe in. And you feel that this is a fundamental imbalance in the argument. I'm not sure that I understand why, but I think I see what you mean.
Telling someone that their God is evil, fueled by hate, and that you would rather spend eternity in torment with Satan than be in heaven with Him is just not very gracious way of selling your opinion.
quote:By the OP, maybe. But poor old Sharkshooter has learned the hard way that just because you wrote the OP doesn’t mean you can control its interpretation. A metaphor, that, for the ways in which all texts – including the Bible – work. And the key to the real untenability of an inerrantist position, because such a position involves you guys in breaking off debating with us periodically, and saying to the Bible “Shut up! We’ll tell you what you mean!!” And the problem you have is that the Bible won’t shut up, and stop undermining your own positions! The Bible is only the Word when the Living Word speaks through it, and the idea that you can sum up what He says in a paragraph in an OP is… well, for the sake of Christian charity let’s not go there.
But do you see the difference? In these answers and those? This time, you are answering without all the condemning and naysaying you offered with your first answers. You are just stating your beliefs, how they would or would not change with the OP, with just a tiny stab at how hideous you think the idea to be. I really think that's all that was ever expected.
quote:If you are taking this personally, that is not how I meant it; it was a general comment with regard to PSA, which I regard as the primary work of Jesus on the Cross. In order to appreciate PSA fully, I believe it is necessary to have an understanding of the terribleness of sin, that it is not some 'minor transgression' as you put it but something that separates us from God for all eternity. J I Packer is particularly good reading on the subject.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Speaking of which, exactly what does: "Until you are willing to accept that God will hold all men accountable and separate sin from Himself, I don't believe that you can truly accept the work of Christ on the Cross. " mean? If it means what I think it means, we can discuss it in the Hot Place.
s lately, and your last post gets you another from me.quote:It's a lovely image, isn't it? - often sentimentalised in bad stained glass or in children's Bibles with a very Anglo-Saxon looking Jesus. But we know, don't we, that Jesus "took children in his arms and blessed them"?
Jesus Teaching Children In The Galilean Meadows
quote:I think of God's judgement a lot more like the end of Matthew 23, where there is a striking mix of anger and grief.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It strikes me that if the OP is true, then in his mind he was thinking all the time, "... and if this child does not confess me as Lord, I will throw it into fire where it will burn forever."
As I said - lovely image, isn't it?...
quote:You may think that, but the OP doesn't -
I think of God's judgement a lot more like the end of Matthew 23
quote:(My emphasis.)
There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:Yes, that is what I mean. Why? Because in order to complete your concept, God can only be one way, the way you perceive Him to be. I just think our concept – of sovereignty, omniscience, beyond human wisdom – allows God a little more flexibility. However, I don’t believe He will flex beyond what He has revealed to us through His word.
Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be objecting to is that people posting on the other side of the argument are professing to be repulsed, morally and spiritually, by the God you profess to believe in. Whereas you seem to say that you aren't repulsed by the God(s! - not polytheism, just a variety of God-concepts) they profess to believe in. And you feel that this is a fundamental imbalance in the argument. I'm not sure that I understand why, but I think I see what you mean.
quote:Honey, I got over being shocked about this a long time ago!
you are shocked to find that in this argument your views are being treated in what must seem to you to be such an unbalanced and - let me use the word - prejudiced way.
quote:I would certainly agree with this. But the parable of the Good Shepherd is also the parable of the lost sheep. He is not willing that any of His little ones “perish”. From what was He trying to save them? Physical death? He cannot save us from that. Jesus came to save us from spiritual death. The God of love is evidenced, not just in the seeking, but in the saving, as well.
It doesn't seem to me to be unBiblical to say that there is much more about our relationship to God in the Parable of the Good Shepherd than in the genealogy of Matthew 1. The understanding we have of God, for those on this side of the OP, isn't contained in the Bible. It's formed in us by the Bible. Yes, it's selective. But it's the Bible that does the selecting. We wrestle with the Bible - and the whole Bible just as much as you - but we don't come away with the understanding of God that you do.
quote:This does not strike me as harsh, but I do think you have finally orated my feelings about this. Some folks just love to “do” theology. It has to be constantly static, which, to me, creates a much more chaotic effect than my acceptance of things. It is the inability to truly humble ourselves – intellect and reason included – and allow God to be God. I do believe the Word is living, but I also believe it has been revealed. My God does not rage nor spite nor malice. He watches and waits. He runs to meet those who seek Him. He basks in our praise and elicits our prayers. He wants us to recognize and appreciate the gift of His love – Jesus – and He keeps His promises. I feel no fear nor timidity in a continual study of His message and asking for the Spirit to guide me and continue to reveal to me the truths that are there. And I will bow and fall prostrate before Him. He is God.
And our accusation against your side of the thread is that that is how you leave them. A chaos. Out of which this God of rage and spite and malice, and bullying power emerges, inevitbly, out of a refusal to do theology –– which is itself generated by what seems to us to be , not reverent fear, but simple timidity. Should we be doing theology at all?? Should we not rather just lick God’’s boots (a metaphor which has cropped up several times on this thread.)
quote:This struck me as a little humorous, as it sounds like something I would say about you! It will always seem that you are ignoring the obvious teachings in the Bible of a literal and eternal hell, spoken of and warned about by Christ Himself, and deciding that isn’t really at all what is meant. It's just hard to see it any other way.
And the key to the real untenability of an inerrantist position, because such a position involves you guys in breaking off debating with us periodically, and saying to the Bible “Shut up! We’’ll tell you what you mean!!” And the problem you have is that the Bible won’’t shut up, and stop undermining your own positions! The Bible is only the Word when the Living Word speaks through it, and the idea that you can sum up what He says in a paragraph in an OP is…… well, for the sake of Christian charity let’s not go there.
quote:Once again, this comes across as being based on human-bound definitions of those characteristics – not giving credence to a God who transcends them.
the sheer arbutraryness and injustice and amorality of this God.
quote:It is important information. It helps me see how people take the personal, the human, this present life and the “moral information” we are fed from these sources, and try to apply it to something that is beyond the barriers and understanding of said sources. And, simply speaking for myself, it's just something that I cannot do.
In other words, the outrage is moral information. It’’s part of the argument. And I would have thought that it would have to mean something to the OPers that their being greeted by such a visceral response to what they say is what they believe would have constituted important information for them too.
quote:Of course! Which is why we keep coming back to this. I just think there would have been better ways of conveying your position than by trying to make the God of the OP an impossibility... or worse. I certainly understand your "whys"; it's the "hows" with which I have trouble! Love lets us understand why, and our human nature allows us to explore the how. To me, that is what this forum is all about.
I can understand your astonishment and hurt. But can’t you maybe look at where it’s coming from, and why?
quote:So how is that different?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Custard123:quote:You may think that, but the OP doesn't -
I think of God's judgement a lot more like the end of Matthew 23quote:(My emphasis.)
There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:Grits, that's rubbish. The way I perceive God to be, the way GoldenKey perceives God to be and the way Mousethief perceives God to be are different, but probably compatable. Yours is incompatable with any of the above if it is as you describe. (I do not believe that it is)
Originally posted by Grits:
For pysduck:
Yes, that is what I mean. Why? Because in order to complete your concept, God can only be one way, the way you perceive Him to be. I just think our concept – of sovereignty, omniscience, beyond human wisdom – allows God a little more flexibility. However, I don’t believe He will flex beyond what He has revealed to us through His word.
quote:But we are damned by God. Jesus, by the OP, came because God made a mistake. Jesus also actually made it less likely that we would be saved as without his coming, we would not have to profess him if we had ever heard of him.
I would certainly agree with this. But the parable of the Good Shepherd is also the parable of the lost sheep. He is not willing that any of His little ones “perish”. From what was He trying to save them? Physical death? He cannot save us from that. Jesus came to save us from spiritual death. The God of love is evidenced, not just in the seeking, but in the saving, as well.
quote:Yes. Some do. Not all of us. And who is claiming it has to be continually static other than the inerrantists or others claiming a single perfect revalation?
This does not strike me as harsh, but I do think you have finally orated my feelings about this. Some folks just love to “do” theology. It has to be constantly static, which, to me, creates a much more chaotic effect than my acceptance of things.
quote:What do you mean by 'allow God to be God'?
It is the inability to truly humble ourselves – intellect and reason included – and allow God to be God.
quote:Could you expand on this please? I can think of at least four things you could mean by this.
I do believe the Word is living, but I also believe it has been revealed.
quote:In which case you aren't an inerrantist. Or you would believe that God had hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he could launch the plague on the first born- an act of clear malice. I can easily find others if necessary.
My God does not rage nor spite nor malice.
quote:I agree.
He watches and waits. He runs to meet those who seek Him. He basks in our praise and elicits our prayers. He wants us to recognize and appreciate the gift of His love – Jesus – and He keeps His promises. I feel no fear nor timidity in a continual study of His message and asking for the Spirit to guide me and continue to reveal to me the truths that are there. And I will bow and fall prostrate before Him. He is God.
quote:We don't claim to be inerrantists. That is the difference. Both sides do the same thing here- but one of them openly admits it, the other denies it then does it.
This struck me as a little humorous, as it sounds like something I would say about you! It will always seem that you are ignoring the obvious teachings in the Bible of a literal and eternal hell, spoken of and warned about by Christ Himself, and deciding that isn’t really at all what is meant. It's just hard to see it any other way.
quote:So words mean precisely what you say they do and no attribute has any meaning when applied to God.
Once again, this comes across as being based on human-bound definitions of those characteristics – not giving credence to a God who transcends them.
quote:So you can't tell God from Satan at all? Both are eternal beings and their full scope is beyond our comprehension (assuming Satan really exists).
It is important information. It helps me see how people take the personal, the human, this present life and the “moral information” we are fed from these sources, and try to apply it to something that is beyond the barriers and understanding of said sources. And, simply speaking for myself, it's just something that I cannot do.
quote:I feel I must take issue with this portrayal of OP thinking, Psyduck. Are you suggesting that OPers are all fideists/theologically inept/propositionalists/fundamentalists/any other undesirable epithets?
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And our accusation against your side of the thread is that that is how you leave them. A chaos. Out of which this God of rage and spite and malice, and bullying power emerges, inevitbly, out of a refusal to do theology – which is itself generated by what seems to us to be , not reverent fear, but simple timidity. Should we be doing theology at all?? Should we not rather just lick God’s boots (a metaphor which has cropped up several times on this thread.)
quote:You ask me whether I consider all OPers to be
1) Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation.
2) Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins.
3) Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven.
4) Heaven is where we praise God for eternity.
5) There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place.
6) Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
quote:In order (almost!): Fideists - no, not necessarily, and mention of this points up the relative paucity of epistemological debate on this thread (which I think is understandable, by the way - it's just the way things have gone); : Theologically inept no, absolutely not but - and intending nothing pejorative by this - a conspicuous number of OPers have happily asserted their suspicion of anything approximating to a regular theological method; Grits, commenting on the same paragraph as contouredburger above, seems to agree with, and acquiesce in this:
fideists/theologically inept/propositionalists/fundamentalists/
quote:fundamentalists: well, Grits says she is, and I suspect that several others would not disavow the appellation, but it's really beside the point, and far too polemical anyway to mean anything; propositionalists - well, basically yes, just about all the OPers other than you seem to me to be unashamed propositionalists.
This does not strike me as harsh, but I do think you have finally orated my feelings about this. Some folks just love to “do” theology. It has to be constantly static, which, to me, creates a much more chaotic effect than my acceptance of things. It is the inability to truly humble ourselves – intellect and reason included – and allow God to be God. I do believe the Word is living, but I also believe it has been revealed. My God does not rage nor spite nor malice. He watches and waits. He runs to meet those who seek Him. He basks in our praise and elicits our prayers. He wants us to recognize and appreciate the gift of His love – Jesus – and He keeps His promises. I feel no fear nor timidity in a continual study of His message and asking for the Spirit to guide me and continue to reveal to me the truths that are there. And I will bow and fall prostrate before Him. He is God.
quote:Very different indeed. The OP says that those who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord in this life will spend eternity in Hell. Matthew 23 says Jesus is grieved over those who were not willing to be gathered under his wings.
In Matthew 23, we see God grieved over the fact that Jerusalem rejected him and therefore that they would not be taken under his wing.
How is that different to the OP, except to add that God is grieves over those he judges?
quote:But I'd then say that being willing to be taken under Jesus' wings is just another way of saying the same thing as acknowledging Jesus as Lord.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Very different indeed. The OP says that those who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord in this life will spend eternity in Hell. Matthew 23 says Jesus is grieved over those who were not willing to be gathered under his wings.
quote:So - in what sense are you an OPer that I'm not? This is what I just can't see.
do not believe in Adam and Eve as literal beings: Check! nonetheless, I feel the description of the Fall is an inspired theology to teach us the meaning of our sense of alienation from the world, and the reason for the divine wrath that faces us all. Broadly, but unequivocally yes - though I suspect I'd probably feel freer in using non-theological perspectives, such as psychoanalysis and approaches like Girard's to eke out this understanding. And I'd also feel quite free to acknowledge, use and critique the typological relationships between, say, Genesis 3 and Paul. Not sure where you'd stand on this.
I cannot say that Satan lives in Hell, because Hell appears to be the eschatological punishment for Satan. If we accept that Heaven and Hell are timeless, then we might say that Satan has already received this punishment. I've explained elsewhere my preference for "the Satainic" over "Satan" - but my position is that there's truth articulated here which is profoundly human and theologiclly necessary.
Hell is the continuance and intensification of the separation and alienation from God that we all originally face, Yes. I have a partly empirical attitude to Original SIn. You look for it by watching the news and reading the paper, and by asking yourself "Why did I -a nd how could I do that?" But it is there as a sundering, alienating reality, of that I have no doubt., as envisaged by the fate of those who must remain outside the heavenly city in Revelations. Revelation - hmmm! Unignorable but fraught with danger! Handle with Extreme Care... On the question of eternal punishment for the unbeliever, I believe the Bible provides evidence not only for election, but for double predestination, although this is a theological construct. I believe that the predestination of the elect is to be found in Paul, but I can't see reprobation, not even in Romans 9, as other than the shadow-side (! Yes, I know where that comes from!) of the assurance that "You, hearing this, are safe!" On the other hand, just as Calvin found this doctrine very difficult, so do I, and therefore whilst I hold to the belief in Hell I hope that St. Peter has a bigger guest list than I can find evidence to construct a more universalist theology on. If Double Predestination is a theological construct, then so too is universalism - and of a closely related kind. I'm not a universalist, and as I've said elsewhere, my understanding here is pretty much what I undrestand Karl Barth's to be. Classical election - perhaps followed by space for the repudiation of salvation. But then there's Origen - God is love: God is omnipotent: All must ultimately be saved. I hope that's true. But I don't profess it, I just reiterate it with admiration.
quote:I realize this could seem very misleading!!!
I've explained elsewhere my preference for "the Satanic" over "Satan"
quote:I think that this comes across as probably pejorative on your part, despite your efforts.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Theologically inept no, absolutely not but - and intending nothing pejorative by this - a conspicuous number of OPers have happily asserted their suspicion of anything approximating to a regular theological method;
quote:
How do you understand Romans 9?
quote:Amazon tribes.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:But I'd then say that being willing to be taken under Jesus' wings is just another way of saying the same thing as acknowledging Jesus as Lord.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Very different indeed. The OP says that those who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord in this life will spend eternity in Hell. Matthew 23 says Jesus is grieved over those who were not willing to be gathered under his wings.
quote:And where in Matt.23 does it say this "taking refuge" can only happen in this life? And where does it say that mummy hen's little chicks who don't take refuge will burn forever?
But I'd then say that being willing to be taken under Jesus' wings is just another way of saying the same thing as acknowledging Jesus as Lord.
quote:As the nun said to St Peter - "That's a hard one!" Preliminary and trite response - "what if that child grew up to be Hitler or Stalin?" (To which my own internal emotional machinery replies "But what if it's my child?"
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still haunted - and, frankly, disturbed and upset - by the image that came to me yesterday: Jesus blessing a child, smiling and with his hand resting gently on its head ... while all the time thinking how his glory and majesty will one day be displayed by his throwing this child into a lake of fire, if it does not confess him as Lord.
[
quote:
Originally posted by contouredburger:
...and therefore whilst I hold to the belief in Hell I hope that St. Peter has a bigger guest list than I can find evidence to construct a more universalist theology on.
quote:And my response to that - what if the child never grew up at all, but died shortly after this encounter? Imagined conversation between this 8-year-old and Jesus on the Last Day, according to the OP -
Preliminary and trite response - "what if that child grew up to be Hitler or Stalin?"
quote:Well, it is pejorative about the theology, which I hold to be deeply flawed. I just wanted it to be clear that I wasn't insulting people, or calling them stupid.
I think that this comes across as probably pejorative on your part, despite your efforts.
quote:Hmmm...
I think the issue is simply what we understand by "theology".
quote:But you see, this is exactly what I don't think you do.
I'd say theology is essentially the process of systematising and interlinking the Bible's teaching.
quote:And this is precisely what I think you do do. Grits has already pointed out the irony.
I am deeply suspicious of your "theological methods" because they seem not to do this, but instead to emphasise some parts of Scripture so much that you effectively ignore others.
quote:Er, no, that's not actually whjat I am saying. Not that my theology is somehow normative, or normal, and yours is not. I'm saying that your theology doesn't seem to me to be rule-based, beyond the rule that if "this is what it seems to me that the Bible is saying, then this is true."
To describe your methods as "regular" and mine, therefore as "irregular"...
quote:Agan, you're hearing insults, where I'm trying to make structural points. What's the starting=point of your theology? God's love (which is mine?) God's glory (which at one point seemed to be Contouredburger's, though he'd have to articulate this for himself? Or "The Bible is true"? Which is where you do sem to start. Note that I'm not saying that that's necessarily incoherent - it wouldn't be for a unitary scripture like the Qur'an - just that I think that the Bible is scripture of such a nature that if you start where you're starting, even if you deny the incoherences and contradictions in the Bible, you will eventually wind up with an incoherent and contradictory position, because the incoherences and contradictions are really there in the Bible. Whereas if you are embarking on doing a theology, you approach the Bible from a particular presupposition - e.g. that Jesus Christ is the Revealer - my starting point - and allow this (in fact, Him) to integrate your understanding of Scripture.
...is not quite on when we both know that there are lots of theologians on both sides of this.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
] It would seem that our differences centre largely on our approaches to Scripture. I am happy with the notion that we all approach Scripture and interact with it in a hermeneutical spiral. The place of human reason is critical and unavoidable, but must be subservient to the goal of determining what Scripture is trying to tell us (i.e. are we dealing with myth, or history, or parable etc. or a revealed truth that defies category?) and to find cohesion between these findings. This is of course an ideal, because one cannot extrapolate from the Bible to the exact makeup and proceedings of Edinburgh Presbytery (unless it's in Revelations somewhere...). Hence, I readily admit that sola scriptura is a limiting step to which I believe we must aspire, but it remains constantly out of reach. It is a desirable asymptote. Moreover, as other threads demonstrate, one can take faithfully and with the utmost seriousness the words of Jesus at the Last Supper and end up with Transubstantiation or Zwingli's bare symbolism. Therefore, I am an inerrantist (when Scripture intends to tell us something factual it does so, and Scripture is never deliberately misleading, although it can be opaque to say the least) but I am not a propositionalist. quote:Interesting - I'd always assumed that "spake through the prophets" was an allusion to Scripture as well - but then I've a very strong sense of Scripture as crystallizing out of the oral tradition in both Old and New Testaments. I've always understood all of this as the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Nicene Creed, for instance, mentions Scripture exactly once, as the source of the prophecy of Christ's resurrection.
quote:We save the shotguns for those who aren't thinking clearly (or clearly aren't thinking ?
Originally posted by contouredburger:
Now, as I can hear the sound of many SoF posters loading their shotguns, if you'll pass me the blindfold and my last cigarette, I shall find a nice sunny wall to lean on...briefly.
). You don't seem to be in that category...quote:I'm tempted to remark that you're better than your philosophy...
Originally posted by contouredburger:
I hope that St. Peter has a bigger guest list than I can find evidence to construct a more universalist theology on
quote:indeed
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Grits has already pointed out the irony.
quote:Ah, regular in the sense of "regulus" rather than as in "regular family situation". Still not sure I agree.
quote:Er, no, that's not actually whjat I am saying. Not that my theology is somehow normative, or normal, and yours is not. I'm saying that your theology doesn't seem to me to be rule-based, beyond the rule that if "this is what it seems to me that the Bible is saying, then this is true."
To describe your methods as "regular" and mine, therefore as "irregular"...
quote:or
God's love
quote:I don't think that I could start theology from the former. For one thing, the word "love" would already have implicit meaning to me, some of which would be what John meant when he wrote it, and some of which might not be.
that Jesus Christ is the Revealer
quote:So John unpacks what it means for God to be love - it's all about Jesus as the propitiation for our sins (v9,10,14). So to say God is love in that context is to say that God's very essence is self-giving and hence that ours should be too. Therefore, if we don't love our brothers in Christ, then we aren't in Christ.
1 John 4:8-16 (ESV)
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
and to understand that it's the enduring with much patience that makes known the riches of his glory. At all events this is not a full-blown Doctrine of Reprobation. I don't believe that Reprobation in that sense is to be found in Paul. quote:I know that you profess to (and again I don't mean this personally pejoratively) but if you hold that it's the Bible that is, in the primary sense, revelation, I don't see how you can. The Bible necessarily replaces Jesus Christ as the revelation of God.
Incidentally, I think I could (and do) start from the latter position. [sc. that Jesus is the Revealer.
quote:You and me both, seemingly. Apparently we're just poor naive souls who insist on spoiling the abstract arguments by introducing real people and situations into them. How inconvenient we both are.
I'm sure I'm not intellectual enough or verbose enough to merit a response from the hyper-Calvinists defending the OP God
quote:Adeodatus, I promised you I'd get back to you...have been mulling this oneoverin my head and, more importantly, my heart for some days now.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Matt Black:quote:And my response to that - what if the child never grew up at all, but died shortly after this encounter? Imagined conversation between this 8-year-old and Jesus on the Last Day, according to the OP -
Preliminary and trite response - "what if that child grew up to be Hitler or Stalin?"
8-y-o: I know you don't I?
JC: Yes. We met.
8-y-o: That's right. You blessed me. Can I come into heaven now please?
JC: Hang on, did you during your earthly life acknowledge me as Lord?
8-y-o: Erm ... what do you mean, exactly?
JC: I thought not. Go to hell.
(Angels fling the screaming child "But you blessed me ... you blessed me!!! ) into the flames. JC sits back in satisfaction at this demonstration of his justice, majesty and glory.)
quote:Aren't we all blessed by Jesus? He lived and died for the world. Whether we are in the Amazon tribe, born and raised Christian, or have been so screwed up by sin and hurt that we can't see him clearly, we still have been blessed with his grace.
Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.
quote:I hope you're not picking on psyduck here - seems to me that he's making an effort to talk to people in their own language, which is generally a good way to communicate
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
we're just poor naive souls who insist on spoiling the abstract arguments by introducing real people and situations into them. How inconvenient we both are.
I wonder if the screams of the damned are audible from inside an ivory tower?
quote:According to the OP, there is no exception for children who do not acknowledge Christ as Lord in this life. This holds true to the theology behind the OP, too, which asserts that children are far from innocent ("a sinner was I conceived"; "all have sinned"; etc) and that they, like the rest of us, "deserve" hell.
the innocence of a child before God
quote:Where is Father Gregory when you need him to point out a heresy?
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Custard 123:quote:I know that you profess to (and again I don't mean this personally pejoratively) but if you hold that it's the Bible that is, in the primary sense, revelation, I don't see how you can. The Bible necessarily replaces Jesus Christ as the revelation of God.
Incidentally, I think I could (and do) start from the latter position. [sc. that Jesus is the Revealer.
quote:I don't think it could happen, for the following reasons:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Anyone signing up to the OP would have no problem accepting the imaginary conversation I have outlined. Do you?
quote:And this hypothetical conversation happened after death which means your first point is outside the parameters of the OP.
Originally posted by Custard123:
1) anyone claiming that the main reason that they should go to heaven is something Jesus has done for them rather than what they have done for themselves or for him sounds to me like they are acknowledging Jesus as Lord.
quote:Ergo God must deliberately choose all the people he sends to hell by not blessing them, thereby proving he doesn't love all his creation and can't be Love. Either that or hell doesn't exist. There goes the OP.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.
quote:After death. Invalid point.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:I don't think it could happen, for the following reasons:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Anyone signing up to the OP would have no problem accepting the imaginary conversation I have outlined. Do you?
1) anyone claiming that the main reason that they should go to heaven is something Jesus has done for them rather than what they have done for themselves or for him sounds to me like they are acknowledging Jesus as Lord.
quote:See Exodus where God hardens Pharaoh's heart simply so he can bring down the plagues. See the genocide mandated by God.
2) The Bible consistently depicts judgement as being something God does with weeping
quote:You think a public disgrace would seriously hurt Jesus? How about the example where they reguarded Jesus as a prophet or holy man rather than as Lord? They could easily accept the blessing then without reguarding him as Lord- and still be condemned under the terms of the OP.
3) Don't you think it rather depends on how the child responds to that blessing? Whether the child values it or whether they regard it as worthless and so subject Jesus to public disgrace?
quote:That depends on the nature of God and the nature of the blessing. I've been arguing against the lake of fire for a while now.
4) Given that we have all been blessed by God, do you think that anyone will go to hell?
quote:Not so much 'ergo' as 'er...no', unless you're a hyper-calvinist ruling out free will.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Ergo God must deliberately choose all the people he sends to hell by not blessing them, thereby proving he doesn't love all his creation and can't be Love. Either that or hell doesn't exist. There goes the OP.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.
quote:So it is possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love him? Or does God not love all his creation enough to bless it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Not so much 'ergo' as 'er...no', unless you're a hyper-calvinist ruling out free will.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Ergo God must deliberately choose all the people he sends to hell by not blessing them, thereby proving he doesn't love all his creation and can't be Love. Either that or hell doesn't exist. There goes the OP.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.
