|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What if I'm right?
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
Funnily enopugh, I very rarely read anything but the KJV (though I try to leave a Good News Bible on every ship I visit). It's the KJV I use for my daily reading and for my study group. The Psalms, especially, feel far more comforting in the KJV than any other version I've used.
And to tell you the truth, I don't do a lot of "studying" of Scripture. The prayer book I use comes from a tradition where the scriptures are read as a personal word for you in the moment that you are reading them, and the usual method is to read them along with a reflective passage that doesn't really attempt to explain them: rather to let them "work" on you.
Having said that, I'm also concerned that what I read bears as close a relation as possible to what was actually said and meant at the time.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
If that's how you want to put it, Jim. I personally can't devalue the scriptures that way.
I do appreciate what is being said here with the word "devalue." But I'd like to give another perspective to it.
Grits, I think you are right that God should in a sense "give his word plainly to everyone in every culture so that they don't need a PhD in Sanskrit." I can understand how you would get a picture that anyone who sits down with the Bible should be able to read it and learn enough to understand salvation and keep them out of Hell, assuming that is where they are headed when they are born. If everyone needs salvation so that they don't go to Hell for eternal torture and if God is loving he's not going to make it hard for them to get off the eternal torture hook.
So I hear you saying that anyone who picks the Bible up, no matter how poorly translated, cannot help but see this: you are going to Hell forever for eternal torture unless you believe that the blood of Jesus saved you from this fate. So what's the problem? Just believe that the blood of Jesus saved you from this fate, forget about Hell, and get on with your life. 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. 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.
To me, details are important. They can lead to a complete changeover in viewpoint that is superior. An important detail is, "Is this the only image of God? Is this the best image of God? Is it really true to the best of our ability to tell the real Truth?" If we bail out and say, "Good enough for me" we close ourselves off to something better.
I think it devalues God to say that He gave only the Bible to one people once. It devalues people if they just have to read it and follow obediently. God is not that selfish. People were not meant primarily for obedience and secondarily for creativity.
What if God gave his word to everyone on their hearts? What if the Bible simply underscores this and other sacred writings do as well? All the sacred writings have to be interpreted in order to prevent coming up with monstrous Gods who sometimes resemble Satan. The truth of God will be found there, because it is in all people, as well as temptation not to follow it.
To refuse to consider that "what Christ teaches today" is what "the Body of Christ in general agrees to by consensus" rather than "what the Bible said when it was written" is indeed a refusal to devalue the Bible. But it also risks literally idolizing the Bible; making the words of the Bible as written by the humans who penned them, God Himself. That is why the current Pope warns against this and gives it the name "biblicism." Others who are more militant call it "Bibliolotry." In response, I've seen Fundamentalists proudly proclaiming their "biblicism" and "Bibliolotry."
I hope someday to convince Christian Fundamentalists to break through this barrier as well as Muslim Fundamentalists and Jewish Fundamentalists. I really do think it is the central problem in world conflict today, like nuclear weapons were with Russia and the US when we grew up. Just my opinion and I know it may be subject to some exaggeration because I was not happy in my Fundamentalist home. But still worth considering I would say.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
I have made neither statement mentioned here.
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
I hope someday to convince Christian Fundamentalists to break through this barrier
I hope you're not including me in that number, Jim. I'm not the one who is imprisoned.
quote:
But still worth considering I would say.
Yes, indeed. As was the OP.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thank you very JimT and Seeker963. All I know is, I'll be in turning on a spit with you guys and me dad rather than be alone in heaven.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I just thought I'd chuck in (again) the suggestion I'd heard that people in hell continue to reject God and continue to sin for all eternity, but without God's Spirit working in their hearts to being repentance (or without any enjoyment).
I guess it's a bit like people saying "I know what God is like, but I'm still going to refuse to serve him." Forever.
And yes, I know I need to go away at some point and investigate the Bible refs to eternity and see what the original languages say. However, I know there are highly respected Bible scholars who do say it teaches eternal punishment.
Custard
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yep. Endless, oblivious death. That is eternal punishment.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Custard 123: quote:
However, I know there are highly respected Bible scholars who do say it teaches eternal punishment.
I find it hard to respect, as scholars, scholars who reduce the complexity of Scripture to the "it" of "the Bible".
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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.)
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?
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.
[ 15. June 2004, 19:44: Message edited by: Grits ]
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
As has been stated, I have no personal fear nor concern about Hell, be it real or not.
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?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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?
[ 15. June 2004, 21:02: Message edited by: Grits ]
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
One would assume with most people that the fear would indeed become very personal with regard to specific people, perhaps loved ones or friends, whom one is sure are going to go to hell. I think what was meant was something more like this, not just thinking it's a terrible shame that everybody isn't getting to go to heaven.
On reflection, this sounds terribly snide and I didn't mean it to be that way at all. Sorry.
[ 15. June 2004, 21:09: Message edited by: Zeke ]
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
No, no, Zeke, not at all. We're all starting to get a little nit-picky, I think, myself included. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
In spite of it all, I can still feel that common bond, that bottom line, that golden cord that somehow, someway continues to bind us all together, even in the midst of such heated debate.
And I know you all know what that is.
[ 15. June 2004, 21:23: Message edited by: Grits ]
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
And if not, here's a little ditty just for you:
L... is for the way that you lash out at me.
O... is for the obnoxious way you respond to me.
V... is for the vitriol you spew at me.
E... is for the egotism you display to me.
Put them all together they spell...
And, just so you'll know I'm totally objective, here's the next verse:
L... is for the lowgrade fever you run every time you read one of my posts.
O... is for overbearing sappiness of every viewpoint I expouse.
V... is for the Viagra you'll need after I turn you against all women.
E... is for the complete exasperation you feel every time I open my mouth.
Put them all together, and I hope they still spell it, too. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) The Viagra can be saved for someone more needy.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
'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?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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?
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? He used them first. I would suggest you conform to His meaning rather than He conform to yours - if indeed His meaning can be determined. My argument is that scripture gives us a picture - you would rather use post-modern dictionaries.
[UBB for quote]
[ 16. June 2004, 08:24: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Grits: quote:
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.)
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.
quote:
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?
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.
My disagreeing with you actually does mean that I think that you're wrong, not that I secretly know that you are right, and won't admit it. I don't see that there's anything particularly offensive in that.
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.
Sorry.
Sorry again. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: 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.
Why would you expect God to conform to your expectations/definitions?
Jesus Christ.
(Interestingly enough, the last time I used "Jesus Christ" to answer a question, someone accused me of blaspheming...)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No, SS, I use the meanings of the words as everybody uses them.
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
I've noticed a tendency amongst biblical scholars of all theological hues to carry out the most intensive exegesis imaginable, if a particular verse fails to please. In an entirely co-incidental move, these same scholars will not countenance any discussion of even the most wildly abstruse verses, provided they can be made to mean what they want them to mean without effort.
I'd like to make the phenomenally obvious point that I think we're all in danger here of stereotyping non-OPers as those who make interpretation of the Bible unnecessarily complicated and OPers as those who refuse to engage in real study and are unnecessarily literalist.
Surely the immense amount of wibbling that has been done over the last squillion posts on this bleedin' thread should indicate that we have an armadillo in hell's chance of laying claim to our own immaculate objectivity, let alone recognising it in others.
Confucius, he say "Less bitching, more point." Besides, I can never think of witty put-downs quick enough...
--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Ah, contouredburger - while you're here; it isn't that I'm ignoring your post about God-is-live and the Trinity. The thread's moved on a bit, and I was thinking of starting another one on this. But then again, if we wait long enough, it'll probably come round again...
Sorry chaps. As you were...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
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.
Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
Yeah. What truth is that, since many of us disagree with what it is?
And if God hasn't revealed the Truth to me, does that mean I haven't sought it but you have, Grits? Or on a more charitabe note, are we all just doing the best we can until we no longer have to look into a glass darkly, and God does reveal his Truth clearly and unambiguously to our finite human minds?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
God will always reveal His truths to those who seek.
Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
This is unfair.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I did not ignore your first post and say "I'm glad you finally came out with it" when you had to repeat it because I ignored it. I didn't use the "roll eyes" icon once. My whole last post was reasonable discussion and a real attempt to describe the other side, the OP, and your extreme reverence for the Bible while asking you to consider if it is not possible to have too much reverence for the Bible.
But I tongue-lashed no one, or the Hosts would have told me to take it to Hell. Given the circular debating you did here, I can't believe you would accuse me of refusing rational discussion. I haven't backed off from extreme disagreement with the OP but I have not been irrational or personal.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
God will always reveal His truths to those who seek.
Which explains the massive differences on this thread...
This is unfair.
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.
There's possibly a clause stating that He won't do it immediately, and if so I look forward to the day Grits & Co. realise the truth and agree with us almost as much as I suspect they look forward to the day we join them.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
OK. Last one for me, just to ask for some objectivity, something I've seen precious little of in this thread. I feel that very little effort was actually made to discuss the OP as it was intended. The "extreme disagreement" displayed by most prevented that, which is a shame. I think I've said my peace, being left, as usual, feeling rather ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) , but certainly not ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) .
And -- very lastly -- this:
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, SS, I use the meanings of the words as everybody uses them.
No generalization there. Nope. None.
quote:
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?
So you insist that God use language the way you want Him to - retroactively. Just checking.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
So, Sharkshooter, you are claiming that the dictionary definitions of things such as "love" and "justice" are incorrect? In what way? How would you define them, and how do you explain that they can mean something else altogether when God uses them? I would certainly think that to use a word according to its commonly accepted definition would be appropriate, and that it wouldn't be too terribly outrageous to refer to such meanings as "the way everyone else uses them?
You are turning into Humpty Dumpty, or else you are claiming that God is a kind of Humpty Dumpty, and uses words to mean whatever he wants them to mean. That is a legitimate thing for the Supreme Being to do, but why are we given completely different meanings for the same words? Is it your contention that God is not interested in our understanding what he means by anything? That doesn't sound very loving or fair to me. But then, of course, I am not privy to God's special definitions for words. Perhaps you are, and can provide them.
[pardon, I should have said "as everybody else uses them"]
[ 16. June 2004, 01:07: Message edited by: Zeke ]
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sharkshooter: quote:
Why would you expect God to conform to your expectations/definitions?
Jesus Christ.
Good answer. But, I'm not sure if it is an answer to the question asked. Care to explain?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
One last time. quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
...why are we given completely different meanings for the same words?
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.
This thread has turned into a bit of a personal argument among the parties. I am not willing to continue on that track. [ETA: If that makes the questions in this and my previous post seem like parting shots, I am sorry.]
I do want to thank everyone who participated on my, by far, most successful thread. While I don't see many people changing their minds about much, I know I have learned more about what other people believe and think, and I trust I am not alone. For that I am grateful.
In Christ
Stephen
[ 16. June 2004, 01:23: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
HOSTING
RIGHT THAT'S ENOUGH!!!
I've re-read the last three pages of this thread and feel I have to take some personal responsibility for the way this debate has detioriated. I should have intervened earlier.
Note the "some". The personal attacks based on who does or does not respect the Bible will cease, as will the statements about who is or is not playing the debating game. Some of the warfare is straying into Dead Horse inerrancy territory.
Further combat may continue in Hell.
I recognise that the OP raises questions on which there may be radically different and irreconcilable views. I maintain that these questions can be discussed rationally.
Otherwise I'll simply close the thread.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Actually, that's what a Buddhist bodhisattva does--pledges not to enter ultimate bliss until they've helped all other beings achieve it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sharkshooter:
quote:
Why would you expect God to conform to your expectations/definitions?
Jesus Christ.
Good answer. But, I'm not sure if it is an answer to the question asked. Care to explain?
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.
As I've said before, it seems to me that people who cleave to the OP do so because the armature of their theology is a Bible which is a collection of true propositions. Note, this falls short of saying that they are inerrantists, who believe that all the Bible is made up of infallibly true propositions. In a sense, I have a certain slight affinity with this position, because something like a mild form of this is what prevents me from being a universalist. It seems to me that, along with a whole heap of other stuff, including several statements which seem to me to be annihilationist, and several others which seem to me to be universalist, there are clear warnings of the danger of a final and permanent separation from God.
So I'm not really riding a dead horse here, OK?
However, I think that the real divide comes between those who take the Bible itself to be revelation, and those who take it to be in some sense the impress or deposit of revelation - the traces of an event, the crater left by an explosion. (Emil Brunner) Which traces, crater, whatever you will, need careful interpretation.
I'm perfectly clear that the primary Christian revelation is Jesus Christ himself, and that he is the criterion of our reading of Scripture. I'm also perfectly clear that this stance, which I believe to be at the heart of the Christian tradition (though not exclusively so, I'll grant you!) and to be throughly Biblical, drives one to understand God as love in certain very particular ways. IMHO, you can't accept the Jesus who says "Suffer the little children to come unto me..." or the bit about the millstone round the neck, as revelation, and still think that those 42 little buggers had it coming for being rude about Elisha's receding hairline, and that the she-bear was doing God's work.
So Jesus Christ crucially informs the Christian lexicon, and Jesus Christ himself becomes the critical principle in the reading of Scripture. And this, certainly, until the rise of modern inerrantist doctrines of Scripture, was how theology was generally done. With aberrations.
And lookee here, contouredburger, see what's coming round again? In a slightly engineered way?
I got this cool quote from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Church that I think underlines it: Art: "Love" quote:
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.
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.
[Fixed quote UBB]
[ 17. June 2004, 00:55: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
Psyduck, it still the case that certain aspects of OP theology, perhaps even all of them together at once, have been around since the beginning of Christian theology. The notions of Hell/judgement/election/bad-things-we-can't-reconcile-with-Christ are hardly exclusively modern and/or inerrantist constructs.
I would agree that inerrantism/propositionalism are bad forms of biblical study, and ironically still lead to a plethora of theological positions. Right at the far end of this is Jack Chick, with his view of Jesus as the faceless judge in front of a conveyor belt of resurrected souls. 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.
On the other hand, if we simply argue that the bits we don't like are incompatible with (the biblical portrayal) of Christ, then without adequate safeguards we have the wonderfully shiny Marcion, and his let's ignore/expunge the OT and "Jewish" bits of the NT, because we're dealing with a separate God from that revealed in Jesus.
Personally, I hope that Jesus is central to the interpretation of biblical revelation of both OPers and non-OPers. 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. I don't have to be an inerrantist to believe that the Bible doesn't "work" like that - I think it's picture is more consistent.
Nonetheless, consistency does not preclude increasing clarity of images and concepts, as the quoted definition points out. The reason why I'm not a non-OPer is that I actually see this gradual clarification happening precisely with the uncomfortable ideas in the OP: they find their greatest expression in the NT.
Finally, (and what a wonderful thing it is for everyone to see that word in my posts ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) 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! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
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.
"Jettison" is a good word, that perhaps addresses what we're concerned about here.
Seems to me fairly uncontroversial to say that there is sometimes a tension between what the Bible seems to say and what a Christian's (God-given) sense of justice, of what is morally right, seems to say. And that in such cases some "wrestling with God" is called for.
We recognise in our better moments that the word "seem" is rightly employed on both sides of the above sentence - that there is the possibility of a gap between perception and reality on both sides of that tension. Neither our initial sense of right and wrong nor our initial sense of what the Bible is saying to us is infallible down to the last detail.
We might even agree that to choose sides too soon - to "jettison" one side or the other too lightly - is a mistake, that gives up on the possibility that through that period of wrestling we will be led to a deeper understanding of God.
So far so good.
But what if, after much wrestling, the tension is irreconcilable ? If you'll pardon the dreadful phrase "in the final analysis" , "at the end of the day", having striven our best for reconciliation and failed, which way should we jump ?
It seems that for the OPers...
(using that terminology to avoid giving further offence; sorry, Sharkshooter, for taking your name in vain 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)
...the bottom line is that what the Bible says is what God says, and anyone following their own moral sense against that is a rebel setting themselves up in the place of God.
And that for the non-OPers, the bottom line is that what is morally right is what God wants, and any philosophy which goes against that is ultimately depraved. Once you truly delegate your conscience to a book or a person or an organisation, there is no crime so unspeakably vile that you would not do it if that book/person/organisation told you to.
Both sides have faith that they are right and that the others' view of God is mistaken.
Personally, I'd rather cling to God-as-morality and risk being a trying-to-be-moral rebel against the lawful authority of the universe. Rather than cling to God-as-revealed and risk being a faithful-to-supposed-revelation moral vacuum.
I tend to think that God will forgive those who choose the wrong side. But that wrong thinking does harm to others' perception of Christianity by misrepresenting God.
I had thought earlier that the OP side was demonstrably wrong, that no-one worships God for reasons unconnected with His goodness, so that no-one could logically choose any other attribute than goodness as their bottom line. (Which topic the OPers seem to have avoided, by the way.)
But perhaps JJ is right - perhaps the wall goes all the way down...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I think that if there is to be continued productive discussion of the OP, it needs to be modified to characterize God in some way. It says almost nothing about God and asks the reader to infer what God is like from a list of facts. Nowhere in the list does it even say that God is good or cares or loves or wants this or that or has any characteristics than creative power, a demand for obedience, a demand for animal and human sacrifice, a willingness to allow praise of Him for eternity, and a willingness to punish for eternity. It does not say he's a nice guy or a good guy. Somehow we are supposed to come up with that and many of us can't unless it is explained to us. Look at the list again, in itemized form:
- 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.
Nowhere in the list does it even say that God is good instead of bad; that God is love and not raw power with willingness to punish; that God cares about every creature he created and will let no harm come to them. The nature of God is completely left out of the OP. The only direct statements about God are that he is praised in Heaven and some will be eternally separated from Him. If we give the OP a reasonable benefit of the doubt, we infer as well that God is the Creator of Adam and Eve and we equate Jesus with God. The fact that God is creator simply implies a power to create: it does not imply goodness or badness. In saying that Jesus was a "perfect sacrifice" it means that God is a "perfect sacrifice" but we are left scratching our heads as to why a God would need to sacrifice himself to himself to satisfy his need for sacrifice.
In leaving out anything about God's personality, needs, wants or desires, the OP gives the reader freedom to imagine all these from the list of facts. I say again that it leaves open the possibility that God is at least something very bad.
So if Sharkshooter wants to add to the list in order to characterize God, perhaps this will be a help. What would be most helpful is if each item had a motivation or intent assigned to it:
- For what purpose did God create Adam and Eve?
- Why did God require blood sacrifices of perfect animals in order to "save" Old Testament people and what was he saving them from?
- Why did God appear only one time in one place to provide one way for people to be "saved" thus guaranteeing that many would not be saved? What is this supposed to tell us about God?
- What value does praising God for eternity have for God and/or us?
- What were God's intentions when creating Hell and Satan, and for allowing their continued existence instead of destruction?
- The first half of the last item is a repeat of the "Jesus is the only way to salvation" and the last half about "separation from God" seems to be a repeat of "unsaved people go to Hell." It seems to me it could be eliminated.
If Sharkshooter wants us to place his picture of God in our minds, he will have to tell us what it is. Many of us look at his list and get a terrible picture of God because there is nothing in the list to suggest to us that God is "Good" and not "Bad."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Actually, I see that item six should probably be appended to item three with "separated from God" replaced by "in Hell."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yer problem with yer liberal, rationalized God, is that 'e's no bleedin' use neiver. 'cept in the long run. 'e's all right then.
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?
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?
He's just as ineffectual, just as careless but for the right reasons?
We are all committing idolatory anyway aren't we? Creating God after our own fascist or libertarian-liberal disposition.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
You want a Good God as an additional premise?
In that case, I'd have to re-institute the Holy Inquisition.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Do you make out God in your own image, Martin?
Or have you found another answer that separates your thoughts from your cognizance of God? I'm not trying to be a smart*** (or mostly) but how are we supposed to separate the real God from the thought God? The OPers would say somehow jam all scripture together and assume it homogenizes, bloody wrath of God and father of the Prodigal and all versions between. This non-OPer (and maybe others also say) says that somehow the monumentally fascist version must be a misinterpretation, the confusion of God with people's fallen passions for hate and revenge, and that we must weed the false God out of our souls guided by the core that remains from when God said, "It is good".
What say you?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Damn Qlib. I was going for the nadir. A fine rhetorical response Qlib. As disappointingly non-engaging as one could wish for!
I'm quite serious (and as idolatorous as the best here LydaRose, by my own petard, I'm sure).
The liberal God could not care less about our pain. Suffering with us just makes Him a masochist as well as a sadist.
Because a nice God could not possibly let us learn through pain, surely?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Even though this is Purgatory, not Hell, I have to say that that is fucking bollocks, Martin.
Edited to say: See you in Hell
[ 16. June 2004, 19:45: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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:
quote:
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’.
Annoying, when someone deliberately does that to your view, isn't it?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
If it cared it would do something about it.
Unless it is NECESSARY.
Which isn't very liberal.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
More likely, Martin, that 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. Nonetheless, I'm sticking up for you in Hell.
The comparison of liberalism with Calvinsim is quite insightful, actually. Opposites attract. The genius of orthodoxy is to hold together in creative tension the otherness of God and the 'openess' of the impassible divine life to the deification of creation. It's called the doctrine of the Trinity.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
