|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What if I'm right?
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Marvin - I'm not feeling particularly hellish - but I am annoyed by what I suppose is now a personal dispute (though IMHO one with non-personal ramifications), so, to avoid de-railing this thread, please answer my call to Hell.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
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...
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.
And, in this case, the literalists may feel insulted and betrayed, and the non-literalists that they wasted their time talking to a fake.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
My replies to the last two posts are on the Hell thread. Shall we end this tangent now?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!"
[/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
Just for the record, I meant to leave that [/QB][/QUOTE] hanging there for artistic reasons...
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
In that event, I have meant to not edit them out. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!"
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.
Your hamster analogy would be more accurate if it were the hamsters themselves ripping their own heads off; that would be closer to the theological realities of the situation as I see them although like all analogies still imperfect
Yours in Christ
Matt
[Deleted extra code.]
[ 09. June 2004, 10:38: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
And you still want me to love this God?
How much are elective lobotomies? Would atheism be a simpler option?
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sungara:
as you say, it is hard work. are you an inerrantist?
yes. And I believe that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of Scripture, which is what makes it especially hard work.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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?
Absolutely - it needs me to speak.
I am reminded of a funny quote (I think it's from John Stott's Personal Evangelism, and am probably misquoting anyway, but this is the gist of what I remember).
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?"
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.
Custard
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Matt Black: 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.
UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL! quote:
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?"
1) Abraham is calling God to account on moral grounds.
2) Abraham is clearly invoking the concept of righteousness as applying to 'people who are living good lives'.
That's what the text means.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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
Why? Can't he take it?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
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?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
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?"
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
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
Why? Can't he take it?
C
I have already explained why. To judge implies that God somehow gets it wrong, which is incorrect.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
So what's going on in Genesis 18?
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
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.
We all deserve it - you, me, them. That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Matt Black: quote:
We all deserve it - you, me, them. That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
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.
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.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
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.
We all deserve it - you, me, them. [That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
Yours in Christ
Matt
Funny concept of justice you have. I can't buy it. My options at this point appear to be Buddhism or Atheism.
Best I can do with this God is kow-tow to Him out of moral cowardice.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Matt -
I think God wants to engage with us, even if on our part that is just shouting. IME problems have been created in refusing to be real about our relationships with God and each other, not in offending God. My God is big enough to take it.
Karl -
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)?
Not sure heaven would be much fun if we had to think of our relatives being punished for eternity in another place.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Cheesy - both are unjust. That's the problem when you only have two options - really, really nice or really, really nasty.
But if one is also merciful, then surely one will be inclined to be "nicely" unjust - dare we even say gracious?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Cheesy: quote:
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)?
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.
Whether God would accept this as our "Final Answer?™" I don't know. I'm not a universalist, but God might be. God's love and mercy might well pursue us, as Origen suggests, to the almost-end of time, and track us down.
But you're quite right - there is an injustice in all this. And God bears it. That's the only way PSA can be made to work - and so many even evangelical presentations of it are in terms of God getting Jesus to die for us, God getting his son to die for us, and so basically destroy the insight that the whole of the Trinity is taken up in this work of atonement, and its agony, while properly that of the Incarnate Son, is taken into the whole life of the Godhead. (Modalistic monarchianism may be a heresy, but it conserves an insight that overly tritheistic conceptions of the Trinity lose, that God does this for us, he doesn't "get Jesus to do it for us". Sometimes I get the impression that some Evangelical presentations of this are actually basically Adoptionist.)
God bears the iniquity, and God bears the pain. What on one level is the story of the good man Jesus being "nailed to a piece of wood for telling people how great it would be if we all loved each other" (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, paraphrased, but not much) is on another the story of the actual agonized engagement of the loving God with what we've made of the world - a world that crucifies the innocent by the millions all the time. And you need an element of PSA to articulate this. The mistake is in thinking that PSA is all you need. The atonement is bigger than that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Matt Black: 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.
UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL! UNBIBLICAL! quote:
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?"
1) Abraham is calling God to account on moral grounds.
2) Abraham is clearly invoking the concept of righteousness as applying to 'people who are living good lives'.
That's what the text means.
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.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Matt Black: quote:
We all deserve it - you, me, them. That is perfectly just. Our fallen nature deserves Hell
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.
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.
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.
And, yes, this is my take on it, and how I conceive it. Others have stated their takes and conceptions, and I have stated mine.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Matt Black: 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).
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: quote:
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?"
No amount of eisegesis can get round that.
quote:
Abraham appears to have thought he was presuming to judge God,
You said it! quote:
hence his approach - rightly if that's what he really thought (lesson for us there) - with much fear.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Just because Abraham may have thought he was judging God, does not mean he was correct in doing so...There is a difference between appealing to God's nature (which by implication at the very least is what we do every time we intercede) and presuming to judge His actions
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
You just don't want to see it, do you? Abraham expresses shock at the disparity between what God is going to do and what he knows of God's justice. And he isn't left as a smoking pair of sandals on the spot, and he isn't in hell either. It doesn't matter how much you truy to avoid it, you can't get away from the fact that in this text Abraham invokes an agreed context of an understanding of justice, and raises the possibility that God may be going to depart from that. And God reassures him. That's what the text says.
--------------------
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
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
psyduck is right - it's fundamental to Genesis and Exodus to establish Abraham and Moses as people who do speak boldly before God, face to face, as with a friend, not holding back from "judgment" and wrestling with God's decisions.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Even more plainly: quote:
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
- 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If the OP is the way it is, then if God is still the good guy I know He is, He's got some explaining to do - or He's the hyper-Calvinist's dream: a graceless, lying, inadequate, racist, sexist, class obsessed, petty bourgeouis, Daily Mail editor and sadist.
As it is impossible for Him to be the good guy and for the OP to be true, He would make Satan look like a boy scout.
If you want to believe the OP then you need therapy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Don't hold back, Martin. Say what you mean!
I agree. I agree also with psyduck. The cases of Abraham and Moses indicate that God is supposed to act in a way such that his "justice" looks very like ours. So Abe and Moses don't "allow" him to get all drama-queeny and fry people who haven't done anything wrong. Seems good to me.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
MPCN&SB - heck, that was well-put!
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hi Psy. Bugger. Down hill from now on. I've peaked.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Anyone remember that bit from Adrian Plass - "He knows a different God to the one I do - his God's nice"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
So you disagree with Genesis?
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Nope. I disagree with Abraham's opinion as recorded therein.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Abraham was unsound? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Somehow, I knew you'd say that! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) 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.
In other words, not only do you have the text of Genesis against you but you have God too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
To Callan:Yes, at times. So was Moses. Abraham, don't forget, is the guy who gives his wife to Pharaoh and pretends she's his sister
Yours in Christ
Matt
[ 09. June 2004, 14:01: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
So was Moses. Abraham, don't forget, is the guy who gives his wife to Pharaoh and pretends she's his sister
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...
--------------------
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
So if God does decide to destroy the innocent along with the guilty, that's not unjust?
I just don't get this, I really don't. It sounds too much like doublethink to me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So if God does decide to destroy the innocent along with the guilty, that's not unjust?
I think the idea is that there are no innocent people.
Custard
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Which isn't what Genesis 18 says...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So if God does decide to destroy the innocent along with the guilty, that's not unjust?
I think the idea is that there are no innocent people.
Custard
Kill 'em all.
This God sounds like the Headmaster I knew of. Thrash you for breathing out of turn. We didn't consider him just.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Of course Sodom does well in the resurrection to judgment, so there's no problem.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sungara
Shipmate
# 5605
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by sungara:
as you say, it is hard work. are you an inerrantist?
yes. And I believe that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of Scripture, which is what makes it especially hard work.
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 ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
my compromise position is to suggest that we agree we both have interpretations based on a literal, inerrantist approach - you're immediate response it so say that proves I'm not a genuine inerrantist.
i imagine the current discussion of abraham and moses will go the same way - a straight reading of those passages seems to suggest that it is important to use your god given intellect to challenge what you see happening or what gods plans appear to be - i don't suppose god actually needed abraham or moses' instruction - but they were doing what he wanted them to do - mysterious reasons, testing them, his ways above ours - whichever way you turn, the point is they questioned him, argued with him and did right.
but then what do i know - not being a proper inerrantist, not having put in all the hard work understanding it that you have.
neither job nor his friends were right in god's final judgement - but job argued with god and was corrected and forgiven.
so whether i am right or wrong in my interpretation of scripture, or reasoning, or anger about the suffering i see, i plan to continue to pray honestly to god, argue with him, to be angry if that is how i honestly feel......and either be corrected by him (most of the time) or perhaps very occasionaly do right.
much better than the disingenuity of jobs friends for whom he had to intercede with god to spare them.
--------------------
unbwogable
Posts: 218 | From: kenya | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, but there is a difference between arguing with God, pleading your case or even wrestling with Him - as Jacob did - and judging Him as being as in the wrong.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sungara
Shipmate
# 5605
|
Posted
between abrahams 'what? god do this? i can't believe god will destroy righteous men along with the wicked' and a christian today saying 'what? is the bible really saying this? can god really be going to judge people in this way?' which one is judging god and which one is wrestling?
i think the distinction between judgement and questioning/wrestling is in outcome and attitude -
if the outcome is for abraham, or a christian today, to conclude that they are better than god, that is judging god -
if the outcome is to question our understanding of god, or to prayer - saying 'i don't understand - i can't see that you are really like this - what is going on' that is wrestling - biblically justified, necessary activity. to turn away from it and suppress it is dishonest.
[ 09. June 2004, 15:30: Message edited by: sungara ]
--------------------
unbwogable
Posts: 218 | From: kenya | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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
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
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
