|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What if I'm right?
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Well, I believe that the God of the OT, whose spirit broods over creation and spake through the prophets, is revealed in the NT to be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the Israel of the Old Testament did not have the fullness of that revelation. But it also needs to be said that the God of the Old Testament is also the God of Judaism, and I don't see any of these monstrous excesses in Him. Why is that, I wonder?
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
But it also needs to be said that the God of the Old Testament is also the God of Judaism,
And the Allah of Finsbury Park mosque?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I think I'd need to let muslims articulate their own position on that, Hatless. The reason I invoked Judaism was that our OT (I'm a Protestant, of course) is their Tanak, so I think they'd find this unexceptionable.
--------------------
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
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.
I think it's particularly interesting in view of the fact that many people speak polemically about the God of the Old Testament, and contrast him unfavourably with the God of the NT. but 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...
--------------------
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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Psyduck!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It speaks volumes, IMO!
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
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...
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.
I don't know how the Muslim G-d meshes with the Christian Allah (as my Palestinian Christian friend calls G-d). Both are the G-d of Abraham, and both are the one G-d, so they may be the one and same. But being respectful, like you, I would have to hear what Muslims say.
Meshing the OT and NT G-ds is a similarly sensitive matter. There is a problem as all sorts of people from Nestorius onwards have seen. Christians affirm the continuity not to diminish the revolution that happens in Christ, but to deepen it. But it is a difficult, rich, sensitive issue.
Sharkshooter's OP represents a theology that melds OT and NT. It is a theology of explication and explanation, that tidily says what G-d and salvation are all about.
I suspect it's not the devil but G-d who is in the detail, in the tricky intricacies with which we should be cautious. A big theology arching over Old and New Testaments will try to put G-d in its place. Only a modest, tentative approach that is respectful of Jewish faith (and Muslim) as well as Christian, can hope to catch the slippery one.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Did anybody say hi to contouredburger, posting on this thread for the first time on the Ship? (It's back on page 8) If so, I missed it. Hi, contouredburger, and much happy posting from Auld Reekie! Not a whiff of pigcheese, either!
--------------------
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
|
|
P.D.Q. Sparrow
Shipmate
# 5319
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:
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.
Psyduck!
It speaks volumes, IMO!
Christina
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.
In any case, in Jewish thought, you certainly don't see this kind of exclusivity, and arrogant certainty, about just who G-d is going to save.
--------------------
Those who insist on being sure about everything must be content to creep along the ground and never soar. ~J.H. Newman
Posts: 374 | From: Pacific Northwest | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
phoenix_811
Shipmate
# 4662
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Preach the gospel to the whole world, and if necessary, use words." -St. Francis of Assisi
Posts: 487 | From: the state of confusion | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Justinian has responded ably to Grits' first paragraph. With respect to "primitive" I do mean "unevolved" because I do believe that conceptions of God "evolve"; the other way is to see those conceptions as "increasing revelation." So perhaps "early revelation" is a better phrase than "primitive conception."
I will say that the word "primitive" came to mind as I recalled this report posted by Alt Wally on June 1, which says this about Christianity as it is developing in the Southern Hemisphere, principally Africa:
quote:
For better or worse, the dominant churches of the future could have much in common with those of medieval or early modern European times.
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.
Which brings me to Grit's much more deeply personal observation and question about who can live with what, what it does to them, and what it says about them. I will respond by saying that it pains me that all Fundamentalists cannot see what the Sharkshooter image of God does to them and to others. This is Purgatory, so I don't want to get too personal or critical. However the question is personal and the answer must be honest. So with respect to Grits, I will say it pained me to see her ask rhetorically what the fate should be of someone dying with a curse of all that is holy on their lips. My answer is of course, "healing, renewal, redemption, and salvation." I hear her implied answer "well if anyone deserves eternal torture it would be this person." I say that is sin. My opinion. I also say that I agree that sin compounds sin. I have heard Fundamentalists say on Hell threads that they wish child molesters in prison would be raped or killed slowly with rusty knives; I heard one say "nice shot" when a Hamas leader was assassinated. I say it is Sin. I say it comes from an image of God whose justice includes eternal torture. I hear Fundamentalists say that 9-11 and AIDS were the judgement of God. I say it is Sin and I say it comes from an image of God whose justice includes eternal torture. The same people who say these things are often usually kind, caring, and compassionate. But what are they part of? That they cannot see what this image does to them and what it does in the larger context of the world is what breaks my heart, so long as we are being personal here about heartache and heartbreak.
I want to close with a retort to the recurring theme that there are Gnostics on this thread and some "anti-Sharkshooter" theology is going to lead into "some form of Gnosticism" as if that ends the discussion of its possible truth. My first retort is that I would never consider it the end of a discussion if the truth leads somewhere that some form of Christianity has declared heresy at some point in the past. My second retort is that that the biblicism of the OP has also been rejected by the same authority that dispensed Gnosticism. The OP is the very definition of biblicism condemned by the current Pope in his encyclical "Faith and Reason."
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
JJ Ramsey: 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.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just about completely the wrong way round.
My position is that there is real, if incomplete, continuity between our moral sense and the moral value of God's actions, because our moral sense takes its rise in our relationship to God. From my point of view, the faith of the OP is monstrous because it posits a caesura - a break - between our morality (which it turns into a sort of hallucination) and the moral meaning of God's deeds.
This is what I was saying in my posts on Genesis 18: quote:
Abraham is calling God to account according to a principle of justice established between them on the basis of what Abraham knew of God.
Granted I wasn't talking there about a moral intuition, but about a revealed understanding of morality: God isn't like that.
In fact, on the basis of Genesis 18, your strictures against those who reject the God of the OP actually fall on the Bible as well! But we've been through all this.
Do keep up...
But whether you understand the morality which people are seeking to apply to God as a revealed account of his conduct or a moral intuition with its source in God, you have the tautology back to front. It isn't that the anti-Sharkshooters are on dodgy ground because they are applying to God a morality which has its source in God. It's that the Sharkshooters are on exceedingly dodgy ground because they won't. They say that God has given us a moral sense which is good enough for us - except it isn't because it isn't a reliable guide to what's moral (and not because we're fallen, either, but because when God gave it to us, he exempted himself from its findings simply on the grounds that he was God) - but which is utterly discontinuous with the moral basis of his own actions, which are based solely on the fat that he is God, and isn't morally bound by anything.
That I construe as meaning that he isn't morally bound by his loving nature, which essentially constitutes a denial of "God is love". God, according to the OP is pure arbitrary unconstrained and unaccountable power, and the moral sense he has implanted in us is absolutely meaningless, because it doesn't connect with the groubnd of being in any way. The New Commandment, "Love one another" is just a house style for Christianity, because it doesn't connect at all with the statement "God is love." The OP turns vast tracts of the Gospel into vacuity or lies.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Hi Jim,
It was me who pointed out the Gnostic similarity. I wasn't using 'Gnostic' as a swear word. I have a book on Gnosticism by a Gnostic Bishop and have the Gnostic Bible. I'm not a Gnostic though. I think the Gnostics had a point - as most heresies do. I don't think any heresy is 100% wrong. If something was 100% wrong, I doubt anyone would believe it.
The idea that God in the Garden of Eden was lying to Adam and Eve, and was not the Father of Jesus Christ, but a lower deity or Satan, is Gnostic. That's just a statement of historical fact.
I don't believe God in the Garden story was someone else, but I don't take it literally either.
The Gnostics believed in mystic encounters with the Divine, as do I.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
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. Whilst this is understandable, perhaps for the sake of brevity and style, is it possible that this is rattling some people's cages unnecessarily ?
When a Christian says something like
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He is GOOD and gracious beyond belief.
are they or are they not committing this supposed sin of "judging God" ?
Are there any Christians who never say that He is good, loving, just, merciful; or apply any other epithet of approval ?
If it is allowable to think God good, just, etc, why is it not allowable to reason from that proposition ?
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 ? That's a judgement, if you like, but it's not a judgement against Grits - rather the reverse - it shows faith or trust in her goodness. It's a judgement against the rumour.
Seems to me that no-one is saying that they believe that their creator, the origin of all their moral sense, is evil. They're saying "If I believed the Sharkshooter doctrine then I would be compelled to conclude that God is evil, and I would then feel..." As a way of arguing against that doctrine.
So if JJ's point about epistemological difficulty is valid - if concluding that God is evil implies a wrong turn somewhere in premise or logic - that tends to support, if anything, the rejection of Sharkshooter doctrine.
quote:
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
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.
You seem to mean by "holiness" that the standards to which He holds us are higher. But the sort of people who go around seeking to punish others for not living up to their high standards are not, it seems to me, the sort of people we usually call "holy".
And my recollection is that Jesus was renowned for the exact opposite - for tolerating the company of sinners in a way that no recognised "holy" man would.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Hello, again. I just didn't want anyone to think I ran away from the discussion.
I have been away for a few days, and now have some 4 or so pages to read to catch up. I'll be back, but not until I have at least had the time to read the rest of the thread - that might be a couple more days.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Russ,
I have no doubt that God's mercy is everlasting, and He Himself is Love.
The other thing we need to consider though is: could a person be so hardened against God that they would prefer to be in hell forever rather than be forgiven?
I don't think so, but I don't know for sure.
It isn't just a question of God's qualities, but of human free will to choose God rather than continue in their self-imposed deprivation of His Presence, and hence their own torment.
I'm not thinking of prostitutes or collaboraters here Russ, such as Jesus went to, but serial killers, serial rapists, serial pedophiles, etc, and Satan.
Christina
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
could a person be so hardened against God that they would prefer to be in hell forever rather than be forgiven?
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".
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Hi Seeker,
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)
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
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:
Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God
I take this to mean "Those who believe that the OP is the truth about God." Thus when Russ says: quote:
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 ?
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.
JJ Ramsey says: quote:
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.
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.
It's the Sharkshooters who cut the Gordian knot of the epistemological problem, by saying "If God does it - or is proposing to do it (Genesis 18) - then it's OK, and if it's in the Bible it must be OK because the Bible is the speech of God, and the revelation of God."
Russ: quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
But it also needs to be said that the God of the Old Testament is also the God of Judaism,
And the Allah of Finsbury Park mosque?
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".
The OT Hebrew word for "God" is either El or Eloah or (mostly) Elohim, a plural of majesty with a singular meaning. These forms are quite close to the Arabic Allah.
Since both Hebrew and Arabic are semitic languages, such linguistic closeness is to be expected. What is crucial is the meaning given to the word Allah. It is at that point Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims part company.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Mousethief: quote:
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!
Er... no ... !
The whole point of this thread is about the ways in which Christians part company with other Christians about the meaning of the Christian faith. That's an entirely different matter. This is theology (albeit of a fairly philosophical cast), not philosophy or religious studies.
This isn't people asking whether or not we "all believe in the same God". This is people within one religious tradition disagreeing fundamentally over the character of the God that tradition worships.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Exactly. The "meaning given to the word God" is what this thread has been about.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The God of the OT is mainly JC. At least the one who walked in the Garden, had lunch with Abraham etc. No one has seen the Father. The HS gets the odd mention. So gentle Jesus meek and mild is the killer God of the OT.
There's no problem with that is there?
He certainly reverts to type and worse at His second coming after all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
Russ - you make the very important point that Jesus' scandalous concern for, and fellowship with sinners might appear to be at odds with the notion of holiness as that which cannot tolerate sin. However, at the risk of using a cliche, I think it is fair to say that Jesus is epitomising the "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude. After all, it is not just the sins of the religious leaders that he condemns - he also constantly admonishes the crowds to do everything in their power to avoid sin. Hence the hyperbole about tearing out eyes and what have you. Moreover, Jesus not only says "your sins are forgiven", he also says "go and sin no more". 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.
P.S. you are absolutely right to point out the uncomfortable truth that those who are in theory 'holy' in this world tend to act in a completely different manner. Well, it's those who should know better, but don't act accordingly (including moi more often than not) who are to be condemned the most... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
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)
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".
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".
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Mousethief: quote:
He judges and condemns sin, no doubt -- but does it follow from this that he judges and condemns sinners?
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?
And, psyduck, I think Mousethief et al. have a point. The question is, what God do we believe in? It's now clear to me that I believe in a completely different God from sharkshooter. They have certain points of overlap, but the fact is that their characters are so utterly different, they can't possibly be the same Person(s).
How about we change God's name? 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.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
I'll be a fellow follower of Fred.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Adeodatus,
I think we've moved on a bit. I'm responding to the post by Russ.
It's not just a question of forgiveness, it is one of will everyone want to be reconciled to God. I have no doubt most people will when they see Him. What about the possibility of a minority who wouldn't? Will God force them to love Him? Will He force them to be in His Presence and endure what they hate, or let them stew in their own juice in a less tormenting environment, ie away from His Presence? (not Omnipresence)
I'm not arguing for eternal damnation, I don't believe in it, but what if I've missed something?
What implications are there for evangelism? Should we tell everyone that they will be in Heaven? Shouldn't we warn certain people about dying in a state of hating God? (I mean those who say they hate God, not anyone we judge as hating God)
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
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.
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?
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
Mousethief - Thanks for the (very swift!) reply. I think it is fair (and certainly biblical) to argue that Christ is to be the judge of sinners. For instance, Peter's words in Acts 10:42:
"He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he [Jesus] is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead." (NIV) Again, we have Jesus alluding to this future action of his in Mt 25:31-46, when he claims that the Son of Man will judge us for our actions and consign us either to bliss or punishment (whatever either of these really means). I'm certainly not claiming that such references as these are irrefutable, but they have some evidential value.
--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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.
How could I have missed this one? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 11. June 2004, 14:30: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Don't get ideas above your station, Freddy!
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.
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)?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Guilty Russ.
I see God as unbelievably gracious, to the point of not rejecting any who can be brought to repentance in the resurrection, although unrepentant, unrepentable reprobation is possible in THIS life it would appear (Dives) and exemplified in Satan at least. All is predicated on that. All that God did in Eden was to that end, to that utilitarian end.
I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to think that scales of justice and grace are in any way compatible. That we will have to wait to see what the scales say. The scales, the law always say DEATH for everyone. That none of us makes the grade.
Total human filth who bow the knee will be saved. There are hyper-Calvinists who will be in danger of unrepentantly rejecting God because they will see that.
God cannot possibly have other than a perfect plan and method of salvation with the highest possible yield efficiency.
Our perception or transcription of salvation history - the heilsgeschicht - starting in Genesis (and yes of course I know Job is the oldest book - although Genesis was obviously contributed to by Enoch and Noah) cannot be in conflict with that end.
And that end is very plain to see. Sodom itself finds grace in the resurrection. Why hyper-Calvinists are so ignorant of these parts of the Bible, of the words of Jesus is beyond me.
Time after time I deliberately throw those references in and to the elect being just the first wave of an uncountable multitude of the saved achieved through two at least qualitative resurrections if no quantitative too.
Nobody ever dares question them.
I don't even get liberal rationalism.
Ah well!
I reject the God of the OP because He doesn't exist. He's not the God of the ENTIRE, integrated Bible. One doesn't have to reject Genesis 2-3, the Flood and the uncompromising warrior God of the OT and prophetic NT in the light of that same God saving the vast majority of mankind.
Does one?
Does one have to have a politically correct God? One who patronizes us with creation myths and explains human nature with dualism?
That's very sad and, of course, incredibly intellectually inadequate.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
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)
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".
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".
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.
Take what I've stated with regard to GOOD actions. What I've stated means that if people think they are 100% responsible for GOOD actions, they will be disappointed on Judgement Day.
Remember President Bill Clinton? I remember seeing a bunch of US politicians baying for his blood after the Monica affair. I remember thinking, 'well, I'd be tempted by Bill Clinton - he's handsome, intelligent, mature and has bags of charisma, but these other guys wouldn't stand a chance even if they wanted to pay me.'
Some people have much more testosterone driving their libido, women as well as men. Someone who looks down on people because of sex, and prides themselves on their self-control, may find that their pride was largely due to low testo levels.
So, you are reading what I've written, then come to conclusions about how I think about people, which aren't true.
We're saved by the grace of God, no matter how much or little we've sinned, is what I believe.
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.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The idea of the judgment of God that I get from scriptures is one of "making things right." When the psalmist cries out for judgment, what he wants is for his oppression (or whatever) to cease. Thus the attitude towards God's judgment in the psalms is one of joyous expectation, not dread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
So, you are reading what I've written, then come to conclusions about how I think about people, which aren't true.
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.
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Seeker,
Please don't bow out. I was just explaining my position, and what did I do? I made a judgement about what you were thinking, which wasn't true. Sorry.
Love
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Christina,
When I was talking about gnosticism closing the discussion, I was thinking more about Matt's initial reply to my first post:
quote:
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...
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).
To your hypothetical:
quote:
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.
"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.
Do you see what I am getting at? When we ask the serial rapist "Do you want to be saved or not?" are we saying, "Do you want to be saved from eternal torture so that you can eternally worship the God who placed a temptation in the center of the garden of Eden, lied about the consequences of it, was exposed in his lie by a serpent, cursed the serpent, cursed women with childbirth, and ordained that all her progeny would be born with evil intent, thus laying the groundwork, with your freewill, to turn you into the monster that we know?" That is what I hear the Sharkshooter doctrine asking the serial rapist if they wish to be saved.
I expect the serial rapist to answer as I would: you mean that's why I am who I am and why I have these urges? A conscious, willful, Creator brought this into being and established it as the context within which I exercise my free will? No! I will not worship Him in Heaven for eternity. Send me to Hell forever, where I can curse him with the rest of Satan and his demons; for they are the children of light serving the father of light. He is the Prince of Darkness.
[ 11. June 2004, 15:42: Message edited by: JimT ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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)?
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.
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Willyburger: quote:
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'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."
Do they believe different things about one "Hollywood", or do they believe in different Hollywoods? Of course, they believe in different Hollywoods. (The difference here is, both Hollywoods actually exist. Both "Gods" cannot.)
Another big difference between sharkshooter's position and mine: I readily confess that my idea of God is an idol. I doubt whether the Sharkshooterites possess such a level of intellectual generosity (though as always I am prepared to be amazed).
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
Adeodatus: quote:
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.
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 quote:
Christian
faith is a monstrosity. You are misrepresenting what the faith we all believe amounts to.
Equally, the Sharkshooterettes are saying "You are misrepresenting the Christian faith! You are diluting it with secular humanism, prostituting its moral structure by presuming to hold God to account at the tribunal of human ethics, etc. etc." - or some such. Obviously, you'd need a bona fide Sharkshooterette to tell it as it is with them.
It isn't that we believe in different Gods. It's that we believe in such incompatible ways on the basis of the same "language game". And each of us accuses the other side of tampering with the rules and destroying the game. We believe in the same God, but each side accuse the other of believing in that God in such a way that they destroy the Christian faith.
--------------------
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:
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.
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
My interpretation is that the garden of eden was a test, and that we passed. (I posted the full justification for this in "...With a flaming sword" in Kerygmania a few months ago).
quote:
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.
If I've got children, I want to know about it!
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.
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:
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.
I'm not 100% sure I want Him to be the way I see Him
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I forget sometimes how much I love Purgatory. I click back into a thread, expecting to have been totally fricasseed, only to discover calm and reason. It's nice. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:
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.
No, I do not care to do so. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) 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:
My interpretation is that the garden of eden was a test, and that we passed.
I agree with this -- except I think we flunked. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) 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:
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.
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.
quote:
I'm not 100% sure I want Him to be the way I see Him.
But why not? Tell me what you would change.
(BTW, your children were just complaining to me about what an uninvolved parent you are. Shame on you!)
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Grits: quote:
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.
You can't mean that! No problem?
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
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?
I'm speaking out of a "let's stand back and try to answer this objectively" place. Not an emotional place.
For me, personally, and I think for many other people who grew up inside Fundamentalism, what was wrong with it was that it pushed me away from God in this life and I was a lot more miserable for having rejected God.
I personally believe that God is Unlimited, Un-time-bound, universal everything, possessed of unimaginable, unlimited power. How does thinking that this God is wrathful against me help me in this world and the next? And if someone says "He's not wrathful against you if you believe in him, only those people who don't", then God is an omnipotent football thug. I know many people have said this before and it seems incomprehensible to those who believe in the god of the OP. It's equally incomprehensible to rest of us why someone would want to worship something that is a force of universal evil (even if it is also allegedly a force for universal good).
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
