homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » God's wrath and indignation against us (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: God's wrath and indignation against us
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:


After I recovered from this sort of theology, I understood that the killing of Jesus was what the people did, and then they explained their behaviour away excusing themselves with the notion it was all God's idea.

Most of the scriptures don't think it was God's idea to kill Jesus. Atonement theory has put his idea onto scripture.


I was reading Acts yesterday for an exam.

It's quite clear who killed Jesus:

Yes, it is.

quote:
Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You might want to read that post again.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, Daronmedway, your thesis, based on a verse from Peter’s pentecost sermon, is that God the Father was responsible for the death of God the Son. It is, however, not entirely in accord with other scriptural references, including Luke, that point to less sublime authorship.

The problem with your approach is that it absolves Judas, the High Priests, Pilate and the rest from moral responsibility for the crucifixion. Even in the context of your quotation, Peter goes on to blame his hearers for the death of the Messiah: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” In response the hearers feared the consequences of their actions “Brothers, what shall we do?” To which the apostle replied “Repent and be baptised.....” The climax of the sermon, then, is that culpability for the crucfixion is on their shoulders, and they should repent in order to avoid divine wrath.

The gospel writers seem pretty clear that evil intent was the author of Jesus' death. One has alread alluded to Christ’s own parable of the Vineyard Owners, mentioned in the three synoptic gospels, that point to human greed as motivating a decision to kill the son, and Luke, himself, sees the concluding process as starting when “Satan entered Judas...and Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple quard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus” (Luke 22: 3-4). In John’s gospel, Judas goes about his work motivated by the devil: “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him,”what you are about to do, do quickly” (John 13: 27).

ISTM, Daronmedway, that if you wish to argue that “the deliberate plan” referred to by Peter was some form of substitutary atonement etc., then you have to demonstrate that is what the apostle meant, and show how it fits in with the rest of his sermon. One can think of other things that the “deliberate plan” might have been, or explore what Luke understood by “deliberate plan”.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can I suggest a kind of middle ground? The passage in Acts does certainly seem to suggest that both Daronmedway & Evensong are right. That it was God's plan, but man's action. The only way both could be true would be if there's no free will, and that's not a path many want to go down.

It reminds me of the story of Joseph. Through a bunch of good and (mostly) bad decisions by a whole range of people, Joseph ended up Governor of Egypt. As you read the story, you can see how he got there. His own arrogance, his brothers' jealousy, the greed of slave-traders, lust of Potiphar's wife, and so on... But when he finally reconciles with his brothers, this is what he says in Genesis 45:

quote:
So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God.
Eh? It was God all along?

For me, the way to understand this isn't to say that it was God the master puppeteer pulling everybody's strings and making them succumb to his master plan. Despite all the bad choices people made, through them God managed to save Joseph's family (and a few nations) from famine, reconcile Joseph with his brothers and so on. It's that God is so masterful at turning crappy situations around. He didn't decide upon and make people carry out those evil acts. He just flipped them round and turned them for good.

For me, it's the same with Jesus' death. It didn't have to happen that way. God certainly didn't want it to happen or force people to kill Jesus. It wasn't "necessary" in that it was the only possible way that sin could be dealt with and forgiveness given. But somehow, just as with Joseph, despite the actions of evil people, God flipped it all on its head and turned it into victory. So much so that it looks like that was his masterplan all along.

So, I think that the suggestions that Jesus had to die to satisfy a wrathful God, and that that was the Godhead's plan in the first place are way off. But I think, Evensong, that you're over-egging the human element in all this too. In some paradoxical, mysterious way, the God who is outside of time planned to turn the actions of us sinners into our own redemption. By killing his Son, we actually helped ensure our own salvation. It's not that people were 50% responsible for killing Jesus, and God was 50% responsible as it was His plan (or some other ratio). Somehow, these two facts are both fully held in tension, that we are guilty for murdering God's Son, and he planned to turn it to our salvation all along.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Can I suggest a kind of middle ground? The passage in Acts does certainly seem to suggest that both Daronmedway & Evensong are right. That it was God's plan, but man's action. The only way both could be true would be if there's no free will, and that's not a path many want to go down.

I think there's maybe another way. There is free will, and God saw that the inevitable consequence of that free will would be for Jesus to cause anger and resentment among those with the power to have him executed, thus they would indeed have him executed.

So people chose to have Jesus crucified but God foreknew that it would certainly happen. How about it?

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course.

The plan was not to kill Jesus, but to raise Jesus. That is what the passages from Acts reiterate frequently.

The crowning glory of Christianity is not death, it is resurrection.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sounds good!

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
So, Daronmedway, your thesis, based on a verse from Peter’s pentecost sermon, is that God the Father was responsible for the death of God the Son. It is, however, not entirely in accord with other scriptural references, including Luke, that point to less sublime authorship.

<snip>

ISTM, Daronmedway, that if you wish to argue that “the deliberate plan” referred to by Peter was some form of substitutary atonement etc., then you have to demonstrate that is what the apostle meant, and show how it fits in with the rest of his sermon. One can think of other things that the “deliberate plan” might have been, or explore what Luke understood by “deliberate plan”.

I'm saying, contra Evensong et al, that the death of Jesus by crucifixion is attributed simultaneously both to the definite plan of God and to the wickedness of men. No developed doctrine of the atonement is expressed and, if you care to check, I have not mentioned wrath once in this entire thread. My aim at the moment is to show from scripture (John, Paul, Luke and arguably Peter) that it is possible to view the death of Jesus on the cross as being by God's plan through the agency of human wickedness.

I'd much rather believe in God who, from eternity, intentionally planned the subversion of human evil through the sacrificial death of his Son, than I would a God who simply cut his Son loose in a wicked world and allowed him to die an agonising and essentially purposeless death in which he played no part whatsoever.

The fact that the triune God is able to subvert evil for a good purpose does not free the perpetrator of that evil from moral responsibility for having committed it.

[ 19. June 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Can I suggest a kind of middle ground? The passage in Acts does certainly seem to suggest that both Daronmedway & Evensong are right. That it was God's plan, but man's action. The only way both could be true would be if there's no free will, and that's not a path many want to go down.

I think there's maybe another way. There is free will, and God saw that the inevitable consequence of that free will would be for Jesus to cause anger and resentment among those with the power to have him executed, thus they would indeed have him executed.

So people chose to have Jesus crucified but God foreknew that it would certainly happen. How about it?

Too weak, I think. It doesn't adequately account for the 'command' of John 10:17, the 'definite plan' of Acts 2:23 and the "will" of Galatians 1:4. This isn't a passive God who makes contingency plans, this is an active God who makes salvation plans.

[ 19. June 2013, 11:17: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Of course.

The plan was not to kill Jesus, but to raise Jesus.[/b]

So now there's plan? Whose plan? What's the plan?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
False dichotomy again.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Can I suggest a kind of middle ground? The passage in Acts does certainly seem to suggest that both Daronmedway & Evensong are right. That it was God's plan, but man's action. The only way both could be true would be if there's no free will, and that's not a path many want to go down.

<snippage>

For me, the way to understand this isn't to say that it was God the master puppeteer pulling everybody's strings and making them succumb to his master plan. Despite all the bad choices people made, through them God managed to save Joseph's family (and a few nations) from famine, reconcile Joseph with his brothers and so on. It's that God is so masterful at turning crappy situations around. He didn't decide upon and make people carry out those evil acts. He just flipped them round and turned them for good.

For me, it's the same with Jesus' death. It didn't have to happen that way. God certainly didn't want it to happen or force people to kill Jesus. It wasn't "necessary" in that it was the only possible way that sin could be dealt with and forgiveness given. But somehow, just as with Joseph, despite the actions of evil people, God flipped it all on its head and turned it into victory. So much so that it looks like that was his masterplan all along.

So, I think that the suggestions that Jesus had to die to satisfy a wrathful God, and that that was the Godhead's plan in the first place are way off.

<more snipped>


[[goperryrevs, I don't mean to make you sound like you're saying something you're not, and if I've done this with selective editting, I apologize.]]

But isn't that: Human beings can do Very Bad Things, including killing Jesus, and God can make it right in the end? That God could then take each of us, useless self centred, evil-inclined nasty humans, and make each of us also right?

That God can give us morning, excellent and fair, even after we cosmically mess it all up? And is always ready to take us again, and do it again to each of us, which is the way I understand the word "conversion" as a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute thing. The perfecting power of God and all that.

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, that sounds about right to me.

The only way I can really begin to understand God is as a parent. Any "wrath" or "indignation" is probably best described simply as either intense frustration that we don't realise our potential, or aching sadness that we make shitty self-destructive (and other-people-destructive) choices. It's certainly not the hatred of an enemy.

ISTM that what you describe is how God is and what God does. Waiting patiently, ready to help us turn things around, and ready to bring good out of bad, and so on.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Penal substitutionist deny Jesus' humanity. That's why they have no problem with divine child abuse.

Loath as I am toi defend OPSA in any way, I don't think tyhat is right.

As i understand the theory, it was Jesus's humanity (albeit 'perfect') that enabled him to make atonement on behalf of other human beings.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
An argument against PSA which couches PSA in the language of "God killed Jesus? What a monster" is sub-Trinitarian.

Only if you want to use the theoretical notion of Trinity to defend PSA, or at least to try to protect it from anti-PSA attacks.

I prefer to use the concept of Trinity to negate the concept of PSA, because I view PSA to be heretical, theologically inconsistent and quite distasteful.

But I guess one's appetite for violence, and the acceptability of bullying, varies from person to person.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I prefer to use the concept of Trinity to negate the concept of PSA, because I view PSA to be heretical, theologically inconsistent and quite distasteful.

I agree the way it can be taught can be distasteful and unhelpful. But I'm loath to chuck it out all together. There is some biblical clout behind it:

Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, "Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin ..." (NIV)

2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (NIV)

1 Peter 2:24, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." (NRSV)

quote:
But I guess one's appetite for violence, and the acceptability of bullying, varies from person to person.
Straw man and a non-sequitur. I'm an open evangelical, biased towards the Arminian/free-will camp, and certainly not a big fan of Calvinism. And I think that all the atonement theories are subject to critique, PSA no less. But to paint anyone who accepts PSA as being OK with child abuse and bullying is ... well, really, is this what our discourse has turned into? [Help]

Tom Wright, as ever, is worth reading, 'The Cross and the Caricatures':
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or a shortened version here about how all those "biblical" people ignore the gospels when looking for how we are "saved".

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We've always been met where we are.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Of course.

The plan was not to kill Jesus, but to raise Jesus.[/b]

So now there's plan? Whose plan? What's the plan?
Killing, the sacrifice, of Jesus was pure Annunaki dogma. Annunaki have been acting out this way of saying, "You are less than your society," for millennia.

But at some point, the individual says to society, "My souls testifies, I don't belong here. --

"So, now what?--"

"Shall my Soul be obliterated by YOUR STATE, or shall I find an new Option to pursue?"

EEWC

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ass wipe.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nobody's ordering you to agree, Martin.

I personally feel the ritual of sacrifices, of wars, pogroms and population reduction has gone too far toward hating life itself.

It's no wonder to me that God is wrathful, indignant and disgusted at the whole thing.

But He is civil and He has taught us civil Law, which allows for capital punishment when a threat to a community cannot simply be expelled.

And THAT is the ONLY rationale for "sacrificing" someone's life that I see as "civil," to protect the innocent from stalking criminals.

EEWC

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't disagree at all Em.

It was a suggestion of what to do is all. If I win the Euromillions rollover tonight, which would take more than a miracle, that's what I would do for a living to keep me grounded.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools