|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "In Christ Alone" cast out
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).
Townend has actually.
I doubt if he will ever hear me singing 'love' instead of 'wrath'.
I
I will continue to do it. Weaker brother or not, I'd rather my theology was weak than cruel.
And I'll go for true over nice every time.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Tangential, but I've often meant to ask, and this "true/nice" dichotomy has made me do so.
Suppose the sort of theology that we weak liberals consider cruel is true. Suppose that, for example, everyone who's not a Christian will suffer eternally in Hell.
Nearly all my family are not Christians.
So I have to accept that most of the people I love the most will suffer eternally; that God is intending to torment them for ever.
Now, you may say, that doesn't make it not true. But this God also expects me to love, serve and worship him. How does one actually do that? How does one align oneself with a God whose intention is to torment, eternally, the people one loves?
If God is like that, I can't worship him. Presumably that means I'll burn with 'em.
[ 05. August 2013, 13:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If God is like that, I can't worship him. Presumably that means I'll burn with 'em.
Save me a seat. We can sing unsound hymns to our false god while the flames lick.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I have to accept that most of the people I love the most will suffer eternally; that God is intending to torment them for ever... But this God also expects me to love, serve and worship him. How does one actually do that? How does one align oneself with a God whose intention is to torment, eternally, the people one loves?
I think there are two strands to the counter-argument. First, in eternity those of us who escape the eternal torture will see the justice of God's punishment of those who failed to follow him during their earthly existence.
Secondly, God doesn't exactly intend to torment anyone for eternity, rather his character (love and justice together) make any other option simply impossible. [EDIT - impossible for those who don't follow God in this life]
I must say, though, I've become increasingly troubled by this argument over the last 2-3 years - once I discovered that (shock!) not all Christians believed in the concept of eternal conscious torment.
[ 05. August 2013, 13:49: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I have to accept that most of the people I love the most will suffer eternally; that God is intending to torment them for ever... But this God also expects me to love, serve and worship him. How does one actually do that? How does one align oneself with a God whose intention is to torment, eternally, the people one loves?
I think there are two strands to the counter-argument. First, in eternity those of us who escape the eternal torture will see the justice of God's punishment of those who failed to follow him during their earthly existence.
Secondly, God doesn't exactly intend to torment anyone for eternity, rather his character (love and justice together) make any other option simply impossible. [EDIT - impossible for those who don't follow God in this life]
I must say, though, I've become increasingly troubled by this argument over the last 2-3 years - once I discovered that (shock!) not all Christians believed in the concept of eternal conscious torment.
Yes, I've heard those counter-arguments. They're a pile of steaming shite.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If God is like that, I can't worship him.
Couldn't agree more.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Presumably that means I'll burn with 'em.
At least you would have done the right thing in not worshiping such a monster.
Such a monster is not worthy of worship.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Those are the arguments that require us to take words like love, justice, mercy, compassion - and redefine them to mean almost exactly the opposite of what they mean in common usage.
Still, that's a fairly frequent theological trick, so I suppose we shouldn't complain.
[Cross-posted with Evensong]
[ 05. August 2013, 14:05: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).
Townend has actually.
I doubt if he will ever hear me singing 'love' instead of 'wrath'.
I
I will continue to do it. Weaker brother or not, I'd rather my theology was weak than cruel.
And I'll go for true over nice every time.
You'd probably enjoy the company of the Pharisees then.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Hmmm... some random and incoherent thoughts that may or may not be relevant and may or may not add up to a coherent argument (I'm really selling this post, aren't I...):
1) God is love - so God cannot do anything that is not loving in some way.
2) God's intentions to the world (and humanity) is to restore and re-create what has been marred and spoilt by sin - not to destroy it all in a fit of anger. If this is so, then I don't believe it's God's intention to torture anybody.
3) God's desire is that all may be saved (not necessarily that all will be saved - I don't know whether or not God is a universalist).
4) Anger is not necessarily ruled out by love. Selfish, out-of-control, destructive anger, yes. But not anger per se. For example, someone may be angry that someone they love has been hurt or harmed; they may be angry that someone they love is engaging in harmful behaviours (like the daughter of someone in our church was angry that her mother was still smoking despite suffering from bronchitis). Love may sometimes cause us to be angry; if this (from a human point of view) "happens" with God, then I would suggest that this anger is not selfish, out-of-control or destructive, but is somehow compatible with God's desire to save and re-create.
5) Sin angers God precisely because it harms His creation and leads humans into ways of living that destroy the world He's put us in and, ultimately, ourselves. I don't believe God can simply wave sin away and pretend that it hasn't or doesn't matter: it has and it does. The point is (ISTM) that through Jesus, God has done something to overcome that and, in the end, to restore that which was spoilt.
6) We can't just pick and choose the bits of God's character we like and don't like. Similarly, it seems to me unwise to try and impose our ideas of love, justice, mercy etc. on God. I know what I hope God's love is like and I know it is far greater and more consistent and more faithful and more inclusive and more generous than mine, but more than that I'm not sure I dare say. If God's love doesn't include some measure of anger and hostility towards sin, then that's a God who doesn't care about the evil that goes on in this world.
7) From my very limited knowledge, a lot of our ideas of heaven and hell (eg sinners burning in a fiery lake) are a product of later times and not necessarily found in Scripture. I certainly don't believe that our ultimate goal is to be sat on a cloud in a Pearly-Gated-Community strumming a harp; I think the ultimate goal is to be part of the new creation God is bringing in and one day will complete.
8) Romans 1 (especially from v24ff) suggests that God's wrath is not so much an active punishment (eg the lightning bolts) as God allowing rebellious humanity to experience the full effects of its choosing to turn away from Him and the alienation, inhumanity and sheer madness that results from that. If there is a hell in any sense, I wonder if it's that to the max, if you like, rather than a fiery lake etc.
9) If there is a hell, it's not God's intention that anyone ends up there. I do think, though, that God respects the choices we make (the Romans 1 passage certainly suggests so) and if we choose to walk away from Him for good then He, with sadness and His heart-breaking (humanly speaking) allows us to do so. In this life I believe there's always a way back; after this life is entirely in the hands of the merciful God.
10) Belief in Jesus is not a simple box-ticking mental exercise. There's enough warnings from Jesus that many who were convinced they were in are actually out, and many who wouldn't have believed for a moment they were in will find themselves warmly welcomed into the new creation.
11) Our job as Christians is to live in such a way that this new creation comes about in our lives and so, in our imperfect way, to help bring it about in the lives of others and in the world here and now. "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," as that old prayer has it.
Apologies for the long-windedness and randomness of this post. But it's the only way I can get my head around what the Bible says about God's love and God's anger; God's mercy towards all and God's hostility towards sin in which all humans have got ourselves stuck in. If God's anger and judgement are part of the story (and I do believe we can't ignore them), then they're there as part of His good and loving purpose in the world - not to destory forever those who don't say the right words or whom He doesn't like.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
As an Anglo-Cath lawyer with a copyright background, who fancies himself as a bit of a musician/liturgist, if anyone's ever stupid enough to let me loose on an order of service, it shall read as follows:
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;,*
and then at the bottom of the page: "In this parish, it is customary to replace the text in italics with:
His sacred mother at his side
Our every sin on Him was laid"
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Agree with Karl. All of my family were atheists, going back generations, and most of them had a happy life, and went to a happy death.
If they are in hell, then I am an Australian cricket fan. I just don't believe it, and I can't respect a religion which says it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
This is the thing though. I know no-one; not a single person, who has chosen to reject God.
Don't believe he exists, even though they'd love to do so, yes. Struggle to believe that Christianity has some special insight into what he's like, check. But say "yes, God's there but I reject him" - nope, not a single one.
So for me the "respecting our choice to reject God" argument is dead in the water since none of the people I know have done that.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And I'll go for true over nice every time.
You'd probably enjoy the company of the Pharisees then.
Calling people names is a personal attack. Don't.
Gwai
Purgatory Host
My apologies.
Let me rephrase.
daronmedway: That sounds like an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with.
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath and all that.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And can I add that having "have thought about, struggled with and worried at this for years and finally come to the conclusion that I cannot accept the traditional position" written off as "picking and choosing the bits we like" really boils my piss?
Thank you.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the thing though. I know no-one; not a single person, who has chosen to reject God.
Don't believe he exists, even though they'd love to do so, yes. Struggle to believe that Christianity has some special insight into what he's like, check. But say "yes, God's there but I reject him" - nope, not a single one.
So for me the "respecting our choice to reject God" argument is dead in the water since none of the people I know have done that.
Quite. I know lots of people who have rejected the church on quite fair grounds, ie the church has been full of dickheads who treat people like dirt. Rejecting an abuser seems perfectly sensible, and the church HAS been an abuser to many people. But I don't know anyone who's said 'God is there but I reject him'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful post, Stejjie. It seems to have got a bit lost among the other exchanges going on in this thread!
--------------------
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
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
While others such as daronmedway can make more substantive points, from my POV as a believer in a literal hell, can I also add that having "having wrestled with this apparent unjust God for many years, my family also being non-believers but recognising that my thoughts are not God's thoughts" written off as "an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with" also "really boils my piss"?
Thank you, etc
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
As an Anglo-Cath lawyer with a copyright background, who fancies himself as a bit of a musician/liturgist, if anyone's ever stupid enough to let me loose on an order of service, it shall read as follows:
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;,*
and then at the bottom of the page: "In this parish, it is customary to replace the text in italics with:
His sacred mother at his side
Our every sin on Him was laid"
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I have only encountered this hymn twice.
The first time, I sang it, once i got used to the tune, until just after the offending words, at which point I closed my mouth.
The second time, I remained seated throughout.
I avoided a possible third - during an interregnum,, I was asked to officiate at the archdeacon's visitation as it was being held in one of our churches. Having seen the order of service, which included that hymn, I declined and explained why. Some clergy in the deanery also wrote to her and the bishop indicating their unwillingness to sing such 'subChristian doggerel.'
As well as being subchristian, the attitudes that go with PSA are dangerous:
quote:
When the dominant theology portrays a God willing to shed innocent blood through violence for the sake of redemption, it is all too easy for the institutional powers that claim to speak on behalf of God to decide where else blood must be shed to preserve that redemption. So infidels are massacred, pagan savages are slaughtered, witches are burned, Jews are marked for extermination, blacks are lynched, . . . and gays are bashed.
To the Tune of a Welcoming God – David Weiss
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting point about free will here, can I choose to reject God, while believing he exists? I suppose so. Most non-believers seem to have no such choice though.
It's rather like believing that Sydney is the capital of France. I've tried, but I just can't do it. I can't be an atheist either, but my dad was, and couldn't be anything else.
[ 05. August 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the thing though. I know no-one; not a single person, who has chosen to reject God.
Don't believe he exists, even though they'd love to do so, yes. Struggle to believe that Christianity has some special insight into what he's like, check. But say "yes, God's there but I reject him" - nope, not a single one.
So for me the "respecting our choice to reject God" argument is dead in the water since none of the people I know have done that.
Yeah I can see that entirely. That way of putting it does seem to talk of an active choice to reject God, despite having had some glimpse or proof of Him, which , I guess, isn't the case for most people - at least in this society.
I think there's a huge problem when working with what Scripture says about all this stuff (aside from the 2000 years of traditions (small "t"), interpretations etc. we've built up around it all that tend to cloud our view): AFAIK, the Bible was written in times and cultures when talk of gods and God (as in YHWH) was natural and all-pervasive and to say, as say Richard Dawkins might, "there is simply no god or God" was probably literally unthinkable (were there atheists in those days? I'm not sure). So ISTM (especially from reading a lot of NT Wright's stuff) that a lot of the talk that comes under the heading "rejecting God" was about rejecting Israel's God and a lot of what the prophets and Jesus were talking about was, in its immediate context, about Israel turning its back on the God who had rescued them and covenanted with them that He would be their God and they would be His people. Israel was in danger of rejecting YHWH (perhaps even as she thought she was serving YHWH) and the consequences of that would be severe.
The trouble is that we take all that and translate it directly into our concepts of "going to heaven or hell"; ie enjoying eternal bliss or eternal torment (or annihilation) - which may not be accurate concepts in any case. We take what Jesus warned Israel about and apply it directly to the current situation and what God's going to do at the End Of Time.
However, as I said I don't believe it's about going to heaven, it's about a new heaven and earth and those two joining together. So what happens to the "hell" bit... I'm not quite sure.
More pertinently, for most people in our society, the choice isn't between choosing one God or another: for most people, talk of any god is nonsense. So it's not that most people say "yeah, I believe the God of the Bible exists, but I reject him"; they rather either don't think about it at all, or reject belief in any God, or strive primarily to live the best they can. So I'm really not sure how what the Bible says applies to them (of which I'm sure I know many): perhaps they'll be presented with overwhelming, undeniable proof, perhaps God is a universalist - I just don't know.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Also, on occasions when I've been at events where an adapted version has been used I couldn't help feeling personally insulted and somewhat unwelcome. As if people like me who hold theology like mine should be edited out of Church life.
I do, I think, understand what you're saying but I'm not sure how
"For on that cross, when Jesus died/the love of God was realised" or somesuch
excludes you.
It's a passive-aggressive form of exclusion I grant you. Read, "For on that cross, when Jesus died/the love of God was realised" as "we don't like conservative evangelicals and their sick theology and we're going make a point about it by changing their songs". It doesn't scan well but I think it captures the spirit of the amendment rather well.
[ 05. August 2013, 15:06: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I was also horrified when Justin Welby chose it for his enthronement at Canterbury. I'd just been warming to him as someone with worldly experience and as someone who was broader that evangelicalism, being a benedictine oblate, then I supposed that his first degree wasn't in theology and that people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.
There was an element of irony, too, in that he was shaking hands with the leaders of other faiths during the opening words 'In Christ ALONE'.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
leo, I think ++Justin knew precisely what he was doing when he chose that hymn. Did they do the wrath bit though, or did some bright spark at Canterbury break copyright law by introducing some ill-conceived doggerel of their own?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
On the subject of the hymn itself, I'm not entirely sure about PSA but if you don't like the line (which is at least in part based on that theology), then don't sing the hymn. If there are ideas that you like then why not pick hymns that reflect those ideas instead?
ISTM it's one thing to "modernise" words that are archaic (though I'd still want to tread with caution along that particular path 'cos it's hardly ever done well), but to change part of the theology of a hymn seems to lack integrity, somehow.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.
As Bishop Stephen Sykes, my college principal, always reminded me after I'd scowled through a hymn/song at the College Communion, "when one sings, one isn't on oath."
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
While others such as daronmedway can make more substantive points, from my POV as a believer in a literal hell, can I also add that having "having wrestled with this apparent unjust God for many years, my family also being non-believers but recognising that my thoughts are not God's thoughts" written off as "an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with" also "really boils my piss"?
Thank you, etc
That's fine; I'm not an apologist for Evensong. Perhaps you could though go into how you worship this God at the same time as believing he's going to torment your nearest and dearest in hell for eternity. This is a genuine question.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
leo, I think ++Justin knew precisely what he was doing when he chose that hymn. Did they do the wrath bit though, or did some bright spark at Canterbury break copyright law by introducing some ill-conceived doggerel of their own?
They did the wrath of God bit - i had recorded it and listened twice to make sure.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
We seem caught between a monstrous God who isn't worthy of worship yet desires it and expects it, and a kinder God who is worthy of worship, desires it, but isn't too bothered one way or the other. It would be easier if these two Gods were found in two separate religions, with entirely separate hymns, etc., but who needs easy?!
In my totally untheological, pew-fodder way, I think it must be part of our challenge to see these two elements in one and the same God. I'm not sure how Christianity works if God is only kind and never wrathful, but neither does it make sense if wrath obliterates kindness.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.
As Bishop Stephen Sykes, my college principal, always reminded me after I'd scowled through a hymn/song at the College Communion, "when one sings, one isn't on oath."
Thurible
No - but it is important 'witness' to the true faith.
As a socialist and republican i also used to sit for the national anthem when they played it in cinemas in the old days.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
leo, I think ++Justin knew precisely what he was doing when he chose that hymn. Did they do the wrath bit though, or did some bright spark at Canterbury break copyright law by introducing some ill-conceived doggerel of their own?
Yes, the whole wrath caboodle. I'm not that interested in ecclesiastical appointments, but that got me googling the order of service on the day!
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In my totally untheological, pew-fodder way, I think it must be part of our challenge to see these two elements in one and the same God. I'm not sure how Christianity works if God is only kind and never wrathful, but neither does it make sense if wrath obliterates kindness.
You've put much better and more concisely what I was vaguely rambling towards in my huge post earlier - thank you!
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The next ecumenical service I lead, this is going in.
I, the Lord of ground and earth
I have shown my po'wr and wrath.
I did smite my Son for them
And turned away.
A sacrifice I did provide
Till my wrath was satisfied.
I gave my Son to rescue them,
Who shall I send?
Here I am Lord, Is it I Lord?
I have heard You calling in the night.
I will go Lord, if You lead me.
I will hold Your people in my heart.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.
As Bishop Stephen Sykes, my college principal, always reminded me after I'd scowled through a hymn/song at the College Communion, "when one sings, one isn't on oath."
Thurible
No - but it is important 'witness' to the true faith.
As a socialist and republican i also used to sit for the national anthem when they played it in cinemas in the old days.
I see - you don't like being offended but you don't mind offending other people. How very nice of you.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
While others such as daronmedway can make more substantive points, from my POV as a believer in a literal hell, can I also add that having "having wrestled with this apparent unjust God for many years, my family also being non-believers but recognising that my thoughts are not God's thoughts" written off as "an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with" also "really boils my piss"?
Thank you, etc
That's fine; I'm not an apologist for Evensong. Perhaps you could though go into how you worship this God at the same time as believing he's going to torment your nearest and dearest in hell for eternity. This is a genuine question.
In fact, the old conundrum was: would you rejoice at the spectacle of your mother in hell? If not why not?
Of course, it's shot through with holes - you could never know that your mother is in hell. But in a thought experiment, presumably you would rejoice to see God's justice at work, although you might also lament your mother.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.
As Bishop Stephen Sykes, my college principal, always reminded me after I'd scowled through a hymn/song at the College Communion, "when one sings, one isn't on oath."
Thurible
No - but it is important 'witness' to the true faith.
As a socialist and republican i also used to sit for the national anthem when they played it in cinemas in the old days.
I see - you don't like being offended but you don't mind offending other people. How very nice of you.
If you're offended by my not hypocritically standing for a monarchist anthem in which I do not believe, I'd suggest that a bit of minding your own business is in order.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I have absolutely no issue with God having wrath - there are many things which deserve it (I just wouldn't put perfectly nice unbelievers in that category). But God is surely more powerful than people's unbelief? If God doesn't have the power to save everyone with one incredible, universe-shattering act (ie the Crucifixion), then what kind of pointless God is He?
[ 05. August 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
While others such as daronmedway can make more substantive points, from my POV as a believer in a literal hell, can I also add that having "having wrestled with this apparent unjust God for many years, my family also being non-believers but recognising that my thoughts are not God's thoughts" written off as "an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with" also "really boils my piss"?
Thank you, etc
That's fine; I'm not an apologist for Evensong. Perhaps you could though go into how you worship this God at the same time as believing he's going to torment your nearest and dearest in hell for eternity. This is a genuine question.
In fact, the old conundrum was: would you rejoice at the spectacle of your mother in hell? If not why not?
Of course, it's shot through with holes - you could never know that your mother is in hell. But in a thought experiment, presumably you would rejoice to see God's justice at work, although you might also lament your mother.
Is being eternally conflicted heaven for anyone?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential, but I've often meant to ask, and this "true/nice" dichotomy has made me do so.
Suppose the sort of theology that we weak liberals consider cruel is true. Suppose that, for example, everyone who's not a Christian will suffer eternally in Hell.
By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness? The only robust way I've found to release genuine forgiveness is to acknowledge that their sin can be paid for in only one of two places: 1) In Christ on the cross, or 2) in hell. I can evangelise them in the hope of saving them from hell, or I can leave them to their wickedness in the hope that they die unsaved. The second option doesn't sit right with me, so the only option left is to pray and work for the salvation of the wicked.
As for you family, I don't know. It's a problem I have too, but I simply do not feel free to reject what I see in scripture. Yes, I question it but I don't contradict it.
[ 05. August 2013, 16:06: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Hell and PSA are separate issues. Why are they being conflated here?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Hell and PSA are separate issues. Why are they being conflated here?
Becasue Leo thinks the world is dvided into two kinds of people - evangelicals whio are murderers and rapists and child abusers who that believe in a made-up fascist God that wants everyone to go to Hell; and everybody else, who is just like Leo.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential, but I've often meant to ask, and this "true/nice" dichotomy has made me do so.
Suppose the sort of theology that we weak liberals consider cruel is true. Suppose that, for example, everyone who's not a Christian will suffer eternally in Hell.
By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness? The only robust way I've found to release genuine forgiveness is to acknowledge that their sin can be paid for in only one of two places: 1) In Christ on the cross, or 2) in hell. I can evangelise them in the hope of saving them from hell, or I can leave them to their wickedness in the hope that they die unsaved. The second option doesn't sit right with me, so the only option left is to pray and work for the salvation of the wicked.
As for you family, I don't know. It's a problem I have too, but I simply do not feel free to reject what I see in scripture. Yes, I question it but I don't contradict it.
There's a little thing called purgatory....
I don't believe in a permanent Hell. It seems to be unnecessary if the Cross was as powerful as it should be. Of course evil should be punished, but if God has already won over the powers of evil, why does He have to punish relatively innocent humans to prove his point? It seems unnecessary and cruel. People should be punished for actual evil, not just not believing in God.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness? The only robust way I've found to release genuine forgiveness is to acknowledge that their sin can be paid for in only one of two places: 1) In Christ on the cross, or 2) in hell.
That's not justice. In Britain, if you murder a person, you're likely to be in prison (not in hell) for, say, 30 years. Less if there's mitigation.
Even in the old days, the penalty for murder was to be killed. Once.
With your God, the penalty for failing to kiss his arse is fire over every inch of your body for ever and ever and ever, with no hope whatsoever of any release or diminution of the punishment.
Call that justice? Cos I don't.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, it's the E in ECT, which sticks in the craw, or somewhere in the oesophagus. It seems a very bizarre idea to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I, the Lord of snow and ice
I am always really nice.
I would never answer no
I just say yes.
Of Jesus blood my hands are clean
I would never be so mean.
It was all an accident,
Who shall I send?
Here I am Lord...
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Why do you keep using the word 'nice' as if it's an insult?
Nice = love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
God is the God of all these. Not the God of wrath. We look for revenge and wrath. God looks for forgiveness and reconciliation.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Who shall I send?
Here I am Lord...
You should be careful when you say that. He might hear you.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness?
It's more just than someone else getting punished for their wickedness. No-one getting punished for their wickedness is called mercy. Someone else getting punished is called injustice.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Hell and PSA are separate issues. Why are they being conflated here?
Becasue Leo thinks the world is dvided into two kinds of people - evangelicals whio are murderers and rapists and child abusers who that believe in a made-up fascist God that wants everyone to go to Hell; and everybody else, who is just like Leo.
You know better than that comment, which is beneath you.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
