Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 286 (630558)
08-26-2011 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
08-26-2011 7:17 AM


Re: Christian or Not?
Where are you getting that from? What scripture verses? That part about being born again over and over...
Jesus wasn't a Christian? You do know that Christian stands for Christlike? That there were no Chriatians till after Jesus left earth? Yes jar, im aware that Jesus wasnt a Christian...LOL.
No, Christian is simply a designation for those people who belong to one of the chapters of Club Christian. Christian does not stand for Christ like although that might be one of the goals of some chapter of Club Christian.
So? I don't care about the jewish tradition and Jesus set up the NEW testiment. You know, the Testiment that is new, not the jewish law anymore? We are under grace now, not the law. You know?
I know that is taught by the CCoI, but I have never found that it stands up to examination.
Part of the problems with the indoctrination done by the CCoI is the abandonment of teaching Jewish tradition so that many if not most Christians only get the pablum version of the religion.
The "under Grace" product like the "getting saved" product and the "born again" product are cheap and easily sold, but I can't see any value to them.
Wow, that is umm, silly to say the least. Im not laughing at you don't worry. Im feel bad for you that you are stuck in this dimension of evolution, saved after we die, starting churches when you think that we are saved after we die, etc etc. you are one confused individual.
Tell me jar, if we are saved after we die(or not) why did Jesus die for us here on earth? What was the point? So we can guess what happens but not really know?
I never said that we would be saved even after we die. It is after we die that we get judged. It will only be after the judgement that anyone will know if they are saved or not.
Jesus did not die for us and his death was not the sacrifice.
That's another of those cheap products that is easily sold.
Well, I actually agree with this. We definitly do not worship the same God or savior.
BTW, what is your definition of a Christian? How does one become a Chriatian in your mind?
That one is easy. A Christian is a recognized member of one of the recognized Chapters of Club Christian.
While most of this is of course irrelevant and off topic other than that it does show that not all Christians worship the same god just as there are many different gods described in the Bible.
If there is a afterlife and if folk really do get judged, I imagine that there will be far more Buddhists, Satanists, Taoists, animists, Wicaans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and followers of Confucius and Mencius in heaven than Christians.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 08-26-2011 7:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by iano, posted 08-26-2011 8:54 AM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 08-29-2011 2:01 PM jar has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 47 of 286 (630564)
08-26-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
08-26-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Christian or Not?
jar writes:
The "under Grace" product like the "getting saved" product and the "born again" product are cheap and easily sold, but I can't see any value to them.
Hi-ho, hi-ho it's-off to-work jar-goes..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 08-26-2011 8:41 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 48 of 286 (630593)
08-26-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
08-26-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Saved or Not?
iano writes:
Firstly. The wars today aren't (imo) wars directed by God in order that the kinds of issues that would impact on combatants today could be said to apply in a God-directed war.
The wars today, (at least the wars the western world is involved in), are not about killing every man, woman and child in the country. The OT wars that we are talking about were. So your view is that the wars that advocate genocide are sanctioned by our loving God but the wars we are involved in today aren't. Interesting.
iano writes:
Consider a mindset in which righteousness figured uppermost and in which God was considered to always be acting justly - would that mindd suffer the same trauma as the mind devoid of those supports? How much of the trauma of war comes from doubts about the justness of the fight one is engaged in? What effect would killing a family have on you if lurking at the back of your mind was the notion that this war could possibly be about oil or other self-interest?
Consider a mind that has God actually instruct in order that doubts re: righteousness-of-action are removed. Some might jump on the comparison but suppose the mindset that of a Kamikaze pilot: completely sold out on the cause of the Emperor.
To be honest iano I find that a statement coming from a Christian chilling. Frankly, it reminds me of that guy in Norway. Can you honestly tell me that if you were convinced that God wanted you to either be involved in stoning your child to death, or that God wanted you to go into the neighbouring town and slaughter children it wouldn't affect you?
Also do you believe that God spoke to every individual soldier in those ancient wars or were they just following what their leaders said when they were told that God had wanted them to go in and slaughter everyone? Do you not think that they might have wondered about it?
iano writes:
The issue centers on God's justness: if his killing of men, women and children is a just act then I don't see the insurmountable problem for one who is committed to following God and his decrees. Do you consider his slaughtering a nation unjust? If so, why so (bearing in mind them all sinners AND God effectively killing every other man, woman and child who has ever been killed right up to the present day)? Which (as I asked before) boundary do you think God have crossed here?
Well one boundary He would definitely be crossing is that it is completely contrary to what we see of Him in the message of Jesus. Isn't the message of the Bible that the Jewish people were chosen to take God's message of the Ten Commandments and loving your neighbour to the world? Now instead of loving their neighbour you believe that God is telling them to go out and slaughter them. You would have Him crossing the boundaries that He has set.
iano writes:
You point to Jesus as a model of love but appear to gloss over the rather severe langauge he uses when it comes to the fate of the unrighteous. Indeed, if Hell and warnings about same are your subject of interest, Jesus is the person who speaks about it the most.
Well a lot of that sort of talk in the NT is about what the Romans will do if the Jewish people don't abandon their revolutionary ways. Aside from that though, if Hell is an existence where the inhabitants are all guided by selfish love then I can understand the language that Jesus uses.
iano writes:
I can't see any basis for supposing the Old Testament writers to fill the pages with completely erroneous accounts of the nature of God - especially not if the OT and NT God can be reconciled.
It isn't that the writers saw it as erroneous, it was their perceptions brought about by cultural and personal biases that were erroneous. I see no way of reconciling genocide etc with the message of Jesus.
iano writes:
The alternative is to cut out whole swathes of the bible.
It isn't necessary to cut out anything in the Bible. It is a matter of how we understand it.
iano writes:
Ultimately it's a question of whether you can juggle the whole thing or whether you find it too much of a handful and need to reduce the number of balls in the air. I don't mean to denigrate in this - if you don't feel you can model a smothin' n' smitin' God with a God of love then so be it. I find I can.
Then to go back to the OP we worship different gods.
iano writes:
Holiness, not love, would be his primary attribute in that case
I see nothing holy in genocide or in stoning my child to death.
iano writes:
As before, I don't imagine God to be like us - where we can only accomodate one thing or the other. Rather, I see God in his wrath hating sinners (objects of wrath) and God in his love extending mercy to sinners. If that's hard to envisage then I'd point you in the direction of the equally mind-bending notion of the Trinity.
Actually the trinity isn't all that difficult. You have a God who created everything and who has a spirit. We have a body and a spirit, soul, consciousness or whatever you want to call it. Jesus was a man through whom God visited His people by inspiring Jesus through inspiration and revelation with the power of the great truths. Jesus became the embodiment of God.
iano writes:
As for nuking non-Christian nations? If God directed it I'd see no problem with it. Doubtlessly he'd have a multitude of goals in so doing. I don't think I'd want to take it on myself however (unless of course, he gave an unmistakable direction).
There is absolutely nothing I can say to that. I frankly never dreamt you would respond that way.
iano writes:
It would seem that knowing for sure that God exists and that he has created a legal system complete with penalties and rewards didn't change a whole lot. Witness the Israelites in the desert. Sin is much deeper an affliction that can be countered with mere understanding.
You misunderstood me. God has not given us or the ancient Jews certainty, and the point of that is that if there was certainty then that would negate our free will, and the freedom to reject or accept His message of love, truth, forgiveness, mercy, justice etc.
At any rate you've made it abundantly clear that individual Christians do worship different gods.
I missed the NT Wright question.
Here is a link on the authority of scripture.
How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 08-26-2011 8:04 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 08-26-2011 3:53 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 50 by iano, posted 08-27-2011 6:41 AM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 49 of 286 (630599)
08-26-2011 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
08-26-2011 2:45 PM


Some gods are not worth worshiping and some should be opposed
A god that would kill even one person for being a sinner is not simply unjust, it is a god unworthy of respect much less love, a god worth only of contempt.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 2:45 PM GDR has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 50 of 286 (630723)
08-27-2011 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
08-26-2011 2:45 PM


Re: Saved or Not?
GDR writes
quote:
The wars today, (at least the wars the western world is involved in), are not about killing every man, woman and child in the country. The OT wars that we are talking about were. So your view is that the wars that advocate genocide are sanctioned by our loving God but the wars we are involved in today aren't. Interesting.
The word used of God at war wasn't 'loving', it was 'holy'. Could we lay aside the jibes and deal with the thrust of the position?
-
quote:
To be honest iano I find that a statement coming from a Christian chilling. Frankly, it reminds me of that guy in Norway. Can you honestly tell me that if you were convinced that God wanted you to either be involved in stoning your child to death, or that God wanted you to go into the neighbouring town and slaughter children it wouldn't affect you?
Also do you believe that God spoke to every individual soldier in those ancient wars or were they just following what their leaders said when they were told that God had wanted them to go in and slaughter everyone? Do you not think that they might have wondered about it?
I doubt I'd have insurmountable problems were it that I was placed in the same context as the Israelites: living in an enviromnent where God's leading-by-law formed an everyday part of life. When I say I would follow his lead I'm assuming that well-undergirded contextual background. It's not a big step to kill women and children when you've witnessed God laying waste to the population in Egypt.
Moses had been well attested to by God as God's official mouthpiece - notwithstanding the Israelites tendency to forget that. I'm assuming a conviction available to those soldiers unlike anything any leader could produce in men today - the ever-presence of God is lacking.
-
quote:
Well one boundary He would definitely be crossing is that it is completely contrary to what we see of Him in the message of Jesus. Isn't the message of the Bible that the Jewish people were chosen to take God's message of the Ten Commandments and loving your neighbour to the world? Now instead of loving their neighbour you believe that God is telling them to go out and slaughter them. You would have Him crossing the boundaries that He has set.
I see the Israelites as a people chosen as a 'womb' maintained to bear the saviour of the world. As such, they were to be kept isolated from the depravity of the world both from within (via strict laws governing behaviour) and from without (by genocide if necessary). The message they brought was of a holy God who is both patient and merciful (salvation is open to all - even the slain Midianites). And wrath against sin.
It's the same message as is contained in the New Testament
Romans 1 writes:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness
... says Paul on his embarking on the reason why (every) man is in need of this 'good news'. I find it chilling that a Christian would understand the Bibles message to mankind to be to "follow the 10 commandments and love thy neighbour" in the face of Jesus' warning of dire consequences for sin and Paul expounding on the wrath of God being poured out against sin to this day.
-
quote:
Well a lot of that sort of talk in the NT is about what the Romans will do if the Jewish people don't abandon their revolutionary ways. Aside from that though, if Hell is an existence where the inhabitants are all guided by selfish love then I can understand the language that Jesus uses.
Needless to say, I don't share your local-history-only approach. Nor do I take numerous references to a casting out/cutting off/burning up of that which is considered wicked and unclean - the casting out couched in condeming, angry language - as anything other than harmonious with the language used of the wicked both before the gospels and after them.
-
quote:
It isn't that the writers saw it as erroneous, it was their perceptions brought about by cultural and personal biases that were erroneous. I see no way of reconciling genocide etc with the message of Jesus.
Yet the language of destruction and punishment of the wicked runs in drumbeat fashion through the OT, the gospels and the epistles. You don't need to reconcile a drumbeat - it's harmonious as it stands. You need to explain why and how you disrupt that drumbeat. You've stated the OT containing (objectively) erroneous descriptions of God. How do you deal with NT descriptions of God's wrathful attitude to evil?
-
quote:
Then to go back to the OP we worship different gods.
I suppose that's true of every Christian, seeing as everyones model of God is going to differ from the next persons. But if you mean in large-scale fashion then I suppose we two do. In a book of warfare between good and evil, I'm not surprised to see descriptions of casualties of that warfare - climaxing both the death of the son of God and the death of evil and death.
-
quote:
I see nothing holy in genocide or in stoning my child to death.
I do. If by genocide/stoning, God progresses a plan which will maintain a people chosen to bear his saviour - a savior who will defeat evil on a cross - in fit state to fulfill that bearing role, then holiness is vindicated in his doing so.
There are some who would say that an omnipotent God could snap his fingers instead, in which case I'd wonder what on earth he was doing hanging on a cross.
-
quote:
Actually the trinity isn't all that difficult. You have a God who created everything and who has a spirit. We have a body and a spirit, soul, consciousness or whatever you want to call it.
There's a clue in the word 'TRInity'. It means three. The Trinity not only sees God as consisting of God the father, God the spirit and God the son. It sees each as a distinct person without their being three persons like you, me and jar.
Try that with your body and spirit (and some other bit of you), then come back to me with a simple description
-
quote:
Jesus was a man through whom God visited His people by inspiring Jesus through inspiration and revelation with the power of the great truths. Jesus became the embodiment of God.
'Became'? You seem to equivocate on Jesus being God eternal.
-
quote:
There is absolutely nothing I can say to that. I frankly never dreamt you would respond that way.
Which is pretty much what I would say to God if he replied in the affirmative to my questioning whether he'd want me to nuke other nations
-
quote:
You misunderstood me. God has not given us or the ancient Jews certainty, and the point of that is that if there was certainty then that would negate our free will, and the freedom to reject or accept His message of love, truth, forgiveness, mercy, justice etc.
I don't quite see how the Israelites could be under any illusion about the certainty of God's existance. Nor do I think that a display of divine might will necessarily produce believers out of sinners - certainly Jesus' display of divine might didn't achieve that end.
Perhaps that's because I don't see people as having a freewill in the classic sense of the word. Rather, I see people infected with sin to the point where they are capable of denying day is day and so, capable of denying (or as the Israelites persistantly did, forgetting) what had happened right before their eyes.
Indeed, our own careers as sinners (Christians notwithstanding) is proof positive of our ability to deny and forget the work of the divine in our lives.
-
quote:
At any rate you've made it abundantly clear that individual Christians do worship different gods.
I don't know about you, but I don't believe we are saved or lost on account of our doctrine. Nor would our doctrine determine the fate of any we might encounter. It's not mission critical that we agree on the God we believe in, in other words.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 2:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-27-2011 11:58 PM iano has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 51 of 286 (630725)
08-27-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
08-25-2011 9:13 PM


Re: Gods and God Concepts
Hi GDR,
I know that you're involved in a lot of discussions right now, so we may as well leave this one here. After all, we've come to the point where your argument rests upon the truth of the resurrection, something that is well outside of the scope of your topic here. In truth, I've been a long way off topic throughout. Thanks for an interesting discussion though. I'll just leave you with this;
GDR writes:
Also, I believe that Christians who truly embrace God's love for others in their own lives will be guided by the God's spirit to reflect His love into the world.
iano writes:
The issue centers on God's justness: if his killing of men, women and children is a just act then I don't see the insurmountable problem for one who is committed to following God and his decrees.
How's that guidance thing working out?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 08-25-2011 9:13 PM GDR has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 52 of 286 (630726)
08-27-2011 7:30 AM


Topic Please
Recent posts do not seem to be addressing the the topic outlined in the OP.
If I have missed something please summarize.
Also knock off the useless one line posts. This is not a chat board.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.
Thank you
AdminPD Purple

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 53 of 286 (630736)
08-27-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
08-18-2011 11:25 PM


GDR wrote:
quote:
When you really boil it down, in the OT story God hates the enemies of Israel but in the NT lesson God loves all of His creation and wants the followers of Jesus to reflect that love. Are we as Christians supposed to accept the idea that we worship a God who at one point in time advocated genocide?
There are many other cases in the OT that are in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, such as the destruction of the Canaanites. In the OT God supposedly wanted those who broke the Sabbath laws to be put to death but Jesus essentially says that the Sabbath laws may be ignored.
I've queried your proposal of a uni-dimensional God a few times now: that God can either be this way or that way but not both ways. A variation on the theme would see me inquire into your understanding of 'The Law of Sin and Death' / 'The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus'.
Orthodox understanding sees the first as "rules a person must follow - on pain of receiving the wage due for failure to adhere (that wage = condemnation)". All are seen as born under that law and all are condemned, by default, as a result of their failure to keep the law on each and every point.
The "law of the spirit of life..", on the otherhand, is understood to apply to all who have been saved and have been freed from the Law of Sin and Death. They are charged with upholding the law just as before - but for reasons other than that condemnation would follow their failure to uphold the law.
The Law (e.g. love your neighbour) has precisely the same wording in both it's forms.
Thus when Jesus speaks so, he is urging his disciples (believers/the saved/the born again) to walk in the freedom they have now that they are free of the Law of sin and. They are to be confined by the motivation that comes with the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus - namely Christ motivating from within. He is not overturning the Law of sin and death which still applies to all he does not address - i.e. the lost.
This twofold aspect of the law is seen to be in operation in the world then and now. It mirrors perfectly, the twofold aspect of God as revealed. We see wrath issuing the wages of sin and see love issuing freedom from the penalty of the law, by grace.
You say you don't buy God's 'situational ethics' in the case of the slaughter of many. Would you accept that the twofold aspect of the law resolves this? That God was exercising judgement according to 'the law of sin and death' when dealing with the Midianites, for example.
-
quote:
Jesus says that the greatest law is that of love which is right from Leviticus 19:18: 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD.
Quick question. Do you see a category difference between that which we are commanded by God to do and what God himself is justified in doing. For example: would you see God as justifed in killing a sinner (what with him being holy) and us killing a sinner (what with us being sinners too and in no position to exercise judgement on another)?
-
quote:
I believe that reading the Bible as if it had been dictated by God does a disservice to the Bible, and to the Christian faith. The question then of course is what do we believe from the Bible. Well it is faith, but we are also to use our wisdom and the wisdom of godly men over the centuries. Frankly, IMHO, if we properly understand Christ’s gospel message of hope, love, truth, forgiveness, justice, mercy etc it isn’t all that hard to sort out the truth.
If you had Christs message alone you'd be forgiven for thinking that salvation was something obtained by work. Indeed, you would likely do with his sermon on the mount what so many do in lauding it as a recipe for a loving and peaceful world - if only people would adhere to it. Snowballs chance ..
(You might also do with Paul that which so many who look to a Jesus-only understanding do: expunge him from your bible)
Just as the OT is revealed by the NT, so too is Christ better understood in the light of NT exposition - wouldn't you agree? And if so, you're hardly out of the gospels and you're running face first into the wrath of God. Ask Annanias and Shappira.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 08-18-2011 11:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 08-28-2011 4:38 PM iano has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 54 of 286 (630803)
08-27-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by iano
08-27-2011 6:41 AM


Re: Saved or Not?
iano writes:
The word used of God at war wasn't 'loving', it was 'holy'. Could we lay aside the jibes and deal with the thrust of the position?
I'm afraid that I don't ever equate genocide with holiness. I apologise if you saw that as a jibe. I just saw it as a paradox that didn't seem reasonable. I'll try and be more careful.
iano writes:
I doubt I'd have insurmountable problems were it that I was placed in the same context as the Israelites: living in an enviromnent where God's leading-by-law formed an everyday part of life. When I say I would follow his lead I'm assuming that well-undergirded contextual background. It's not a big step to kill women and children when you've witnessed God laying waste to the population in Egypt.
I have a friend who grew up in Nazi occupied Holland. She would have been horrified with the idea of the Dutch march into Germany slaughtering every man, woman and child that they came across.
God leading-by -law should be a part of everyday life today, but that law is that we are to love our enemy; not slaughter them. As far as witnessing the carnage in Egypt you are taking that story as literally historical.
Just for the sake of argument I'll post this quote from the book "Miracles" by C S Lewis. (I've posted it previously on this forum.)
quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
iano writes:
I see the Israelites as a people chosen as a 'womb' maintained to bear the saviour of the world. As such, they were to be kept isolated from the depravity of the world both from within (via strict laws governing behaviour) and from without (by genocide if necessary). The message they brought was of a holy God who is both patient and merciful (salvation is open to all - even the slain Midianites). And wrath against sin.
The Israelites were people chosen to take God's message as in the ten commandments and god's love to the world. They could hardly do that if they were isolated from the other nations. Jesus was the fulfillment of that plan.
iano writes:
... says Paul on his embarking on the reason why (every) man is in need of this 'good news'. I find it chilling that a Christian would understand the Bibles message to mankind to be to "follow the 10 commandments and love thy neighbour" in the face of Jesus' warning of dire consequences for sin and Paul expounding on the wrath of God being poured out against sin to this day.
Sure there is a price for sin. Sin has consequences. It isn't that God has to reach out and commit genocide or individually punish us. Sin has actual physical consequences in this life; sin causes damage to our mental state and sin separates us from God.
iano writes:
Yet the language of destruction and punishment of the wicked runs in drumbeat fashion through the OT, the gospels and the epistles. You don't need to reconcile a drumbeat - it's harmonious as it stands. You need to explain why and how you disrupt that drumbeat. You've stated the OT containing (objectively) erroneous descriptions of God. How do you deal with NT descriptions of God's wrathful attitude to evil?
There is a price to be paid for evil. The Jews used an apocalyptic style of writing that we wouldn't use today. Please be more specific about what you're referring to in the NT.
iano writes:
I do. If by genocide/stoning, God progresses a plan which will maintain a people chosen to bear his saviour - a savior who will defeat evil on a cross - in fit state to fulfill that bearing role, then holiness is vindicated in his doing so.
But Israel wasn't just about preparing for Jesus. They were to be God's agents to spread His message for all nations.
Essentially though you are saying that the ends justify the means. I don't believe in a god like that. However, let's look at the ends. How did it work out by the time Jesus arrived. The Jews were living as exiles in their own land under the brutal rule of the Romans who utilized a brutal Jewish regime to keep them in line and paying their taxes. They had a wide range of beliefs and lived with a rigid class structure. So just how well did this genocide of nations, and the use of capital punishment work as far as keeping them in a "fit state". I think that I could make a much stronger case that because they did these things against the will of God they wound up in the "abhorrent state" that actually existed at the time of Jesus.
Think about it logically, if what you said about God needing to utilize those methods to prepare the nation for Jesus is true then God’s plan failed miserably, and all that slaughter accomplished nothing positive. They were anything but prepared for Jesus. Remember how He was nailed to the cross at the insistence of the Jewish authorities.
I don't believe in the view of Jesus as God who, while He walked on Earth, had knowledge of eternal time as would the Father to who He prayed. The terms "Son of God" and "Son of Man" were messianic terms. The Messiah is the anointed one of God that would be the one to lead them out of exile, (as I pointed out that as long as they were in Roman occupied territory they were still in exile), the Temple would be rebuilt and Yahweh would be King. The messiah would be an earthly figure. Also however, many believed that Yahweh Himself would return at some point. My understanding that Jesus saw His vocation as being the man through whom God the Father, (again to whom He prayed - it isn't reasonable to think of Him praying to Himself), was revisiting His people. He saw Himself in the role of the Temple. He became the sacrifice, (and said that He desired mercy not sacrifice), and He forgave sin. The Jews believed that God resided in the Temple but Jesus took that role on Himself. He became the embodiment of the Father.
iano writes:
'Became'? You seem to equivocate on Jesus being God eternal.
I see the Spirit of God who lived in Him as being eternal.
iano writes:
I don't know about you, but I don't believe we are saved or lost on account of our doctrine. Nor would our doctrine determine the fate of any we might encounter. It's not mission critical that we agree on the God we believe in, in other words.
I think we are actually in agreement here. I would add though that I don’t see the mission as winding up with Jesus in the next life. I think the Christian mission is to be agents of God’s love, forgiveness, mercy, joy, justice etc to the world. It isn’t then the works that make me right with God but the fact that those things of God warm my heart and that selfishness, greed, suffering etc do the opposite.
Again, as Micah said; what God wants of us is to humbly love kindness and do justice.
The point of this as far as the OP is concerned that point is essentially we worship different gods. Your God is a God that justifies violence to the point of genocide to defeat evil on Earth. The God I worship would say that the way to win the battle against evil is the way Jesus did on the cross and that is with love and forgiveness. It is a very difficult message and I realize that things in world affairs are seldom black and white and there are seldom easy answers. The thing is that brick by brick, with every act of humble kindness and justice we are building for when time as we know it comes to a close, Christ comes again and God`s great act of recreation takes place.
To quote my favourite theologian: if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win.
I think this is on topic. I hope you agree Percy.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 08-27-2011 6:41 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 9:50 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 55 of 286 (630850)
08-28-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by iano
08-27-2011 11:42 AM


Hi Ian
I don't want to debate the first part of your post as I don't want to go off topic so I'll comment on the questions that pertain to the second question in the OP.
iano writes:
You say you don't buy God's 'situational ethics' in the case of the slaughter of many. Would you accept that the twofold aspect of the law resolves this? That God was exercising judgement according to 'the law of sin and death' when dealing with the Midianites, for example.
No, absolutely not. The only way that argument could be made if God Himself, without involving people were to eradicate a particular group. For God to use His chosen people in a genocidal mission would cause the hearts of His people to become hard, and not only that, He would be asking them to do exactly what He is telling them not do in other places in the scriptures. God is not going to say "love your neighbour" one day and then tell them to go out and slaughter everyone of them the next.
The point is of course that we are still called to love our neighbour and this has to have an impact on question 2. Paul in Romans 12 tells us that we are not to take revenge and in fact we are to give them food and drink. How does this impact our world view?
iano writes:
Quick question. Do you see a category difference between that which we are commanded by God to do and what God himself is justified in doing. For example: would you see God as justifed in killing a sinner (what with him being holy) and us killing a sinner (what with us being sinners too and in no position to exercise judgement on another)?
As far as I'm concerned the question is flawed. God created us with free will. We all make the wrong choices but God is a redemptive God. What He is asking of us as humans and specifically as Christians is that we be part of that redemptive process.
iano writes:
If you had Christs message alone you'd be forgiven for thinking that salvation was something obtained by work. Indeed, you would likely do with his sermon on the mount what so many do in lauding it as a recipe for a loving and peaceful world - if only people would adhere to it. Snowballs chance ..
Personally I would say that the world described in the Sermon on the Mount will come to fruition. However, Jesus isn't talking about this life - He is talking about when God's great act of recreation takes place.
I think that one of the category mistakes of the fundamentalist belief is the focus on salvation. The point about being saved is not about putting God in a position that He has to take you to heaven. Being saved is about being saved because there is a job to do, and that is to take God's truth, love, joy, peace, forgiveness, justice, mercy to the world. We are called to be little Christs for the sake of the world, not for our own sake. How we feel about this of course affects our world view, (question 2 from the OP), and how we interact with the world.
iano writes:
Just as the OT is revealed by the NT, so too is Christ better understood in the light of NT exposition - wouldn't you agree? And if so, you're hardly out of the gospels and you're running face first into the wrath of God. Ask Annanias and Shappira.
I agree with the first part.
The story of Ananias and Sapphira was a story out of the church in Jerusalem, told in Acts 5. If you then go to Acts 15 vs 10 we find Paul and Barnabas criticizing the Jerusalem church for putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples that no one could bear. The story of their death just says they fell down and breathed their last. Taken in context it certainly appears that they were executed and later Paul and Barnabas chastised them for it.
I'm working at staying on topic here and the point of all this is that our disparate view on the understanding of the basic Christian message has a profound effect on our world views. You believe that it is conceivable that nuclear genocide would be an option that God might sanction. I disagree. Widely divergent views I would say.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by iano, posted 08-27-2011 11:42 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 56 of 286 (630912)
08-29-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by GDR
08-27-2011 11:58 PM


Re: Saved or Not?
GDR writes
quote:
I'm afraid that I don't ever equate genocide with holiness.
What is it about genocide that conflicts with holiness? Maybe the core of our difference lies here? To me, holiness, per definition, hates that which is evil - hence I have no issue with the killing those who are evil (me included)
-
quote:
I have a friend who grew up in Nazi occupied Holland. She would have been horrified with the idea of the Dutch march into Germany slaughtering every man, woman and child that they came across.
God leading-by -law should be a part of everyday life today, but that law is that we are to love our enemy; not slaughter them. As far as witnessing the carnage in Egypt you are taking that story as literally historical.
In supposing the Israelites necessarily traumatised by the experience of slaughtering women and children (and arguing from that, that a loving God wouldn't inflict this on his own people), so are you.
I'm merely pointing out that in their context, trauma wouldn't necessarily follow - without claiming it history in fact.
The Law of sin and death / law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus discussion might be the way to advance a response- for I see both laws as operating at all times (as does Paul) just as I see wrath and mercy as two aspects of God revealed (as does Paul).
If I'm to do as Clive Staples does then I would need a reason to do it. At present I see no need - the wrath of God being as valid an aspect of holiness then as it is now. Might it be that a discomfort with OT wrath causes one to construct ones theology in such a way as to circumvent it?
-
quote:
The Israelites were people chosen to take God's message as in the ten commandments and god's love to the world. They could hardly do that if they were isolated from the other nations. Jesus was the fulfillment of that plan.
The idea of the Israelites as a set apart nation is one extracted from the text (God resides with them only, God protects and blesses and disciplines them as would a guardian, God sets them up in a land of milk and honey, God smites their enemies, Gods line runs through them).
Where are you getting this notion of the Jews as evangelists-to-the-world from the text?
-
quote:
Sure there is a price for sin. Sin has consequences. It isn't that God has to reach out and commit genocide or individually punish us. Sin has actual physical consequences in this life; sin causes damage to our mental state and sin separates us from God.
There is a price to be paid for evil. The Jews used an apocalyptic style of writing that we wouldn't use today. Please be more specific about what you're referring to in the NT.
Paul's aim is tightly woven argumentation. He relies on precision of terminology to ensure the doctrine and instruction laid out can be understood by any who would follow his argument. For this reason, he is neither stylistic nor apocalyptic.
Doctrine building relies on establishing foundational principles. You can't use metaphor to establish the core principles unless the core principle is already contained in the metaphor. And so, when he speaks of the wrath of God poured out against sin in the context of formulating doctrine, he is supposing a God who, in his wrath, takes decisive and specific action against people because of their rebellion.
Two questions:
If God was actually wrathful, how on earth could he hope to establish a knowledge of that fact in you? It seems one narrow aspect of the Bible is taken as as unequivocally accurate revelation (the love of Jesus) and all else: myth, metaphor, apocalyptic writing.
I've asked a number of time what specific justness-problem is there with removing a sinner from the game at a point of God's own choosing? Does any sinner deserve to live for one second longer than suits God's purpose? If not, what ground lies beneath your objection to genocide.
-
quote:
Essentially though you are saying that the ends justify the means. I don't believe in a god like that.
It's not the end that justifies the means, it's that the means in itself is justified in and of itself. God punishing sinners is justified here and now whether or not he achieves some other goal with it (such as clearing a way for the Israelites to move in)
-
quote:
However, let's look at the ends. How did it work out by the time Jesus arrived. The Jews were living as exiles in their own land under the brutal rule of the Romans who utilized a brutal Jewish regime to keep them in line and paying their taxes. They had a wide range of beliefs and lived with a rigid class structure. So just how well did this genocide of nations, and the use of capital punishment work as far as keeping them in a "fit state". I think that I could make a much stronger case that because they did these things against the will of God they wound up in the "abhorrent state" that actually existed at the time of Jesus.
God's judgment was upon the Jews at the same time as he had them wiping out nations. There is no conflict between disciplining a child whilst at the same time taking action to pave a way for it's future. God disciplines those whom he loves.
-
quote:
Think about it logically, if what you said about God needing to utilize those methods to prepare the nation for Jesus is true then God’s plan failed miserably, and all that slaughter accomplished nothing positive. They were anything but prepared for Jesus. Remember how He was nailed to the cross at the insistence of the Jewish authorities.
You consider Jesus being nailed to the cross a failure in planning?
I don't understand the Israelites as a 'womb' to mean the Jews were any purer of heart than anyone else. Rather, in the midst of a ceremonially clean nation ran a spiritually clean remnant, a line which would produce a spiritual Messiah (which of course, the unspiritual, ceremonially clean Jews of Jesus weren't prepared for). The Abrahams, the Noahs, the Davids, the Joshuas.
-
quote:
I don't believe in the view of Jesus as God who, while He walked on Earth, had knowledge of eternal time as would the Father to who He prayed. The terms "Son of God" and "Son of Man" were messianic terms. The Messiah is the anointed one of God that would be the one to lead them out of exile, (as I pointed out that as long as they were in Roman occupied territory they were still in exile), the Temple would be rebuilt and Yahweh would be King. The messiah would be an earthly figure. Also however, many believed that Yahweh Himself would return at some point. My understanding that Jesus saw His vocation as being the man through whom God the Father, (again to whom He prayed - it isn't reasonable to think of Him praying to Himself), was revisiting His people. He saw Himself in the role of the Temple. He became the sacrifice, (and said that He desired mercy not sacrifice), and He forgave sin. The Jews believed that God resided in the Temple but Jesus took that role on Himself. He became the embodiment of the Father.
You seem to be pronouncing on something considered a mystery (3 distinct persons, 1 God) by saying the mystery is resolved: there can be no Trinitarian God. I'm wondering whether part of the canyon that separates us lies in the fact that our basic understanding are worlds apart.
Quite how forgiveness (which involves the offended against bearing the cost of the offence themselves) is wrought when the offended against doesn't bear the cost themselves .. is something I'd ask your view on.
-
quote:
I think we are actually in agreement here. I would add though that I don’t see the mission as winding up with Jesus in the next life. I think the Christian mission is to be agents of God’s love, forgiveness, mercy, joy, justice etc to the world. It isn’t then the works that make me right with God but the fact that those things of God warm my heart and that selfishness, greed, suffering etc do the opposite.
I would see the Christians mission to be a race run. The race is against the flesh, the world and satan. The goal is to become obedient to the father just as the son was. An outworking of that will be just as you say - love. Eternal life started the day I was born again. In that sense I've already crossed the finishing line.
-
quote:
The point of this as far as the OP is concerned that point is essentially we worship different gods. Your God is a God that justifies violence to the point of genocide to defeat evil on Earth. The God I worship would say that the way to win the battle against evil is the way Jesus did on the cross and that is with love and forgiveness. It is a very difficult message and I realize that things in world affairs are seldom black and white and there are seldom easy answers. The thing is that brick by brick, with every act of humble kindness and justice we are building for when time as we know it comes to a close, Christ comes again and God`s great act of recreation takes place.
I agree that we worship different Gods. More different (given your views on the Trinity) than I was assuming at the start. I worship a God who is just in punishing wickedness where and whenever he chooses.: wickedness deserves no less (whatever mercy might have to say about it)
I am mindful of the fact that his instructing me to love others involves my bringing to light the kingdom of God which is here and now. To live now as I will be surely living when the kingdom is fully revealed in all it's glory
That I am instructed to love for that reason has absolutely no bearing on what God ought/ought not be doing for his own purposes. That he chooses to provide me with the weapon of love doesn't mean the weapon of love is or should be the only one at his disposal.
-
quote:
To quote my favourite theologian: if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win.
The theologian is addressing you with the support of scripture. He won't find the same support should he choose to address his comments to God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-27-2011 11:58 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Jazzns, posted 08-29-2011 10:27 AM iano has replied
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 08-29-2011 3:50 PM iano has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 57 of 286 (630916)
08-29-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by iano
08-29-2011 9:50 AM


Everyone has their own god.
What is it about genocide that conflicts with holiness? Maybe the core of our difference lies here? To me, holiness, per
definition, hates that which is evil - hence I have no issue with the killing those who are evil (me included)
I am more than just a little bit amazed at this kind of thinking. What possible evil could some newborn pagan child have done to deserve being killed?
I used to think that both my mother and father worshiped the same god just in different ways. They just had a different name and a different cultural history of how they did it. Now I think it is clear that god is an idea that every individual reinvents for themselves, often from a template given to them by their inherited culture, but personal none the less.
God evolves in your mind as you accept or reject certain aspects of the cultural characterization that created him in your mind to begin with. He therefore becomes a window into a person's character and the kinds of things someone will accept. Then those of us who disagree can only watch on in absolute dispair as our neighbors openly brandish such a callous disregard for life.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 9:50 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 2:29 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 58 of 286 (630943)
08-29-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
08-26-2011 8:41 AM


God Concepts
GDR writes:
As a Christian I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and use that as a starting point. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the word of God and I believe that the writers of the NT accurately recorded the teachings of Jesus. I believe that Paul and other NT writers comprehended and accurately portrayed what Jesus said did and what it all meant. (This does not mean that every small detail happened exactly as written.)
And many would say that Jesus Christ gave humanity a more enlightened perception of what God was like. More of an approachable Father and less of a stern Judge.
jar writes:
Jesus did not die for us and his death was not the sacrifice.
Interesting conclusion. Why did He die, then? Was He simply a human being executed by other humans? If, as you contend, His life was more of a statement than His death, do you believe that He was sent by God? Obviously a man of such importance couldn't have invented such noble philosophy entirely on his own.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 08-26-2011 8:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 08-29-2011 2:40 PM Phat has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 59 of 286 (630949)
08-29-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Jazzns
08-29-2011 10:27 AM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
Jazzns writes:
quote:
I am more than just a little bit amazed at this kind of thinking. What possible evil could some newborn pagan child have done to deserve being killed?
Nothing in all likelihood. But since the newborn pagan child was about to lose it's parents and all other means of support there is a certain amount of mercy in killing it rather than leaving it to starve.
It needs to be born in mind that God has given the life. There is no right to retention of it outside his granting that right. If he retracts life at any point then there is no injustice done.
-
quote:
I used to think that both my mother and father worshiped the same god just in different ways. They just had a different name and a different cultural history of how they did it. Now I think it is clear that god is an idea that every individual reinvents for themselves, often from a template given to them by their inherited culture, but personal none the less.
I agree in the sense that multiple viewers of a car crash will have different slants on it. Which isn't to say their slants are useless in their variation. Nor that the car crash is a figment of folks imagination.
-
quote:
God evolves in your mind as you accept or reject certain aspects of the cultural characterization that created him in your mind to begin with. He therefore becomes a window into a person's character and the kinds of things someone will accept. Then those of us who disagree can only watch on in absolute dispair as our neighbors openly brandish such a callous disregard for life.
It's hard to argue against the owner of life taking it when it pleases him. That's less cultural characterization, more plain common sense. What I am charged to do with life (value it) is a completely different matter.
So often that's the confusion:- that God ought follow commands he subjects us to, e.g. "thou shalt not kill".
As if we're of the same class as He. As if he could possibly kill unjustly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Jazzns, posted 08-29-2011 10:27 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Jazzns, posted 08-29-2011 4:48 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 286 (630951)
08-29-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Phat
08-29-2011 2:01 PM


Re: God Concepts
Phat writes:
jar writes:
Jesus did not die for us and his death was not the sacrifice.
Interesting conclusion. Why did He die, then? Was He simply a human being executed by other humans? If, as you contend, His life was more of a statement than His death, do you believe that He was sent by God? Obviously a man of such importance couldn't have invented such noble philosophy entirely on his own.
Anything born dies, except maybe some polyps. Jesus was born, therefore he would die.
Why couldn't a human invent such a philosophy? Many others did it long before Jesus.
The Buddha lived over 400 years before Jesus, Confucius almost 500 years before Jesus, Mencius about 300 years before Jesus, Lao Tse about 600 years before Jesus.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 08-29-2011 2:01 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 08-29-2011 2:46 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024