Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 241 of 286 (634295)
09-20-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Straggler
09-20-2011 1:34 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
Where do the "false" god concepts originate from......?
Simply put: "different god concept than I believe in or have been taught". At least, IMO, that is what it essentially boils down to.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2011 1:34 PM Straggler has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 242 of 286 (634296)
09-20-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Granny Magda
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


That only makes your latest extended apologetic for slavery even more nauseating. You really ought to know better.
What I find truly nauseating is that you would be so filled with an anti Christian bigotry that you couldn't recognize the objective facts of history. The Methodist, Quakers, and Mennonites were Christian groups which strongly opposed slavery.
I am quite thankful that one of the things they did was a more reasonable exposition of the 9th chapter of Genesis to debunk the curse of the black man myth surrounding Noah's words about his three sons.
It is nauseating that your prejudice could so clouds your objectivity about history in the West.
me:
Paul wrote that kidnapping was an unrighteous act. And Paul mentions it along with fornicators, homosexuals, liars, perjurers and murderers -
Granny:
As bad as HOMOSEXUALS! OH MY GOD!
Paul never wrote "God hates fags!" You're over reacting to the epistle.
He didn't really rank these sins. He was not occupied with ranking them from better to worse. He simply mentions a list of sinful lifestyles and concludes with -
"and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teaching according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God ..." (1 Tim. 1:10)
Paul does not draw our attention to "how bad" something is. He draws attention to "whatever" is opposed to the "healthy teaching" of the gospel. And as always Paul is "Christ centered" and not "sin centered". Man's revulsion is little use. But to turn away from focusing on the sin, on any sin, and focusing instead on Jesus Christ, is his remedy.
Point 1) That Paul lists kidnapping alongside homosexuality only serves to underline my point that his outdated views are morally bankrupt and of no use as a moral guide to a modern person.
The reaction of yours could be the result of a moral decline which you are accustomed to. If one remains in a room full of people chewing garlic eventually the smell may not bother them at all.
Perhaps the downward moral slide of society lead to your being appalled at the mention of homosexuals, perjurers, liars, murders, etc. today. Latter on someone else may be incensed that striking a father or mother is mentioned. Then latter someone else cannot believe that fornicators or perjurers are mentioned.
Since I have been alive I have noticed a encrease in the insensativity to, for example, pornagrahy in the public media in my country. What was X-rated material years ago is now prime time entertainment.
Your outrage could be a result of your being brought into an insensative stupor in the downward current of morality.
Point 2) Kidnapping and slavery are not synonyms. You go on about this kidnapping business at some length, but it's all a waste, because kidnapping and slavery are different things.
I didn't say kidnapping and slavery were synonomous. I mean that without kidnapping the Atlantic slave trade could probably not have flourished as it did.
So if the New Testament enumerated kidnapping as sin (quoting actually the Old Testament) the slave trade as we usually know it, is cut off at its roots.
It may be helpful to see where Paul was refering to in the Old Testament about kidnapping:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
"If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 24:7)
So southern slave sympathizing theologians had to do quite a bit of Bible twisting to teach that the Confederate states were in God's will to have slaves.
Not all slaves in Rome were kidnapped.
That is right. And there were indentured servants and people who sold themselves into slavery.
I think if you be somewhat objective about history you will recognize that the Christian faith had much to do with abolition.
Starting from the truth that all men are created in the image of God, the wind was quickly taken out of the sails of slavery theology.
Probably more were born to slavery. Romans could and did sell their children into slavery. Abandoned infants were taken as slaves. There was no kidnapping in these cases. The image of slaves being dragged from their homes screaming for help not an entirely inaccurate one, but it was far from universal.
I got to know that already a while ago. Since skeptics like yourself cautioned be as a young Christian that by being a disciple of Jesus I was pro-slavery, it behooved me to read some history of slavery from Will Durant's history on Rome.
The passage you cite condemns kidnapping, but not slavery.
Perhaps, some forms of indentured servitude slavery are not so condemned in that particular passage.
But most skeptics of the Christian faith I encounter, just use "slavery" as a content heavy word in its most heinous antibellum conotation. I think they feel that that charge yields the maximum punch against the Gospel of Christ.
That is exactly why I am saying that the NT should, if we are to take it as a supreme moral guide, clearly condemn slavery. This does not meet that simple standard.
If we condemn slavery and fail to live Christ, it is of no use to the kingdom of God. Paul is Christ centered and his focus is on turning our beings over to Christ's indwelling, imparting, and Lordship.
A "man of God" is not simply a good man condemning this and that social practice. He is a man saturated with and permeated with the Spirit of Christ for the building up of communities called "churches".
Covetousness, kidnapping, living for mammon, elicit sex with slaves, oppression are sins which separate men from God and from one another. These damage man and are a hindrance to the building up of the kingdom of God.
Paul's exhortations are "Christ and the church" centric. You do not find the apostle protesting before Ceasar's palace for the sake of making Rome a better place. His focus is to establish churches as communities to serve as a testimony of God's government from WITHIN the citizens of His kingdom.
Of course, at His second coming, the remaining nations will be ruled outwardly by this King. And I have no doubt that mammon iself will be over ruled let alone slavery in all its forms.
In the mean time the churches are places in which the highest level of morality on earth should be testified to in those who are ruled by Christ inwardly.
Well one place he tells the masters to give to the slaves what is just and equal:
"Masters, grant to your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Col. 3:4)
Granting to your slave what is just and equal really puts a damper on the practice.
The nature of Christ's indwelling is that He grows deeper and deeper. And the sense of just what is "just and equal" would also grow with the growth of conscience and conviction. Paul trusted the conviction of the Holy Spirit within the disciples.
That is why in the letter to Philemon you see the apostle holding the slave master accountable to his Christian conscience. Rather than handing down decrees in a legal way, he turns Philemon to his Christ touched conscience with a confidence that Philemon will have to surrender his opinion about the affair to the will of the Spirit of Christ Who dwells in his heart.
A passage telling people how to treat their slaves is an argument against slavery? Are you freaking kidding me? In the Bizarro World Bible perhaps.
In preaching the Gospel Paul knew that all kinds of people were going to become Christians. Some would be in divorce. Some would be slave masters. Some would be slaves. Some may be employers. Others employees. Some would be soldiers, prisoners, prostitutes, homosexuals, and in various walks of like.
He intention is not that they would center their attention on their sins but on Christ. This is hard for some people to understand. "The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God".
Man needs regeneration. Man needs to be born of God and to receive Christ the Lord within. So instead of focusing on the situation that they may find themselves in when they come to Christ, he focuses more on Christ Himself.
Usually the message was to come to Christ just as you are. It was a given that sanctification and transformation, conformation and building up would change many things eventually about the way they live.
He is a kingdom of God builder and not a social activist in the sense that you expect him to be. Perhaps as a humanist someone would not care a bit about the building of the kingdom of God. They would care only for bandaids placed on man's corrupted society to "make the world a better place".
You are annoyed with the apostle, perhaps, because he doesn't sound like someone seeking to "make the world a better place" without God. Perhaps you think Paul should come with a 12 step program to reform many social ills.
The apostles priorities go beyond what the humanist expects. His interest is the people be swallowed up in the divine life of Christ for the building of the kingdom of God.
And that would go not only for slavery but for ALL of the other ills he mentions. He is not a social reformer. He is a church builder for the growth of God in human beings.
"For we [apostles] are God's fellow workers; you are God's cultivated land (farm), God's building." (1 Cor. 3:9)
He is building God into people. He is building people into God.
Jay, that is evidence that Paul supported slavery.
Only in your accusing mind because he does not sound to you like a social activist.
He gives exhortation to remember those who are in prison as if in prison with them. Would you use this as a rational that he supports all aspects of the Roman penal system ?
He may have done so reluctantly or with caveats, but this passage clearly shows that Paul was not dedicated to condemning slavery. Quite the opposite in fact.
As a Jew witnessing the tyranny of the Roman Empire over his beloved homeland, I don't think Paul was insensative to social oppression of any type.
"Slaves, obey in all things those who are your masters according to the flesh, not with eue-service as men-pleasers, but in singlenessof heart fearing the Lord." (Col. 3:22)
These kinds of passages slaver owners in the US loved to support their kidnapping and fornication. But the abolishonist also could point to passages arguing against them.
It is easy to isolate a passage and "love" it in some perverted sense. But the whole tenor of the New Testament is what the disciples should be concerned with.
You seem to be very fond of Col. 3:22 also for you own purposes.
As lover of God I have to not only know what the Scripture says. I have to know "again it is written" also. I have to know what the Bible says and what the Bible ALSO says.
And that passage ALSO says " For he [slave or master] who does unrighteously will receive what he unrighteously did, AND THERE IS NO RESPECT OF PERSONS." (v.25, my emphasis)
So as a serious follower of Christ and student of the Scripture, what is written is important. But what also is written is important as well.
"Then the devil took Him into the holy city and set Him on the wing of the temple, and said to Him,
If You are the Son of God, cast Yourself down; for it is written, "To His angels He shall give charge concerning You, and on their hands they shall bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone."
Jesus said to him, Again, it is written, "You shall not test the Lord your God." ( Matt. 4:5-7)
Again it was written:
1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble youalthough if you can gain your freedom, do so. Paul the Apostle
But those passages are, as I originally said, unclear at best, requiring interpretation, likely the same kind of flawed interpretation that you present above.
We may argue over interpretation. However, history tells us that the New Testament and the Christian Gospel had an intergral part in the abolition of slavery.
So it seems that at least the pro-slavery interpreters did not win out in the end. Do you wish they did ?
The pro-slavery quote on the other hand is very clear indeed. It tells us to obey our slave-masters. Thus, it can only be in support of slavery. There is no other possible interpretation.
Pro- live Christ is even more clear. We should receive Christ Who is living and available. We should consider that we are bought by Him and live unto Him.
If we do the expression that will come out will be the highest level of morality on the earth.
Was the explicit condemnation of slavery in that passage written in invisible ink or something? Will it appear if i view on peek mode?
How do you feel about First Corinthians 7:23 ?
"You were bought with a price, do not become slaves of men."
Is that also a clear pro-slavery passage from Paul ?
Yes, another of the Churches greatest failings. It concentrates on droning on about its imaginary friend instead of actually trying to make the world around us into a better place. What a tragic waste.
The church of Christ is glorious. And I am so glad I am a part of it. It is comforting to know that I am on the victorious side of the Victor.
I encourage you to turn and believe into the Lord and join us:
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2011 6:58 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 256 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 9:49 AM jaywill has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 243 of 286 (634336)
09-20-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by jaywill
09-20-2011 2:24 PM


J writes:
I encourage you to turn and believe into the Lord and join us:
But which version of the "Lord".....?
That is kinda the point of this thread isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2011 2:24 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2011 7:58 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 244 of 286 (634371)
09-21-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Straggler
09-20-2011 1:34 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
Straggler writes:
So the conclusion here is that different flavours of Christian do indeed worship different gods. Is that correct?
Essentially yes. It is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that we all worship, but our understanding of the nature of God varies considerably.
Straggler writes:
Where do the "false" god concepts originate from......?
We are all created as unique beings, we all have unique upbringings and we all are uniquely socialized. All Christians would agree that ultimately God is a God of love, but all humans have a tendency to make God over in their own image, and as a result their views are impacted by their environment, so other stuff gets added on.
I think I have spelled out what I believe, and frankly I'm confident that I what I believe is at least in general correct, but I acknowledge that I have no way of knowing absolutely and so I may be wrong. Mind you that is true of all of us, and I believe that is because we have been created with the freedom to make our own choices in life.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2011 1:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 8:03 AM GDR has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 245 of 286 (634386)
09-21-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Straggler
09-20-2011 6:58 PM


But which version of the "Lord".....?
That is kinda the point of this thread isn't it?
Well, I don't see GDR case that the God of the Old Testament is a different Lord or different God at all. I have read through that OP more than once.
Statements like God is not merciful in the Old Testament just don't make sense to me. Or statements that God only hates His enemies in the OT don't make too much sense to me.
I wonder if GDR has read the OT in detail. How can I say that the book of Jonah shows God eager to punish His enemies ? The whole book is dedicated to God's reluctance to punish a sinning nation, to the prophet Jonah's dismay.
Now I do recognize that the revelation of God is progressive and gradually unfolding in the Bible. And it makes sense that in the order of books the Gospel of Luke does not immediately follow the book of Genesis or Exodus.
A long history of God's enteraction with Israel and the world is covered in the 39 OT books. God's hatred for sin is established in order for the backround to be set for the new covenant. Without seeing His hatred for sin we would not realize how great His love was to make His Son sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God.
The hatred for sin displayed in the Old Testament accumulates upon the cross of Christ to accomplish a great redemption for all mankind.
Would it make sense for the Gospel of Mark to immediately follow the book of Leviticus ?
There are about 150 Psalms. Does GDR find no mercy, forgiveness, longsuffering, patience, kindness and pardon in ANY of those 150 Psalms ? That would be really unusual.
So I don't see at all a "different" God in the Old Testament. I do recognize a progressive revelation of God over 1600 years in the 66 books of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2011 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 8:06 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 248 by Jazzns, posted 09-21-2011 9:39 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 251 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 3:20 PM jaywill has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 246 of 286 (634389)
09-21-2011 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by GDR
09-21-2011 2:28 AM


Re: different gods for different bods
GDR writes:
All Christians would agree that ultimately God is a God of love...
Well not ALL Christians. There are a few notable exceptions. Preachers of Hate
GDR writes:
but all humans have a tendency to make God over in their own image, and as a result their views are impacted by their environment, so other stuff gets added on. I think I have spelled out what I believe, and frankly I'm confident that I what I believe is at least in general correct.....
But doesn't the God you believe to be correct essentially match your own moral stance? A moral stance that is a product of your own social environment? Isn't the version of God you are advocating exactly a perfected reflection of yourself in this sense at least?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 2:28 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 1:22 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 247 of 286 (634391)
09-21-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by jaywill
09-21-2011 7:58 AM


different gods to all practical intents and purposes
At what point does a different interpretation effectively become a different god?
Sounds to me like you and GDR are talking about different gods to all practical intents and purposes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2011 7:58 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 248 of 286 (634400)
09-21-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by jaywill
09-21-2011 7:58 AM


God kills children to send a message?
Without seeing His hatred for sin we would not realize how great His love was to make His Son sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God.
Couldn't god think of a better way of demonstrating his hatred for sin than one that involves the wanton slaughter of innocent children including babies?
Is he really that uncreative a thinker?
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2011 7:58 AM jaywill has not replied

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


(1)
Message 249 of 286 (634429)
09-21-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Straggler
09-21-2011 8:03 AM


Re: different gods for different bods
Straggler writes:
Well not ALL Christians. There are a few notable exceptions. Preachers of Hate.
Well that site certainly hasn't brightened up my day. Can we go with 99.9% then?
Straggler writes:
But doesn't the God you believe to be correct essentially match your own moral stance? A moral stance that is a product of your own social environment? Isn't the version of God you are advocating exactly a perfected reflection of yourself in this sense at least?
Frankly no. My moral stance has changed in a way that reflects my beliefs about God. For example I was pro capital punishment, (in limited circumstances) and now because of my faith I'm opposed. I'm ex-military and as a result of my Christian faith my views on military activity have changed. The first thing I noticed after becoming a Christian was that I was much more careful of what I said about other people.
In other words it is actually the opposite of what you suggest.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 8:03 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 3:25 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 250 of 286 (634433)
09-21-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Jazzns
09-19-2011 4:14 PM


Re: God of the imagination versus a god of destruction
Jazzns writes:
Subjectively based on what though? And if nothing, how can you claim that it is not unreasonable? You keep bringing up subjectivity as if it was this great equalizing force for things which arent totally objective.
We subjectively conclude which is more likely: that intelligence and morality evolved from a non-intelligent-non-moral source or an intelligent moral one.
Jazzns writes:
In fact, that you are staking out a claim for which there is much material evidence and understanding AGAINST means precisely that it is unreasonable. There are perfectly good, evidence based explanations for why we are "wired that way". Your choice to disregard those explanations has no basis except to prop up the construction of your deity. It seems that if there are no gaps or they are too small, there apparently is no room for GDRs god.
What is that evidence? All the evidence I've ever seen refers to the mechanism of how things are the way they are, but does not answer the question of whether it is the result of a pre-existing intelligence or not.
Jazzns writes:
The assumption that is the flaw in your denial is that ultimate meaning must be eternally persistent. I had a hard time with this too until I realized how my upbringing had me caught up in notions of forever. Everything that we know exists for awhile and then ceases to exist. Why the universe ought to be any different is simply an injection of your own personal desire for such a meaning to be timeless.
This is philosophical again and I realize it isn't at all conclusive, but, it seems to me that if there is no ultimate meaning to our existence then it wouldn't be part of my nature to care about a timeless purpose.
Jazzns writes:
I want to be very careful with what we are talking about because you are claiming that these things are non-material when what I said is that they do not, "matter in the materialistic sense."
You are going to have to take a step back and tell me what a non-material emotion or idea is.
Then after you do that, you will have to explain how the existence of non-material emotions or ideas suggest the presence of other non-material "thingies" (you didnt name them) that allow for a prime mover.
I think in trying to clarify the situation, you have in fact made it much muddier.
OK, I'll try again. What is an idea? We can see activity in the brain that results from ideas, but in looking at that activity we aren't able to discern what the idea actually entails. An idea or thought is something that has no physical dimension and can't be perceived with any of our 5 senses unless the originator of that idea wishes to pass it along to someone else. An idea or thought is something that is real but not material nor is it directly perceivable.
I'm just using that as an example of something that we know of that exists in a non-material world, and so the only point I'm making is that there is intelligence that is not material which should IMHO demonstrate that there is more to our existence than the material world we directly experience, which IMHO opens up the possibility of a greater intelligence existing in a dimension beyond our material world.
Maybe that makes it even muddier. I'm not suggesting that it is a conclusive argument but I think that it is worth considering.
Jazzns writes:
And moreover, how is being humble about our sense of kindness and justice necessarily a good thing? I should have challenged you about that originally but the point remains thus. We VALUE a morality that we create more than the ones that are supposedly ordained! See for example the abject failure of the "divinely inspired" morality of chastity. Who thought up that stupid idea?
Pride is a good thing when it is a pride in doing something to the best of our ability but I suggest that pride in being better than others is not, and can lead to things like bigotry, elitism etc.
As far as chastity is concerned we are going to disagree. I have someone I'm very close to that grew up with a single mom and being hugely affected by the fact that his father refused to have anything to do with him. I suggest that our unchaste society has had huge negative implications for our society.
Jazzns writes:
Well, again you are just trying to equalize thing by claiming subjectivity. My point was one primarily of plausibility and that even the most outlandish material cause is much more plausible than the, I dont know, therefore god argument. At least in the material case we have something we can investigate with the familiar tools of science. You have nothing but your own opinion on the matter otherwise.
I'm all for the tools of science but it can only explain mechanism and not cause.
The material causes whether outlandish or not are again, strictly about the mechanism. Any argument either for or against a prime mover is subjective. Sure we are basing that subjective conclusion on what we objectively know but it doesn't alter the fact that in the end it is subjective. Frankly, I can't imagine believing that the complexity of our existence comes from a non-intelligent source, but I have to accept the fact that intelligent people like yourself actually do believe that to be the case.
Jazzns writes:
Its not a philosophy of the gaps because I dont fill it with something. I leave it as a gap. I can speculate but it is still a gap and I am okay with the existence of the gap. You on the other hand are filling that gap with your own mental creation. Your own god.
Well you do fill that gap. You have told me that there are scientific explanations that cover that gap. A speculation is an attempt to fill the gap.
Jazzns writes:
But how much of your god remains after the intellectual fire sale you have to have to make him work?
I despise ianos god but at the very least his god has something very substantial over yours. He claims to have had recent material effect on this world for his own sadistic purposes. His god is understood to be tangibly evident in the blood of children and the destruction of unworthy human civilization. Your god is not tangibly evident in anything and must only be sensed in abstract imaginings of the unknown.
I suggest that a god that gives us the freedom to make choices based on evidence that isn’t directly tangible is much more worthy and substantial than a god who limits our choices by making everything clear.
I feel that God is completely active in this world through the hearts of his created beings. We had an inter-church meeting last night where we planned ahead how we can better support a mission in Kampala that takes girls off the streets; houses them, feeds them cares for them and provides transportation and finances so they can get an education. Sure you can say that these things would happen anyway but in at least this case everyone that is involved is there as a result of Christian churches.
But I'm not suggesting that God is only involved through Christians either. I think God works through the hearts and imaginations of all those looking to cure diseases, making technological advances that bring hope to the less fortunate or any other altruistic act.
Jazzns writes:
How is a sinner to choose which god to revere?
We are all free to choose. All I would suggest is start looking at a god of love as none of the others would be worth revering anyway.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2011 4:14 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Jazzns, posted 09-23-2011 5:18 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 251 of 286 (634435)
09-21-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by jaywill
09-21-2011 7:58 AM


Hi jaywill
I hesitate to open up another dialogue but there are some things that I would like to correct in your post.
jaywill writes:
Statements like God is not merciful in the Old Testament just don't make sense to me. Or statements that God only hates His enemies in the OT don't make too much sense to me.
I didn't say that. All I'm saying is that a god who tells us to love our enemies is inconsistent with a god that tells his chosen people to slaughter every man, woman and child. God's mercy is all throughout the OT but it isn't consistent. My argument is that God did reveal to them His message of love but their human desires to conquer their neighbours and to make Yahweh into their image was part of their narrative as well.
AbE I wondered where you got the idea that I was saying in the OT that God hated His enemies, so I went back and read what I said in the OP. I actually said this:
"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."
In this I was referring to the specific quotes from the OT and the NT that I had just cited, not the entire scripture.
jaywill writes:
The hatred for sin displayed in the Old Testament accumulates upon the cross of Christ to accomplish a great redemption for all mankind.
Aren't we to hate the sin and love the sinner? Don't you think that would be true for God as well?
jaywill writes:
There are about 150 Psalms. Does GDR find no mercy, forgiveness, longsuffering, patience, kindness and pardon in ANY of those 150 Psalms ? That would be really unusual.
Of course, it's all through there. The question is how do we respond.
jaywill writes:
So I don't see at all a "different" God in the Old Testament.
I don't see a different God in the OT either. I do see a God in the OT who is constantly trying to bring the Jewish nation back on track while they, just like His church today, keep adjusting His message to suit their own desires.
Cheers
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
Edited by GDR, : clarification as noted

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2011 7:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 7:55 AM GDR has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 252 of 286 (634437)
09-21-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by GDR
09-21-2011 1:22 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
Well I have to give you credit for practising what you preach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 1:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 7:10 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 253 of 286 (634453)
09-21-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Straggler
09-21-2011 3:25 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
Straggler writes:
Well I have to give you credit for practising what you preach.
I guess the point was though, that whatever credit there is to give shouldn't be given to me.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2011 3:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 09-22-2011 7:56 AM GDR has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 254 of 286 (634507)
09-22-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by GDR
09-21-2011 3:20 PM


I hesitate to open up another dialogue but there are some things that I would like to correct in your post.
Hi GDR,
I knew that some things I wrote would have to be corrected because the OP was long. And I was writing from a somehwat incomplete recollection without having the paragraphs right before me. Sorry.
jaywill writes:
Statements like God is not merciful in the Old Testament just don't make sense to me. Or statements that God only hates His enemies in the OT don't make too much sense to me.
I didn't say that. All I'm saying is that a god who tells us to love our enemies is inconsistent with a god that tells his chosen people to slaughter every man, woman and child.
I understand. But you know even in the Old Testament we do get hints of the latter NT "but I say to you" atttude of Jesus. For instance I think the OT saints are brought close to this latter compasion when God tells them not to gloat when their enemy falls:
Proverbs 24:17 - Do not rejoice [or gloat] when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart exult when he is overthrown; Lest Jehovah see it, and it displeases Him, and He turns away His anger from him."
Here we do see God checking the heart and attitude of His people toward their enemies. Is thier rejoicing a selfish cruel sinful attitude ? God will be displeased and lighten up His own anger toward that enemy. So be careful !
It may not be "Love your enemies". But it comes close to it. Do you agree ?
The Hebrew kings had a reputation of being merciful ? There must be some reason for this:
1 Kings 20:31 -"And his [Ben-hadad] said to him, Look, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. We beg you, let us put sackcloth on our loins and ropes upon our hears, and go out to the king of Israel. Perhaps he will preserve your life."
While I fully acknowledge the complete slaughter of some societies at the command of Jehovah I have to with that also consider their alledged mercifulness. The spectrum of how they dealt with their enemies must have been a wide one.
When extermination was appropriate there was no mercy. When conquest was tempered with mercy, they apparently gained a reputation for that also.
With "not rejoicing" over the fall of Israel's enemies and their reputation for being merciful kings, there is also the apparent objectivity of Jehovah about the righteousness which He demands to be practiced in the land.
I mean He seemed no respector of persons. The treatment the Canaanites got for defiling the land was also the treatment Israel got for defiling it as well. So then the "enemy" was really the enemy of God and His will for righteousness to be carried out on His land:
Leviticus 18:27 - "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have defiled themselves.
Because the land has become defiled, I visited its iniquity upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. You therefore shall keep My statutes, and shall not do any of these abominations, [neither] the native nor the sojourner who sojourns among you (For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled.)
That the land does not vomit you out when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation which was before you."
There's the warning to His people. Now what actually happened ? Did they fair better then their enemies in this matter in a preferencial way? I don't think so. And I think that is a major shocking point in the Old Testament:
2 Kings 21:12 - 15 - "Therefore this says Jehovah the God of Israel, I am now bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah that both ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle.
... I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a pan, wiping it and turning it upside down. And I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of thier enemies, and they will become plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done what is evil in My sight and have provoke Me to anger since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt to this day."
It is hard to imagine the relationship of Israel and their enemies in the expected sense of thier God's petty preferencial friendship. What happened to the sinful societies of the good land exactly happened to His own people, via His warning.
There is something different about this "national " deity from all the other gods of the nations. And the "enemy" seems to be the enemy of His law and righteousness.
God's mercy is all throughout the OT but it isn't consistent. My argument is that God did reveal to them His message of love but their human desires to conquer their neighbours and to make Yahweh into their image was part of their narrative as well.
I believe that God does the right thing at the right time and in the right way, always.
The spectrum of God's dealing with people is the OT is wide. Your word is "inconsistent". I think I see appropriate treatment according to what God deemed the case should be.
But I would hasten to concede that I am not always told ALL of the surrounding facts. It becomes for me sometimes just a matter of trust. At any rate the Psalmist says repeatedly that God's "loving kindness is forever" in Psalm 136.
In other words this inspired praise was that His mercy was really consistent. It must mean that from the viewpoint of eternity, God's loving kindness and mercy, overall, were consistent.
But I would admit that this for me is a matter of trust. It is not always easy to see this consistency from my temporal earthly viewpoint. Many times it is, ie. the book of Jonah. At other times it is not too obvious.
AbE I wondered where you got the idea that I was saying in the OT that God hated His enemies, so I went back and read what I said in the OP. I actually said this:
I was in error and probably misquoted you. Sorry.
"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."
In this I was referring to the specific quotes from the OT and the NT that I had just cited, not the entire scripture.
I think that as God is progressively revealing His nature in the OT He is also allowing His people to voice THEIR human sentiments.
It is absolutely right that David's attitude towards David's enemies is often quite typical of fallen man. The psalms have utternances in them which are not like the teaching of Jesus to love one's enemies.
I think that in the gradual infolding of the divine heart you have God allowing quite raw, unchecked, and spiritually immature (by NT standards) utterances of His people from their own hearts.
Case in point - Psalm 137 when the Psalmist is longing for revenge on the punishing Babylnians - " O daughter of Babylon, who are to be devastated, Happy will he be who repays you the recompense of what you have rendered to us. Happy will he be who seizes your little ones and dashes them against the rock." (v. 8,9)
That is cruel. But it is also realistic as to how that Jew must have felt about the matter at that time. This may be a finer point about what is really "inspired" in the Bible. Ie. what is taught as opposed to what is recorded as being said.
Sometimes the human crying out for the national enemy to really get his due, is unquestionably present in the OT scripture.
jaywill writes:
The hatred for sin displayed in the Old Testament accumulates upon the cross of Christ to accomplish a great redemption for all mankind.
Aren't we to hate the sin and love the sinner? Don't you think that would be true for God as well?
Yes.
And some of this ruthless dealing with the Canaanites without mercy, turns around to ourselves and becomes meaningful. The "good land" is Christ. And to conquer this good land of Christ sometimes we simply must show no mercy to self loved sins which call for self pity and to be spared the operation of His cross.
Now I count this to be a ruthlessness mostly towards one's own self. We hate the sin in OURSELVES first, as Christ's Spirit seeks to spread, invade, and conquer our soul.
The teaching of the kingdom of the heavens in Matthew is to be strict towards one's self and merciful toward others. Towards ourselves the Christians should be exacting and firm. Towards the other he should be accomadating and merciful.
So that is why the teachings to not judge. That is why the teaching that as we judge we shall ourselves be judged. The natural tendency is for man to be strict and exacting towards others and mericiful and accomodating towards ourselves. The Lord's teaching in Matthew reverses this.
The kingdom people have to deal strictly and completely with thier own sins. They must be merciful and longsuffering towards the sinfulness of others.
This does not mean "tolarantly" allowing the church to be destroyed from within by sinful believers. But it does mean leading by example - strict towards one's self - longsuffering towards the other brother (not judging).
jaywill writes:
There are about 150 Psalms. Does GDR find no mercy, forgiveness, longsuffering, patience, kindness and pardon in ANY of those 150 Psalms ? That would be really unusual.
Of course, it's all through there. The question is how do we respond.
I respond by realizing that I will certainly have to give an account for my Christian life before the Lord for reward or punishment. This is at the judgment seat of Christ before the millennium.
Though the question of eternal redemption has been solved for me forever, the question of my position in the coming millennial kingdom is still open.
We Christians must be conformed to the image of Christ. Having received Him as the seed of divine life we have to allow Him to grow and transform our souls. How much we have allowed Him to permeate and transform our souls will be an issue before His judgment seat of Christians.
jaywill writes:
So I don't see at all a "different" God in the Old Testament.
I don't see a different God in the OT either. I do see a God in the OT who is constantly trying to bring the Jewish nation back on track while they, just like His church today, keep adjusting His message to suit their own desires.
We are not that different from the OT saints in some regards.
But as in that age, so also in the church age He gains some who overcome.
This means throughout the church age God gains a remnant of those who rise to normality. They are not above the standard. They are simply at the standard. They are those who overcome - "overcomers".
And these overcomers will be co kings with Him in His second coming. The reward for their prevailing in His grace to be conformed into His image, is to enter into the joy of His kingdship over the earth in the coming 1,000 year kingdom.
The blessings of eternity are the common portion of all the believers. It is important to realize that all believers both of the OTdispensation and the NT dispensation eventually must be conformed to the image of Christ through His transforming operation in thier souls.
This we can postpone. But we cannot put it off indefinitely.
Thanks for the corrections and clarifications of your discussion there.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 3:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 11:29 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 255 of 286 (634508)
09-22-2011 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by GDR
09-21-2011 7:10 PM


Re: different gods for different bods
GDR writes:
I guess the point was though, that whatever credit there is to give shouldn't be given to me.
That actually sounds like quite a dangerous approach to me. If you dispossess yourself of responsibility for your own moral stance then it becomes impossible to morally reason. Now in your case you have found God and adopted a forgiving and compassionate moral stance. All well and good. But others equally convinced that their version of God is correct have adopted an abhorrant and hateful stance (as previously linked to).
If any challenge to one’s moral stance can be met with But it isn’t my moral stance, it is the one handed to me by God then I don’t see how we can hope to reason our way to a moral position and take responsibility for it’s consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by GDR, posted 09-21-2011 7:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 1:42 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024