Print
Divining the Voice in My Head
I often hear the expression (used rather glibly, I must say): “God told me.” The words are typically the preamble to a description of some strongly held conviction. But the expression leaves me uncomfortable.
For starters, just how did God tell the person? Was there a booming voice from heaven that all in the room heard? Was there an actual voice, but audible only to the person? Or was it just a strong conviction—a moment of clarity—that came at a crucial point in the person’s mental wrestling?
It seems to me that we’d better be absolutely sure that our thoughts are truly of divine origin before we attach the name of God to them. There’s a commandment that prohibits taking the name of the Lord “in vain.” In other words, connecting the name of God to something that doesn’t merit having God’s name attached to it.
It’s one thing to say “I feel,” “I think,” “I believe,” “My study of the Bible has convinced me,” “I’m convicted.” It’s quite another to say, “God told me.” I’m not saying God doesn’t literally speak to people. I’m just saying that making such a claim is a loaded expression that should be used only when all other explanations have been ruled out. It’s kind of like an atomic bomb: very powerful. So it should be used with the utmost reserve.
Anyway, as I read the scriptures, I wonder if maybe the people in Bible times weren’t given to the use and misuse of the “God told me” expression just as we are now. Maybe even more so. “God told” people a lot of things back then, it seems. And judging just from the context and the ethics of the advice given, I think it possible that there may have been times when God gets the credit for something that came from other sources. I’ve come across some prime examples recently while preparing sermons. Let’s look at just one right now.
Hagar, an Egyptian maidservant, was presented by the barren Sarah to Abraham as a possible surrogate child bearer. It seemed a good idea at the time. But it didn’t work out quite as planned. And it seems it didn’t work out in part because Abraham, who was supposed to involve himself in a purely clinical manner in this exercise, got into the spirit of it just a little too much. I’ve come to that conclusion—not because God told me, but—because it seems to fit.
Apparently, the once-cooperative Hagar became a little uppity once she realized she was pregnant. At one time she had envied what her mistress had that she didn’t. Now she knew that her mistress envied what she had. Hagar decided to milk it for what it was worth. She became insolent. She developed a superior attitude. What Hagar lost sight of was that Sarah still held most of the trump cards. And hell hath no fury like a woman scorned—be it by a servant or a husband. Or both.
“You’re responsible for the wrong I am suffering,” Sarah exploded to her husband (emphasis mine). “I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant she despises me.” Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines, but the fact that she specifically mentioned Hagar being in Abraham’s arms, and the fact that she blamed him so vociferously, suggests to me that she was faulting him for getting into the exercise too enthusiastically—which in turn was seen to have caused Hagar’s uppitiness. At least that’s I how interpret it.
Skipping over many years and much turbulence, we finally come to the point where Sarah has her own baby, born miraculously in her old age as the fulfillment of a divine promise. But Hagar’s son, an early teen by now, mocks Sarah’s precious little Isaac. And it all becomes too much to bear. So again she explodes to Abraham.
“Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” It was an ultimatum. But not one that was easy for Abraham to accommodate. “The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son,” the Bible tells us (emphasis mine).
And so it should have distressed him. Ishmael was indeed Abraham’s own flesh and blood. And Hagar was his wife. At least that’s the word the Bible employs at the time the intimate relationship commenced. As a father and husband, Abraham had certain obligations—both to the woman he’d impregnated and to the child she’d borne. Yet here his prime wife was demanding that both be banished.
Abraham was caught. He needed peace with Sarah. He also wanted to fulfill his fatherly/husbandly obligations. And the two seemed mutually exclusive. He wrestled with his dilemma. And then his moment of clarity came! Suddenly he saw a way to have his cake (not feel like a total heel for abdicating his deeply felt responsibilities) and eat it too (keep Sarah happy). How did this come about?
“God said to him, ‘Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’” Abraham suddenly had an epiphany! Clearly he had been overly sensitive, overly righteous, overly concerned.
Since Isaac was the one through whom the divine promises would be fulfilled, his perceived obligations toward Ishmael were just that: perceived. His conscience and sense of duty had been too finely tuned. He realized he could do exactly what Sarah had demanded.
Throughout this process, there has been an ongoing devaluation of Hagar and Ishmael. First, Sarah refers to Hagar as “that slave woman.” It’s the first reference to her slave status. Earlier in the story, she was described as a “maidservant.” And it was Sarah herself who gave Hagar to Abraham to be his “wife.” Now Hagar is nothing more than “that slave woman.”
And Ishmael, who caused Abraham such consternation because Sarah’s demand “concerned his son” (emphasis mine) is reduced to merely being “the boy” once Abraham begins to entertain actually banishing him.
The story is as heart-rending as any we’ll ever encounter in the Bible or in life around us. The decision once made—because God “told” him to do it—Abraham acts. “Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy.”
Remember, Abraham was a wealthy man. He had flocks and herds and other valuables in abundance. He could have sent her off with an escort and plenty of money to ensure that she would want for nothing. He could have made sure that she was appropriately set up elsewhere, even if her presence in his household was no longer viable. But God had “told” him that it was OK to listen to his prime wife. And Sarah would never have allowed such generosity toward “that slave woman”—who was in the predicament she was in because Sarah had taken advantage of her, just as Abraham had. In Abraham and Sarah’s household, Hagar was a dispensable commodity, and her usefulness was well and truly past.
As if the send-off weren’t sad enough, the tragic saga continues: “When the water in the skin was gone, she [Hagar] put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, ‘I cannot watch the boy die.’ And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.”
I find it fascinating that we attribute actions to God that, if they were engaged in by any human, would call down the strongest of denunciations. Yet we commend God for them. If, for example, any humans had caused another to suffer as Hagar was suffering there in the desert, we would find their role despicable. But we never even blink when suggesting that God told Abraham to take steps that were going to bring such pain to another human. Why?
Why do we have such relatively high standards for human behavior and such relatively low standards for divine behavior? And why do we drop our relatively high standards for human behavior whenever the Bible suggests that “God told” humans to behave badly?
Fortunately, in the Hagar-and-Ishmael story, God comes to the poor woman’s rescue. He not only provides water but likewise gives her much-needed encouragement: Her son will also become the father of a great nation. But why did Hagar have to go through such horrendous emotional trauma? Why didn’t Abraham take steps to spare her that pain?
Could it be that it was because Abraham too willingly attributed his own thoughts to God? Could it be that if Abraham had removed the “God told me” phrase from his vocabulary, he would have been forced to ponder more deeply and more critically the thoughts that were running through his mind? Could it be that he would have behaved in a more moral, more ethical, more loving manner if he knew that he personally had to accept responsibility for his actions and couldn’t hang the blame on God?
And could it be that we today need to face up to that same reality?
*****
James Coffin is senior pastor of the Markham Woods Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Longwood, Florida.
User login
Recent
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
James:
Great proposition well told. It seems that the pentacostal TV evangelists are the most guilt of the "Lord Told Me". It is clear that Ellen White was not above the same tactic. "I was shown." was an implication of direct divine revelation. When it often was just a purloined library book. Tom.
Now you're gettin' religion, Jim! Woo-hoo!
You also may be gettin' fired....
"I find it fascinating that we attribute actions to God that, if they were engaged in by any human, would call down the strongest of denunciations."
It is certainly not only with Abraham where we find such actions being attributed to God, but most of the stories have similarly had "voices" speaking to them.
Why should we be expected to believe that in ancient times God gave direct orders to humans, but it is questionable now? Frankly, I am very suspicious on anyone who says "God told me."
Was it truly God who told Abraham to offer his son? What possible explanation could there have been in the story as told? Or, is it just possible that the writers of the Bible attributed to God all their actions would which "take them off the hook"? Today, we would send someone who commited such an action to a psychiatrist.
As previously mentioned, millions of people have unquestioningly believed and accepted that God spoke to people then, and should not be surprised when someone claims it today. Ellen White used this phrase throughout her testimonies, even threatening God's displeasure would be seen if they ignored those "visions."
I am soooo encouraged....
Pastor Coffin,
You claimed God's words in Genesis 21:11-13 are falsely attributed to Him, yet you gave no textual support for such a claim.
How exactly are you deciding which "God said" is legitimate or not in the Bible? By what power are you divining what is divine?
Gettin' interesting....
But Paul and I see the story as an allegory of faith versus works -- the two "wives."
Time to cast out the bondwoman and her son, "which things are an allegory"....?
No bodily harm done.
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law....?
Now...if you want to tell me Abraham was *forced* to live out an allegory for us, you run into beaucoups problems with free will.
So...he *accidentally* lived out an allegory for us?
How convenient!
In Ron Howard's movie, A Beautiful Mind, John Nash, somewhat recovered from the worst effects of schizophrenia, finds a representative of the Swedish Nobel Institute outside his classroom informing him that he has won the Nobel Prize. Nash turns to one of his students and asks him: "Do you see him, too." When the student confirms that the man is real, Nash concludes that he is not hallucinating. Unfortunately, there is nobody to turn to for a reality check when God speaks to you. You can't falsify a revelation. But you can reject it.
Ultimately, all you have to go by is common human decency. In a society that conceived of God as "red in tooth and claw", in a society which practiced human sacrifice (think Jephtah, that hero of Hebrew faith), I suppose a voice telling you to slaughter your only son could not be as easily dismissed as it would have been by all sane people in our day and age. But some of us knew people in Waco who humbly followed the divine command to go out and purchase machine guns and other lethal weaponry to stave off the apocalypse and to hand over their wives, in response to God's word to a failed rock-musician by the name of Vernon Howell. A certain segment of society has always been in love with those who speak face to face with the gods.
"You claimed God's words in Genesis 21:11-13 are falsely attributed to Him, yet you gave no textual support for such a claim."
Posted by: Shane (not verified) | 09 March 2010 at 3:42
Shane, I look forward to Pr Coffin's answer to your question, but to me it seems plainly obvious that the supposed instructions of God in this story are completely counter to His character as revealed elsewhere in the Bible.
Pr Coffin, thank you for your inspired thoughts on this story. Right now I take a lot of comfort from your perspective - recently my second marriage ended, in part I believe, because I was serious about my financial obligations to my first ex-wife (in relation to my two children to that marriage). It would have been easy to justify paying a bare minimum in child support, and perhaps this would have appeased my second wife.
I don't mean to apportion any blame, or to suggest there weren't other factors in my recent marriage break-down, but dividing loyalty between those to whom we have an obligation is always a difficult challenge, and I dispise those who would abdocate that obligation in the name of God. Thank you again, for giving us a reality check on "God told me".
Pastor Coffin,
I admire your bravery (that's what it is) for addressing one of the real questions people are asking these days. That being, How can you serve a God that orders all these evil things and then still call Him a God of love? Not everything in the Bible is as black and white as many want it to be. Sometimes we have to grapple with hard, honest questions and you've done that admirably. May God bless you as you continue to present God for the God of mercy He is.
Pastor Stewart Pepper
www.lewisburgchurch.org
Shane,
You state in your response to my post: "You claimed God's words in Genesis 21:11-13 are falsely attributed to Him, yet you gave no textual support for such a claim."
First, let me note that there's a substantial difference between "claiming" and "postulating a possible explanation." You will note that I employed a number of tentative terms and phrases such as "I wonder if . . ." Four times I asked: "Could it be that . . ." That's not really a "claim." It's a device to open up possibilities and avenues of thought. It's definitely not an assertion.
Second, there's undoubtedly a significant degree of subjectivity involved in determining which texts I would take at face value and which I would postulate might reveal more about the person's thoughts than about God's thoughts--in much the same way that there's a significant degree of subjectivity in our traditional decisions about which Levitical commands to apply literally today and which to ignore. For example, I happen to be wearing a cotton-polyester shirt as I write. Am I in violation of an express command of God?
Third, the Egyptians had some twenty-two-hundred gods. Nothing just happened. A god was perceived to be the cause of everything. So when Moses reminded the Hebrews of their monotheistic roots, it's inevitable that the role perceived to have been played by the many gods would be transferred rather holus-bolus to the one God. God is depicted (throughout the Old Testament especially) as actively involved in things that we normally don't consider God to play an active role in today--causing women to be barren is but one example. Another prime example is the idea of a "jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation." I don't believe that passage is warning me that God might just zap me to settle the score because of what my great-grandfather did. Rather, I think He's urgently pleading for me to understand that my behavior today may have lasting impact that could affect those who come even generations after me.
Fourth, the Bible seems a little loose in how it describes what's going on in people's minds/hearts. For example, doing a quick concordance search of the NIV for the word "heart" in the book of Exodus, I come across ten references to God hardening Pharaoh's heart. But I encounter six other references that say simply that Pharaoh's heart was hardened. Another three say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Did God do it to him? At least in ten of the instances cited? Or was it attributed to God as an outgrowth of the way the polytheists attributed everything to God? In fact, was this a kind of watershed event in which we see both the old and the new explanations being employed side by side?
Fifth, is it the voice of God if it asks me to do something that an earlier voice of God (through the Bible, all my spiritual instruction and all my life experience) has told me is wrong? The apostle Paul said that even if an angel from heaven came bearing a gospel other than what Paul had shared, the angel should be ignored. If the voice (of God?) in my head grants me dispensations to ignore what I've always perceived to be inescapable moral obligations, what voice should be my guide?
It's rather challenging to divine the answers. For me at least.
Jim
I think it's a little ironic that some of us here some how know which texts really explain what God is like, thus we are able to divine the divine texts.
So far the only basis given has been God's command was "completely counter to His character as revealed elsewhere in the Bible."
The presumption here is that the character of God being presented here (Gen. 21) is counter to what is said about God in other places. While it's easier to just throw a text out as being from God because it doesn't align with our understanding of God, we should study further and grapple with the text.
Just because I may not immediately understand how God's character revealed in Gen. 21 is congruent with the rest of Bible, doesn't mean I throw it out as allegorical.
There's absolutely no reason to think it's allegorical based on the text itself. The assumptions being put forth are merely based on individuals unwillingness to accept that this is God speaking in Gen. 21.
One thing is for certain. If one's wife says it is ok to sleep with another woman...THEY DON'T REALLY MEAN IT AND DON"T BELIEVE IT! :~)
regards,
pat
RE: James Coffin. It appears there might be hope yet for some open mindedness?(no veil between) and hopefully discussion in the church.
I hope you will not be the cause of another "defrocking".
Thanks for being brave enough to step up and open the door.
I am encourage!
I have shared your comments with some others who I believe will be interested in reading them. I hope that is alright?
Jay Rasco
I am reminded of George Gershwin's famous song from "Porgy and Bess"--"It Ain't Necessarily So" describing all of the things you
read in the Bible.
Shouldn't we see the truth in that song? It is impossible today to accept that all the things written in those books are necessarily true. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Otherwise, one has to throw away all his reasoning ability.
Pastor Coffin,
Your first point is noted. It would have been better for me to use another word. At any rate, you did suggest that it was not God who spoke to Abraham in Genesis 21.
Your second point only seconds my earlier assertion that your method for “divining” the divine texts is somewhat subject, or at least appears to be without any biblical evidence.
I see the connection you’re trying to make in your third point. Are you implying that God was not involved as recorded in the Bible? Again, what biblical evidence is there that God was not involved as depicted in Genesis 21?
In point four you suggest that because you think it’s difficult to know whether it was God or Pharaoh who hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it’s thus difficult to know whether God was really speaking to Abraham in Genesis 21. It appears you are assuming the two are mutually exclusive. The Holy Spirit has a different effect upon our hearts depending upon how we relate to His pleadings. If I respond, my heart will be softened and I will be changed completely (1 Samuel 10:6). If I resist the Spirit, my heart will be hardened (Zechariah 7:12). So when we read that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and that he hardened his own heart, the two are not mutually exclusive of each other. If anything, it shows the relationship of cause and effect in the workings of the Holy Spirit on the human heart. Thus, I think it’s reasonable to believe that God intended to communicate just what he said, “I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go” (Ex. 4:21).
In point five it seems you take for granted that Abraham had a very close relationship with God. So much so that God spoke directly to him so that Abraham was familiar with God’s voice. He KNEW when God was speaking to him. This point is further bolstered by the fact that Abraham did not write the account himself, but that Moses moved by the Holy Spirit communicated the truth of the circumstances.
Conclusion. Points four and five are the only ones that remotely begin to defend your suggestion that it was not God speaking to Abraham in Genesis 21. I believe your presupposition in point four is wrong as explained above, and point five fails because it doesn’t bring out the fact that Paul had the OT Scriptures and the testimony of Jesus Christ with which to test the false gospel from some random angel.
Today, our ultimate authority of God’s word is the Bible. We should test everything against the Bible. We have the written Word of God; Abraham had the direct Word of God. Abraham had a relationship with God. It’s not as if this voice just came out of nowhere. Would God allow Satan or his angels to impersonate Him without giving Abraham some way to verify the information? Not according to the Bible.
You haven’t demonstrated to me what your rubric is for deciding what exactly God said in the Bible.
I believe the fundamental difference between us is our view of biblical inspiration. I believe the Bible is inspired by God and thus an accurate account of his dealings with humans.
What's your guide for truth in the Bible is not everything is true in the Bible?
Shane,
You said Paul had the Bible to compare the Gospel to. Do you really think that the truthfulness of the Gospel should be proven by stories about Pharaoh's heart being hardened; or conspiracies involving Abraham's wife? All Scripture is not created equal.
Jesus, as well as Paul, used Hebrew icons and stories of their exploits (the Jewish Scriptures) to visualize the Gospel message for a people who were entrenched with their self-importance, and would not have entertained the idea that God could do anything without involving Hebrew history and legacy. That would be like trying to discuss the book of Revelation with an SDA without referring to 1844, as irrelevant at that date may be in the grand scheme of things.
Well, Jim has opened Pandora's Box (really Jar). Let's not pretend he hasn't.
Working the metaphor a bit, his courageous book-writing predecessors of decades past originally opened the Jar, unleashing the suppressed Terrors on Adventism, leaving only one thing in the Jar, as the myth goes, for Pandora to later release...Hope.
The feminist interpretation of the Jar is the womb, so, one might say, Jim and his courageous predecessors have unleashed a feminine, receptive (and suppressed) archetype into our psychic midst.
No matter how "tentatively" one opens the Jar, the contents fly out unbidden.
Jim had the privilege of opening the Box the second time and releasing Hope, at long last, hope of a loving and morally comprehensible God.
Hesiod:
"But the woman took off the great lid of the jar with her hands and scattered, all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men.
Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door; for ere that, the lid of the jar stopped her, by the will of Aegis-holding Zeus who gathers the clouds.
But the rest, countless plagues, wander amongst men; for earth is full of evils, and the sea is full. Of themselves diseases come upon men continually by day and by night, bringing mischief to mortals silently; for wise Zeus took away speech from them."
Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all...
This is a watershed day, and for the sake of future clarity of communication, let's recognize it as such.
If we're proposing to redefine the nature of the game, let's do it in the light of day, and forthrightly.
RE Shane "There's absolutely no reason to think it's allegorical based on the text itself. The assumptions being put forth are merely based on individuals unwillingness to accept that this is God speaking in Gen. 21.
Shane I would like to share some biblical texts that may shed some light on the allegorical or "figures of speech" used in the bible.
Take a look at john 16:25-33 for starters. To make it easier for you so you won't have to look it up I will copy it here for you:
25"Though I have been "speaking figuratively," a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will "tell you plainly about my Father." 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."
29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without "figures of speech." 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." ------------------33"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
And again in John 15:15 Jesus says I no longer call you servants , becuase a servant doesn't know his fathers business. Instead I have called you friends because you can explain everything to a friend in plain language.
In hebrews 1:1-4 we are told:
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, (figures of speech--my parenthesis) 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory (Character/Goodness Exodus 33:18-19 "Now show me your glory, and the lord said I will cause all my GOODNESS to pass in front of you and I will proclaim ny NAME.) and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the NAME he has inherited is superior to theirs.
Often times when we only learn by what we were told by others what was so in the scriptures may have come from their preconcieved idea's and it may take us a loooong time to change our minds. Changing our minds about God and our perception of him is what repentance is all about.
Continued
Sirje,
I believe the NT is dependent of the historicity of the OT. I believe this is true for both the NT's historicity and spiritual truth.
The life of Abraham, as depicted in the Bible, is a historical fact. God's acts as recorded in the Bible are a historical fact.
And so far no one has a suggested a rubric for "divining" truth from the Bible if the the Bible is not presumed inspired by God, that men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
I suggest that when this type of cherry picking occurs you begin the sliding downt the slippery slope of relativism.
RE Shane continued from previous post by Jay.
Here are a couple of comments that might help you to grasp where I am coming from:
"Behold Your God
By F.T.Wright
[v]
Introduction
It is safe to say that three facts are common to us all.
The first is that we have, either consciously or subconsciously, a definite opinion about the character of God. Even though little direct thought or specific expression may have been given to the topic, it is true nonetheless.
The second is that our attitude toward God, our treatment of others, and our receptivity of truth are determined by these opinions.
The third is that all of us were born predispositioned to possess a false concept of God which in turn has been confirmed and extended by environmental educational influences. Unless delivered from this and initiated into a true knowledge of God, it will be hard to live a life of JOY."
And this one from E G White:
"The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2."
Now I don't quote either one of these authors as the final authority but to show that there are some who understand at a deeper level that the Great Controversy is about more than just the salvation of Mankind except as that is salvation is accomplished through the revelation of the "Character of God."
Now I know that many Christians including most Adventist say they believe in "Sola Scriptura" but there are very few if any who really practice this. Virtually all religious systems systems or organizations have their beginning in someone else's interpretation of the bible rather than their own understanding of it. That includes trusting those who originally transaleted the scriptures. Most Christians,especially at the laymans level, don't even know who those men were yet we rely on their transaltion. Adventist admit to including E G white and then also the book of naturre to reveal God. I believe that it is the total life experience and that each one of us eventually has to come to our own understanding of that revelation and find our security in that understanding. Of course just because I say that or anytning else doesn't mean you have to accept it. We each will have a different path to travel.
Continued on next post.
One must consider the genres of scripture and the context of the texts one is dealing with.
In that light,there is no indication that Gen.16 and 21 were not historical information delivered without figurative metaphor or allegory.
Paul "after the fact" establishes an allegory in Galatians as to the present and eternal Jerusalem.
regards,
pat
Continued from previous post by Jay:
I have been traveling this path to God through, first a pentecostal church until about the age of 13--14 years old and then, the Adventist church until now and now from the age of 50 or so to 74 I have found peace in the promises of God through Jesus Christ that HE will complete the work of his revelation of God His father which will accomplish my security in HIM and Him alone. No more Fear and trembling for me. That has allowed me to come Boldly before his throne of grace and without any veil between me and Him I can now see more clearly his WILL for ALL his children.
When we move from a Servant, legal, forensic relationship to one of a love, trust relationship it allows us to see and hear morely his message of Love, compassion ,assurance and trust.
Jesus had much more to say tho his disciples but as he said when he was here he could not yet say it to them clearly because of the slowlness of ther comprehension.
It some times take many, many years, but HIS LOVE never fails. Keep hope, love, compassion and faith based on a knowledge of HIM alive and he will complete the work he has started in all of us.
These are HIS promises.
Look at 2 Corinthians 3:18 and you will see how the change (repentance) comes. It is by beholding HIM as revealed by Yeshua.
Siuncerely
Jay
Jay,
There is no question that there are examples of figurative language in the Bible. I also believe that the context generally makes it obvious when it's not to be taken literal.
The issue here is Gen. 21. Did God tell Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named. And of the son of the maid I will make a nation also, because he is your descendant"? (Genesis 21:12, 13).
The answer is yes, and thus far the author of the article above nor anyone else has provided any biblical support for interpreting these verses as anything than what they plainly say.
Within the Bible, when we read "God said," how do we know when it's a lie? The pastor is suggesting, at least this portion of scripture, is possibly not true. If what he is suggesting is true, than by what rubric of truth do we measure any other instance where "God said"?
Answers?
Sahne,
Given that the Bible, as we know it today, didn't drop out of heaven bound and gilded, someone had to decide what was bound in the copy of your Bible. That someone decided that those books that are included in your Bible are the words of God.
Paul referenced the Old Testament when delivering the Gospel; but he also told the Greeks that he was coming to deliver a message from THEIR unknown god for which they had erected a statue. Was that true? Did the Greeks actually erect a statue to the the Hebrew God - to the Christian God? They had a bunch of gods. Paul used their cultural/religious beliefs to talk about the Christian God. Why is it not, also true, that Paul used the Hebrew cultural/religious system to talk to the Hebrews about the Christian God - "proving all things" as the Berriens did.
There is an opinion out there (G.K.Chesterton) that God actually influenced other religions before the Hebrews compiled their Scriptures; and that the Christian version is the culmination - the real, while all others were shadows of the real.
We can't read the OT in the same way the Hebrews did. It can't mean the same to us, Christians, because Christ is the real and the OT is the shadow; but we (SDAs) read the OT as if the New hasn't arrived yet.
Sirje,
>>but he also told the Greeks that he was coming to deliver a message from THEIR unknown god for which they had erected a statue. <<
Are you implying Paul was delivering a message from Greek Gods? The "record" is that he was delivering his message of the futility of their false and unknown gods in ignorance and that they now repent and worship the true God and His Son Jesus.Acts 17:22-34.
>>We can't read the OT in the same way the Hebrews did. It can't mean the same to us, Christians, because Christ is the real and the OT is the shadow; but we (SDAs) read the OT as if the New hasn't arrived yet.<<
Proper exegesis reads the OT as "That World" and what the original message meant to the original audience. NT writers application is based upon the historicity/truth (considering genre)of the OT and then re-applies that truth on various subjects/ occassion and it's application for NT believers.
Thus i.e. NT.Hebrews takes the historicity of the OT sacrifices and re-applies is real meaning as understood in Christ. That doesn't negate the historicity of the "shadow."
The OT has check's and balances in it's accuracy by the historic and present Hebrew text, the LXX and the dead sea scrolls. Where are the blatant transmission errors?
The UBS has untold scholarship in presenting the textual apparatus for all to see with variants with textual analysis for the better choices. These variants do not change the commmon accepted NT doctrinal understandings of scripture.
Are we to believe scripture is not true Sirje?
regards,
pat
Pat,
My reference to the unknown god of the Greeks was to point out that Paul told the Greeks he came to bring them their "unknown" god, referencing their religion in order to connect the true God with their unknown god. Could it not be that the NT has the same relationship with the OT - connecting Christianity with Hebrew belief system? The God of thunder and retribution is not the God of the NT, who asks us to forgive 70X7.
The only way I can reconcile the God of the OT and NT is to believe that the Hebrews assumed God's leading when they pillaged and killed in order to set up their borders.
Sirje asked a penetrating question in her statement:
"Hebrews assumed God's leading when they pillaged and killed in order to set up their borders."
If we accept that God ordered the murders and killing as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, what do we understand about Jesus in the NT if he came to "reveal the Father"?
There is such a discrepancy in the accounts between the Old and New Testaments that it takes much more than stretch of one's imagination to come to an understanding that the God of the old is the same as represented by Jesus.
Either one is true and the other is false, or vice versa. Can one have a loving parent at the same time he is also a murderer? Or orders a father to offer his own son? Or throws out the mother and his son to die in the desert? Is this the model we want for our children?
Sirje,
>>The God of thunder and retribution is not the God of the NT, who asks us to forgive 70X7.The only way I can reconcile the God of the OT and NT is to believe that the Hebrews assumed God's leading when they pillaged and killed in order to set up their borders.<<
I suggest it is the same God but in the NT "religious judgment" is delayed for His renewed theocracy..."Vengence is mine, I will repay(Rom.12:19-21)...and "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”Rom.2:5,6.
It is true that The Kingdom of Christ will not come by the sword and force of man as did O.T Israel's borders did at His direction.
regards,
pat
Sirje,
I agree. The Bible did not drop out of heaven. However, each book that is in the Bible was inspired by God-men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16
"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:21
I'm a bit confused by two comments you made:
1. those books that are included in your Bible are the words of God.
2. but we (SDAs) read the OT as if the New hasn't arrived yet.
Are you including yourself or excluding yourself?
the story of whether God literally TOLD Olde Abe to expel his firstborn son and mother into the desert should be of far less concern than whether God literally told Olde Abe to kill his 2nd born son...Issac!!!
if any of us announced that God had told us to kill our own kids, the men in white coats would be coming.
literal story?
which suggests God is either a joker, changing his mind...a heartless child killer...or an insecure narcissist needing to feel worshiped...by the murder of another life of some kind? Why blame some poor, innocent child or even goat because Eve was deceived by a talking snake?
or could it have been a figurative (representative)"parable"?
explaining that the ancient Hebrews had finally progressed in their philosophy of life and religious beliefs...deciding to "sacrifice" (butcher} goats for food, clothes and boda bags instead of their own kids like the neighbors sometimes did in order to appeal to their superstitious beliefs and appease their gods.
same question revolves around the tale, ah, pardon me, "parable" of Cain killing Abel... did God really tell one brother that his veggie offering was unacceptable..("sorry, Cain...your gift of veggies is just no good...I want dead meat...like your brother offered me") and that He (God) preferred the death of an innocent lamb? thereby provoking the worlds (alleged) first murder?
or was this a figurative explanation about ancient range wars.... with the nomadic, goat raising culture winning out over ("killing off") fixed place agriculture in the desert environment in which the hebrew story developed?
..."and the moral of the story, kids, is that God "told" us to remain nomads, here in the desert, and raise goats....and not settle down in the river lowlands with the Philistines and unbelievers and plant crops"...
God had even "told" Olde Abe to leave a well watered agriculture environment in Harren, Turkey, for the dry dusty hills of Judea where even goats barely survived!!!
and a later drought would force Abe's kids to become slaves in Egypt.
..."listen, kids...here's the deal...once upon a time, our ancestors believed God when He told them to leave the Garden of Eden...because it was flooding as the Persian Gulf rose to overrun the entire persian Gulf Valley, and submerge 2 of the 4 rivers of Eden
http://ldolphin.org/eden/
We will someday learn that this was caused by rising sea levels due to melting glaciers
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/icr/news/icr_news_2009_2_25_se...
either because of the Al Gore theory, or the Milankovitch effect which we will not understand for another 2-3000 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
...so when God told our great-grandfather Abe to leave Harren,
http://www.igougo.com/attractions-reviews-b103033-Ankara-Harran_Biblical...
he left...no questions asked. We just wished our God had helped overcome the drought back there in Judea which forced us to migrate here to Egypt and become brick slaves...
and that's why at the moment we have two rules:
give unto Pharoah the things that are Pharoah's,
and
to question is not up to us...when God talks to you....
you listen!!!"...
Shane,
My use of "your Bible" was just a reference, not meant to differentiate "your Bible" from "my Bible".
Look, we (including myself) take for granted that the Bible is what we have been told it is (by the Bible itself, I might add). Of course it's going to validate itself. But, when the NT says "All scripture is inspired by God..." do we know what constituted scripture at the time? When 2Timothy was written there was no NT "scripture"; and what exactly was included in the OT "scripture"?
If all prophesies are from God then how can ICor.13:8 say that prophesies may fail (understanding that prophesy was not the point of ICor. 13 - however)?
When we grow up reading the Bible, we ask no questions. It is what we're told it is. But I have this nasty habit of looking for more than what I'm told; so I have to ask, why does God look so different, even brutal, in the OT, while Jesus is the epitome of living love. If Jesus was here to show us God, then it's not the same God as we see in the OT. The only conclusion I can make is that the Hebrews did what they did and attributed their successes to God's blessings, and their failures to God's judgments. Obviously whatever they believed, they failed their own destiny.
Adventist theology has focused in on the OT with its laws and rituals and go looking in the NT for their validation. For the Christian, the message of the NT - Gospel- and its picture of God has to be the immutable reality, and the OT only an imperfect shadow which was replaced by the real.
Your last question is an interesting one ... .
Posted by: Shane | 09 March 2010 at 7:30
There's absolutely no reason to think it's allegorical based on the text itself. The assumptions being put forth are merely based on individuals unwillingness to accept that this is God speaking in Gen. 21.
Galatians 4:
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Which things are an ALLEGORY: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sirje,
I'm sure there are many who take the claims of the Bible and others for granted.
Keep in mind that the NT authors by way of the Holy Spirit are validating the OT. The Scriptures that are being referred to in 2 Timothy are books that make up the OT. The writers of the NT were firm believers in the historicity of the OT and of it's divine origin.
You're misrepresenting the 2 Peter 1:21 when you say "all prophesies are from God." It doesn't say that. Here it is again:
"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
Actually, it would be good to read the few verses before this:
"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"--and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts."
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:16-21)
The point I'm making is Peter is talking about prophecy of Scripture, not just any prophecy from anyone.
It's good to ask questions. I think you've asked a relevant question:
"...why does God look so different, even brutal, in the OT, while Jesus is the epitome of living love"?
I don't have a short answer or maybe even a good one for you. I can't make sense of it all, but I believe the paradigm that is set forth in the Bible does much in explaining God's character as portrayed in the OT.
At this point I don't think there is anything that I can say that would make you reconsider your assumptions about God's character in the OT. I don't believe the OT shows a contradictory picture of God's character or even one opposite of Christ's. It's another facet to be sure.
Christ will return one day soon and mete out judgment for the wicked. All those who have rejected the plethora of promptings from the Holy Spirit will be consumed by fire, never more to live. Judgment was not delayed for many in the OT like it is now. Whether it's now or later doesn't change God's character to me. Sin is an awful thing, but it needs to be dealt with once and for all. And it will one day.
Maggie,
Paul is speaking allegorically. The "things" is referring "he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh" and "he of the freewoman was by promise." This is further clarified when he says "these are the two covenants."
"...why does God look so different, even brutal, in the OT, while Jesus is the epitome of living love"?
To this question, you answered:
"I don't have a short answer or maybe even a good one for you. I can't make sense of it all, but I believe the paradigm that is set forth in the Bible does much in explaining God's character as portrayed in the OT."
Maybe that works for children: "Just believe me and don't ask such questions" but as a serious Bible student, do you honestly believe that will be sufficient for those that are questioning your belief? That you simply trust and believe, but can't explain it?
How is that different from the con man who wants your money to invest? "Trust me, I'll guarantee a great return."
Shane, I'm glad you're willing to recognize the allegorical nature of the story now.
So, in your opinion, did God force Abraham to live out a vital allegory for our benefit, regardless of the suffering it caused the women and children, or was it just a fortuitous accident that God was happy to take advantage of?
If we accept that God ordered the murders and killing as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, what do we understand about Jesus in the NT if he came to "reveal the Father"?
Elaine
Can I divert for a moment to defining "God"? In the sentence quoted above your writing implies that God the Father ordered the killing in the Hebrew Bible. The "God Most High", El Elyon did not order the activities of the Israelites nor was El Elyon the tribal deity of the Israelites (in the post-exile period there is a blending- assimilation- of the tribal deity into The God Most High).
Yahweh (Yahu, Yah) was a son of El Elyon. His inheritance was a parcel of land with specified borders (The Promised Land) and a people "chosen" by Him to be His People (The Israelites). As the god of the Hebrews, Yahweh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, hardened a pharaoh's heart, led the tribes on a journey through the wilderness, spoke to all of Israel from Sinai, wrote the 10 C's, led the military expeditions, made the sun to stand still, commanded that every living thing- both beast and man- be slaughtered save for the virgins, and personally gave David 7 of his 8 wives along with all the other claims made by the Israelite writers about "their" God.
The NT writers refer to the "Father" as El Elyon, not Yahweh. For those that believe that El Elyon, the Father, had an "Only Son" the conclusion is that the Son Jesus is the Son Yahweh, tribal deity of the Israelites.
Therefore, the "God" that ordered the barbaric atrocities of the OT is none other than Jesus.
Jim Coffin
Thanks for your plausible "take" on the story of Abram/Abraham's polygamy troubles.
The phrase "God told me" sends up red flags and my BS meter goes off the chart.
When writing a comment for a different article here at Spectrum I was looking up the catalog for SAU courses. On the home page I noticed a news item titled "Southern Alum Wins Grammy". I took a look and the alum is quoted as saying that “I felt God telling me, ‘No Chad, this isn’t what you want to do,” he remembers. “I thought about producing and engineering and realized that it would be so fulfilling to me.”
His statement has no more validity than if he had said that his invisible friend since childhood, Charlie, told him that producing and engineering would be more fulfilling than being a professional musician.
How about King David? There was a drought that had been dragging on for 3 years so he asked Yahweh (Jesus) what had gotten Him so upset as to cause the disaster. Naturally, Yahweh (Jesus) spoke right back to David, telling him that several hundred years before, the Moabites (?) had been wronged. To correct the problem just ask their descendants how to rectify the wrong. Again, naturally, they asked that, of all things, David hand over all the male heirs of King Saul (except 1 I believe) to "be hung before the Lord" (or was it LORD). Voila, all the competitors for his throne were wiped out on the commands of the inaudible voice in his head (or just an outright lie). What a handy solution for him!
Or, how about the former boyfriend of one of our nieces. She was attending an SDA college when her SDA boyfriend informed her that God had told him that God wanted them to be married! Nothing like invoking an alleged personal message from God Himself to get your way with a woman. I responded to that news by finding out his home number and calling up, explaining that if he persisted I was going to hire a PI, give the PI a LARGE retainer, and dig up every skeleton in his and his family's history. I would spread every negative thing in their life in every medium available which could destroy any reputation, business, and relationships they ever had or hoped to have in the future. Amazingly enough God promptly came back to the kid with a new message which ended the relationship. What a NUT CASE!
IMO, there is no difference between the validity of God's message to my niece's former boyfriend, Yahweh's messages to King David, or El's messages to Abraham.
Its funny how, in these days of tens of millions of video cameras capturing reality at any given moment a verified message from a deity has never been captured.
For those that are believers though I do have to side with Shane- if you are going to start sifting through the Bible to figure out for yourself what is Inspired and what is not Inspired its a slippery slope. Its actually a slippery slope that has already been slid down most of the way to a humanistic or agnostic position, IMO.
The difference between myself, as an atheist former SDA, and yourself, an SDA pastor, is that I have concluded, after reading and studying the Bible cover to cover multiple times, that ALL of it is human beliefs of the day and personal opinions/agendas whereas you have just written off parts of the Bible to be the human conclusions of the writers/storytellers.
IMHO, of course.
In "Bible Commentary: 'Theological Booby Traps & Road Blocks'" (currently at another posting on this blog, and excerpted by Lainey S. Cronk), Raymond Cottrell outlines some of the problems the writers and editors of the SDA Bible Commentary had in addressing some of the things attributed to God in scripture that are either scientifically or ethically problematic. While "proving" nothing, Cottrell's story highlights the challenge we face in knowing how to relate to biblical assertions that are at odds with our long-held understandings of either moral or physical reality. The writer of scripture clearly states a cause-and-effect relationship between Jacob's superstitious practices regarding genetics and their supposed results--"In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous . . . ." Note the following excerpt from Cottrell:
"An entirely different exegetical ambush awaited us at Genesis 30:37 to 31:12, where Jacob informs Laban that God devised the procedure by which he had been able to acquire most of Laban's flocks and herds. As described, however, the strategy was based on two genetic impossibilities — prenatal influence of the kind here described and the transmission of acquired characteristics. The former qualifies as superstition, the latter as science fiction (see Genesis 30:37, cf. 31:4-12). Did God overrule the laws of genetics and let Jacob believe that the procedure produced the result he claimed for it, or was it a ploy Jacob invented to awe Laban into believing that God had directed him to perform? The result was clear, but it is obvious to us to day that the conception of spotted and speckled cattle was not the result of the procedure to which Jacob attributed it. In addition to the genetic problems involved is the ethical question: Would God deceive Jacob into thinking that the procedure produced the result, and would he connive with Jacob to the disadvantage of Laban as the Bible implies?"
If we categorically refuse to allow the cultural milieu of Bible times to explain some of the Bible's incongruities, we encounter just as many difficulties--or many more, some would say--as when we venture onto the slippery slope of making such allowances. For example--and this takes us in an altogether different direction--how do Adventists defend our traditional total-abstinence (from alcohol) stance if we don't use some cultural explanation regarding Proverbs 31:6? The passage says: "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Was that proverb just a "truism" of the day? Or was it an eternal verity passed down from God? Is our total-abstinence stance wrong? Or is there some other explanation for the passage?
I find it more than challenging to divine the right answers to many such questions.
Jim
Keafan,
Apparently my earlier comment was posted nearly simultaneously with yours, so it isn't a direct reply to what you said--even though there's some similarity in terminology. I appreciate your candor on this topic. And I've appreciated your comments on many topics--even when I disagree with them.
My opinion/conviction, and I'm not saying it's any more than that, is that the Bible is a divine-human joint effort. God inspires people. But they bring to the task an entire bag of humanity. That includes personality, life experience, language, worldview and much more. In that context and on the basis of those factors--and many more--they speak/write, seeking to lead people in the direction God has pointed. God works with people in the milieu in which they exist, I suggest.
And He takes them only so far at one jump. "An eye for an eye" was, I suggest, more humane and loving than the prevailing practice. It was an improvement and pointed people in the right direction. It just didn't take them very far. Certainly not as far as Jesus' command to love our enemies. Some biblical commands were appropriate to the times, I'd suggest, but certainly not God's ideal. Jesus' comment about Moses' seemingly easy-divorce approach is an example.
I would love to be as concrete and certain as Shane. It would make life so much simpler. And for years I tried to maintain that stance. I simply couldn't do so with integrity. But in many ways I envy those who can. I feel Shane's stance underestimates the amount of humanity in this divine-human joint venture we call the Bible. Obviously, I feel you underestimate the divine role, since you rule it out completely.
I do believe, as the Bible says, that as steel sharpens steel, so one man's mind sharpens another. And I believe that those at all points along the spectrum of thought have a significant role to play. So thanks for the graciousness in which you and so many others play that role in this forum.
Jim
Shane and Pat,
At the time the NT "books" were written; and, even when Jesus quoted scripture, the Bible used was the Septuagint. In fact, the NT even quotes and alludes to the Septuagint. The Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT) contained the books now in the OT, but also the following, all of which are used in the NT writing:
Besides that Daniel and Esther, while in the Septuagint, were not present in the Hebrew version. This is especially interesting since SDA theology is based in the book of Daniel. But, since Jesus mentions the book of Daniel in Matt., it means he was using the Septuagint and all the other books it included which we don't use today.
So, if "all scripture is inspired of God and is profitable..." what happened to all those other books? What are we missing? See the problem? We still have to pick and choose - my question is BASED ON WHAT?
..."God works with people in the milieu in which they exist, I suggest.
And He takes them only so far at one jump. "An eye for an eye" was, I suggest, more humane and loving than the prevailing practice. It was an improvement and pointed people in the right direction. It just didn't take them very far"...
so when we read that God is said to have terrorized an entire population with widespread plagues, and massacred innocent animals and children just to influence the Pharaoh,
are we still to believe that this was literally true?...but it was God's genteel way of dealing with people in the way they knew at the time?
But today, since revelation is progressive, and because scientists have discovered that plagues are NOT caused by divine fiat, despite what some Rev's claim, and that earthquakes and volcanoes are not caused by underground coal fires, despite what EGW may have mistakenly believed,
...does this mean we can now understand the ravages of AIDS, and the Christmas Tsunami which massacred some quarter of a million people, and the recent almost as dis-aster-ous (to use the superstitious term based on "bad star") Haiti catastrophe as "natural" events....and not as "acts of God"?
Doesn't this concept of "progressive revelation" also suggest that we might have to re-interpret some of our ideas about the earth and life being instantly "created" in just 144 earth hours? and only 6000 yrs ago?
And in Christian forgiveness mode, should we try to stop the slide on the slippery slope of progress* by saying...
..."Father, forgive them (the writers of the ancient stories of divinely caused mayhem) for they knew not what they wrote".....
and then should we graduate beyond the worst of Mosesianity
...kill them all, but save the virgins
and get on on with the best of Christianity...
...do for others....????
* question:
doesn't the slippery slope actually result in upward "progress", since by todays morality, even a morally questionable Bill Clinton sent the USAF into the Balkans to stop Orthodox Christians from killing them all and "saving" the virgins.
and doesn't the possibility that we may actually be CLIMBING UP this slippery slope mean we can now understand the possibility that many of the inhumane acts attributed to God may in fact have been more myth than fact? often the result of scientifically ignorant stone age people's superstitions?
Could we somehow exculpate God from much of the inhumanity depicted in the Old Test by finally understanding that when the Israelites wrote that God commanded them to "kill them all, but save the virgins", that they were using the Nazi excuse..."I only did what I was TOLD".....to get what they wanted....a promised land with defensible borders???
and that maybe "God" had far less to do with it than the writers claimed?
I guess the "slippery slope" downward is the increasing understanding that what we once took as literal fact and history may not have been so literal!!!
but the same "slippery slope" could be seen as progressively positive...as we increasingly try to improve the world from the Morality of Mosesianity's "eye for an eye" (which itself may have been an improvement over the "kill them all" command,
....morally upward to Christianity's "turn the other cheek"....which itself may be an unreachable bridge too far beyond "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Sirje,
I've gone theough that several times on Spectrum and really don't care to in detail again. But briefly recognition developed, rather than simply decreed by council, of the books that were ultimately placed in the Canon.
They were recognized through the HS because of the apparent harmonious teaching and the perspicuity of scriptures that were chosen that through circulation the broader church as well as the councils recognized.
It seems you overlooked my response to How the OT and NT God is the same. Is He not a God of Mercy,Judgment,Love, Righteousness, Justice etc. in both.
He ruled a theocracy of church and state in the OT through an anointed judge, prophet or king. In the NT it is the age of the gentiles and his kingdom is a "Spiritual not Civil" one in the present age.( Though He is over all and has willed that the civil authorities use the sword for order in the present age. Rom.13.)
There will come the "Day of the Lord" when "righteous judgment and wrath" will be exhibited. It is delayed not desiring that any should perish but all come to repentance.
regards,
pat
Shane, I as you appreciate scripture. I do feel there is a sense in which Sirje is correct in the "underdeveloped Eschatology" of we SDAdventist as we apply what the Christ Event meant in regards to "we gentiles."
One way that is shown is our understanding of the sanctuary and "foods and drink" in the present age. We try to impose the OT on the NT writings that explain what the OT "types and shadows meant" in light of the Cross of Christ and the gospel going to we, the gentile "dogs" because of the promise to Abraham to bless all nations through His seed...Jesus Christ and the Righteousness that is of faith...not law.(Rom 4;Gal.3)
regards,
pat
The truly ironic thing about this topic, to me, is that our very lack of empathy for the characters in the Abraham story blinds us to the allegorical meaning of the story mentioned in Galatians 4.
Don't tell me God doesn't appreciate irony...and won't have us out, in the end.
"I find it more than challenging to divine the right answers to many such questions."
But whose answers will finally be considered "right"? There are multiple answers for many questions in the Bible and can they all be right?
Wouldn't it be far better to honestly accept that peoples thousands of years ago had a much different concept of God, and that it cannot be ours today? Why should we accept their conclusions as valid? As mentioned in another thread on the Bible Commentary, it is plain that with so many writers of the Bible that it was impossible for them to arrive at identical answers. So, which of them, or should any, be accepted as the final and correct story?
Maybe if we stopped trying to make the Bible the final and last word on nearly everything we could arrive at principles to divine how to live in our world today; problems that nwere ever faced in Bible times.
Elaine,
I didn't say "just trust and believe." I was merely saying it's a big question that requires more than just a short answer. I can't give a good short answer. That's all I was saying.
Maggie,
God does not use force. So no, I don't believe God forced Abraham. He commanded and Abraham obeyed. I think many stories can be used as allegories like what Paul did.
Sirje,
In regard to those other books. My intitial response is that Scripture was not canonized at that time. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. So the next question is were these books considered inspired? Now, were inspired writings not included in the canon we have now? Yes, the Bible references these. Just like I belive the Holy Spirit guided the writing of the individual books, I also believe he guided the canonization. But I'm going to look into this more because my curiousity is piqued.
Pastor Collin,
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to imply everything is so concrete. I'm merely saying that when the Bible says God said something I'm inclined to believe He said it. And I maintain that stance with integrity.
Shane Hilde
God does not use force.
Shane, I don't think you want me to sic John on you, chapter and verse!
Maggie,
>>God does not use force.<<
What does this mean?
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” Rom.12:19.
regards,
pat
Leave room for the wrath of God?
John? Help?
Pat, regards to you, too, but how is the wrath of God not a rampage of force?
Maggie,
John can't help unless he can't read the NT. :~)
It is force...but not rampage. It is "righteous judgment"/controlled anger against sin after much patience.
It isn't something I relish, this act of judment, but we should want to hear all scripture says...shouldn't we? Whether we agree or not? If we don't like that God, well...seek another but don't call it Christianity, just call it my personal God.
Later & Regards,
pat
Pat, I just don't see Scripture as "flat." God is subtle but not malicious, as Einstein said.
So much of the Bible portrays a blatantly malicious, capricious, vindictive God.
And good luck teasing the Old and New Testaments apart!
There is only one God, and I can't insult the Mind behind all-that-is by believing all the contents of the Bible are a strict representation of Her character. Not even possible.
If the Bible were a test to see how compassionate we are, how would we come out?
Meant friendly. :)
Rampage is as rampage does:
Wrath:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/12977.html?1196314275
Numbers 32:13
And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel,
.........and he MADE them....
wander in the wilderness for forty years.
and the reason? God got tired of the Israelites complaining...
so He ...MADE THEM wander for as many years as two mathemagically challenged goat herders could count on their combined digits.
sounds either like force or mythtake to me.....
He made everybody DIE in the desert...some by poisonous snakes He sent, some probably by famine, drought, and some God had killed by their own brothers for square dancing around the golden calf....and maybe 20 or 21,000 (I forget) died of bad quail God sent to punish them for asking for meat plus the 14,000 who died of the plague God sent....
too bad there is no archeological evidence for all those dead and buried Hebrews...no firepits...no outhouses...no latrines...no wells...no headstones...no broken tablets of 10 C's, no bronze snake-on-a pole found so far....but it's still early. God may reveal it when He is ready....not necessarily when we need it.
Shane,
The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, which included the Law (books 1-5) and the Prophets plus some other writings. When Paul talks about "All Scripture being inspired..." and applauding the Berriens for "searching the Scriptures" he was talking about the Septuagint. I just gave you a list of books that were included in the Septuagint which we don't have in our Bibles today. Some Bibles have some of them (Eastern Orthodox??); so, were they "inspired"? - no less than the other books of the Septuagint, I believe.
What does Canonizing mean to you? So, let me ask you, if Jesus had quoted the "Clear Word Bible" wouldn't you be all over everybody declaring that if Jesus used it as God's Word, who are we to say otherwise? Well, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint and the NT uses many (all) of the books I listed as the basis of what was said by Paul, Peter etc. canonized or not - whatever the significance of that may be.
One more point - Jesus is known in the Bible as THE WORD. Why would that be? If Jesus is the WORD of God, in PERSON, then he is who we need to listen to. Heb.1:1,2 declares that Jesus is the last prophet and surpasses all the rest that came before. This means, if there is a discrepancy between what Jesus says (by word, deed, or character) and the prophets of the OT, we listen to Jesus.
When Jesus was talking to the Jews he said,"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." This was not a commendation of the Jews and their reliance on the Scriptures. It was saying that they had their noses in their scriptures but when the WORD, in the flesh appeared, they didn't even recognize him and still continued to argue about their scriptures and how many angels would fit on the head of a pin, so to speak - missing the whole point.
Further, when Jesus was about to leave the earth he said he would send us the Holy Spirit which was to lead us into "all truth". This means that the HS is our guide, not some canon put together by men who were trying to out-do each other to gain control. It was that infamous (to SDAs) Roman, Constantine, who call for the Nicaean Council because his vast empire was becoming restless with all these Christians running around fighting with each other over the nature of Christ, the Trinity etc. In order to have ORDER in the empire he wanted the contentious issues to be settled once and for all. Why should I respect what that group of men decided is the Word of God? And let's not forget that Sunday worship came out of all this deliberation as well, as did Easter and Christmas, AND, the date for Easter which was deliberately calculated not to be during the Jewish Passover (which is when it really was) because the Christians hated the Jews so much. They even decided to serve pig for the Easter meal because that was something the Jews would never allow for the Passover. With all our dietary restrictions and our Sabbath worship, why would the SDA church go along with anything initiated by Constantine and his Council of Nicea? Just asking...?? (Just to clarify, the council decided on the NT books, I believe. The OT was adopted in sections by different parts of the Christian churches.)
Happy hunting! :)
PS: Others on this site are more able to clarify the details of all this, if they wish to get involved.
Maggie,
>>If the Bible were a test to see how compassionate we are, how would we come out?<<
If sin is related to the pain and suffering in this world as I suggest the Bible portrays it...by the way that includes the lack of Spirit led attitudes (Gal.5:22,23.) not just "deeds" of commision or omission then...
How compassionate are we to say sin is ok or for God not to make it end? I believe compassion is in word and deed.
also meant in a friendly manner...
regards,
pat
Maggie & John,
You're right. God does force in certain circumstances. I wasn't thinking about God's judgments. On one hand though, disobedience to God's law is sin and the natural result of sin is death. It's our choice to sin. So I guess in the end God doesn't force us.
Unless we equate the affects of gravity as force. If I break the law of gravity and end up hurting myself do I claim gravity forced me? I know it's not an exact analogy, but hopefully my point came out.
Shane,
The reason I use God's NT judgments and wrath is that it is a clear act of force, just like that "mean" OT God. Rev.16...
Some suggest God is only "passive" and all destruction is but a natural response to evil. "Their" God can not kill and destroy out of justice and still be compassionate and a "loving" God.
regards,
pat
Pat, did you read all those "wrath" Scriptures I just posted?
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/12977.html?1196314275
"Mean" or just plain ol' mean, by any reasonable human standard...?
Any human that acted like that would be considered a psychotic, homicidal maniac.
Compassionate and loving? Huh?
Notice Bill Sorensen's response to my wrath list:
God's wrath is often coupled with contempt and scorn.
This is because people have mocked God and showed contempt and scorn for His messengers.
"The Lord will have them in derision." And He will "laugh at (our) calamity."
"Be not deceived, God is not mocked."
Sorensen
Stockholm Syndrome?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
I'm serious.
(Well, Jim, anything you say now is going to sound nice and moderate....)
Pat,
There is a difference between consequence and force. This is why I still maintain that God does not force.
In regard to the Israelites, Ellen White said:
"God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, happy people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in “because of unbelief.” Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them. For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan." (Evangelism 695)
Yes, he made them wonder another forty years, but it was not his desire, it was because of their unbelief that he could not fulfill His covenant with them.
They had the choice to obey God. Some did and were able to see the land of Canaan before the died.
Shane,
Force what..our response?
No He doesn't force our response but He does ultimately force order and that to Him means destruction of the wicked and not by natural attrition.
One can not force one not to murder but one can in justice force him to die.
Can God kill and be Love?
regards,
pat
Maggie,
If one does not relate to how sin is so offensive to God and understand the destruction and lack of Shalom (Spiritual peace and material peace and prosperity) sin brings and...understand that justice and truth are part of His nature, then... one can never believe that God in love is ultimately wrathful against sin and sinners and destroys for order both.
regards,
pat
Pat, not to be tedious, but did you read all those wrath verses I posted?
If God is love, and sin is so offensive to Him, why does He (supposedly) laugh at people's calamity? What's the point of that - seems like gratuitous meanness to me.
How, how, how can "spiritual peace" come out of all of that?
Why would I be psychotic and criminal if I displayed this violent behavior, but God is, somehow, "loving?"
Thanks for being patient.
Pat,
I would also like an answer to the questions Maggie asks.
How can one possibly justify the multitude of Bible texts describing God's wrath and yet call it merciful? If you, I, or Maggie demonstrated such actions and then justified them as "merciful" we would either be committed or tried for murder.
How can God's "strange act" be understood? Should we accept as truthful how the Bible writers described Him, or should we simply say that it was human perception that was erroneous? (Yes, I have read Alden Thompson's book on the OT God which was no consolation or did not answer these questions.)
The context as I see it Maggie is those that persist in evil and scorn Him, then He does "Laugh" at their calamity of foolishness for they have irrevocably rejected Him and His ways out of their own self righteousness. There is Eternal warfare going on here.
"Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
3 “Let us break their chains,” they say,
“and throw off their fetters.”
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill.”
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
Ps.2.
Pat...I cannot love this, this...being.
Let me get this straight, God asks us to "turn the other cheek - give even more than the robber demands - forgive 70X7" (symbol for endlessly??); and calls those blessed who are "gentle, merciful, peacemakers", but one day He's just had enough and turns His mighty wrath on the world and destroys it (the second time)? This sounds a lot like the whinings of a puny kid to the bully, "Wait til my dad gets a hold of you!"
Does God ask us to be more patient than He is - more tolerant - more MERCIFUL? OK, I can see evil being eradicated along with those who are so entrenched in it, they are hopelessly lost - but torture? "We" don't believe in ever burning hell fire, but I think "we" believe that the more evil will die slower. What's the difference - and what's the point? Even we, sinful creatures, have figured out that punishment should only be for education; who would be educated, at the end of time, by evil doers suffering longer and more agonizing deaths? Is it meant to warn the universe not to "do that again" (sin, that is)? A better lesson would be, an ever-burning, torturous hell, where the saved could be reminded "not to do it again", just in case they forgot a couple of billion years later.
"God loves us so much that Jesus would have come and died for just one person." But if that one person turned it all down and didn't respond, God would then turn around and kill him by a slow death?
None of this computes for me, sorry.
Sirje,
>>
This sounds a lot like the whinings of a puny kid to the bully, "Wait til my dad gets a hold of you!"<<
Actually it's not His dad it's Him, the meek and lowly Jesus now coming as King. Rev.19:11-21.
>>None of this computes for me, sorry.<<
At His coming and after the Judgment (Rev.20 :12-15) The wicked will be consumed and "repaid" as God see's fit. Perhaps Hitler may burn a little longer, ya think, if that seems just to you to allow God to do it?
Can you support they will not be "eternally" destroyed by a few text for us?
>>Does God ask us to be more patient than He is - more tolerant - more MERCIFUL<<
No,... you nor I will never be as patient as Jesus was and that is why you need a savior for we have never exhibited all the fruit of the Spirit perfectly and some of those fleshly things yet remain in us.
Sirje, With your framing I would not understand it either.
regards,
pat
that was the final nail in the religious coffin for me, Sirje...
the concept that a "loving God", after an exact and precise 1000 earth revolutions around the sun (not the other way around as Joshua's tale would have it), would raise the dead up, then fully and completely show them where they had gone wrong...then, just as they cry out...
...WHY DIDN'T YOU EXPLAIN IT TO ME THAT WAY EARLIER!!!!!
I MIGHT HAVE BELIEVED!!!
...then our loving God just burns them to death.
hopefully, at least that part of the Great deal is a stone age mythtake.
and understandably I prefer neither to be forced to watch, nor be an involuntary guest/participant at the autodafe.
>>...WHY DIDN'T YOU EXPLAIN IT TO ME THAT WAY EARLIER!!!!!
I MIGHT HAVE BELIEVED!!!<<
No they wouldn't. They despise His ways and want autonomy from Him...they don't need Christ or they would not be there.
Back to the issues Jim brought up:
Pat, if you heard a voice in your head telling you to slit your son's throat and burn his body, how could you tell if a loving God or a malicious Devil were giving the orders?
http://freechristimages.org/Images_Genesis/Rembrandt_Abraham_And_Isaac.jpg
I know you don't want to "despise God's ways," so...how would you know?
Thanks!
"God told me to kill boys," says mother:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boy...
'God' told bus cannibal to kill:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/568204-god-told-bus-cannibal-to-kill
God told me to kill my baby:
http://allphilosophy.com/topic/1908
God told me to kill them
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian/TCNHM58VUR4M0FGGM
God told me to behead women:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21756
I Samuel 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
How can you discern the difference between the above examples, Pat?
"They despise His ways and want autonomy from Him...they don't need Christ or they would not be there."
It would be hard not to despise anyone who ordered such killings, as per the articles Maggie posted. Why do we condemn and incarcerate people today who commit such crimes but let God off the hook because he is God?
Sorry, here's another who cannot and will not bow down and worship such a god. Would you, could you, expect to see your loved ones barbecued simply because they rejected the god that millions have been presented by many priests and evangelists throughout the ages?
I would certainly reject such a god through fear, not love.
Would you love your earthly parent who said, "Son, you have disobeyed me, so I must destroy you." How in the world is that different from God who will destroy in the end? If He doesn't want us to worship him from fear, it's certainly a wrong way to encourage anything but fear.
Of course, none of this would be discussed here if many did not believe every word in the Bible is directly from God and no questions should deviate from His Word, although attempted rationalizations and justifications have been given, they're totally ineffective for changing the Bible's words.
How do we know from John's Revelation that it did not originate in wishful thinking as retribution for the Christian persecutions that were being conducted by the Romans? Why should they have condemned the Romans when the claimed their God did the same things many years earlier?
They despise His ways and want autonomy from Him....
That is false. I have a higher standard of evidence than hearsay when somebody is trying to sell something.
What justification could I have for believing and acting on what is basically a voice in someone's head? Its irresponsible to make decisions based on such flimsy reasons in day to day life yet holier-than-thou humans conclude that those that don't accept "voices-in-head" evidence are somehow destined for the Lake of Fire.
When a person explains "what happened", and some of their explanation is possible to falsify while other parts of their tale has to be accepted or rejected without the possibility of testing, if the parts of their testimony that can be tested turn out to be ignorant hill-billy wive's tales or just plain myths then it would be irresponsible to accept the untestable bits of their story.
Based on EVIDENCE easily available it is easy to ascertain that the goat herders were basically clueless, passing down common myths about deities, nature, and history. As Pastor Coffin's article points out should people today accept the stories at face value or just write off parts to being an ancient way to assign meaning to their world?
Today, when somebody says "God Told me ...." the best thing to do is run. Or call a psychiatrist.
Paul or John or "Moses" says "God told me ...." and people spend their whole lives trying divine what the meaning is.
Seeing God's Will done makes believers happy.
Its God"s Will that some of your relatives burn in the Lake of Fire.
For believers, seeing their relatives burn in the Lake of Fire will make them happy.
***
That is a demented philosophy, IMHO.
AND, its ALL based on voices in people's heads.
Hearsay is worthless. Therefore, to me, following a religion would be worthless. It would actually be wrong in my way of thinking.
Since many of my family are deluded brainwashed members of my former church I will plug away patiently as the "black sheep", standing up for verifiable Truths, reason, and dismiss "voices in a head" claims.
Maggie,
>>Pat, if you heard a voice in your head telling you to slit your son's throat and burn his body, how could you tell if a loving God or a malicious Devil were giving the orders?<<
He has never told me that...but if I were Abraham and knew His voice well from His previous vocal and other dealings with me then I would hope to obey in faith. As the NT said he "trusted that God could raise Isaac from the dead."
What amazes me just as much was Isaac getting on the alter...my son would be rightly long gone! :~)
No... I do not see that as ever a legitimate test for us today. The difference ...the occassion of instructing the "future 'father' of all nations."
>>How can you discern the difference between the above examples, Pat?<<
Time, setting, previous instructions and evidential leading from God.
regards,
pat
It is at least five years since I heard anyone in Chicago say , "God told me ..."
Florida and Illinois are a thousand miles apart, but even more culturally and religiously.
We think more here about the silence of God. Silence is not absence.
For some, the silence of God is unbearable and they rush to fill the quiet with answers, defenses, anxieties, hopes, and demands.
Many times, after sitting in contemplation, someone will say: "I now realize..."
Something within has changed or been transformed. A new perspective arises, life is renewed.
Maybe God told them, maybe not.
Here's to the healing power of silence, wherever you may live.
Graeme
Keafen & Elaine,
My faith and hope are based on the "inspired Word of God."
I seek and choose through the Spirit of Christ to let IT transform me with what IT says rather than me transforming IT with what I think.
What else can I say? I can only deal with my Faith and hope...not yours.
regards,
pat
Pat,
Israel is the whining kid, surrounded by stronger bullies, even today. Their hope has always been that God will repay the enemies of God's favored people. What else could they have hoped for when they were being led away, captives, by a godless enemy.... It's HUMAN nature to call down retribution on one's enemy. That's why Jesus calls the Christian to a better way, one that mimics the Christian God - merciful.
Yes, we can't be more gracious or forgiving than God, yet Jesus told us to never stop forgiving. Are we to be more forgiving than God (by your description).
No, I can't give you texts to support that evil people will not be "eternally" destroyed. First, men wrote the words we use as "texts". They understood God by looking at their own hearts, and perhaps found retribution there. Throughout the Bible, God has been anthropomorphized, having feelings like we have and reacting as we would react.
Secondly, if evil is an aberration in the universe, then it must not continue. If life comes from God, then those that don't choose God, are choosing non-existence. I can understand that that might be the case. It's about the torture that I have problem.
I don't know what will happen to the wicked, or the self-righteous. Notice I said nothing about the righteous - because "there is none righteous, no not one". If any of us make it beyond those pearly gates, it's not going to be about clean living or our safe-to-save characters.
The only decision we have to make is "who was Jesus". Upon that answer, lies our eternity.
If any of us make it beyond those pearly gates, it's not going to be about clean living or our safe-to-save characters.
Have to agree, Sirje.
That's why Jesus calls the Christian to a better way, one that mimics the Christian God - merciful.
But...doesn't the "Christian God" also plan to burn billions alive?
>>Are we to be more forgiving than God (by your description).<<
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Rom.12:19-21.
I choose to forgive by the "method" He has given of handing it over to God/Him. If God chooses in judgment to forgive them or execute vengence, He will do the right thing.
Wrath will come...it is merely dlayed till judgment. OT actions were mini judgments by the same NT God who will one day (delayed) pour out wrath without restraint.
Torture...likely more mental than just physical.
" Righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, O Holy One, because Thou didst judge these things; 6 for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and Thou hast given them blood to drink. They deserve it.” 7 And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Thy judgments.”Rev.16:5-7.
>>Notice I said nothing about the righteous - because "there is none righteous, no not one". If any of us make it beyond those pearly gates, it's not going to be about clean living or our safe-to-save characters.<<
Agreed, There are evidential changes but it is all about Grace through Jesus Christ.
regards,
pat
1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good.
His love (hesed) endures forever.
10 to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.
11 and brought Israel out from among them
His love endures forever.
15 but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea;
His love endures forever.
17 who struck down great kings,
His love endures forever.
18 and killed mighty kings—
His love endures forever.
Sihon king of the Amorites
His love endures forever.
20 and Og king of Bashan—
His love endures forever.
21 and gave their land as an inheritance,
His love endures forever.
22 an inheritance to his servant Israel;
His love endures forever.
23 to the One who remembered us in our low estate
His love endures forever.
24 and freed us from our enemies,
His love endures forever.
25 and who gives food to every creature.
His love endures forever.
26 Give thanks to the God of heaven.
His love endures forever.
Ps.136.
"After these things I heard, as it were, a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying,
“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God;
2 because His judgments are true and righteous; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.” 3 And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever.” 4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” 5 And a voice came from the throne, saying,
“Give praise to our God, all you His bond-servants, you who fear Him, the small and the great.”
6 And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude and as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying,
“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.
Rev.19:1-6.
What else can one say?
regards,
pat
Maggie,
But...doesn't the "Christian God also plan to burn billions alive?
Or maybe it's the Christians of the Christian God...? Or, maybe it's a refining fire? Or, maybe it's a metaphor? Whatever it is,I'm not passing that part on to my grandson. All he's getting from me is unconditional love. Someone else is going to have to tell him the rest of the story, whatever it is... .
Totally with you, Sirje!
Wrath will come...it is merely delayed till judgment.
Pat, why do you not believe the OT? The story to Adam & Eve was that if THEY ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil THEY would die.
OK, but then the story changes to the idea that because the First Parents made a mistake (by eating of a magic tree which allowed them to understand what a mistake even was or meant) somehow a "bad" gene was inserted and ALL the humans forever more would be inherently prone to making mistakes.
OK, so everybody, by design, is mistake prone and dies. What, in the Mosaic Law, is called the Penalty of Death is actually the Penalty of a Shortened Life (since we all are already sentenced to death from a woman listening to a snake).
OK, now a NEW theory, CONTRARY to the OT theory, is that not only do you die once but unless you believe that a godman came down and committed Suicide by Roman Governor, thereby having the power to forgive sins and give you a SECOND life- Well, that godman is going to wake you up from your first unjust death and tell you that your attitude or knowledge or beliefs are somehow deficient and toss you kicking and screaming into a lake of fire killing you AGAIN!
So, you reject Genesis and Ecclesiastes and Proverbs etc and latch onto Paul (who is wrong anyway about the NC).
If you can then claim that somehow your deity is "loving" then I hope to never "love" my kids or wife like your deity "loves" humans.
Vengeance may be the Lord's, but will He use it? According to the parable of the Prodigal Son, the elder brother sure hoped so and was, in fact, disappointed when the father accepted his wayward son, running down the path to meet him.
I've often wondered who in their right mind would take up arms against "the holy city" as it descends from heaven, no matter how bad he'd been... . When the whole universe explodes in your face may be the "ha ha" moment for some. Is that when they decide to go back home after all? And how disappointed would the faithful remnant be to see the Father run out to greet them.
Sirje,
>>the Prodigal Son<<
Father, I have sinned.
>>Outside the city<<
" And the fifth angel poured out his bowl upon the throne of the beast; and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues because of pain, 11 and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they DID NOT REPENT of their deeds." Rev.16:10-11.
pat
..."The only decision we have to make is "who was Jesus". Upon that answer, lies our eternity"...
The ALTERNATE decision we should make is:
"what would Jesus do". Upon that answer, lies our present.
maybe our future...at least on earth.
Psalm 136....sounds more like an accusation against God than
deserved praise, doesn't it Pat????
Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good.
His love endures forever.
...Him who STRUCK DOWN the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever
some love!!! terrorizing the general population, killing innocent kids and animals to affect political change....
instead of attacking the head of the problem directly....
because God wanted to "shew His works"...
but wait...isn't that what a somewhat fundamental Christian USA Prez ordered recently in Iraq?
instead of making Saddam personally take the pipe, since assassination is "illegal", we wanted to demonstrate "shock and awe"??? terrorizing the general population, killing innocent kids and acres of goats???
I wonder what Jesus would do if He had a good internet connection, and could finally read and understand all the things said by his contemporaries, friends and ancestors about the "Heavenly Father" of the Old Test.
my suggestion all along has been that for the ideals and morals of Christianity to survive and prosper, they must consider divorce from a literal understanding of much of the Old Test....
same with LDS and the fabled gold plates nobody else could find...much less read.
same with islam and the magic overnight night horse ride to heaven...
and Buddhism? maybe they should join the 21st century and consider giving up chopsticks
just my opinion.....the current "voice in my head"
"unless you believe that a godman came down and committed Suicide by Roman Governor, thereby having the power to forgive sins and give you a SECOND life."
Wasn't the reason for Christ's death contrived long after he was crucified? Is there any evidence that prior to that event that it was the general expectation that only by his death could all our sins be forgiven--as was the death of an animal necessary for forgiveness prior to that?
Who established that new requirement for forgiveness? Has not God always been forgiving? Was he unable to forgive without Jesus' death? What a barbaric idea, that only by a death can forgiveness be legitimized.
Perhaps that is the whole structure on which our penal system also originated: murder requires retributive justice, as exemplifed by Christ's death.
If God can only forgive because Jesus died, does not that imply the his hands are tied and he is either rendered unable to do so unless Christ died?
Yes, isn't that the entire system Christianity erected during the succeeding centuries after his death? We do not know what Jesus himself said, as we only have his life reconstructed several decades later, and all evidence shows that they were reporting from others, not actually having been there. Not only that, there are also conflicting ideas among all the NT writers.
Keafen,
>>Pat, why do you not believe the OT? The story to Adam & Eve was that if THEY ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil THEY would die.<<
They did.
>>Well, that godman is going to wake you up from your first unjust death <<
Why was it unjust they died the first time?
Judgment includes "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" an accounting not just the 2nd death.
>>So, you reject Genesis and Ecclesiastes and Proverbs etc and latch onto Paul (who is wrong anyway about the NC).<<
I don't see how I reject any of them...
Jesus by the way did not commit suicide, He was unjustly murdered. The same "issue" as why God doesn't stop earthquakes...He can but chooses not to...in the case of Christ for obvious revealed reasons...
" for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Rom.3:23-28.
I love my wife and children and I am not God and I would not kill them. God is not desirous that any perish but that all would come to repentance...including me, my wife, and children.
The problem with all of this is that we fail to see the Righteousness of God and His hatred of sin that has created and creates havoc on earth and "the cosmos.". We fail to see our sinfulness. We fail to see the love of God Manifested in Christ to save those who come to repentance and believe in Him...who died a painful death on the cross for us...I suggest as painful mentally and physically as anyone will receive at the second death.
A way has been provided. Will you receive it Keafen?
regards,
pat
Elaine,
>>Who established that new requirement for forgiveness? Has not God always been forgiving? Was he unable to forgive without Jesus' death? What a barbaric idea, that only by a death can forgiveness be legitimized. <<
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to DEMONSTRATE His righteousness, because in the FOREBEARANCE of God He PASSED OVER the sins previously committed; 26 for the DEMONSTRATION, I say, of HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS at the PRESENT time, that He might be JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER of the one who has FAITH IN Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Rom.3:23-28.
No one made God/Christ do anything. It was His own idea and requirement of self- satisfaction of love and justice.
regards,
pat
John,
>>Psalm 136....sounds more like an accusation against God than
deserved praise, doesn't it Pat????<<
I read it as the stedfast love to redeem His people from oppression. We are in a warzone not a pollyanna world.
regards,
pat
Posted by: pat travis | 11 March 2010 at 12:35
Jesus by the way did not commit suicide, He was unjustly murdered.
John 10:11, 17-18:
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Posted by: Sirje Walkowiak | 11 March 2010 at 12:05
Vengeance may be the Lord's, but will He use it?
So glad to know you, wise friend!
Sirje to Maggie - Likewise, grasshopper. :)
Maggie,
>>John 10:11, 17-18:
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.<<
Me..."Jesus by the way did not commit suicide, He was unjustly murdered. The same "issue" as why God doesn't stop earthquakes...He can but chooses not to...in the case of Christ for obvious revealed reasons..."
How does that differ from what I said Maggie? He was unjustly murdered, was he not? Did He pierce His own side?...He could have prevented it but willingly/chose to lay down His life for His sheep.
regards,
pat
Pat, I would go further and suggest that all murders are unjust.
I guess the issue was whether He committed suicide. For some reason, that isn't an interesting question for me.
Point conceded. :)
Regards,
Maggie
Why was it unjust they died the first time?
You seem to imply that its Adam & Eve that unjustly dies. No, its their descendants by being punished for something they could do nothing about. According to Genesis the Death of Adam & Eve would be justified. However, the unjustness is to deny the descendants the opportunity to partake of the Tree of Life. This is where the Original Sin theory makes it seem that there was now some disposition to being bad. Genesis says God cursed the snake, the land, the woman, etc with the inference that we actually sin because God caused it to be that way. The sin did not cause the death as Paul claims. Its the removal of the fruit from the Tree of Life that removed the opportunity to be immortal. Reading Genesis it clearly states that if Adam and Eve had been able to eat the fruit, even as "sinners", they would have continued to live forever.
Does Satan have a special tree over in a cave in Afghanistan? Or, is he a god?
s and Ecclesiastes and Proverbs etc and latch onto Paul (who is wrong anyway about the NC).<<
I don't see how I reject any of them...
You reject Genesis in favor of a Zoroastrian theory. Genesis says you sin, you die, not that you sin, you die, and under a Plan to be Announced at a Later Date God will hold you to account- the weighing in the balance- to see whether you get to live in the sky or get tossed into a lake of fire.
You reject Ecclesiastes because it teaches that when you die and your dog dies there is the same future for both- NOTHING. When you die that is it. Period. Finito. Also, Yahweh judges you as you live and assigns rewards/punishment while you are alive. If you are a bad person you cannot enjoy your family or any wealth you may have. You will live your one life in a state of unhappiness. If you are good, Yahweh will reward you with happiness. There is no judgment in another life or eligibility test to see whether you get another life. It seems as though christians can't stand the fact that some unbelievers do well while some believers do poorly that their deity is going to square it all up in the next life. That is Zoroastrian and contrary to Genesis and Ecclesiastes.
You reject Proverbs because you take oaths to uphold standards of living which contradict Proverbs.
Jesus by the way did not commit suicide, He was unjustly murdered.
That's what the parents say about the death of a son killed in a "suicide-by-cop". You glorify the Cross. Its a Christian symbol. You think the religion would have gone anywhere if Jesus had died an old man? Jesus, according to the storytellers in the Gospels, knew what he was doing, knew the likely outcome, and acted in a manner consistent with the outcome of death. That is suicide by event, whether cop shootout today or Roman ruler 2000 years ago.
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time....
I don't even count it as a sacrifice. How is being in a tomb for 36 hours a "sacrifice"? I sacrifice time writing these words. I can never get it back. In the OT they sacrificed animals that were to NEVER rejoin their herds and flocks. If Jesus had stayed dead forever THEN El Elyon would have made a sacrifice.
God is not desirous that any perish but that all would come to repentance ....
Let's rephrase that: "It says in an ancient book that a certain tribe's deity is not desirous that any perish but that all would come to repentance of what gets that deity upset."
Hearsay piled on top of speculation. Not what a reasonable person would deem to be reliable nor rational to act on.
...sin that has created and creates havoc on earth and "the cosmos".
Somebody refusing to believe in your deity has no affect whatsoever on the natural universe. Sorry, but that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
A way has been provided. Will you receive it Keafen?
I have no interest in the ancient hash-based religion of the Persians, their Magi priests, or the offshoot known as Christianity. You may as well ask me to accept progressive mental dementia.
Paul was the one who extrapolated Adam's sin as coming to all men, as an explanation for Christ's death. He called it a "propriation" meaning exactly what? That it had to be or else none of us would not die?
MOF, we all die, and no one has lived forever. To say that Jesus gave His life is to deny that he was omniscient and had no inkling that it wouldn't be forever. There are contradictory Bible texts, and EGW saying that he "couldn't see beyond the portals of the tomb" does not make it so ("It ain't necessarily so").
Why, will anyone please explain, that had Jesus not died, we would never experience salvation? Truth be told, it is only hope that I may win a million dollars as there is not one shred of evidence that any of us will live again. It is all based on hope, and because "Hope springs eternal in the human breast" has no evidence of reality. Keep hoping, but don't expect evidence. Do you know anyone who has been resurrected? Yes, the Bible writers make claims, but then there is much that they have written that has no evidence to support them. Anyone who believes that man can live after being swallowed (not digested?) in three days, will believe anything if found in the Bible while rejecting all similar claims of "heathen pagans" which are so similar. If it's written in the Bible, it's all true.
If belief in the literality of the Bible has made people better, one must ignore history an all the crimes committed not only in the Bible, but continuing to this day. As the saying goes:
"Evil people commit evil acts; but for good people to commit evil acts they do it in the name of religion." Abraham did, the Israelites did, the Muslims and Christians have also.
If Pastor Coffin wanted responses, he was very successful. As he raised some questions, does he also have answers?
Keafen,
I can see this is going to "nothingness." My faith, shared by many Christians, has nothing to do with "Zoroastrian theory." It has "everything" to do with what both the OT & NT in complimentary continuity reveal.
Have a good day in agnostic land,
pat
Elaine,
Have a genuinely good day along with Keafen in humanistic agnostic land. Not meant to be sarcastic but that which you both openly infer. I wish no ill to either of you. Neither am I your judge. The Words of scripture written and spoken and our response to them are the basis of our judgement.
regards,
pat
Pat,
Perhaps not intentionally, but a primary theme in Adventism is "The Great Controversy" which was totally unknown to the Jews (from whence Christianity was born) but was the main component of Zororastrianism, and whether one knows or not, it was that influence that was adopted by Jews and was later continued in Christianity.
The Jews had no dualism: all things were from God, both good and evil. This is illustrated in many of the Hebrew writings. There was no devil and there was no anti-Christ which was formulated in the first century B.C. and the first mention is in the Epistles of John, composed near the close of the first century.
Apocalyptic literature flourished beginning in 200 B.C. Both Judaism and Christianity inherited Persian dualism from sixth century B.C. Zororastrianism. The Hebrew Bible makes no direct reference to a postmortem Hell--or to a Heaven. Like Heaven, Hell enters Jewish lore after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C., and the subsequent exile of Jews to Babylon, at which time they fell under the influence of Persian dualism and Zororastianism--which made a profound impression on Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Zororaster, the sixth century B.C. Iranian prophet, taught that the soul of death waits three nights to be judged and on the fourth day ascends to the Bridge of the Requiter, where one's deeds in life are weighed. If good outweighs evil, the soul crosses the bridge, which widens and welcomes one straight into Heaven. If, however, one's evil deed are heavy, the bridge sags and narrows and the soul plunges into a freezing and foul-smelling Hell (Dante and EGW echo this).
Before this, the Jews had no teachings on Hell. Christians also borrowed from Zoroaster--"Zarathustra" in Persian--who taught that a person whose good and evil deeds in life are equal in number will, after death, go to "the place of the mixed," and there suffer alternating hot and cold climes until the Resurrection (Purgatory, Limbo).
The first significant Christian story of Hell is found in Luke, who penned his Gospel more than three decades after Christ's death.
Because there is no reference in the early Hebrew Bible of dualism, and it was an influence on the Jews during the Baylonian Exile, is it not unreasonable to presume that they believed this was a better explanation of the dualism of good and evil than their previous explanations of both coming directly from God?
Certainly, it first appears in the early second century B.C. and was carried over into Christianity where it has been a major doctrine since that time. There is no world religions that have not been influenced by earlier or contemporary ones.
Wouldn't our Bible reading be much less complicated if we would just read these Bible stories as simply "stories" of long ago and not try to read them and understand them as Bible history as we understand "history" today? The same with Bible "science"? Just asking.
Alan: yes.
My faith, shared by many Christians, has nothing to do with "Zoroastrian theory."
A fallacious appeal to popularity followed by a denial of truth.
Typical.
Elaine, thanks for the quick historical outline. I realize that you have studied these subjects in depth in a scholarly fashion. Why do so many, with the ease of adding knowledge in today's information age, deem it wise to remain relatively ignorant? Its the 'Believers' that pontificate from a position of ignorance about the origins of those beliefs that are "without excuse", IMHO.
Hi,
Well, I am convicted to share a bit on this, but I don’t know where to start because what I want to say invites support and there are quite a few dots to connect. I believe the support to be vast, but this venue does not lend itself to adequately doing so.
I think your hypothesis reaches as far as the foundations of Adventism. Adventism as a movement was predicated on the declaration that Jesus Christ entered into the Most Holy to finish His work of atonement. This work would culminate in the perfected characters of His faithful on earth.
But, this has not happened. Hence an incredible level of cognitive dissonance in the midst.
Hebrews states that the old covenant is imperfect, the new perfect. It is clear as a bell as to what the perfection of the new is – the worshipers under the old retain a consciousness of sin while the worshippers under the new do not.
The tension in Hebrews (old : animal system and new : Christ –versus- old : worshipers are still sinners and new : worshipers no longer have a consciousness of sin) is resolved by realizing that Hebrews has the same two starting points as Matthew 24.
2000 years ago was a type of a transition from old to new covenant, but as it was also shadow and not very image, even though a transition was made from the cattle yard to Calvary, the physical blood of Christ cannot take away sin. And thus, rightly understood, 1844 is like the OT day of atonement. It is our old covenant type of the future experience in the Presence behind the veil.
I suppose the above sounds like rambling, but I am getting there!
What then is very image? What death and resurrection of Christ is very image? It is the death that is the wages of sin that is expounded upon in Romans 7, which is a death one experiences while remaining physically alive.
The more Christ grew in wisdom and stature, the more He saw, in proportion, the tendencies to sin man has according to his flesh. And while being spotless in character, He felt like that sinner and as a consequence, He bore painful feelings like guilt and shame.
This is the death of Romans 7.
Jesus also triumphed by faith within that experience and this is the resurrection of Romans 7.
At Gethsemane and Calvary, Jesus went into the Presence behind the veil. He saw His Father unveiled. This exposed to Him the fullness of man’s predisposition to sin, he felt like even that sinner, and He consequently bore that load of the wages of sin. He pegged all those painful feelings like shame and guilt and embarrassment so that no man can ever feel any combination and not have a Savior who is acquainted with him.
Jesus also triumphed by faith within that experience.
OK.
The perfection of the New Covenant occurs for “the worshipers.” All persons of faith who are beneficiaries of the New Covenant are perfected. As the only way grace works is by revelation perceived, it must follow that the grace of the New Covenant (the blood of the New) is something “new.” Something heretofore unseen.
I suggest it is this. When the New Covenant is come, man will be enabled to perceive in the realm of feeling. We will SEE Christ bear shame as we bear our own. We will SEE Christ’s triumph within that burden as we are so burdened. We will perceive Him in the realm of feeling.
This then means a radical expansion in the sentience of man.
I suggest that this radical expansion is a feature of what a change in covenant means and so I also suggest that the transition of 2000 years ago represents ANOTHER expansion in the sentience of man.
The author Julian Jaynes in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind suggests that man had no consciousness until a few thousand years ago. He offers compelling support for this. He states that before man had consciousness, he had auditory hallucinations which he believed were “the voice of the Gods.”
At the risk of being more lengthy than I already am, I suggest this may explain much of the OT. Sometimes the voices they heard were the voice of God and sometimes they may not have been. But, I suggest this may have been the sentience of man of long ago and indeed Abraham, as well as all others, were guided by “the voices of the gods” and they did them. (All these things we will do.)
To summarize, I see an expansion in the sentience of man in our future and so I see the transition of covenant of long ago as paralleling this by also including an expansion in the sentience of man – that time from hearing voices to the origin of consciousness. As I said, the next time, from our present state to perceiving others in the realm of feeling.
Tony
Tony
The so called New Covenant is in reality the proclamation that the Covenant of Redemption has been accomplished. The Coenant of Redemption made between the three identities of the Godhead agreed before the foundation of the earth: that if man sinned Christ, the author of Creation would become the surety for redeeming man and become the new federal man of earth as well as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This is classic reform theology. So then the so called New Covenant was the original covenant built upon better signatures and fulfilled every jot and tittle. We call it new because in came into reality long after Sinai. Yet even though it was proclaimed to Abraham hundreds of years before Moses. Tom
Tony, so glad to see you here, friend!
I think you have much to offer, and I especially think your expression, "radical expansion in the sentience of man" will prove a fruitful topic for contemplation and discussion, in the light of Adventist doctrine.
I hope sometime we will be able to discuss your thoughts on travail, as well, which I think are so key.
Tony, speaking of your postulated "radical expansions in the sentience of man," I'm reading a book you might enjoy - it's called The Empathic Civilization, by Jeremy Rifkin.
Rifkin looks at the development of civilization through the lens of empathy as a driver. Interesting stuff. Here's a quote from the Introduction:
We are on the cusp, I believe, of an epic shift into a "climax" global economy and a fundamental repositioning of human life on the planet.
The Age of Reason is begin eclipsed by the Age of Empathy.
The most important question facing humanity is this: Can we reach global empathy in time to avoid the collapse of civilization and save the Earth?
Another quote:
Empathy conjures up active engagement--the willingness of an observer to become part of another's experience, to share the feeling of that experience.
http://www.amazon.com/Empathic-Civilization-Global-Consciousness-Crisis/...
Totally goes along with your,
...going from our present state to perceiving others in the realm of feeling.
Don't you think so? I love it when things dovetail.
(Buy it on Amazon - I paid $28 for it at Borders! Almost 700 pages.)
Needless to say, I see Jim Coffin on the leading edge of taking Adventism to an empathic position.
Kudos to Jim!
I see Jim Coffin on the leading edge...of a new wave....
riding the curl
shooting the barrel
totally "rad"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BOhDaJH0m4&feature=related
but when the wave closes out...as they usually do?
will the wave recede? leaving its riders stranded and bruised on a rocky LIMESTONE reef (more than 6kyo)???
So far this has been a great discussion. Thanks to Jim for opening the door and for others input. I think Elaine and others ask some great questions and we are all looking for answers.
How many of us have ever seen the sunrise or set? Actually none of us have. The sun doesn't rise and set but that is the way we percieve it. Quite likely most on this site are aware of that by now. It is pretty much happening in the mind and the mind is capable of believeing virtually anything. If what we believe gives us hope thats a good thing and I have no problem with that. It is when our belief systems keeps us and or those around us in bondage which is a state of fear that leads to being controlled or controlling others that it becomes problematic. I am not going to rule out the existance of a power beyond myself and what I observe on this planet. While I don't think God ever audibly spoke to or appeared to anyone physically we have all had our moments of "inspiration" and every thing that has gone into our harddrives have influenced us to where we are. I still believe the bible as well as many other writings have shown us the upside and the downside of life and I choose to do what is right because I beleive it makes my life better in the here and now and I hope it will do the same for others. I have that "hope that Springs eternally" but for vastly differnet reasons now than when I lived in fear.
I hope to live somewhere beyond this sate of being so I can continue the "Joy of the Journey"
Since I rejected the fear of an eternally burning hell as well as the adventist concept of a six weeks of burning hell "All fear is gone" and if there is no awareness of life ( conciousness ) after death I won't know anything about.
Life is an experience and the principles taught by many representations such as the Christ have been enlightening and continue to do so.
I like what Paul says in
Ephesians 4:29-32 (New International Version)
29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen (willling as this is what obedience really is). 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice (all negative feelings prodiced by nuerotic fear). 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Whether this was GOD inspired or life inspired I like it and hope to learn to do that before the next part of the journey begins.
Shalome and Blessings to all it is a great place for discussion.
Keep hope alive by loving those who despitefully use and abuse you. Hard to do isn't? The basis of the LAW is LOVE.
Jay
Jay,
"Since I rejected the fear of an eternally burning hell as well as the adventist concept of a six weeks of burning hell..."
I have never heard one Adventist say they believe there will be a period of six weeks in which hell burns. It's definitely not in the core beliefs of the church.
Not to say there aren't Adventists who hold this view, but you can't say this is what the church teaches.
Where in the world did you hear this concept?
Shane Hilde
Posted by: john alfke | 12 March 2010 at 6:34
but when the wave closes out...as they usually do?
will the wave recede? leaving its riders stranded and bruised on a rocky LIMESTONE reef (more than 6kyo)???
That's entirely possible, John.
And for some of us, a deus ex machina 'solution' - i.e., the Second Coming followed by burning the wicked alive - is entirely morally unsatisfying, and no solution at all. (But blessings to those for whom it is the ultimate solution.)
I believe we need to entirely rework our thinking about morality and justice. (I'm not anti-Christian or post-Christian...I'm just out-of-the-box-Christian.)
That's why I appreciate thinkers of broad scope like Jeremy Rifkin, who has thought deeply about how human empathy has developed over vast expanses of time.
So, no...Rifkin and I agree there's no guarantee that the human race can pull this off. But...doesn't that lend excitement and urgency to our enterprise?
Another quote from Rifkin, p. 174:
Bridging The Is/Ought Gap
The inclusion of the core features of awe and reason into a broader empathic consciousness takes us beyond the age-old schism between bodily experience and prescriptive behavior - the so-called is/ought gap - that has long plagued theology and philosophy.
Because both faith-based consciousness and rational consciousness largely denigrated bodily experience, perceiving human physicality and drives as depraved and contaminated in the case of religion, and pleasure seeking and utilitarian in the case of secular philosophy, there was always the need to impose moral codes from above to assure pro-social behavior.
It was always assumed that physical feelings, emotions, and passions were evil, irrational, or potentially pathological and needed to be continually reined in by a higher authority.
Jay, I really appreciated your post above, and Graeme, also yours here:
Posted by: Graeme E. Sharrock | 12 March 2010 at 9:53
In summary: Through hearing and believing the story of Christ's death, we enter a new creation, become sons of God, receive the Spirit, and express it as love.
After more reflection, I have a different question. Paul's argument at different moments seems to rest on the evidential presence of the Spirit in the community. How did the Galatians know they had received the Spirit?
It was the sudden presence of love.
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/sabbath_school/2010/03/07/right...
To "receive the Spirit," one must be receptive, it goes without saying, and as Graeme said,
Here's to the healing power of silence, wherever you may live.
The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.
My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.
My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.
For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;
The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;
The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell.
Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.
Hi Maggie,
Thanks for the nice words, Maggie.
I’ll have to think about your suggestion about that book.
Somehow, I thought God would just give us this perception when the time is ripe, but perhaps it follows some kind of natural order and we collectively make it available.
I guess it’s not real helpful, but to cite metaphor, what is needed to facilitate the new covenant is Elijah who seems to be the fullness of prophecy. God who spoke in time past by the prophets (including our prophet) has in these last days spoken to us by His Son (Heb 1:1-2).
It is interesting that the Baptist (a type of the Elijah of the last days) could be greatest of the prophets, declare that Jesus is the Lamb of God, and yet it is recorded in John 1 two times that he does not know Him, but he makes Him known to Israel.
It does seem to me to connote a whole other manner of knowing.
Elijah is the springboard for Israel’s first 1260 and the 1260’s always represent the experience of the New Covenant in one group and the abomination that makes desolate (and stands in the holy place) by another body. Christ’s 1260 serving as an example and it begins with His baptism by water.
I guess I am mentioning this stuff because while it all seems somewhat cryptic metaphor, whatever the metaphors represent would seem to be some of the stuff that brings about the change (expansion).
Blessings,
Tony
Hi Tom,
I think it’s a bit of a digression, but maybe in one sense it is not.
I see a part of the transition of old to new to include a transition in seeing condemnation as penal to seeing it as inherent. In other words, condemnation is not some penalty doled out by God because we are sinners, condemnation comes from an awakening of one’s own immorality, which is why Jesus despised the shame for us.
Anyway, your view seems penal to me (correct me if I am wrong) and I can see how that would dovetail with the view that redemption is already accomplished. With such a view, the actual change of our character is not redemption, rather a nice byproduct of a redemption already accomplished.
The New Covenant is the writing of holiness in the heart. I know it is not accomplished for the simple reason that I know that plenty of holiness remains to be written in my heart. The New Covenant is what Hebrews says it is when it contrasts it with the old by saying the worshipers still retain a consciousness of sins.
With my understanding, the sum total of redemption are the positive changes that are made in between our ears for that is the only problem.
Which is why I don’t think this is entirely a digression. Because an expansion in sentience may be part and parcel of that very positive change, hence the linkage to Abraham and what I suggested was going on there and hence also an expansion in the last days.
Blessings,
Tony
Posted by: Tony_B | 12 March 2010 at 9:28
Somehow, I thought God would just give us this perception when the time is ripe, but perhaps it follows some kind of natural order and we collectively make it available.
I think your "perhaps" hits the nail square on the head, Tony!
BTW, I didn't mean it as any kind of imperative that you buy Rifkin's book, just that, if you do, no need to pay $10 too much for it.
But...there are jewels on every page, I think!
"To be truly human is to be universally empathic, and, therefore, morally appropriate in one's embodied experience."
~Jeremy Rifkin
I suggest that to be "in Christ" is to be truly human, which is to be universally empathic.
To deny that Christ is "come in the flesh" is antichrist.
Empathy is absolutely a fleshly, embodied thing! Incarnation!
Blessings,
Maggie
RE: Shane on Adventist burnings.
Just a few words from Adventist World.
There seems to be SOME confusion here.
Elaine, If I remember correct has asked for someone to explain why jesus had to die! AT this point I haven't heard a logical asnwer to that .
Shane perhaps you can explain why?
Sincerely.
Jay
The End of Sin and Sinners.
QUESTION: I hear different opinions concerning the final destruction of the wicked. Is it true that God will not destroy them, but that they will self-destruct?
I tend to avoid answering this question because any answer tends to lead to debates, and I am not interested in debating. But since the question seems to be raised more often, let me begin by saying that only one Person
experienced the second death—Jesus Christ. I will approach the topic through His experience, keeping in mind that although His experience was that of the wicked, it was also significantly different.
1. The Problem: Some people believe that sin destroys itself, meaning that sin brings with itself specific results and consequences that destroy the sinner. That is often the case. But the final extinction of sin, sinners, and evil powers is something different. In that case God is described as being directly and personally involved. For some this is a problem because God is described as inflicting death on human beings, """some of whom will apparently suffer more than others""". For them, it would be better to suggest that sinners destroy themselves. I accept the biblical statement: “fire came down from heaven and devoured them” (Rev. 20:9, NIV). I recognize that I do not comprehend the details of that most strange, """divine action""".
2. Jesus Died the Death of the Wicked: """"It would be difficult to deny that God the Father was directly involved in the death of Jesus""""". """"The Bible assigns the death of Jesus to the Father, the Son Himself, and to Roman and Jewish authorities""".
The fact that the Father could have saved Jesus from dying but did not means that the death of Jesus was willed by the Father, that is to say it corresponded to His divine intention for His Son (John 12:27, 28). Jesus drank from the cup of God’s judgment (Matt. 26:39). The Father did not spare Him (Rom. 8:32), but handed Him over to death (chap. 4:25).
Jesus said He would lay down His own life, and that no one had power to take it from Him (John 10:17, 18). Jesus voluntarily gave up His life (Mark 10:45; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:25).
Humans were also involved in the death of the Son of God (Luke 18:32; 22:3; Mark 15:15). The Father, the Son, and humans were directly involved in the death of the Son of God. The experience of Jesus was slightly different from what will happen to the wicked. But in both cases the individual and God will be involved.
3. Jesus Suffered: No one questions that Jesus Christ suffered intensely on the cross. The suffering was physical, but above all it was spiritual: He experienced divine abandonment such as no other human will ever experience (Matt. 27:46). He bore the sins of the world. The wicked will receive their reward according to their personal works (Rev. 20:13). This is not self-inflicted pain or pain inflicted on them by Satan. God will personally give them what they chose as their final destiny in life—eternal death.
4. Jesus Gave up His Life: It was necessary for Jesus to die as the Sin-bearer. He accepted the righteous and just will of the Father for Him. On the cross, He suffered up to the moment He voluntarily gave up His life to the Father. Since His death was part of the saving plan, He endured suffering for a particular period of time and at the appropriate moment gave up His life while shouting, “It is finished!”
In the case of the wicked, their destruction is preceded by their own recognition that they deserve to die. They will bow down and proclaim that indeed Christ is Lord (Phil. 2:10, 11). Yet, the wicked will struggle to voluntarily give up their lives to the Creator. Let me suggest that the intensity of their suffering may be directly related to their unwillingness to give up their lives, which is in turn related to their selfishness. That attitude may lengthen their suffering and allow each one to experience judgment according to their works. Once they give up their lives, God’s justice is vindicated and their existence is erased forever. Then the conflict between good and evil will be over.
Did that help? (Oops, I ended with a question!).
Jay, what bible texts do you use to support that christ died the second death from which there is no resurrection?
Hi Maggie,
To paraphrase Anne of Green Gables, we are kindred spirits! :-)
I will most definitely get that book.
I want to summarize the main thing I was trying to say.
It was to corroborate the topic thread by seeing a TYPE of the last day change in covenant as what occurred ~2000 years ago and seeing the last day transition as including the characteristic of an expansion in the sentience of man and then applying the same to the type.
So, a kind of round-about way of affirming the topic thread.
But, if I could emphasize one point.
I once read the entire NT and jotted down every text that referred to death and resurrection. When I was done, I reread every text I referenced. I came away with a fresh (for me) revelation. Perhaps 95% of the time, the death and resurrection were -not- physical! And this includes the death of the cross, the death that is the wages of sin.
Romans 7 highlights the same basic idea that can be seen in places like Isaiah 6 and Daniel 10:8. In both cases, these men saw holiness to a deeper degree. As a result, a dramatic change took place in their self-perception - they saw themselves as a lot more evil and the sight was a burden to them.
I see the death that is the wages of sin as being burdened with any painful feeling as a natural consequence of enhanced self-perception as a consequence of enhanced perception of moral good. One bears the wages of sin in direct proportion to one's perception of his own sinfulness and one's perception of one's own sinfulness is in direct proportion to one's perception of holiness - "the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
Holiness came, I experienced an enhanced perception of sin, and I was burdened with painful stuff like guilt, shame, and embarrassment.
The resurrection from such a death would then be to not succumb to despair as a choice, but to be victor by faith.
This then is the very image death and resurrection of Christ and it sure would seem the most pertinent "grace" for equipping a person to be made righteous in its final steps. In other words, one appropriates the message of the cross in direct proportion to the degree to which one is crucified. "I am crucified with Christ." "Take up your cross and follow Me."
And this then means a perception in that very realm- the realm of feeling.
This is the blood of the New Covenant and to perceive that blood is to require an expansion in the sentience of man.
By the way, i wish I could use another word. Sentience seems like a big shot word, but I know no other word to use. I can't use consciousness because it is too narrow, possibly being something man lacked a long time ago.
Blessings,
Tony
I think "the realm of feeling" and "an expansion in the sentience of man" are plenty serviceable terms, Tony, my kindred spirit friend.
You could also say "the expansion in consciousness," but that doesn't carry as much of a physical/perception connotation, necessarily.
Blessings,
Maggie
Rifkin also says, "by dismissing the body, neither faith nor reason provide much space for the feminine."
We've been talking about "Receiving the Living Word," and, apologies to militant feminists, but receiving is a feminine function.
Dynamite stuff, IMO.
..."Did that help?".. ...Jay
no, Jay...not much.....at least, not much for me.
mof, it seems to run contrary to the voice in my head telling me I should either believe in a loving ,Christian God of forgiveness, or believe that there could NEVER be an omni everything God who allowed Himself to be depicted as the violent, hateful ogre the hebrews paint Him to be.
I still yearn to believe in a God who is so smart and fair that he would never try to confuse me with divergent evidence. And so kind and loving a heavenly Father that he would never try to drown the whole world, or make animals suddenly grow incisors and start eating each other just because Eve was deceived by a talking snake he forgot to warn her about.
you opined:
..."In the case of the wicked, their destruction is preceded by their own recognition that they deserve to die."...
that runs contrary to human norms that nobody believes they did wrong!!! nobody in jail admits their guilt I hear!!! Hitler may even claim on IJ day that he was merely doing God's work...eliminating the people whose ancestors had killed God's Son!!!....Stalin may say that he was only doing what history and his countrys survival demanded. The hebrews who killed all their neighbors and saved the virgins will use the Nazi excuse that they were only doing what God had commanded them to do.
but for the discussion, lets accept Pauls forecast .... They will bow down and proclaim that indeed Christ is Lord (Phil. 2:10, 11).
I guess I do agree with this part of your end game:
..." the wicked will struggle to voluntarily give up their lives to the Creator"...
wow!!! you betcha!!!! I may be among those 'wicked"...not because I do anything bad in life, actually, I try to do my best...not killing God's animals for my food, limiting my salt uptake of Vegelinks to temperate values on a weekly basis...and helping widows and orphans when I can...but....I can no longer accept literally ALL 27- 28 fundies of the total package, which in some eyes, means that I must be cast out into outer darkness by the brethren in the here and now, and burned to death later.
According to the prevailing theory, I will probably die of Ben and Jerrys of the arteries, then after a thousand years of turmoil which I will thankfully avoid, then God will raise me up, show me just where I went wrong, and THIS TIME...He will do a good job of presenting the evidence which so far has been lacking...and then, just as I cry out...
.....MY GOD!!! WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT THE FIRST TIME!!!!....
why couldn't you have correlated Religion and Science so well earlier!!! I might have believed if only you had....
but Zap...God turns up His cosmic flame thrower to burn-baby-burn, not quite to vaporize, and...in full sight of church members, some of whom believe they should applaud, but a few might wonder what I had actually done so bad to deserve being burned to death....
my heretofore "loving God" burns me to death....and He keeps the pain coming until I stop asking questions????
..." Let me suggest that the intensity of their suffering may be directly related to their unwillingness to give up their lives, which is in turn related to their selfishness."...Jay
is it selfish of me to be "unwilling to give up my life" because I need to ask God why he allowed his explanations in the book of Words He allegedly personally inspired to disagree with the Book of Nature, which He is said to have personally created?
..." That attitude may lengthen their suffering and allow each one to experience judgment according to their works."...Jay
iow, only after I stop asking questions, then God will stop torturing me? my pain is directly related to how much God feels He has been slighted by my failure to understand how Revelation and Science could have been so badly explained back in SS classes?
..." Once they give up their lives, God’s justice is vindicated and their existence is erased forever. Then the conflict between good and evil will be over."...
human reason suggests it may NOT be over..... there could be lingering questions over whether it was fair for God to unilaterally judge people, based on conflicting explanations explained by multiple different divergent viewpoints....
and I personally will not voluntarily give up my life to God..ie, stop asking questions to decrease my pain...until I get a good answer from Him about whether in fact He actually did try to kill everybody with a flood, and why he didn't try to waterboard the pharoah personally instead of massacring innocent Egyptian kids....
sorry...Jay...I have to disagree with your above attempt to "help". I'm one of those who will not go lightly or voluntarily into that long, dark night....my tail on fire because God hates me because I kept asking why He couldn't or wouldn't correlate His sometimes obscure Bible stories with what His Nature obviously declares.
"only one Person experienced the second death—Jesus Christ."
That is an interesting statement, but where do you find it? Is it from the Bible? How can one experience the second death when he doesn't stay dead?
Thanks.
... In the beginning man created God in his own image, after his own likeness ... - and we still keep doing that no matter what style of god we conjure up.
I found these to be amusing and insightful takes on the literalistic approach to the scriptural god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt66kbYmXXk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmhFniUTQIE&feature=related
Jim, your clear thinking that I first encountered decades ago lives on well. I admire your honesty and clarity in wrestling with issues, attitudes and styles of thinking that have the potential to challenge sacred cows and other creatures!
That courage, clarity, honesty and wrestling with reality are the essence of effective philosophy and theological pursuits - rather than getting caught in perpetuating simplistic group think (that is usually not so simplistic because of the intellectual mind games and logic twisting that tries to justify the old ways of understanding that don't really work that well any more.
Welcome newcomers to the end of certainty - and the journey of adventurous discoveries and entering in to the realm of the unknown. The mystics and prophets have been on this journey, even if they believed or claimed God was speaking to them.
Human words fail to convey and express the divine, whether we call that "God" or not. What I appreciate about Jim's style is that he has always been willing to go on his journey of wrestling with issues and ideas and claiming it as his own - not how everyone else should be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt66kbYmXXk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmhFniUTQIE&feature=related
The dilemma has been spoken of several times; How do we know which bits are really from God or true about God and which bits human constructed or at least heavily influenced by human ideas?
Here is a humourous and insightful way of looking at it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
It really is obvious - Love has become our God and everything that doesn't fit into a God of love and social justice is not the real God - even if the Bible makes it out to be.
Once again... in the beginning (and ever since) man has created God after his own images ...
Scary thought: what if God really isn't all loving, kind, patient, forgiving, peaceful - at least not all of the time. What a frightening universe! So we create the God we desire to quell our insecurities and fears. Perhaps... perhaps not... think about it!
"in the beginning (and ever since) man has created God after his own images ..."
Why is this almost universally ignored? How is it possible to do otherwise? If "no man has seen God" aren't all the descriptions merely man's own devising? Isn't that amply demonstrated in the multitude of believing in God, none of which is the "only" and true one?
Yet man keeps claiming all sorts of actions and event that God originates, even the audacity to claim that "God told me...." Shouldn't we show a little more humility in our estimates of God?
Well said, Elaine!
Here's an example of the same type of illogic as the "God told me..." - right out of this week's Wahroonga SDA Church pastor's online newsletter:
Pr Lloyd Grolimund (at the closest church to the South Pacific Division headquarters in Sydney Australia) gave details of the attendance at a variety of church programs then said this:
"God is on the move at Wahroonga Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is not an idle boast – it is an undeniable fact. People are drawing closer to Jesus, revival is breaking out and there is a sense of excitement and anticipation. I have not seen this in my 9 years as pastor. There is more than something in the air – God is in the church – I can feel it, sense it, and see it. "
This bit is the clincher:
"These things that are happening in our church are evidence to me that Jesus is coming soon" - because there is nothing in them that deserves all this, according to the senior pastor.
Then comes the control factor, just like the "God told me..." manipulation:
"If you do not feel, sense, or are experiencing what I am writing about, then you could be missing out on this revival. Humble yourself, get on your knees, immerse yourself in the Bible, repent, and get on board the adventure with Jesus. " In other words, think and feel like me or you're lost.
What about all the millions of times in history, starting with the day of Pentecost, often much larger and society changing than lots of people turning up to Wahroonga church? Signs that Jesus was just around the corner with a second coming? But no, the Wahroonga events are the clincher. Hey, i didn't see anything in Jesus' talk about this sign!
Once again, Adventist theology, well-meaning as it is, scores a hit! Forget 1844 - the Wahroonga revival is the event!!!!
Elaine, See Tim Jennings blog 76, August 8,2008 Did Christ Die The "Second Death". He argues christ did not die the second death but conqured it. His website: comeandreason.com.
Richard,
It is evidence that we are not all on the same wave length. To have some saying that Christ died the second death while others saying that he conquered death indicates that Adventists are still very confused. Is it because there has been ambivalence by many writers and preachers? Could it be possible that there are major differences in beliefs even among Adventists ;-)
Elaine, The forensic view of the atonement requires that christ die the second death inorder to pay a legal penalty for my sins and also to be forgiven. Your right, christ should have remained dead as there is no resurrection from the second death. The reason for the confusion is the mis-understanding of God and his character of love.
The operation of the universe is not judicial based.
If "The operation of the universe is not judicial based," why the many texts referring to God as just? Doesn't justice imply judicial?
If it is on mercy alone, then the justice, judgment, justification ("raised again for our justification" Rom. 4:25). justify and dozens and more that are used in the Bible have no meaning? How can justice, and judgment not be judicial?
I can go for the whole justice bit, but all this forensic and legal stuff regarding justification, and the did Jesus die the second death or not - whew! - they sound ike so much word games and mind games payed by humans with not a lot of better things to do with their time, minds and emotions. In the cosmic scheme of things these all seem to be rather ludicrous. There is life to be lived!!!
For no one in particular (but me included!):
http://www.vahs.org/end.htm
In scripture justice means to do what is right or to put right. Rom. 4:25 in the GNB... "Because of our sins he was given over to die, and he was raised to life in order to put us right with God". Abraham was accepted as righteous after he trusted God. This was not a judicial/legal act of God but a recognition of his condition. Judgement on God's part is not a legal decision he makes but a recognition of our spiritual condition and character.
I don't see sin as a legal problem that requires punishment by God to satisfy his justice. The sinful condition requires healing and regeneration. Christ came to provide the healing remedy, not a legal transaction. The nature of sin has its natural consequences and pays its wage. It does not require an imposed judicial penalty. The healing model of the plan of salvation does not require any judicial act on God's part.
If "The nature of sin has its natural consequences" when are those "natural consequences finally administered? Is the "fire coming down from heaven" a natural event? There are certainly not always "natural consequences" on this earth so are they delayed until the end of time?
Even Job noted that the evil are often rewarded and the good suffer, so when is that day of reckoning to be seen, and will the barbecue suffer longer for some than others? Isn't fear a highly motivating factor for one who wants to avoid the final, fatal fire?
Fear may produce obediance but not love. Perfect love casts out all fear. If God is the one who will destroy those who reject him, then he is a god to fear. The belief that God ultimately destroys those who reject him is the root of all abuse(see Jean Sheldon's book "NO Longer Naked and Ashamed", discovering that God is not an abuser). Elaine, Sheldon has her doctorate in ancient Near Eastern religions and the Old Testament from Berkley and is considered an authority on the book of Job. She teaches theology at PUC.
God does not barbecue those who reject him. If there is any barbecue it is after those who reject him are already dead. God is not the destroyer. When God removes his artificial life support, those out of harmony and hostile to his love will die in his life giving glory. The final destruction of the wicked is the natural result of fear and the rebllion it produces. "Only a God who does not ultimately destroy us if we reject him is a God we can freely love and trust" (Sheldon)
..."God does not barbecue those who reject him."...
unfortunately, that seems to be at odds with official divine policy as expressed by the 27'th fundy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Fundamentals
27. Millennium and the End of Sin
The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city;
.... but fire from God will consume them....
and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)
so not only does God BBQ the wicked, but He raises them from the dead just so He can shew them where they went wrong, according to the book SisterWhite Sez*... and then He brutally kills them again!!!! death by fire while alive. And as John the Rev says, "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever".
* I bet somebody can find us numerous quotes.
John,
I guess that confirms that everyone does not believe in the 28 Fundamentals. If not, they've got some 'splainin' to do.
Yes, sometimes I'm at odds "with official divine policy" when it comes to the character of God and the destruction of the wicked and any legal ramifications involved in the plan of salvation.
The fire from God is not a combustible fire but the glory of his presence. "God is a consuming fire"(Heb. 12:29). God is not arbitrary and the death of the wicked is not an arbitrary decree or act on God's part. Unfortunatly, we as a church still believe lies about God and his character.
"The smoke of their torment" is Not the smoke of a barbacue but the mental torment they suffer as they confront the truth about God and his character of love which they have rejected.
I firmly belive that God will take every one to heaven that would be happy there. If you would be happy in heaven, then you are guaranteed to be there. God is in the business of saving, not destruction.
No doubt when the Holy City descends from heaven the "gates" are open but the resurrected dead do not take the opportunity to enter into the city which verifies God's diagnosis that they would not be happy there.
Unfortunatly, we as a church still believe lies about God and his character.
Are these lies, Richard?
Wrath:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/12977.html?1196314275
Maggie,
I am well acquainted with the texts you listed concerning God's anger/wrath. Of course these all require an explanation within the context of the culture of the time and what God was trying to accomplish.
God met sinful man where he was. Violence, power, idolitry, immorality was the "order of the day". God, on occasion, used his power to put some to sleep (first death) in order to maintain communication with his children and pave the way for his incarnation. All those put to sleep will be resurrected in the appropriate resurection. However, God did run a risk in using his power in these "emergency" measures in that his character might be misunderstood. Even the disciples misunderstood when they wanted to call fire down out of heaven to destroy the Samaritans. Luke9:51-56. In the end, God's use of power will be seen as his wrath of giving up, letting go. Hosea 4:17; 9:10-14; 11:8; 1 Kings14:15,16; Romans 1:18-32. The cross was the ultimate demonstration of God's wrath when Jesus cried out "why are you giving me up, why are you letting me go" Romans 4:25; Hosea 11.
Maggie, what would you have done if you were God under these conditions and circumstances without violating man's freedom?
Basically, when God gets angry, he gives in and lets us have our own way even though the results will be hurtful. God will not force himself on us.
"the resurrected dead do not take the opportunity to enter into the city which verifies God's diagnosis that they would not be happy there."
That is a most soothing interpretation: "they do not take the opportunity"!! This infers that it is solely their non-initiative, not that they are not allowed.
What a marvel of exegesis of the actual text which reads: "When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison....and mobilize them for war....But FIRE WILL COME DOWN ON THEM FROM HEAVEN, and CONSUME THEM...and anybody whose name could not be found written in the book of life was thrown into the burning lake."
Now, where was that text that was alluded to regarding it is not "the smoke of a barbecue but the mental torment they suffer as they confront the truth about God." Was it mental torment when the Christian martyrs were burned at the stake?
If Revelation is only symbolic, what part can be factual and real and what part only a metaphor? This is called literary analysis and dividing some as fact and others as symbolic in the same book, even same verse is to be most selective.
How easily it is forgotten that the entire last book of the Bible is called "John's Revelation" and is what he saw in vision, and like most visions, is not to be taken literally. This is why it has been interpreted wrongly since it was written. Maybe Luther was right when he refused to have it in his Bible. Would we really be better or worse for having read and spent enormous amounts of time deciphering its contents to no effective use?
Richard
I don't think God has "emergencies."
Maggie
Maggie,
You and I are God's emergencies and he sent his Son to deal with our emergency condition. What a wonderful God that would consent to this emergency measure.
How peculiar that an omniscient God gets himself into jams....
That was the price of freedom to make choices.
I think God is more resourceful.
Of course, you are free to worship any size God you wish.
In regard to the pitiful send-off by Abraham, he was wealthy, he could have sent off escorts and make sure they settled down somewhere safe and comfortable as his role, father and a husband. There was no indication that after God spoke to Abraham that it's ok to dismiss Hagar and Ismael that they needed only a little bit of water and a piece of sandwish.
It was Abraham's response. God was gracious to provide all things and why leaving an impression to everyone who read that story that His behavior was bad and we have high expectation on humans. With the provided information, He told to dismiss them. But in what way, not provided. That's the part I leave a feedback here.
Happy Sabbath.
Jimmy Chai
Add your comment