If there is a God. . . . why does He allow evil people to prosper? Why does He allow evil things to happen? Why doesn't He do something? Ever hear those questions asked today?
Well, they were also asked time and time again in the Old Testament.
The cry of the book of Habakkuk is "Where is the judgment of God?" especially against the Babylonians who were more wicked than the Judeans.
Jonah didn't want to go to Nineveh and preach judgment because he didn't think they even deserved a warning.
The psalms are filled with David's plaintive cry of "How long oh Lord?"
Jeremiah was sent to a people who refused his whole life to listen to him. . . . no one repented under Jeremiah.
Noah preached for 120 years and no one believed him. He warned and warned.
Abraham played Let's Make a Deal with God over how many righteous for Sodom and Gomorrah . . . and yet they couldn't even find ten people. No one would listen.
Israel's kings just got progressively worse. . . . each one worse than all their predecessors combined. People suffered under these kings.
Adam and Eve had a murderer for a son and God gave him a mark so no one would touch him.
And between the recordings of the Old and New Testament there was a 400 year period of darkness when there was no voice of God.
So what was the question? Why does the God of the Old Testament seem wrathful and Jesus all about love in the New Testament? The servants of the OT complained God wasn't wrathful enough. Old Jonah sat on that hillside just waiting for God to take out the city of Nineveh. Never happened. He then complained to God. . . that God was too merciful!
Both God's love and wrath are revealed in the old and new testament. Every single account of Jesus with the Pharisees in a public setting was a scathing rebuke of God's judgment against them. Jesus consigned them to hell, called them children of the devil, and brood of vipers to mention a few terms. On the other hand, when He met privately with them, like Nicodemus, or Matthew's friends. . . . He lovingly accepted them.
Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity. Joel 2:13
In the same way that God deals with His children in the NT He also dealt with Israel. . . . always giving them a chance to return to Him and repent. . .. sometimes to the extreme dismay of others like Jonah or David. God always delivered them from their trials once they had repented.
In the New Testament the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and punishes every son whom He receives. Why does any father?
Our days are numbered. . .it is always basically God who takes you out anyway. ..
Same God. . . Scripture says God is unchanging. Not every scripture tells the same thing about God, but it is all there in the OT and the NT.
For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. . . . Why wrath?
" God's wrath is not an uncontrollable destructive emotion directed against those He dislikes. Wrath describes His just, holy response to sin and rebellion. From a human perspective shaped in a world permeated by sin and injustice, wrath and love are seen as polar opposites. In god, however there is no conflict between His great love and terrible wrath. Most human beings know that something is wrong with the world, and there is a deep longing that it be put right. (The multiplicity of religions and sects give a variety of explanations of why the world isn't as it should be. They also prescribe a variety of logically incompatible solutions to right the wrong.) Both God's love and His wrath are the guarantors that what is wrong will be put right. To deny or minimize God's wrath is to obscure what He revealed in the death of His son who bore God's wrath in our place."
And don't forget love. . . . Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. There is an option. . .
[/quote
You might be interested in a book called "the true justice of a just god",if you have questions about this subject.
I forgot to mention this is in response to a question Soul Searcher had upstairs in a thread. I am sure there are others here who remember what TWI taught better than I do.
Here was his question:
"What about this from Joshua 10 on the battle against Gibeon?
As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
(Joshua 10:11, NIV)
The Lord helped avenge the Israelites time and again. And he didn't fool around -- most of the time He made sure that everyone (including women and children) was killed, even those that got away.
So...
Love your enemies? Turn the other cheek? According to Jesus or according to the LORD?
I know this is off-topic but your comment about emulating Jesus caught my attention.
Is there a thread that discusses the God of the OT? Because I have lots of questions. "
"I was recently introduced to those "teachings" on classes from CES/STF and CFFM and I have to tell you: it doesn't do it for me as far as explaining the difference between God's behavior in the OT vesus the NT.
And I wonder how much of what you just described is original WAY doctrine and how much of it came from other places? The dispensationalism, for example (along with four crucified and six denials) comes from Bullinger, no?"
Thanks, geisha. Nice post. Lots to think about there. (I was betting that you wouldn't trot out the "idiom of permission" thing, and I was right.)
So...I'm thinking...thinking...a couple of things come to mind:
#1 If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the large hailstones I mentioned (and, by extension, the ten plagues, fire raining down on Sodom, etc.) were evidence of God's wrath against his lovd ones -- similar to the wrath a parent might exhibit against a problem child, is that right? I'm not trying to corner you -- just asking.
#2 Have you ever given thought as to how a hypothetical Jesus might advise a U.S. president on how to react to and defend against the threat of radical islamic terrorists? I think even a pacifist (of which I am one) can see that the U.S., Israel, and other nations need to defend themselves. That need requires action and, in all probability, violence and war. I don't think Jesus discussed "war" outside of Luke 14:31, unless there's something on the topic in the Book of Revelation (which I've never read.) Nor do I recall anything about the need for a person or a nation to defend itself against agressors.
So what was the question? Why does the God of the Old Testament seem wrathful and Jesus all about love in the New Testament? The servants of the OT complained God wasn't wrathful enough. Old Jonah sat on that hillside just waiting for God to take out the city of Nineveh. Never happened. He then complained to God. . . that God was too merciful!
Both God's love and wrath are revealed in the old and new testament. Every single account of Jesus with the Pharisees in a public setting was a scathing rebuke of God's judgment against them. Jesus consigned them to hell, called them children of the devil, and brood of vipers to mention a few terms. On the other hand, when He met privately with them, like Nicodemus, or Matthew's friends. . . . He lovingly accepted them.
If God is always the same, no shadow of turning, then the so-called OT vengeful God is no other than the NT God of grace and mercy. And likewise, the OT God is a God of grace and mercy, and the NT God is vengeful.
There are some lovely passages in Micah (it's only a little book; have a read). "Who is a God like you, who forgives iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retains not his anger forever, because he delights in mercy and loving-kindness." (Micah 7:18 AMP, a sort of conclusion to the whole book).
What do you want to look for? It's in there. You can see a mean vengeful God - or you can see a caring God. I think there is much in the OT that we of TWI do not fully understand because we were misdirected. A re-read without PFAL-colored glasses might be in order!
It's contradictory but there has usually been scope for those who want to escape "God's wrath" to escape same.
Good post, Geisha, but I think I have to take issue with this:
Our days are numbered. . .it is always basically God who takes you out anyway...
Is it?
Always? "Basically"? God? "Takes you out"? How does that fit with John 10:10a - "steal, kill and destroy" - the mission of "the thief" - the devil?
Anyway, to pursue that particular line might be a bit off topic, and what Geisha wanted was to discuss perceptions of God in the OT compared with the NT.
Have you ever given thought as to how a hypothetical Jesus might advise a U.S. president on how to react to and defend against the threat of radical islamic terrorists? I think even a pacifist (of which I am one) can see that the U.S., Israel, and other nations need to defend themselves. That need requires action and, in all probability, violence and war.
Jesus lived in a country under brutal occupation by a feared and greatly hated army. What did he say? "Turn the other cheek." His own supporters were unimpressed with this response, and some walked away.
In the OT, Israel commonly got into trouble when it made allegiances with other nations for offensive purposes. God said that he would defend his people. It wasn't always instant deliverance. When it came to defensive purposes, they were to arm themselves but not go after the opposition. When they did, they suffered.
How Jesus might advise the President today? He "advised" the leaders of his day. He told the Pharisees and the Sadduccees that they were hypocrites. He challenged them on their behavior. He challenged them to do the Godly thing. He challenged them to have grace and mercy.
A soft answer turneth away wrath. Colin Powell tried a soft (less aggressive) answer and got kicked out by the warmongers.
Jesus got to stand before the local ruler of the occupying army (Pilate) and what did he say? Nothing at all! (How's that for a soft answer?!) He let the hypocrites expose their own warped standards.
The bold prophet Nathan confronted king David on his hypocrisy, greed, lust, murderous behavior.
I think a hypothetical Jesus would challenge the US govt on its hypocrisy, its greed, its ill behavior toward other countries. The US has no leg to stand on, for example, when it comes to "democratic elections" when in fact the presidency (any presidency) is not acquired by merit but by the biggest campaign coffer and how many interest groups can be got onside.
I could say much on this - but that'd relegate this thread to Politics and Tacks.
If God is always the same, no shadow of turning, then the so-called OT vengeful God is no other than the NT God of grace and mercy. And likewise, the OT God is a God of grace and mercy, and the NT God is vengeful.
There are some lovely passages in Micah (it's only a little book; have a read). "Who is a God like you, who forgives iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retains not his anger forever, because he delights in mercy and loving-kindness." (Micah 7:18 AMP, a sort of conclusion to the whole book).
What do you want to look for? It's in there. You can see a mean vengeful God - or you can see a caring God. I think there is much in the OT that we of TWI do not fully understand because we were misdirected. A re-read without PFAL-colored glasses might be in order!
It's contradictory but there has usually been scope for those who want to escape "God's wrath" to escape same.
Good post, Geisha, but I think I have to take issue with this:
Is it?
Always? "Basically"? God? "Takes you out"? How does that fit with John 10:10a - "steal, kill and destroy" - the mission of "the thief" - the devil?
Anyway, to pursue that particular line might be a bit off topic, and what Geisha wanted was to discuss perceptions of God in the OT compared with the NT.
Jesus lived in a country under brutal occupation by a feared and greatly hated army. What did he say? "Turn the other cheek." His own supporters were unimpressed with this response, and some walked away.
In the OT, Israel commonly got into trouble when it made allegiances with other nations for offensive purposes. God said that he would defend his people. It wasn't always instant deliverance. When it came to defensive purposes, they were to arm themselves but not go after the opposition. When they did, they suffered.
How Jesus might advise the President today? He "advised" the leaders of his day. He told the Pharisees and the Sadduccees that they were hypocrites. He challenged them on their behavior. He challenged them to do the Godly thing. He challenged them to have grace and mercy.
A soft answer turneth away wrath. Colin Powell tried a soft (less aggressive) answer and got kicked out by the warmongers.
Jesus got to stand before the local ruler of the occupying army (Pilate) and what did he say? Nothing at all! (How's that for a soft answer?!) He let the hypocrites expose their own warped standards.
The bold prophet Nathan confronted king David on his hypocrisy, greed, lust, murderous behavior.
I think a hypothetical Jesus would challenge the US govt on its hypocrisy, its greed, its ill behavior toward other countries. The US has no leg to stand on, for example, when it comes to "democratic elections" when in fact the presidency (any presidency) is not acquired by merit but by the biggest campaign coffer and how many interest groups can be got onside.
I could say much on this - but that'd relegate this thread to Politics and Tacks.
Excellent Twinky. .. better than I could ever articulate. . . . and yes, that God taking you out part is iffy... it can be taken just like you said. . . I recant. :) Thank-you. . . . I really don't think I am good at explaining things. . . I used to have te exact same questions as SSearcher until I really started looking at it.
One good thing to do is to read the OT and NT together. There are schedules floating around and certain things in the OT and NT correspond.
Soul Searcher,
What I meant was that God treated Israel like a father. . . . but, frankly, there were times Israel really suffered in the OT. . . . famine, exile. . . . sickness. . . . it was when they turned to idols. Whenever they repented He delivered them. . . .He warned and warned. . . . that is what all those prophet's were for. . . but, Israel was prone to turn away easily. He kept offering Himself to them and they kept going elsewhere. He chose Israel to bring Himself to the rest of the people as well. . . . He was not just for Israel. . . . but, that is how people came to Him.
Does that sound familiar? :)
If the God of the heavens and earth offers Himself to us. . . . promises fellowship and joy. . . . and we say no thanks. . . what are we turning to? If the bible is about life, purpose, creation, and the plan of mankind. . . . what else is there. What kind of God must He be. . . . to speak and from nothing there is something. A magnificent something. A friend who works in Cosmology said to me. . . . "I don't know how much is science and how much is just ART". What kind of being must He be?
The bible tells us He is holy. When you start contemplating that one. . . it makes a bunch more sense. It tells us He is just. . . well, that concept is sometimes lost in our society, but justice is a real thing. . . many of us long for it. . . . although I am fairly careful on that one and plead the blood of Jesus.
So, no, Sodom was punishment for sin. What are we speaking of here though. . . . gay couples adopting unwanted children from other countries and going to PTA meetings. No, that is not what was happening in Sodom. What do we as a society do when someone rapes, murders, or hurts a child? We lock them up and sometimes execute them. They are punished. Pedophiles are repeat offenders. . . . there is very little room for recovery.
Even still God removed the righteous. But, how great was Lot? What did he end up doing? Yet, God still had mercy on him.
I will think about the other question, but Twinky fairly nailed it. Oddly, I am off to a prison today to speak to people about repentance and forgivness. LOL
Abraham played Let's Make a Deal with God over how many righteous for Sodom and Gomorrah . . . and yet they couldn't even find ten people. No one would listen.
I found that bargaining routine somewhat odd -- and fairly entertaining, I must say.
So they couldn't find ten righteous people in Sodom? There were no innocent women and children? Of course there were. But where was God's love and mercy?
You know, it's interesting that the 'evil, wicked' factor of the people who God found worthy enough to focus his wrath upon just happened to be those who 'worshiped other gods', who refused to turn to the god of the Israelites.
As regards Isreal defending itself, that's one thing, and it's worth showing wrath upon the invaders. But far more often than not, the enemy country was not invading Israel, but rather Israel invading _them_. Classic example: the Samuel, King Saul, and the Amalakites situation. (No, that's not an early 60's singing group. )
I mean, when God sees fit to have someone stoned to death for simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath, ... spare me the 'God's mercy' song-and-dance, OK?
If God is always the same, no shadow of turning, then the so-called OT vengeful God is no other than the NT God of grace and mercy. And likewise, the OT God is a God of grace and mercy, and the NT God is vengeful.
.
.
.
What do you want to look for? It's in there. You can see a mean vengeful God - or you can see a caring God. I think there is much in the OT that we of TWI do not fully understand because we were misdirected. A re-read without PFAL-colored glasses might be in order!
Anyway, to pursue that particular line might be a bit off topic, and what Geisha wanted was to discuss perceptions of God in the OT compared with the NT.
I'm reading the bible for the first time (without any colored glasses on) and finding out that I have a lot to learn about God. I'm reading the OT and NT at the same time, and it seems to me that the God of the OT isn't just different from the one in the NT, but the OT God didn't seem to be internally consistent or fair in doling out punishment.
Was the Sabbath Day wood-gatherer in Numbers who was stoned to death on God's order the only person to ever gather wood on the sabbath? I don't think so. Yet Moses (it was Moses, right?) goes through the trouble of telling us about that one guy. So far, I don't remember any other Sabbath Day wood-gatherers getting summarily executed for his or her transgression.
... spare me the 'God's mercy' song-and-dance, OK?
<_<
Ummm okay. . . except I don't think I was offering you a "song and dance". In truth, I didn't start this thread with you in mind at all. I get the distinct impression exploring scripture is not one of your main pastimes. Call me crazy. . . . just a hunch.
This is actually the only thread I have ever started here other than when some people in my life died and I put something in the Memorial threads.
How to discuss this topic without offending you. . . . hmmm . . . . if you have any suggestions I am open. . . . but, other than that, I may have to mention God's mercy as I contrast it against God's wrath.
Hope it is okay here in the doctrinal section. . .. where we discuss doctrine. . . . sometimes biblical. . . . and as you are aware . . . on occasion the bible does mention God's mercy.
Please don't take it as any kind of offering to you. . . . I assure you it isn't one.
I found that bargaining routine somewhat odd -- and fairly entertaining, I must say.
So they couldn't find ten righteous people in Sodom? There were no innocent women and children? Of course there were. But where was God's love and mercy?
The bargaining routine was more a study of God's righteousness (don't look Garth) and God's mercy. Abraham was the first person in scripture specifically mentioned by God to be righteous. He had just finished confirming, for the third time, His covenant to Abraham, that He would be the father of many nations. There was a defining contrast between the unrighteous people of Sodom and Abraham.
Abraham had a clear understanding of God's character. . . . that God is just. Part of justice is judgment. . . . scripture speaks to this all over the place. . . . it is basically the whole point. Sets people's teeth on edge. . . . . we will be judged according to what we do, how we live, and the decisions we make. That is life baby! Unless one is perfect that is why we need a savior.
Abraham knew God and also was known by God. . . . He had an acute understanding of God's mercy. But, God does not abide sin forever and the time for judgment was coming. Abraham acted as intercessor. He wasn't really playing games with God. The outcry of the city against god had reached heaven.
Abraham asked for the city, all the people, if there were righteous. . . . notice God let him bargain it to ten. . . . also notice that Lot was not a totally perfect person. . . . he was tainted by what was going on in Sodom.
The righteous and the wicked are not dealt with in the same manner by God. " Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from you! Shall not the judge of all the earth do justice?
What is just? Abraham knew what was going down. He also knew God would show mercy to the righteous and for the righteous sake. . . well, why can't we understand these concepts of good and evil. How much plainer can God be? Yet, He would have spared the city.
As far as there being innocent women and children destroyed. . . . where do you get that? Scripture actually isn't saying that. It mentions only Lot's two daughter because it says all the young and the old and ALL the people from every quarter surrounded Lot.
Now. . . . why Lot? Why were they so angry with him? Because, they said "this one came in as an alien and already he is acting like a judge. . . . now we will treat YOU worse than them"
People do NOT like to have their sins exposed, be it scripture, preaching, conviction. . . . it sets some people to extreme anger. Teeth gnashing anger. Most people like John 3:16 but, they don't like verse 19.
Even after they were blinded they still were trying. What were they trying to do BTW? Rape! Lot was going to get worse than rape.
It isn't like Abraham was stalling or trying to get a FEW of the righteous out. . . God was going to spare the entire city if there were even ten righteous. . . . they couldn't even find five.
I have had all these same questions SS. I do understand. . . but the more you look at it in light of God being God it becomes clearer I think :)
Hope I made sense. . . I do ramble all over the place. . . I know what I want to say . . I just have a difficult time articulating.
Ah yes, idols. Let's talk about the golden calf for a minute. (Please turn to Exodus 32 in your bibles...)
What lesson are we to draw from this account?
Moses was gone for while and the people got restless and wild. Then it was Aaron's idea to melt down everybody's gold and create a golden calf. God was understandibly angry and sent Moses down to straighten his people out. Moses pleaded with God on his people's behalf and God relented.
Fine.
But then as Moses approaches the camp and sees that everyone is out of control, he gets ....ed off himself. Aaron told him what they had done and so Moses has the Levites go in and kill 3,000 "brothers, friends and neigbors."
Harsh, but okay.
The next day Moses admonishes the people for their sin and says he'll go and try and make it right with the Lord (never mind that 3,000 were executed already). But instead, Moses's plea only seemed to remind the Lord of what happened, so the Lord struck the people with a plague.
Ah yes, idols. Let's talk about the golden calf for a minute. (Please turn to Exodus 32 in your bibles...)
What lesson are we to draw from this account?
Moses was gone for while and the people got restless and wild. Then it was Aaron's idea to melt down everybody's gold and create a golden calf. God was understandibly angry and sent Moses down to straighten his people out. Moses pleaded with God on his people's behalf and God relented.
Fine.
But then as Moses approaches the camp and sees that everyone is out of control, he gets ....ed off himself. Aaron told him what they had done and so Moses has the Levites go in and kill 3,000 "brothers, friends and neigbors."
Harsh, but okay.
The next day Moses admonishes the people for their sin and says he'll go and try and make it right with the Lord (never mind that 3,000 were executed already). But instead, Moses's plea only seemed to remind the Lord of what happened, so the Lord struck the people with a plague.
And Aaron lived.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it?
I always wondered why Aaron made it. It says Aaron's sons were zapped, but Aaron melted the earrings! Maybe it was worse for Aaron to survive? Imagine trying to live with that? I don't know. . . . it says Aaron was chosen too .. . . . as Moses' mouthpiece. . . . maybe God had a purpose for him.
It does seem kind of Random.
If I was God, I would have made Aaron the example.
Ummm okay. . . except I don't think I was offering you a "song and dance". In truth, I didn't start this thread with you in mind at all. I get the distinct impression exploring scripture is not one of your main pastimes. Call me crazy. . . . just a hunch.
This is actually the only thread I have ever started here other than when some people in my life died and I put something in the Memorial threads.
How to discuss this topic without offending you. . . . hmmm . . . . if you have any suggestions I am open. . . . but, other than that, I may have to mention God's mercy as I contrast it against God's wrath.
Hope it is okay here in the doctrinal section. . .. where we discuss doctrine. . . . sometimes biblical. . . . and as you are aware . . . on occasion the bible does mention God's mercy.
Please don't take it as any kind of offering to you. . . . I assure you it isn't one.
First off, I didn't take it as 'an offering' to me, or anything else directed at me. ... Last time I checked, I do think that this is a _public_ thread, addressable by _anyone_ who wishes to contribute.
Two, since this thread _is_ in regard to the 'scary Old Testament God', I was addressing what (I thought) are discrepancies about how the OT god often (supposedly) showed righteous wrath towards many people who didn't pose any threat towards that society (ahh, no REAL threat, in any event) or did anything hideous or immoral that would be considered as such by many moral people here. ... Then again, perhaps gathering sticks on the Sabbath, mixing different cloths in one garment, ... or not worshiping "The Lord thy God" as one nation was probably seen as a Clear and Present Danger back then, and, of course, society went into a moral tailspin since then.
And that's righteous judgment that you find so worthy of praise?? <_<
You're more articulate than you give yourself credit for, you just sometimes get ....ed off at us heathens!
I appreciate your efforts to explain the "apparent" contradictions in the bible; I'm not personally convinced, but your arguments are reasonable and rational once you accept certain premises.
Some of what you're saying is interesting to me in light of Brit Hume's opinion about what he thinks Tiger Wood's religion is. Eastern religion is often about justice and balance, not imposed necessarily by a deity, but by the universe balancing itself out.
First off, I didn't take it as 'an offering' to me, or anything else directed at me. ... Last time I checked, I do think that this is a _public_ thread, addressable by _anyone_ who wishes to contribute.
Two, since this thread _is_ in regard to the 'scary Old Testament God', I was addressing what (I thought) are discrepancies about how the OT god often (supposedly) showed righteous wrath towards many people who didn't pose any threat towards that society (ahh, no REAL threat, in any event) or did anything hideous or immoral that would be considered as such by many moral people here. ... Then again, perhaps gathering sticks on the Sabbath, mixing different cloths in one garment, ... or not worshiping "The Lord thy God" as one nation was probably seen as a Clear and Present Danger back then, and, of course, society went into a moral tailspin since then.
And that's righteous judgment that you find so worthy of praise?? <_<
Garth,
I am happy to have you discuss these things.. . . my point was they are not offered to offend you.
People in the OT used to complain to God that He was too merciful. . . too lenient. I can't imagine you are proposing the same thing?
It all swivels on an understanding of a holy God.
Once the people left Egypt and entered the wilderness. . . . about 2 1/2 million people they had a society. Moses went to meet with God and God told Him this is how you are to do it.
The people agreed. They accepted the terms. They said yes. They were going to show God that they would listen to Him and obey Him because He had just delivered them. Remember, God did not give them the law in Egypt and tell them measure up and then I will save you. He saved them and they responded in gratitude and promised obedience. They understood about judgment, punishment, destruction, and exclusion. They had just seen what had happened to Egypt.
Is it possible that the bible is dealing with a world of corruptness and ambiguity. . . much like we live in today? It is an assumption that God always approves of what happens in history.
The people gave God their word they would keep His rules.(We will gladly do it) A persons word is their bond. What happens when you don't keep your word and you willfully break a rule? There is usually some kind of consequence.
Israel was a very morally degraded society. God took the least esteemed group of people to take Him to the rest of the nations. . . .He always does. . . . Israel had a specific relationship with God. The scriptures are clear about freely entering into a relationship with God. Jesus said count the cost. . . . make sure it is what you want. You do not enter into a covenant with God lightly. It is something sacred. God is holy.
And you are assuming these are arbitrary laws and applying your moral and ethical standards on a completely different society. One with a specific purpose.
Israel was to live DIFFERENTLY than other nations, by even the most mundane tasks being mandated they learned obedience. Sacrifices, rituals, diet, clothing, cooking were all carefully ordered by God to teach that Israel was to live differently from EVERYONE else. It was also an external display of separation from sin within their hearts.
They were to be holy as God is holy and their outward ceremonial behavior. . . . it was an external expression of heart holiness.
If you consider that God was really training a people to live in His presence. . . it doesn't seem so strange. The people He was training were fairly difficult people, but they agreed to the rules. . . . they understood why they had them. He told them repeatedly that to remain in the land required obedience to the Mosaic law. They knew it. They chose it.
I do the same thing. . . . I have entered into a relationship with a Holy God by my freewill choice I have chosen to obey Him. What happens when I get too far out of the parameters? I am corrected. The NT speaks of a sin unto death for believers. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. There are warnings all over the place about sinning against God. God is holy.
Do you make these kind of judgments on all laws or just the ones God gave to a specific chosen people at a specific time . . . for a specific purpose. Laws have always varied from time and society. We still have some blue laws here where I live.
The Mosaic law was just until the Messiah came.
And remember the trouble Jesus got into when He healed on the Sabbath? The whole point of Him coming was to be the end of this law . . . . He was who they were waiting for. . .the fulfillment of the law they had freely accepted to enter into a covenant with God as His people.
Strangely, they decided they wanted to keep the law and rejected Jesus. As much as people complain about law they choose it over a free gift. . . over freedom.
Because I do believe God chose Israel for a purpose and I do believe in the Messiah and a Holy God. . . . I understand things differently than you. You seem to have no problem making moral judgments on my beliefs. . . . the standard you use is your understanding. . . . . somehow you manage to think this is righteous. . . no?
Geisha, (I find it rather interesting, and rather ironic, that you choose a moniker that illustrates a Japanese woman who was totally submissive to her master. Totally. ... Perhaps there is more to that moniker that helps illustrate my point than meets the eye? ;))
People in the OT used to complain to God that He was too merciful. . .
etc., etc.
Ie., as I see it, your post here basically boils down to the following points:
1) It's one of those spiritual things that I, being such a schmuck unbeliever, just _cannot_ understand.
You forget who you're talking to. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, both inside of TWI, as well as out of it. For many years. Well versed in the Bible, tho' admittedly not so much anymore, but still enough to be very familiar with the arguments behind it. Hell, I used many of those same arguments such as yourself, and with equal vigor and enthusiasm. ... It's just that I have rejected said faith-based arguments, and walked away from them. ... Yes Virginia, that can be done, ... with no consequences.
2) The people agreed to the terms.
Dang! You make it sound like they signed some sort of contract. (Did they read all the fine print? :unsure: ;)) So morally speaking, if they agreed to 'follow god', they should just give up ANY and ALL valid observations/complaints about whatever unreasonable/unethical/immoral requirements/practices/punishments that their god puts them thru? Ie., to be blindly obedient without question.
Hey, guess what? Leadership at TWI often put us thru similar expectations of blind obedience, and they were/are called a 'damn CULT' because of it. (Your term for it, I believe?) And based upon the same moral/ethical standards that many here regard as 'Christian'. And I seriously doubt that they were arbitrary either.
Yes, back during the bronze age they didn't have the advanced level of morals and ethics that was responsible for today's progress in civilized society. Which doesn't say much for the 'holy' standards that God seemed to have when implementing these laws/judgments, ... does it? I mean, we, as civilized beings, wouldn't even _think_ of applying many of those same practices in today's society, without regarding them as criminal, as unethical, ... as downright wrong. ... Ohh, like stoning someone who doesn't worship your God, as but one of the _many_ examples I can give. <_<
Which leads to 3) Since you have entered into a relationship with God, then you have accepted 'the whole nine yards', as it were. Ie., you have no place to raise any scrutiny/objections to things that you might possibly see as flawed/nonsensical in said belief. (Be they flawed or not) ... In other words, blind faith. Accept without question. Shut up and do as you're told. Put another $20 in the plate. (Ever notice that it eventually gets around to money, hmmm? ;) Always.)
At least that's how I came to see this mindset.
And yes, you do have the irrevocable right to pursue this mindset. ... As I have the equal right to criticize said mindset.
Because I do believe God chose Israel for a purpose and I do believe in the Messiah and a Holy God. . . . I understand things differently than you.
That's right, you do. You see, I come at this, openly, from a more humanistic (oooo, dirty word to most Christians ;)) angle, which applies the 'think for yourself', dare to question any discrepancy or something that doesn't make ethical sense, be it real or imagined, ... even if it questions the 'God' that gives it, ... a proven over the years approach to life. Ie., independent thought. ...
... Which is significantly different than the 'appeal to authority' fallacy of "Thus saith the Lord/It is Written" unquestioning mentality. Ie., UNindependent thought. And before you get angry over that point, think about this. When one has an unquestioning mentality, how can one really have independent thought? ... Try considering that question for a while before you respond.
You seem to have no problem making moral judgments on my beliefs.
No more than you do of mine. So I figure, if you can dish it out, you better be able to take it.
the standard you use is your understanding. . . . . somehow you manage to think this is righteous. . . no?
Well, I tell ya. It sure as hell beats the snot out of the appeal-to-authority, know-your-place, shut-your-face, "This is what God says, and you're to accept it without question", "Put another $20 in the plate" _song-and-dance_.
Been there, done that, ... burnt the fundy t-shirt.
And I close this post with one of my favs from Thomas Jefferson -- "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
You do make me chuckle. My "moniker"? It is simply an extension of something I was doing when I originally registered here. I was selling collectible china on the internet. . . . it is called "Geisha Girl" china. Here is an example of what it looks like. http://www.mygrannys...porcelain_.html not my site, just a good picture for you.
Pretty isn't it? I always have loved it, My grandmother had a full tea set, and she and I would pull it out and have tea. It is just one of those things that I associate with happy memories. When I signed up here. . . . I was dumbfounded looking for a name. . . . I looked around. . . saw the china and voila' a name. The 779 is because I usually pick a common name when needing a handle on a site. . . . like you tube or an email account. Not realizing there wouldn't be a bunch of other "geisha's" on here. . . . I tacked on a random number.
Nothing deeper than vintage china.
What I find interesting is your language. You walked away from what you call faith based arguments. You don't speak of walking away from a relationship. It appears you still do not make the correlation between being in a relationship with someone and explaining that relationship in terms of knowing them.
Now, my faith is not in the scriptures themselves, but in God. In who He is. I have no issues with what appear to you to be discrepancies in scripture. . . . . it is because I look at them in light of who God is. . . . who He clearly defines Himself as, holy, just, merciful, loving, and good. Also what my experience with Him in a relationship is. . . . you may question that relationship. . . . . you may not have that relationship. . . . . you may not understand that relationship. . . . . but, claiming some former kinship to it while seeking to invalidate it based on your experience is kind of funny.
Because of your belief system. . . and you do have one. . . . a worldview. . . . you claim there is no consequence for your decisions. I disagree. I will not bore you with the details. . . . it is really not my life or choice. You appear to stand by yours while making judgment on mine. . . . I could do the same. . . but, I won't. As you say. . .. . you know scripture.
While we were in TWI we transferred obedience belonging to God right onto the backs of men. Most of us went into TWI with an eye on a relationship with God. We got tricked.
However, as I explained. . . . Israel willingly and gladly (their word) entered into a relationship with God. . . . one of obedience. They asked for it to be so. . . . You may see it as similar, but it is not the same thing. Again. . . . being in relationship with God, NOT men. . . . willingly accepting the terms is not akin to blindly following men. It is following God on His terms. The children of Israel heard the voice of God. . . . literally. . . . God fed them everyday. They knew Him. I can't really make it clearer.
When someone enters into a marriage. . . they do not spend the rest of their lives worshiping the vows or polishing the rings do they? Questioning things clearly defined before they chose? They do not enter blindly. (In most cultures) But, for purposes of analogy. . . it is a free-will choice. You don't enter into a relationship with the aim of changing the other person. . . . you want that person. There are certain parameters we accept when we marry, things like fidelity. We exclude ourselves willingly from other relationships of the same nature. . . . if people do stray there is usually serious consequences within that relationship. They have broken a vow. . . their word. . . and violated trust placed in them.
I question God all the time. He invites me to come and reason with Him. More than once I have carefully laid out my case before God , and dang. . . . if miraculous things didn't happen and it wasn't so. . . . . . sometimes very specific and unmistakable things. But, why would the children of Israel question the things they understood and had already accepted for a specific purpose? There is more to the point of the mosaic law. . . . . but those are things you question. . . . not them. They got it.
You can bring up plenty of examples in the law. . . . but things being carried out specifically are less frequent. That is because God is merciful and would keep warning and warning, sending prophet's and calling them back. It is such a great study in relationship. He called them as a nation. . . . we are called as individuals.
So, while you may pass judgment on me based on my relationship. . . . . it seems far fetched that you relate to me in light of it. . . . . but, rather from your position from outside of it. In turn, I doubt you ever entered into a covenant with God, giving Him your word to obey and follow Him. . . . . . . . only to unfaithfully walk away. That would seriously bring into question your morals and ethics. . . . those things you use to make value judgments on me.
You're more articulate than you give yourself credit for, you just sometimes get ....ed off at us heathens!
I appreciate your efforts to explain the "apparent" contradictions in the bible; I'm not personally convinced, but your arguments are reasonable and rational once you accept certain premises.
Some of what you're saying is interesting to me in light of Brit Hume's opinion about what he thinks Tiger Wood's religion is. Eastern religion is often about justice and balance, not imposed necessarily by a deity, but by the universe balancing itself out.
I have heard rumbling about the Brit Hume thing. . . I have been so turned off to TV news. . . . I rarely watch. . . and NEVER Fox news. I know there is some flap. I do think Pantheism brings up a lot of interesting questions. It doesn't really deal with origin too much. Things like justice and balance become very subjective. Polytheism is more a metaphor when broken down in a pantheistic faith. It would actually be contradictory. It suffers from several logical contradictions.
Tiger Woods broke a vow. . . . more than once apparently. . . . but, I don't know what his faith or lack of faith really has to do with it. . . . I don't even know what religion he follows. Did he use a faith to justify his actions or did Brit Hume impose that on him?
I am not sure how cheating on his wife will balance out. . . . or any justice that will cosmically find him other than direct consequences within his marriage. Look at VP. . . he escaped this life relatively unscathed. Where was his cosmic justice? Many people die of cancer. . . . people who never hurt a fly.
That is a contradiction. . . . Stalin another one. . . but, notice the concept of justice is present. That would mean justice is fickle and doesn't apply equally within the cosmos balancing. Hard to put faith into such a system. What I find interesting is that we are always left to deal with the idea of justice. It is inescapable.
We build it into our societal systems. The nature of good and evil. At some point we might ask ourselves about the origin of this notion of justice. Pantheism doesn't really address those questions. It does not really define them. It is problematic.
Thanks about explaining to me about the origins of your Geisha 'moniker' (which we all have here. Mine is GarthP2000. ... And, oh well, I had originally thought that it suggested something else. My bad. )
You speak of a relationship with God, which you emphasize more than the scriptures. Ok. And evidently that is what you're loyal to, as you see God to be a very real thing in your life. And, contrary to your ASSumption ;) that I never had any real faith (else I wouldn't have left _fallacy_), I did indeed have had a faith in the Christian God, something that I believed (<--- please notice the emphasis here. Its there for a reason) in. Now I know that that contradicts your supposed belief that no-one who has really had faith or a faith can actually depart from it. ... Well, they can. Like it or not, they can, and often do. ... Why can they do that? Look back to the emphasised words: I believed. Think about what that means. I believed. Ie., accepted as true. And people change what they believe every day.
So my beliefs have evolved and changed over the years: From fundamentalist Christian to Unitarian Universalist to Agnostic Atheist (ie., I don't believe in any god/deity, but can't prove it 100% to be sure. But until the believers prove their side, I ain't buying it)
Oh, and your swipe at me re: "I doubt you ever entered into a covenant with God, giving Him your word to obey and follow Him. . . . . . . . only to unfaithfully walk away. That would seriously bring into question your morals and ethics. . . . those things you use to make value judgments on me." at first ticked me off, as it was a condescending and ad hominum swipe, as well as giving the flawed argument that if I have come to the view that there is something seriously wrong with God, based upon what I see God doing/endorsing in the Bible exactly the things in the OT that you started this thread out with, ... that if I left this belief system as a result of this view, then *my* morals and ethics are in question here? (Yeah, yeah, I know. Long run-on sentences - bad)
Never mind that that is the same premise that we all here used in rejecting TWI, regardless of whatever _commitment_ we made to follow it as a valid ministry. We saw the BS, and we said "No way!", and walked away. Well, I saw similar BS in the Christian religion (like all of those innocent people being killed in the Bible), and _I_ said "No way!", and walked away. (As well as other valid reasons as well.)
Breaking of a commitment to "obey and follow him"? No bigger a breaking of a commitment to follow TWI. Ie., it was due to cause. And a valid one at that.
And when it comes to 'breaking a commitment' via not believing any more, that is a decision that is up to the _person_ involved, ... NOT any authoritarian God. Ie., the person has the final authority to make the decision what to believe or not believe in. At any point in their life.
Now all that being said, remember what I said earlier in this post about the part that "... at first ticked me off". And then I thought about where I said earlier in this thread in my swipe against religious people when I referred to their mentality as "Ie., UNindependent thought". So maybe its where you were taking a pot shot at me after I took a pot shot at you. Ie., mitigating factors here.
I believe that I'm an ethical and moral person, just as much as you are. And, as your posts clearly indicate, you are just as much of a thinking individual as I am (or I try to be anyway).
Anywho, that's where I come from at any rate. So, with no malicious thought towards you or yours, I'll wind this up.
I have heard rumbling about the Brit Hume thing. . . I have been so turned off to TV news. . . . I rarely watch. . . and NEVER Fox news.
I don't watch Fox News either, Mrs. Oakspear happened to catch it one morning and I saw a few commentaries on it.
Tiger Woods broke a vow. . . . more than once apparently. . . . but, I don't know what his faith or lack of faith really has to do with it. . . . I don't even know what religion he follows. Did he use a faith to justify his actions or did Brit Hume impose that on him?
Until Brit Hume brought it up I had never heard anyone bring up Woods' faith or lack of the same, even by Woods himself. Brit Hume brought it up during a segment of Fox News where he and several others were making predictions about the coming year. Short version, he suggested that Woods would better be able to fully recover and become great again if he turned to Christianity due to Christianity's superiority in terms of forgiveness and redemption as opposed to Buddhism, which Hume said was Woods' religion. An article that I read in response to this incident by one who agreed with Hume contained quotes from a Buddhist scholar who talked about karma and how Woods' actions had consequences and could not be erased by a forgiving deity. The connection that I made with your statements is that you are presenting a god who is at once loving and willing to exact justice, wrathful and merciful, not at all the god of free passes for sin that some folks imagine their god to be.
As far as your other remarks, I'm personally not a believer in karma as taught by eastern religions and that by extension has permeated the neo-pagan movement, too much has to be taken on faith.
I do think Pantheism brings up a lot of interesting questions. It doesn't really deal with origin too much. Things like justice and balance become very subjective. Polytheism is more a metaphor when broken down in a pantheistic faith. It would actually be contradictory. It suffers from several logical contradictions.
How did we get on pantheism? Not that I would avoid a discussion with you about it, but I didn't see where it fit in.
Look at VP. . . he escaped this life relatively unscathed. Where was his cosmic justice? Many people die of cancer. . . . people who never hurt a fly.
That is a contradiction. . . . Stalin another one. . . but, notice the concept of justice is present. That would mean justice is fickle and doesn't apply equally within the cosmos balancing.
If I understand it correctly, karma, if that is what we're talking about, isn't limited to one lifetime, "bad" karma in one lifetime results in a "lower" status in the next life (remember, we're talking about a culture with an extremely rigid caste structure) and bad stuff happening to you to "balance" the bad stuff that you did. There are various ways that believers in karma explain the mechanism by which it works, some attribute it to a property of the universe itself, some say one or another deity controls it.
Hard to put faith into such a system.
Yeah, I agree, but no harder than putting faith in the biblical god who seems to me just as fickle and just as unjust.
What I find interesting is that we are always left to deal with the idea of justice. It is inescapable. We build it into our societal systems. The nature of good and evil. At some point we might ask ourselves about the origin of this notion of justice.
My opinion (at least the one I hold right this minute) is that cosmic justice is a human conception invented to make sense of a world that doesn't seem very just. Bad things happen, seemingly without rhyme or reason and our minds flail about trying to make sense of it, or at least trying to make ourselves feel better about getting screwed out of that job, or getting cancer, or getting hit with an earthquake or a tsunami. We just can't cope with the randomness of it all.
How did we get on pantheism? Not that I would avoid a discussion with you about it, but I didn't see where it fit in.
Eastern religions. . . I wasn't sure which one we meant. :) It would be a fun discussion. Anytime Oakspear. . . you are a pleasure to chat with. And yes, the God of the bible forgives sin, but that does not erase consequences in the flesh. As a Christian, you can still down a fifth of Tequila . . . . but, you will have a heck of a hang over the next morning.
TWI kind of taught instant sanctification. . . which is part of the Holiness Movement. What happens then is people who do something they consider sinful. . . . often think they have lost their holiness(sanctification). . . . or the other extreme we know from TWI is that it doesn't matter what you do because you are sanctified. Sanctification is a life long process. Sin is really a heart issue.
Sanctification means being set apart . . . . just like Israel was set apart by all those laws. . . . that was a shadow of what was to come. That is why in Hebrews Jesus is called a new and better way. We don't sanctify ourselves. . . . that is truly a work of the spirit.
When God kept calling Israel back in the OT. . . . He would warn. . . and warn. . . . and then tell them what would happen if they didn't return. After they found out He meant what He said. . . . . . and they returned to Him. . . . He would deliver them. He promised them blessing after blessing. . . . only to have them wander off to dumb idols.
God had a purpose for Israel. God loved them and offered Himself to them. They wanted to be His people. God is not a person you just give your word to and then reneg on it. He is faithful and will keep you faithful. . . . despite yourself. We usually come kicking and screaming when things are going good. . . . that is when sanctification can get painful and we end up coming back on our knees.
You might wonder why they wandered if He is so great. . . . . well, we are free to do what we want. . . but not free to want what we should.
People like their sins. . . . or their own way. . . . some people bare their teeth at the mention of sins. Others just laugh at it. Unless of course, they are the ones effected by an evil deed. . . . ever have someone owe you money?. . . . Scratch your new car?. . . . Steal your morning paper? . . . Take the last jelly donut. . . . The last dry towel?
But fickle? We are the ones who are fickle. . . . God is the one who is faithful, but when we wander off things get a bit sticky. Not always.. . . depends how far one wanders.
That was God being faithful to a covenant He made in the OT. Just like He is faithful today to those who accept Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life. He keeps us. You are not a Christian one day and the next an atheist. God is more faithful than that.
In the Old Testament He always told Israel what He was going to do. . . . He was dealing with His own chosen people. He would lay it out in painful detail. That seems pretty fair to me. No? He gave many chances first.
The concept of justice is a tricky thing. I do know that. . . I go back and forth on my ideas of justice. . . . but, there is nothing unjust about God in the OT or the NT. . . . maybe it doesn't match up with our concept all the time, but a free pass for every act? We remove Judges from the bench for that. . . . we don't take it lightly.
I don't like the drug laws. . . . I think they are way too harsh. . . . but, someone who lost a child to drugs may feel differently. Who decides?
God's justice is perfect. . . . but, He even went beyond it and acted as the justifier! He is the one offended by sin. . . . He is the judge. . . He condemned sin. . . . the sinner gets death. . . . sentence already passed. . . . but God, the judge. . . steps in and actually takes our JUST punishment upon Himself. . . . even though He is the one who was wronged.
Recommended Posts
mudflaps
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I forgot to mention this is in response to a question Soul Searcher had upstairs in a thread. I am sure there are others here who remember what TWI taught better than I do.
Here was his question:
"What about this from Joshua 10 on the battle against Gibeon?
As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
(Joshua 10:11, NIV)
The Lord helped avenge the Israelites time and again. And he didn't fool around -- most of the time He made sure that everyone (including women and children) was killed, even those that got away.
So...
Love your enemies? Turn the other cheek? According to Jesus or according to the LORD?
I know this is off-topic but your comment about emulating Jesus caught my attention.
Is there a thread that discusses the God of the OT? Because I have lots of questions. "
"I was recently introduced to those "teachings" on classes from CES/STF and CFFM and I have to tell you: it doesn't do it for me as far as explaining the difference between God's behavior in the OT vesus the NT.
And I wonder how much of what you just described is original WAY doctrine and how much of it came from other places? The dispensationalism, for example (along with four crucified and six denials) comes from Bullinger, no?"
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Thanks, geisha. Nice post. Lots to think about there. (I was betting that you wouldn't trot out the "idiom of permission" thing, and I was right.)
So...I'm thinking...thinking...a couple of things come to mind:
#1 If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the large hailstones I mentioned (and, by extension, the ten plagues, fire raining down on Sodom, etc.) were evidence of God's wrath against his lovd ones -- similar to the wrath a parent might exhibit against a problem child, is that right? I'm not trying to corner you -- just asking.
#2 Have you ever given thought as to how a hypothetical Jesus might advise a U.S. president on how to react to and defend against the threat of radical islamic terrorists? I think even a pacifist (of which I am one) can see that the U.S., Israel, and other nations need to defend themselves. That need requires action and, in all probability, violence and war. I don't think Jesus discussed "war" outside of Luke 14:31, unless there's something on the topic in the Book of Revelation (which I've never read.) Nor do I recall anything about the need for a person or a nation to defend itself against agressors.
Gotta get to work. More later.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
If God is always the same, no shadow of turning, then the so-called OT vengeful God is no other than the NT God of grace and mercy. And likewise, the OT God is a God of grace and mercy, and the NT God is vengeful.
There are some lovely passages in Micah (it's only a little book; have a read). "Who is a God like you, who forgives iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retains not his anger forever, because he delights in mercy and loving-kindness." (Micah 7:18 AMP, a sort of conclusion to the whole book).
What do you want to look for? It's in there. You can see a mean vengeful God - or you can see a caring God. I think there is much in the OT that we of TWI do not fully understand because we were misdirected. A re-read without PFAL-colored glasses might be in order!
It's contradictory but there has usually been scope for those who want to escape "God's wrath" to escape same.
Good post, Geisha, but I think I have to take issue with this:
Is it?
Always? "Basically"? God? "Takes you out"? How does that fit with John 10:10a - "steal, kill and destroy" - the mission of "the thief" - the devil?
Anyway, to pursue that particular line might be a bit off topic, and what Geisha wanted was to discuss perceptions of God in the OT compared with the NT.
Jesus lived in a country under brutal occupation by a feared and greatly hated army. What did he say? "Turn the other cheek." His own supporters were unimpressed with this response, and some walked away.
In the OT, Israel commonly got into trouble when it made allegiances with other nations for offensive purposes. God said that he would defend his people. It wasn't always instant deliverance. When it came to defensive purposes, they were to arm themselves but not go after the opposition. When they did, they suffered.
How Jesus might advise the President today? He "advised" the leaders of his day. He told the Pharisees and the Sadduccees that they were hypocrites. He challenged them on their behavior. He challenged them to do the Godly thing. He challenged them to have grace and mercy.
A soft answer turneth away wrath. Colin Powell tried a soft (less aggressive) answer and got kicked out by the warmongers.
Jesus got to stand before the local ruler of the occupying army (Pilate) and what did he say? Nothing at all! (How's that for a soft answer?!) He let the hypocrites expose their own warped standards.
The bold prophet Nathan confronted king David on his hypocrisy, greed, lust, murderous behavior.
I think a hypothetical Jesus would challenge the US govt on its hypocrisy, its greed, its ill behavior toward other countries. The US has no leg to stand on, for example, when it comes to "democratic elections" when in fact the presidency (any presidency) is not acquired by merit but by the biggest campaign coffer and how many interest groups can be got onside.
I could say much on this - but that'd relegate this thread to Politics and Tacks.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Excellent Twinky. .. better than I could ever articulate. . . . and yes, that God taking you out part is iffy... it can be taken just like you said. . . I recant. :) Thank-you. . . . I really don't think I am good at explaining things. . . I used to have te exact same questions as SSearcher until I really started looking at it.
One good thing to do is to read the OT and NT together. There are schedules floating around and certain things in the OT and NT correspond.
Soul Searcher,
What I meant was that God treated Israel like a father. . . . but, frankly, there were times Israel really suffered in the OT. . . . famine, exile. . . . sickness. . . . it was when they turned to idols. Whenever they repented He delivered them. . . .He warned and warned. . . . that is what all those prophet's were for. . . but, Israel was prone to turn away easily. He kept offering Himself to them and they kept going elsewhere. He chose Israel to bring Himself to the rest of the people as well. . . . He was not just for Israel. . . . but, that is how people came to Him.
Does that sound familiar? :)
If the God of the heavens and earth offers Himself to us. . . . promises fellowship and joy. . . . and we say no thanks. . . what are we turning to? If the bible is about life, purpose, creation, and the plan of mankind. . . . what else is there. What kind of God must He be. . . . to speak and from nothing there is something. A magnificent something. A friend who works in Cosmology said to me. . . . "I don't know how much is science and how much is just ART". What kind of being must He be?
The bible tells us He is holy. When you start contemplating that one. . . it makes a bunch more sense. It tells us He is just. . . well, that concept is sometimes lost in our society, but justice is a real thing. . . many of us long for it. . . . although I am fairly careful on that one and plead the blood of Jesus.
So, no, Sodom was punishment for sin. What are we speaking of here though. . . . gay couples adopting unwanted children from other countries and going to PTA meetings. No, that is not what was happening in Sodom. What do we as a society do when someone rapes, murders, or hurts a child? We lock them up and sometimes execute them. They are punished. Pedophiles are repeat offenders. . . . there is very little room for recovery.
Even still God removed the righteous. But, how great was Lot? What did he end up doing? Yet, God still had mercy on him.
I will think about the other question, but Twinky fairly nailed it. Oddly, I am off to a prison today to speak to people about repentance and forgivness. LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I found that bargaining routine somewhat odd -- and fairly entertaining, I must say.
So they couldn't find ten righteous people in Sodom? There were no innocent women and children? Of course there were. But where was God's love and mercy?
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You know, it's interesting that the 'evil, wicked' factor of the people who God found worthy enough to focus his wrath upon just happened to be those who 'worshiped other gods', who refused to turn to the god of the Israelites.
As regards Isreal defending itself, that's one thing, and it's worth showing wrath upon the invaders. But far more often than not, the enemy country was not invading Israel, but rather Israel invading _them_. Classic example: the Samuel, King Saul, and the Amalakites situation. (No, that's not an early 60's singing group.
)
I mean, when God sees fit to have someone stoned to death for simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath, ... spare me the 'God's mercy' song-and-dance, OK?
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I'm reading the bible for the first time (without any colored glasses on) and finding out that I have a lot to learn about God. I'm reading the OT and NT at the same time, and it seems to me that the God of the OT isn't just different from the one in the NT, but the OT God didn't seem to be internally consistent or fair in doling out punishment.
Was the Sabbath Day wood-gatherer in Numbers who was stoned to death on God's order the only person to ever gather wood on the sabbath? I don't think so. Yet Moses (it was Moses, right?) goes through the trouble of telling us about that one guy. So far, I don't remember any other Sabbath Day wood-gatherers getting summarily executed for his or her transgression.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Ummm okay. . . except I don't think I was offering you a "song and dance". In truth, I didn't start this thread with you in mind at all. I get the distinct impression exploring scripture is not one of your main pastimes. Call me crazy. . . . just a hunch.
This is actually the only thread I have ever started here other than when some people in my life died and I put something in the Memorial threads.
How to discuss this topic without offending you. . . . hmmm . . . . if you have any suggestions I am open. . . . but, other than that, I may have to mention God's mercy as I contrast it against God's wrath.
Hope it is okay here in the doctrinal section. . .. where we discuss doctrine. . . . sometimes biblical. . . . and as you are aware . . . on occasion the bible does mention God's mercy.
Please don't take it as any kind of offering to you. . . . I assure you it isn't one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The bargaining routine was more a study of God's righteousness (don't look Garth) and God's mercy. Abraham was the first person in scripture specifically mentioned by God to be righteous. He had just finished confirming, for the third time, His covenant to Abraham, that He would be the father of many nations. There was a defining contrast between the unrighteous people of Sodom and Abraham.
Abraham had a clear understanding of God's character. . . . that God is just. Part of justice is judgment. . . . scripture speaks to this all over the place. . . . it is basically the whole point. Sets people's teeth on edge. . . . . we will be judged according to what we do, how we live, and the decisions we make. That is life baby! Unless one is perfect that is why we need a savior.
Abraham knew God and also was known by God. . . . He had an acute understanding of God's mercy. But, God does not abide sin forever and the time for judgment was coming. Abraham acted as intercessor. He wasn't really playing games with God. The outcry of the city against god had reached heaven.
Abraham asked for the city, all the people, if there were righteous. . . . notice God let him bargain it to ten. . . . also notice that Lot was not a totally perfect person. . . . he was tainted by what was going on in Sodom.
The righteous and the wicked are not dealt with in the same manner by God. " Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from you! Shall not the judge of all the earth do justice?
What is just? Abraham knew what was going down. He also knew God would show mercy to the righteous and for the righteous sake. . . well, why can't we understand these concepts of good and evil. How much plainer can God be? Yet, He would have spared the city.
As far as there being innocent women and children destroyed. . . . where do you get that? Scripture actually isn't saying that. It mentions only Lot's two daughter because it says all the young and the old and ALL the people from every quarter surrounded Lot.
Now. . . . why Lot? Why were they so angry with him? Because, they said "this one came in as an alien and already he is acting like a judge. . . . now we will treat YOU worse than them"
People do NOT like to have their sins exposed, be it scripture, preaching, conviction. . . . it sets some people to extreme anger. Teeth gnashing anger. Most people like John 3:16 but, they don't like verse 19.
Even after they were blinded they still were trying. What were they trying to do BTW? Rape! Lot was going to get worse than rape.
It isn't like Abraham was stalling or trying to get a FEW of the righteous out. . . God was going to spare the entire city if there were even ten righteous. . . . they couldn't even find five.
I have had all these same questions SS. I do understand. . . but the more you look at it in light of God being God it becomes clearer I think :)
Hope I made sense. . . I do ramble all over the place. . . I know what I want to say . . I just have a difficult time articulating.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Ah yes, idols. Let's talk about the golden calf for a minute. (Please turn to Exodus 32 in your bibles...)
What lesson are we to draw from this account?
Moses was gone for while and the people got restless and wild. Then it was Aaron's idea to melt down everybody's gold and create a golden calf. God was understandibly angry and sent Moses down to straighten his people out. Moses pleaded with God on his people's behalf and God relented.
Fine.
But then as Moses approaches the camp and sees that everyone is out of control, he gets ....ed off himself. Aaron told him what they had done and so Moses has the Levites go in and kill 3,000 "brothers, friends and neigbors."
Harsh, but okay.
The next day Moses admonishes the people for their sin and says he'll go and try and make it right with the Lord (never mind that 3,000 were executed already). But instead, Moses's plea only seemed to remind the Lord of what happened, so the Lord struck the people with a plague.
And Aaron lived.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I always wondered why Aaron made it. It says Aaron's sons were zapped, but Aaron melted the earrings! Maybe it was worse for Aaron to survive? Imagine trying to live with that? I don't know. . . . it says Aaron was chosen too .. . . . as Moses' mouthpiece. . . . maybe God had a purpose for him.
It does seem kind of Random.
If I was God, I would have made Aaron the example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Actually, you do a fine job articulating. I'll react to your post tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
First off, I didn't take it as 'an offering' to me, or anything else directed at me. ... Last time I checked, I do think that this is a _public_ thread, addressable by _anyone_ who wishes to contribute.
Two, since this thread _is_ in regard to the 'scary Old Testament God', I was addressing what (I thought) are discrepancies about how the OT god often (supposedly) showed righteous wrath towards many people who didn't pose any threat towards that society (ahh, no REAL threat, in any event) or did anything hideous or immoral that would be considered as such by many moral people here. ... Then again, perhaps gathering sticks on the Sabbath, mixing different cloths in one garment, ... or not worshiping "The Lord thy God" as one nation was probably seen as a Clear and Present Danger back then, and, of course, society went into a moral tailspin since then.
And that's righteous judgment that you find so worthy of praise?? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe it really just doesn't fit "like a hand in a glove".
That would certainly make it a lot easier to understand why the contradictions exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Geisha:
You're more articulate than you give yourself credit for, you just sometimes get ....ed off at us heathens!
I appreciate your efforts to explain the "apparent" contradictions in the bible; I'm not personally convinced, but your arguments are reasonable and rational once you accept certain premises.
Some of what you're saying is interesting to me in light of Brit Hume's opinion about what he thinks Tiger Wood's religion is. Eastern religion is often about justice and balance, not imposed necessarily by a deity, but by the universe balancing itself out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Garth,
I am happy to have you discuss these things.. . . my point was they are not offered to offend you.
People in the OT used to complain to God that He was too merciful. . . too lenient. I can't imagine you are proposing the same thing?
It all swivels on an understanding of a holy God.
Once the people left Egypt and entered the wilderness. . . . about 2 1/2 million people they had a society. Moses went to meet with God and God told Him this is how you are to do it.
The people agreed. They accepted the terms. They said yes. They were going to show God that they would listen to Him and obey Him because He had just delivered them. Remember, God did not give them the law in Egypt and tell them measure up and then I will save you. He saved them and they responded in gratitude and promised obedience. They understood about judgment, punishment, destruction, and exclusion. They had just seen what had happened to Egypt.
Is it possible that the bible is dealing with a world of corruptness and ambiguity. . . much like we live in today? It is an assumption that God always approves of what happens in history.
The people gave God their word they would keep His rules.(We will gladly do it) A persons word is their bond. What happens when you don't keep your word and you willfully break a rule? There is usually some kind of consequence.
Israel was a very morally degraded society. God took the least esteemed group of people to take Him to the rest of the nations. . . .He always does. . . . Israel had a specific relationship with God. The scriptures are clear about freely entering into a relationship with God. Jesus said count the cost. . . . make sure it is what you want. You do not enter into a covenant with God lightly. It is something sacred. God is holy.
And you are assuming these are arbitrary laws and applying your moral and ethical standards on a completely different society. One with a specific purpose.
Israel was to live DIFFERENTLY than other nations, by even the most mundane tasks being mandated they learned obedience. Sacrifices, rituals, diet, clothing, cooking were all carefully ordered by God to teach that Israel was to live differently from EVERYONE else. It was also an external display of separation from sin within their hearts.
They were to be holy as God is holy and their outward ceremonial behavior. . . . it was an external expression of heart holiness.
If you consider that God was really training a people to live in His presence. . . it doesn't seem so strange. The people He was training were fairly difficult people, but they agreed to the rules. . . . they understood why they had them. He told them repeatedly that to remain in the land required obedience to the Mosaic law. They knew it. They chose it.
I do the same thing. . . . I have entered into a relationship with a Holy God by my freewill choice I have chosen to obey Him. What happens when I get too far out of the parameters? I am corrected. The NT speaks of a sin unto death for believers. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. There are warnings all over the place about sinning against God. God is holy.
Do you make these kind of judgments on all laws or just the ones God gave to a specific chosen people at a specific time . . . for a specific purpose. Laws have always varied from time and society. We still have some blue laws here where I live.
The Mosaic law was just until the Messiah came.
And remember the trouble Jesus got into when He healed on the Sabbath? The whole point of Him coming was to be the end of this law . . . . He was who they were waiting for. . .the fulfillment of the law they had freely accepted to enter into a covenant with God as His people.
Strangely, they decided they wanted to keep the law and rejected Jesus. As much as people complain about law they choose it over a free gift. . . over freedom.
Because I do believe God chose Israel for a purpose and I do believe in the Messiah and a Holy God. . . . I understand things differently than you. You seem to have no problem making moral judgments on my beliefs. . . . the standard you use is your understanding. . . . . somehow you manage to think this is righteous. . . no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Geisha, (I find it rather interesting, and rather ironic, that you choose a moniker that illustrates a Japanese woman who was totally submissive to her master. Totally. ... Perhaps there is more to that moniker that helps illustrate my point than meets the eye? ;))
etc., etc.Ie., as I see it, your post here basically boils down to the following points:
1) It's one of those spiritual things that I, being such a schmuck unbeliever, just _cannot_ understand.
You forget who you're talking to. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, both inside of TWI, as well as out of it. For many years. Well versed in the Bible, tho' admittedly not so much anymore, but still enough to be very familiar with the arguments behind it. Hell, I used many of those same arguments such as yourself, and with equal vigor and enthusiasm. ... It's just that I have rejected said faith-based arguments, and walked away from them. ... Yes Virginia, that can be done, ... with no consequences.
2) The people agreed to the terms.
Dang! You make it sound like they signed some sort of contract. (Did they read all the fine print? :unsure: ;)) So morally speaking, if they agreed to 'follow god', they should just give up ANY and ALL valid observations/complaints about whatever unreasonable/unethical/immoral requirements/practices/punishments that their god puts them thru? Ie., to be blindly obedient without question.
Hey, guess what? Leadership at TWI often put us thru similar expectations of blind obedience, and they were/are called a 'damn CULT' because of it. (Your term for it, I believe?) And based upon the same moral/ethical standards that many here regard as 'Christian'. And I seriously doubt that they were arbitrary either.
Yes, back during the bronze age they didn't have the advanced level of morals and ethics that was responsible for today's progress in civilized society. Which doesn't say much for the 'holy' standards that God seemed to have when implementing these laws/judgments, ... does it? I mean, we, as civilized beings, wouldn't even _think_ of applying many of those same practices in today's society, without regarding them as criminal, as unethical, ... as downright wrong. ... Ohh, like stoning someone who doesn't worship your God, as but one of the _many_ examples I can give. <_<
Which leads to 3) Since you have entered into a relationship with God, then you have accepted 'the whole nine yards', as it were. Ie., you have no place to raise any scrutiny/objections to things that you might possibly see as flawed/nonsensical in said belief. (Be they flawed or not) ... In other words, blind faith. Accept without question. Shut up and do as you're told. Put another $20 in the plate. (Ever notice that it eventually gets around to money, hmmm? ;) Always.)
At least that's how I came to see this mindset.
And yes, you do have the irrevocable right to pursue this mindset. ... As I have the equal right to criticize said mindset.
And I close this post with one of my favs from Thomas Jefferson -- "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Garth,
You do make me chuckle. My "moniker"? It is simply an extension of something I was doing when I originally registered here. I was selling collectible china on the internet. . . . it is called "Geisha Girl" china. Here is an example of what it looks like. http://www.mygrannys...porcelain_.html not my site, just a good picture for you.
Pretty isn't it? I always have loved it, My grandmother had a full tea set, and she and I would pull it out and have tea. It is just one of those things that I associate with happy memories. When I signed up here. . . . I was dumbfounded looking for a name. . . . I looked around. . . saw the china and voila' a name. The 779 is because I usually pick a common name when needing a handle on a site. . . . like you tube or an email account. Not realizing there wouldn't be a bunch of other "geisha's" on here. . . . I tacked on a random number.
Nothing deeper than vintage china.
What I find interesting is your language. You walked away from what you call faith based arguments. You don't speak of walking away from a relationship. It appears you still do not make the correlation between being in a relationship with someone and explaining that relationship in terms of knowing them.
Now, my faith is not in the scriptures themselves, but in God. In who He is. I have no issues with what appear to you to be discrepancies in scripture. . . . . it is because I look at them in light of who God is. . . . who He clearly defines Himself as, holy, just, merciful, loving, and good. Also what my experience with Him in a relationship is. . . . you may question that relationship. . . . . you may not have that relationship. . . . . you may not understand that relationship. . . . . but, claiming some former kinship to it while seeking to invalidate it based on your experience is kind of funny.
Because of your belief system. . . and you do have one. . . . a worldview. . . . you claim there is no consequence for your decisions. I disagree. I will not bore you with the details. . . . it is really not my life or choice. You appear to stand by yours while making judgment on mine. . . . I could do the same. . . but, I won't. As you say. . .. . you know scripture.
While we were in TWI we transferred obedience belonging to God right onto the backs of men. Most of us went into TWI with an eye on a relationship with God. We got tricked.
However, as I explained. . . . Israel willingly and gladly (their word) entered into a relationship with God. . . . one of obedience. They asked for it to be so. . . . You may see it as similar, but it is not the same thing. Again. . . . being in relationship with God, NOT men. . . . willingly accepting the terms is not akin to blindly following men. It is following God on His terms. The children of Israel heard the voice of God. . . . literally. . . . God fed them everyday. They knew Him. I can't really make it clearer.
When someone enters into a marriage. . . they do not spend the rest of their lives worshiping the vows or polishing the rings do they? Questioning things clearly defined before they chose? They do not enter blindly. (In most cultures) But, for purposes of analogy. . . it is a free-will choice. You don't enter into a relationship with the aim of changing the other person. . . . you want that person. There are certain parameters we accept when we marry, things like fidelity. We exclude ourselves willingly from other relationships of the same nature. . . . if people do stray there is usually serious consequences within that relationship. They have broken a vow. . . their word. . . and violated trust placed in them.
I question God all the time. He invites me to come and reason with Him. More than once I have carefully laid out my case before God , and dang. . . . if miraculous things didn't happen and it wasn't so. . . . . . sometimes very specific and unmistakable things. But, why would the children of Israel question the things they understood and had already accepted for a specific purpose? There is more to the point of the mosaic law. . . . . but those are things you question. . . . not them. They got it.
You can bring up plenty of examples in the law. . . . but things being carried out specifically are less frequent. That is because God is merciful and would keep warning and warning, sending prophet's and calling them back. It is such a great study in relationship. He called them as a nation. . . . we are called as individuals.
So, while you may pass judgment on me based on my relationship. . . . . it seems far fetched that you relate to me in light of it. . . . . but, rather from your position from outside of it. In turn, I doubt you ever entered into a covenant with God, giving Him your word to obey and follow Him. . . . . . . . only to unfaithfully walk away. That would seriously bring into question your morals and ethics. . . . those things you use to make value judgments on me.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I have heard rumbling about the Brit Hume thing. . . I have been so turned off to TV news. . . . I rarely watch. . . and NEVER Fox news. I know there is some flap. I do think Pantheism brings up a lot of interesting questions. It doesn't really deal with origin too much. Things like justice and balance become very subjective. Polytheism is more a metaphor when broken down in a pantheistic faith. It would actually be contradictory. It suffers from several logical contradictions.
Tiger Woods broke a vow. . . . more than once apparently. . . . but, I don't know what his faith or lack of faith really has to do with it. . . . I don't even know what religion he follows. Did he use a faith to justify his actions or did Brit Hume impose that on him?
I am not sure how cheating on his wife will balance out. . . . or any justice that will cosmically find him other than direct consequences within his marriage. Look at VP. . . he escaped this life relatively unscathed. Where was his cosmic justice? Many people die of cancer. . . . people who never hurt a fly.
That is a contradiction. . . . Stalin another one. . . but, notice the concept of justice is present. That would mean justice is fickle and doesn't apply equally within the cosmos balancing. Hard to put faith into such a system. What I find interesting is that we are always left to deal with the idea of justice. It is inescapable.
We build it into our societal systems. The nature of good and evil. At some point we might ask ourselves about the origin of this notion of justice. Pantheism doesn't really address those questions. It does not really define them. It is problematic.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Geisha,
Thanks about explaining to me about the origins of your Geisha 'moniker' (which we all have here. Mine is GarthP2000. ... And, oh well, I had originally thought that it suggested something else. My bad.
)
You speak of a relationship with God, which you emphasize more than the scriptures. Ok. And evidently that is what you're loyal to, as you see God to be a very real thing in your life. And, contrary to your ASSumption ;) that I never had any real faith (else I wouldn't have left _fallacy_), I did indeed have had a faith in the Christian God, something that I believed (<--- please notice the emphasis here. Its there for a reason) in. Now I know that that contradicts your supposed belief that no-one who has really had faith or a faith can actually depart from it. ... Well, they can. Like it or not, they can, and often do. ... Why can they do that? Look back to the emphasised words: I believed. Think about what that means. I believed. Ie., accepted as true. And people change what they believe every day.
When we were in TWI, we believed that they were teaching The Rightly Divided Word © 1942 All Rights Reserved. ;) When we left (in one way or another) we believed that they wound up being full of shyite, or some other form of excrement. :D In the political world, that is _replete_ with people having beliefs of one staunch form or another. (Hello! Talk radio anyone? :wacko: )
So my beliefs have evolved and changed over the years: From fundamentalist Christian to Unitarian Universalist to Agnostic Atheist (ie., I don't believe in any god/deity, but can't prove it 100% to be sure. But until the believers prove their side, I ain't buying it)
Oh, and your swipe at me re: "I doubt you ever entered into a covenant with God, giving Him your word to obey and follow Him. . . . . . . . only to unfaithfully walk away. That would seriously bring into question your morals and ethics. . . . those things you use to make value judgments on me." at first ticked me off, as it was a condescending and ad hominum swipe, as well as giving the flawed argument that if I have come to the view that there is something seriously wrong with God, based upon what I see God doing/endorsing in the Bible exactly the things in the OT that you started this thread out with, ... that if I left this belief system as a result of this view, then *my* morals and ethics are in question here? (Yeah, yeah, I know. Long run-on sentences - bad)
Never mind that that is the same premise that we all here used in rejecting TWI, regardless of whatever _commitment_ we made to follow it as a valid ministry. We saw the BS, and we said "No way!", and walked away. Well, I saw similar BS in the Christian religion (like all of those innocent people being killed in the Bible), and _I_ said "No way!", and walked away. (As well as other valid reasons as well.)
Breaking of a commitment to "obey and follow him"? No bigger a breaking of a commitment to follow TWI. Ie., it was due to cause. And a valid one at that.
And when it comes to 'breaking a commitment' via not believing any more, that is a decision that is up to the _person_ involved, ... NOT any authoritarian God. Ie., the person has the final authority to make the decision what to believe or not believe in. At any point in their life.
Now all that being said, remember what I said earlier in this post about the part that "... at first ticked me off". And then I thought about where I said earlier in this thread in my swipe against religious people when I referred to their mentality as "Ie., UNindependent thought". So maybe its where you were taking a pot shot at me after I took a pot shot at you. Ie., mitigating factors here.
I believe that I'm an ethical and moral person, just as much as you are. And, as your posts clearly indicate, you are just as much of a thinking individual as I am (or I try to be anyway).
Anywho, that's where I come from at any rate. So, with no malicious thought towards you or yours, I'll wind this up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As far as your other remarks, I'm personally not a believer in karma as taught by eastern religions and that by extension has permeated the neo-pagan movement, too much has to be taken on faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Eastern religions. . . I wasn't sure which one we meant. :) It would be a fun discussion. Anytime Oakspear. . . you are a pleasure to chat with. And yes, the God of the bible forgives sin, but that does not erase consequences in the flesh. As a Christian, you can still down a fifth of Tequila . . . . but, you will have a heck of a hang over the next morning.
TWI kind of taught instant sanctification. . . which is part of the Holiness Movement. What happens then is people who do something they consider sinful. . . . often think they have lost their holiness(sanctification). . . . or the other extreme we know from TWI is that it doesn't matter what you do because you are sanctified. Sanctification is a life long process. Sin is really a heart issue.
Sanctification means being set apart . . . . just like Israel was set apart by all those laws. . . . that was a shadow of what was to come. That is why in Hebrews Jesus is called a new and better way. We don't sanctify ourselves. . . . that is truly a work of the spirit.
When God kept calling Israel back in the OT. . . . He would warn. . . and warn. . . . and then tell them what would happen if they didn't return. After they found out He meant what He said. . . . . . and they returned to Him. . . . He would deliver them. He promised them blessing after blessing. . . . only to have them wander off to dumb idols.
God had a purpose for Israel. God loved them and offered Himself to them. They wanted to be His people. God is not a person you just give your word to and then reneg on it. He is faithful and will keep you faithful. . . . despite yourself. We usually come kicking and screaming when things are going good. . . . that is when sanctification can get painful and we end up coming back on our knees.
You might wonder why they wandered if He is so great. . . . . well, we are free to do what we want. . . but not free to want what we should.
People like their sins. . . . or their own way. . . . some people bare their teeth at the mention of sins. Others just laugh at it. Unless of course, they are the ones effected by an evil deed. . . . ever have someone owe you money?. . . . Scratch your new car?. . . . Steal your morning paper? . . . Take the last jelly donut. . . . The last dry towel?
But fickle? We are the ones who are fickle. . . . God is the one who is faithful, but when we wander off things get a bit sticky. Not always.. . . depends how far one wanders.
That was God being faithful to a covenant He made in the OT. Just like He is faithful today to those who accept Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life. He keeps us. You are not a Christian one day and the next an atheist. God is more faithful than that.
In the Old Testament He always told Israel what He was going to do. . . . He was dealing with His own chosen people. He would lay it out in painful detail. That seems pretty fair to me. No? He gave many chances first.
The concept of justice is a tricky thing. I do know that. . . I go back and forth on my ideas of justice. . . . but, there is nothing unjust about God in the OT or the NT. . . . maybe it doesn't match up with our concept all the time, but a free pass for every act? We remove Judges from the bench for that. . . . we don't take it lightly.
I don't like the drug laws. . . . I think they are way too harsh. . . . but, someone who lost a child to drugs may feel differently. Who decides?
God's justice is perfect. . . . but, He even went beyond it and acted as the justifier! He is the one offended by sin. . . . He is the judge. . . He condemned sin. . . . the sinner gets death. . . . sentence already passed. . . . but God, the judge. . . steps in and actually takes our JUST punishment upon Himself. . . . even though He is the one who was wronged.
That is beyond. . . justice. Go figure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.