11 May 07
1 edit
Are we talking about the God of the Christian Bible?
If so, I have an opinion based on the Bible
If we are not talking about the God of the Christian Bible, but rather the personal god we all envision based our feelings, desires, history, and Mexican food last night, then I don't/can't have an opinion that would have any value to anyone but myself.
11 May 07
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeWhere do you get the idea that God had no conception of there being anything/one else?
Why is it safe to say that? Like I said, loneliness is a relative feeling. You can't be lonely if you have no conception of there being anything/one else. What does the Bible say about the beginning of time, I always assumed it said something along the lines of In the beginning there was only God. If that's the case then he couldn't possibly lonely for the reason I mentioned above.
IF God created all things then such a creation must have come out of the conception of God. Right? Where else would the conception for the creation of the universe and angels and men come from?
So I can't go along with your idea that in eternity past God had no conception of there being anything or anyone else. He is the Originator of all other beings.
11 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FleabittenOut of curiosity is there some biblical reason why we should hold a view that the Day Star (Lucifer) did not have a free choosing will?
No problem. I'm not a theologian, or even particularly religious, but I remember that one from childhood. I always thought the part about pride being Lucifer's motivation as intersting because I had also been under the impression that to Man alone was the gift of free will given. Therefore, if only Man possessed free will, that would mean angels (i.e. ...[text shortened]... ot. And if Lucifer did not possess free will, how could pride have motivated him to defy God?
Is there some passage of Scripture which influences you to believe that Lucifer did not have a free will?
11 May 07
Originally posted by Big MacDon't you think it is quite personal of Paul to say this?
Are we talking about the God of the Christian Bible?
If so, I have an opinion based on the Bible
If we are not talking about the God of the Christian Bible, but rather the personal god we all envision based our feelings, desires, history, and Mexican food last night, then I don't/can't have an opinion that would have any value to anyone but myself.
" ... the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (See Gal.2:20)
That is a very personal God that the Apostle Paul is teaching about there. Christ the Son of God loved him (Paul) and gave Himself up for Paul out of His great love for Paul.
It is the same for each one of us. Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us.
Here again is a very personal utterance about God and Christ and the believer in Christ:
"If a man loves Me he will keep My words: and My Father will love him. And We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23)
That is very intimate and personal like Galatians 2:20. The Father and the Son will come to the one who loves Christ and who keeps His words. And this divine "We" of the Triune God will come to such a lover and will make a living abode with them. God in Christ will love such a one and make an abode with them.
11 May 07
Originally posted by jaywillIf God was all there was at the beginning of time, he could not specifically be 'lonely' for the reason I mentioned, and therefore I don't believe that loneliness was a motivation for creating the Universe. I believe that God lacked a certain self-awareness and wished to experience himself; the only way to do this was to compartmentalize HIMSELF up into the heaven and earth, creatures and plants, etc., in order to experience all of these facets of himself. If God knew all of these experiences to start with, and could not experience loneliness, what other motivation is there for creating the Universe?
Where do you get the idea that God had no conception of there being anything/one else?
IF God created all things then such a creation must have come out of the conception of God. Right? Where else would the conception for the creation of the universe and angels and men come from?
So I can't go along with your idea that in eternity past God had ...[text shortened]... no conception of there being anything or anyone else. He is the Originator of all other beings.
11 May 07
Originally posted by jaywillI wouldn't be able to point to anything specific. As I said earlier, I'm no longer well versed in the Bible. I freely admit that my memory is faulty on many of my teachings from childhood, and very well may be in this instance. I just seem to recall being taught that God's gift to Man was free will, something he had not imparted upon his other creations.
Out of curiosity is there some biblical reason why we should hold a view that the Day Star (Lucifer) did not have a free choosing will?
Is there some passage of Scripture which influences you to believe that Lucifer did not have a free will?
11 May 07
Originally posted by jaywillI have no arguement with what you are saying here. I am a believer and follower of the Bible.
Don't you think it is quite personal of Paul to say this?
[b]" ... the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (See Gal.2:20)
That is a very personal God that the Apostle Paul is teaching about there. Christ the Son of God loved him (Paul) and gave Himself up for Paul out of His great love for Paul.
It is the same for each ...[text shortened]... a living abode with them. God in Christ will love such a one and make an abode with them.[/b]
Yes, I've had a personal experience of God, however, I recognize that I am fallible, and, as the Bible says, my heart is desparately wicked and deceitful above all. Therefore, I trust the Bible to tell me about God.
So, in this post you mentioned the Triune God. Biblically speaking that is referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible makes it clear that the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father. Therefore, I cannot agree with your assertion of loneliness in God prior to any creation. He was perfectly happy communing with Himself in the form of the Trinity.
11 May 07
Originally posted by jaywillThat Jesus in fact decided to be compassionate in this case is immaterial to my point. My point is that Jesus did not disavow the justice of execution for adultery. Even you claim that he had the moral authority to carry out this sentence, as though you think that had Jesus stoned her himself, he still would have been acting rightly.
Not only no one present had the moral authority. He did have the moral authority and told the woman to go and sin no more. And a major theme of the gospel of John is that He is God incarnate - [b]"the word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14)
If Jesus ONLY cared that no one present had the authority to stone her then we should see Jesu ...[text shortened]... mprove upon the moral character of Jesus Christ have not been too impressive to this poster.[/b]
What do you think Jesus meant when, in the Sermon on the Mount, he advised his followers to "resist not evil"?
Do you think that Jesus was articulating a general moral principle when claimed "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."?
11 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI often wonder whether Jesus, in His extreme viewpoints about what constituted
That Jesus in fact decided to be compassionate in this case is immaterial to my point. My point is that Jesus did not disavow the justice of execution for adultery. Even you claim that he had the moral authority to carry out this sentence, as though you think that had Jesus stoned her himself, he still would have been acting rightly.
What do you think J aimed "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."?
sin (anger at your brother = murder, lust in your heart = adultery), whether
He would have considered killing in self-defense a sin.
That is, let's take the general Christian hermeneutic for the sake of
discussion. Grant that an individual has an immortal soul and the state
in which that immortal soul will exist depends entirely on whether or not
the individual accepts the grace gifts to him by God. That is to say, no
one else can cause an individual to go to hell, only the actions of the
individual in question. Further, one's actions are a reflection of the state
of one's soul (as per several Biblical precedents).
It would seem, then, that self-defense (as natural as it would appear)
would be corporeal rebellion against the sublime. That is, if, in eternity,
the state of one's soul is all that matters and the body is unimportant,
then any efforts to preserve that body ought to be grounded in grace.
But I doubt that Jesus would say killing another individual, even at the
cost of your own bodily life, is grounded in grace. Indeed, there were many
early Christians who utterly tolerated being beaten and killed without raising
a finger in defense because of their firm belief that harming another
person was a sin, and dying in a state of grace was a priority.
So, the choice would be to elect to not kill the attacker and submit
voluntarily to death (and thereby allowing the attacker to repent, atone,
and convert) or act upon the urge to kill and thus stay corporeally alive,
and force the attacker to immediate judgment.
I've often wondered what a sincerely Jesus-based believer ought to do
in the case when it came down to their own life or the life of their attacker
(I'm not saying what they would do -- I believe that the 'fight or flight'
reflex would utterly take over).
Nemesio
11 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioThe "resist not evil" quote bothers me because it seems to entail that a Christian ought not forcefully intervene to protect an innocent under attack. The self-defense question is interesting, but how do you think Jesus would advise us in cases where you must use deadly force to prevent one person from unjustly killing (or seriously harming) an innocent?
I often wonder whether Jesus, in His extreme viewpoints about what constituted
sin (anger at your brother = murder, lust in your heart = adultery), whether
He would have considered killing in self-defense a sin.
That is, let's take the general Christian hermeneutic for the sake of
discussion. Grant that an individual has an immortal soul and the st ...[text shortened]... do -- I believe that the 'fight or flight'
reflex would utterly take over).
Nemesio
11 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrThat was actually my next question. Let's make 'an innocent' even more
The "resist not evil" quote bothers me because it seems to entail that a Christian ought not forcefully intervene to protect an innocent under attack. The self-defense question is interesting, but how do you think Jesus would advise us in cases where you must use deadly force to prevent one person from unjustly killing (or seriously harming) an innocent?
tantalizing: one's young child. It would seem consistent with Christian
philosophy that, rather than kill an individual trying to kill your child,
you ought to let that evil persist, for that individual cannot 'rob' your
child of grace.
Whatever the answer to the first question is ought to be the answer to
the second.
I know what I would do (that is, defend myself or my child and
very possibly an unknown individual). But I'm unclear as to 'What
Jesus Would Do.'
Nemesio
11 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioThese are very hard questions. As a Christian, I try to look to the Bible for guidance on how to live my life; my ethics, if you will.
That was actually my next question. Let's make 'an innocent' even more
tantalizing: one's young child. It would seem consistent with Christian
philosophy that, rather than kill an individual trying to kill your child,
you ought to let that evil persist, for that individual cannot 'rob' your
child of grace.
Whatever the answer to the first question ...[text shortened]... sibly an unknown individual). But I'm unclear as to 'What
Jesus Would Do.'
Nemesio
I have recently been wrestling with these same questions. I am not yet a father. My life, to this point, has not been threatened.
As to self-preservation, I can answer what I should do and what I want to do. I cannot answer what I will do. But, I have decided that I will not take a life to preserve my own. Like was mentioned previously, the attacker is probably not yet ready for Heaven. I am.
As to other/innocent/familial-preservation, I don't know. That is the one I'm working through. I do not take the Bible to be two different books jammed together with differing messages between them (i.e. the Old and New Testament, with only one of them valid when they appear to disagree). I believe (dangerous word, I admit) that they teach the same things. It is incumbant on me to try to figure out what they teach and how to reconcile seeming contradictions to arrive at a central truth. There are many passages, especially in the Old Testament, that tell God's people to defend the widow and the orphan. Clearly God endorsed His people to engage in warfare (please let's not rehash the "morality" argument here). In the New Testament, Paul writes that the government is ordained by God to wield the sword to defend justice. Jesus tells His first "missionaries" to carry nothing but a sword with them.
However, then I look to the character of God as described in the Bible. Jesus gave up His life for the deliverance of others. God the Father gave up His Son (Jesus) for the deliverance of others. I am not God, obviously. I don't have it in me to give my child to be murdered and then freely forgive the murderer. But, I should. God did.
So, again, these are hard questions, and I'm afraid I don't have an easy answer from a Christian perspective.
EDIT: From a strictly human perspective, we who are strong should always take up for the defense of the weak. If we all did this, we would all live at peace with equality no matter what our beliefs and how they differ.
12 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioI agree.
Whereas I think a point was to illustrate the hypocrisy, does Jesus
in fact comment about the justice of such a punishment?
Pretending for a moment that the story is in fact a literal representation
of some event in Jesus' lifetime, I take the story to be a commentary
on 'second chances;' yes, everyone has sinned, some even severely,
in the ...[text shortened]... forgiveness which I
think ought to be elemental to all righteous belief systems.
Nemesio
He refuses condemn the woman. He implicitly condemns those who would stone her—and I think that there was nothing particular about that specific group of would-be executioners that made them worse than any others.
In these stories, Jesus has a nasty habit of up-leveling, or enlarging, the situation. His replies take on an almost “koanic” character. He could’ve just said, “No, don’t kill her; capital punishment is disproportionate to the crime.” Would that have had the same effect? I think this passage, though putatively in the Johannine gospel,* can be tied in with the Matthean saying (7:2), “...the measure you give will be the measure you get.”
Another example of this up-levelling or enlarging was his response to the question about paying taxes to Caesar—unless one thinks he was merely giving tax advice...
Even if we take Jesus as nothing more than an enlightened wisdom-teacher (ala the Buddha)—and making due allowance for textual criticism; and the source and purpose of the stories; and the fact that the narrative itself may contain parables that are unannounced, so to speak—I think we are invited to look beneath the surface of the plain, literalistic interpretations. No one expects to gain deep insight by skimming the text of the Tao Te Ching, for example, without reading it “contemplatively.” And once one gains an insight, one doesn’t expect that it won’t yield something new with subsequent “engagements”—I don’t anyway.
In engaged reading, we bring our own story to the stories, our own torah to the Torah. That engagement is both hermeneutical and creative.
________________________________
* Almost all scholars, I believe, have concluded based on the textual evidence that this tale is a later addition to the original text. A good story nonetheless.
12 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Big MacI agree with you concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I have no arguement with what you are saying here. I am a believer and follower of the Bible.
Yes, I've had a personal experience of God, however, I recognize that I am fallible, and, as the Bible says, my heart is desparately wicked and deceitful above all. Therefore, I trust the Bible to tell me about God.
So, in this post you mentioned the Triune ...[text shortened]... rior to any creation. He was perfectly happy communing with Himself in the form of the Trinity.
"... for You loved Me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24)
Yes the the Son says that the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world, before the creation, in other words.
However, having recognized that I must conclude that there was a longing in God that He have not one son but many sons: For in the same prayer in which the Son recognizes the eternal love within the Triune God He says this:
"And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them; that they may be one: as You Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in us, even as We are one" (17:22)
The glory of the Father and the oneness with the Father which the only begotten Son enjoys He desires for the many sons to likewise enjoy - " ... even as We are one"
I believe that such a longing to include the many sons was in the heart of the Triune God also "before the foundation of the world". For we are told that God predestinated some to "sonship" Compare Ephesianas 1:2 with John 17:24 and we see that while the Onlybegotten Son enjoyed this love the Triune God was predistinating that the many sons would also be created and brought into it.
Therefore we see this: "I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me" (17:23)
The oneness and love and glory that the Son enjoyed in eternity past, therefore I understand, was intended for the many sons to equally enjoy. So God predestinated the many for sonship "before the foundation of the world." (Eph.1:2)
And this predistinating, this marking out of the destiny of many sons was "according to the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. 1:5)
The revelation of this "good pleasure" which was in God before creation, is now revealed to the apostles and prophets of the New Testament - "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He has purposed in Himself" (Eph. 1:9)
I will grant that perhaps we can only "borrow" the human word "lonely" to express something very profound in the divine realm. Perhaps to press the word "lonely" too far would render some perculiar notion. But it seems clear enough that what the Son enjoyed and what the Father enjoyed together before creation, was already planned and desired for the many sons to likewise share.
12 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI think you miss the point of the New Testament. The justice due the adulterous woman was carried out indeed. In the scope of the whole mission and teaching of Jesus , it was carried out on Calvary upon the cross of Jesus.
That Jesus in fact decided to be compassionate in this case is immaterial to my point. My point is that Jesus did not disavow the justice of execution for adultery. Even you claim that he had the moral authority to carry out this sentence, as though you think that had Jesus stoned her himself, he still would have been acting rightly.
What do you think J aimed "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."?
God has not overlooked man's sins. He has judged them on the cross of Christ. He has not in a sloppy way simply decided to look the other way. Justice has been imputed for man's iniquity upon the cross of Christ in His redemptive death.
I think that the Old Testament law in its harshness was needed to establish God's hatred of sin. Against the backdrop of the revealed hatred of God for man's sins, we have the judging of those sins in the redemptive death of Jesus on our behalf.
The adulterous woman was in fact stoned by Jesus on the day that Jesus died for her sins and ours on His cross at Calvary.
Furthermore, in His resurrection state He administers and dispenses into the believers the divine power with which they can overcome the sin nature - " ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
The crucified one Who accomplised redemption then rises and becomes the "life giving Spirit" to join to the redeemed sinner and empower him or her to "go and sin no more"
He gave His life for us. Then He gives His life to us who believe. And I can't imagine the humanist improving upon either the character of Jesus or the plan of eternal salvation, let alone him displaying the power to carry it out.