Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Problems With the Old Testament!

Forum Quick Jump

121 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/6/2001 9:06 AM (GMT -6)

I’m freakin here folks. A member of the heavenly counsel misusing their authority? Stop it Doc! Stop it! Argghh!

Chance suggested that Christ’s reply to the disciples comes out of the context of his earthly mission. He will act very differently when he returns. In reply I’d agree that Christ will certainly execute judgment on his enemies when he returns. But does this entirely solve the problem? Fact is we see very similar sorts of things happening in the ongoing life of the church’s mission and not just in the eschaton by Christ (e.g., Ananias and Saphira).

About mauling the kids being justified according to OT law. Sounds good to me. How do we explain Ananias and Saphira? OT law?

I think Scott’s comments about the Hebrew are as sound as not. Ockam’s Razor, oooooh, that’s good.

I think the variant “as Elijah did” in Luke 9 is not original, but that doesn’t solve the larger problem.

In rebuking the disciples for their attitude Jesus may have basically been saying, “Look guys, that’s not your job description. Leave me SOMETHING to do when I return in the eschaton.” Is this what you were getting at Chance?

Two things.

I think Jesus’ point is basically that only God knows when such a step is necessary. James and John were assuming that their role in Jesus’ ministry, on a ministry there would one day carry on without Christ, included deciding such life-and-death matters. Admittedly, Peter (with Ananias and Saphira) appears to represent the same sort of thing. But why cannot this simply be Peter genuinely hearing from the Spirit and not presumptuously assuming such action was appropriate as did James and John? The point is God can and does execute judgment now. It’s not all put off to the eschaton (ala Chance?). The mistake of James and John was their assuming that the decision lay in their hands.

But (I’m thinking out loud here) if James and John are merely presumptuously assuming a role that is not their’s, then why do they ask Jesus if that’s what he wants them to do? So, they obviously understood JESUS and his mission in such terms as well.

I’m in process on this one. I think Chance has a point. The answer lies in Jesus’ explanation of his own rebuke, and that seems to reside in a proper understanding of Jesus’ earthly ministry. But I would only add that the other side of Jesus’ ministry (the dark side, i.e., judgment, which James and John assume they are to be involved in) is not entirely postponed to the eschaton (contra Chance). It begins to unfold in Acts almost immediately.

Shouldn’t we take our cue on how to read the OT from the NT writers themselves (which I understand to be largely typological)?

Tom

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/6/2001 9:10 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

quote:
One problem that comes to mind is that Jesus elsewhere did NOT carry out the law (e.g. the woman [and the man] caught in the act of adultery SHOULD have gotten stoned) and in fact broke the law (e.g. picking food on the Sabaath). Why so harsh on insulting kids? Should kids be getting stoned today?

See what I'm talking about? There are some times when Jesus seems ALL ABOUT the Law (here and talking about tithes)...and other times when it barely matters to Him (the adulteress and food on Sabbath). All based on his OWN SENSE of authority that lay WITHIN HIMSELF. Is this not somewhat "arbitrary" in the clearest understanding of the word, y'all? Just wondering.

Edited by - mephi2k on 12/06/2001 2:12:13 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/6/2001 9:10 AM (GMT -6)

Scott: the explanation that God was "getting" the kids for placing a threat on Elisha's life is the simplest explanation possible for me.

Doc: Thanks for the info Scott. It was helpful. The thing about the little boys being teenagers, however, seems a stretch.

Trosie: The open future allows God the opportunity for experiencing (if we are concerned with His boredom) but I am perplexed on who you guys believe is above God's infinite intelligence that allows Him to learn?

Doc: Good question Trosie. It’s one of the reasons why I'm personally a bit hesitant to apply the word "learn" to God. It seems to imply that there is some information out there he doesn’t know.

But the concept Semeia and Still Unsure are toying with (as I understand them) isn’t that God is still learning about the universe, but that reality itself is expanding in novel ways. Hence God’s experience of it is expanding as well. As there are genuinely new things brought about, God interacts with it and adjusts his interactions as the new things expand in novel directions. He experiments and experiences, as it were. He doesn’t get "taught," as though there was a predesigned right way that he got wrong. He just experientially interacts.

The point, I take it, is that God experimented with the hard nosed law approach in the Old Testament. In the light of certain consequences, however, he adjusted his interaction – "changed his mind" – and thus opted for a radically new approach.

One of the problems I have with this perspective, however, is that I find Christ and the whole Christ plan of redemption sprinkled throughout the Old Testament. It seems God knew he’d have to become a man and die very early on – when he was still using the "hard nosed legal approach."

Modes (in response to Trosie): God knows perfectly, so far as "information" goes about what all the possibilities entail. But God has only experienced what is happening now and has happened previously. . . I submit to you that this (experiencing death on the cross) is a new form of knowledge for God and that it counts in a sense as God "learning".

Doc: Great point Modes. THIS sense of "learn" I can live with. In fact, it is a sense of "learn" that ALL Christian theists who deny timelessness must affirm. None of them believe that God has "exhaustively definite foreknowledge," for if there is ANY difference between God’s foreknowledge of x and God’s EXPERIENCE of x, then the EXPERIENCE of x ADDS to the foreknowledge and is a "more definite," more "concrete" form of knowledge. In other words, all classical theists who deny divine timelessness are all to some extent open theists!

So, is all Semeia is saying that God adjusts God’s interactions with us based on his experience? This seems part and parcel of the open view of God. The only question is, how much room for adjustment are we going to ascribe to God? Would we perhaps grant that God completely abandoned his OT hard nose law approach in favor of his sacrifice-for-all and "work-from-within" approach? Hmmmm?

But we still have the problem of a) Christ prophecies; b) Chances observation about the law in the NT; c) Mephi’s observation that God sometimes still seems to operate in OT ways (Ananias and Sepharia). Perhaps there are ways to explain these, however, that are consistent with the view that God has radically altered his modus operenti from the Old Testament to the New.

One of the things that has always intrigued me is that you can’t get away from the fact that God SEEMS to have really thought that the law would work when he gave it in the Old Testament. Paul, looking back on it, says that it only served to increase our awareness of sin, for "by the law can no man be justified." But this certainly isn’t an awareness reflected in the Old Testament itself.

Semeia: There is no "teacher" above God. But why would we deny to God the most essential property of life?

Doc: This is precisely the point I was making above. The issue is about the nature of the "life" God has created, not the perfection of God. God perfectly interacts with a creation that includes genuinely novelty. Hence his experiences are novel and his mode of interaction adjusting.

Semeia: What if God has a really good marketing department, and he knows his audience? The bible takes place in time, and it unfolds, and God reveals different things at different times…The way you package your facts determines to a large extent how they are received. The world of the Old Testament was brutal in many regards, and people would not have been shocked at the same scripture that shocks us. Perhaps God is simplifying for his audience. There would be no reason to explain all the permutations surrounding the incident of the boys because the audience would not have understood, and the audience was in fact fine with God bringing about harsh retribution, because that's the world they lived in. The complete version of the incident may include many elements that the people could never have understood. In fact, we have to consider that it may be yet too complex for us to understand.

Doc: I think this is a hugely important insight. It squares with the simple fact that the author of the passage clearly had no problems with recording it the way she did, which tells us the audience wouldn’t have any problems recording it the way they did. In the light of subsequent revelation, and (I think) God-inspired humanitarian development (as bad as we are, we are not as barbaric as they were back then) we HAVE a problem with it and thus are seeking to "abduct" (postulate) a state of affairs that makes better sense of the passage. And personally, I think we’re making a little headway.

I'm working my way through this thread. I know some of this is pretty radical -- and (dear guardians) we are only thinking out loud. But I find it stimulating... so much so that I'm WAY procrastinating on 17 things i have to get done by next Monday!

Loving it
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Edited by - GregBoyd on 12/06/2001 2:23:01 PM

Edited by - GregBoyd on 12/06/2001 2:23:46 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/6/2001 3:07 PM (GMT -6)

TGB, do NOT leaving us dangling like this ever again, you cruel person!

You say we should take our clue about how to read the OT from NT writers, and then note, without any further comment, that it was largely typological. Aghhh.

Are you saying we should read the OT looking for types of Christ, and that THIS should be our primary hermenuetical principle in interpreting the OT? And how would this help address the problem of kid-mauling bears, massacred Canaanite women, children and goats, etc...? Can you flesh it out a bit, when you get a chance. I, like many of us I'm sure, almost always benefit whenever you talk.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 12/6/2001 3:52 PM (GMT -6)

Doc,

I have something to say, but I want you to take a few deep breaths, go to your happy place, and say three times "nominalists are Christians too."

I have to say that there is a little part of me that really resonates with Mephi's point here. I trust God's character and I think that character is consistently revealed through Jesus as good. But at the end of the day when all is said and done I feel like I have to say, "God can be God even if I don't understand what that means." "Though he slay me yet will I praise him."

It really does take a whole lot of chutspah to try to make God palatable in every instance for the sake of my own comfort. Sometimes things in the bible are confusing to me. Big deal. Sometimes I don't get it. Tough. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the task of apologetics or with wrestling with the text. That's all necessary. But I don't really have a lot of confidence in our ability to get it all figured out. When it's all said and done our "God-talk" will fall short and mess it up in one way or another. As a human-being before God, it's very important for me to confess that.

I'm bracing myself. Be kind.

Mouse

"We're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy." Seal

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/6/2001 4:17 PM (GMT -6)

Doc: But the concept Semeia and Still Unsure are toying with (as I understand them) isn’t that God is still learning about the universe, but that reality itself is expanding in novel ways. Hence God’s experience of it is expanding as well. As there are genuinely new things brought about, God interacts with it and adjusts his interactions as the new things expand in novel directions. He experiments and experiences, as it were. He doesn't get "taught," as though there was a predesigned right way that he got wrong. He just experientially interacts.

Doc revealing one of today's best reasons for not reading the bible simplistically: The point, I take it, is that God experimented with the hard nosed law approach in the Old Testament. In the light of certain consequences, however, he adjusted his interaction – "changed his mind" – and thus opted for a radically new approach. . . . . .One of the problems I have with this perspective, however, is that I find Christ and the whole Christ plan of redemption sprinkled throughout the Old Testament. It seems God knew he’d have to become a man and die very early on – when he was still using the "hard nosed legal approach."

Question for Doc on: "all classical theists who deny divine timelessness are all to some extent open theists!"
PoW: Doc, do you think that a-time/timeless and experience foreknowing-yet-experiencing have any trouble going together. it fits my imagination pretty well. Like a potter "knowing" the shape of a vase that is yet to be made--not, spoke to slowly 'cause its made now...and ya know what, it is interesting, none-quite like it....I knew it would be!!!

Doc: One of the things that has always intrigued me is that you can’t get away from the fact that God SEEMS to have really thought that the law would work when he gave it in the Old Testament.
PoW: REALLY?? Growing up our bible-guitar study pretty much majored on that aspect that the people cowered at the smoke and the voice and did NOT WANT direct relations with God; so God gave them the intermediary they pretty much requested. (I do think, am lead to believe, that the Decalog is more -- is treated as more properly an expression of the Logos than, say, the dietary laws....but holism should get its vote???)

Yea!!! Churchmouse!!!

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/6/2001 4:17 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, so I'm browsing the categories tonight and I see "Problems With the Old Testament". Hmm, I'll check it out....WHAT, where'd all the posts come from? Great, no time to really study this...what do I do?

Answer: SPEED READ!
Problem: Well, I may not have gotten ya'll right on key with what yer sayin'! I'll give my two cents...

First, about God learning: it's not unscriptural, it's not unorthodox and it's not illogical UNLESS you don't define what "God learning" means (and boy, that can confuse some!).

If God who is the great chess player knows EVERY possible combination of moves that can be made, and knows every possible move to make no matter how you move, then consider "learning" as the following:

God: "Okay, it's Starkman's move, and I'll bet he moves the rook."

Me: I move the pawn.

God: "Huh? I didn't think he'd do that! I sure wouldn't have. Oh well, guess I'll win the game now", and God goes on to checkmate."

It has made no difference what I moved, He knows ALL the information to win. There's no new information (much the argument that creationists use against evolutionists: there's no new information within the DNA to account for evolution, BUT there's new species based on existing information.)

God experiences (one of the most beautiful and warming thoughts I've come to ponder about God lately) as He goes along the walk with us. There's never any new information to evolve something that God wouldn't know, but there's all the future in the world that God can say, Hmm, I didn't think he/she would do it that way...".

The cross of Christ surely affords God a learning experience of this kind. But could it be said that He had never seen a cross before? Or had never understood the emotions, feelings and pain of one going through it since God saw many go through it? I don't believe so. But... to truely know something (not add evolutionary new information but participating of existing information) is to experience it.

About the youth getting fed to the bears. One thing I consider that which is unspoken in the text - all that's not said about the youths. Only God knows what they were like, what other stuff they got away with, were doing, etc. Consider Onan and his brother in, oh, I think it's Genesis 38, is it?...it states "And Onan did evil in the site of the Lord, and the Lord slew him. His brother did evil, too, and the Lord slew him". BUT WHAT DID THEY DO??? Again, silence!

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/6/2001 4:20 PM (GMT -6)

I'm going to repeat myself...

Question for Doc on: "all classical theists who deny divine timelessness are all to some extent open theists!"
PoW: Doc, do you think that a-time/timeless and experience foreknowing-yet-experiencing have any trouble going together. it fits my imagination pretty well. Like a potter "knowing" the shape of a vase that is yet to be made--not, spoke to slowly 'cause its made now...and ya know what, it is interesting, none-quite like it....I knew it would be!!!

PotOnWheel, spinning...

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/06/2001 9:21:32 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/6/2001 6:24 PM (GMT -6)

The Mouse That Roared!

Yeh little rodant.

Churchmouse: It really does take a whole lot of chutspah to try to make God palatable in every instance for the sake of my own comfort.

Doc: It sure does. People shouldn't do that. NEVER put demands on God for "our own comfort."

But how about inquiring into some possible senarios that can help us understand the God we love?

If my wife, whom I know to have a splendid character, suddenly acts in a horrible way, I 'd inquire into why she acted like that. If I couldn't access her to inquire, I'd surmise in my head possible scenarios that would explain her behavior. I wouldn't inquire if I didn't love her, and didn't have reasons for thinking she had a wonderful character.

This, I take it, is something like we're doing as we try to understand some aspects of the God of the OT in light of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Does that take Chutspah, or just love?

Churchmouse: Sometimes things in the bible are confusing to me. Big deal. Sometimes I don't get it. Tough.

Doc: Look mousey, I agree with you, at least on one level. Heh, I’ve admitted that I've wondered about this kid-mauling episode for years. That reflects some degree of patience, doesn’t it? And, at the end of the day, I’m still a believer who believes in the inspiration of the OT. So in this sense it is no big deal.

BUT when you meet people whose picture of God is a kid-mauling picture of God, as I do ALL THE TIME – well, then what we DO with these passages IS a big deal. Some understandably reject the kid-mauling God and are unbelievers. I'd like to bring them into a relationship with the true God. Others, to their detriment, try to live it. Because their view of God is rooted in certain OT passages, they try to "love" a God whom they can only be terrified of. I'd like to help them get free. It helps these people nothing if I say "yep, its confusing sometimes." I know you agree with all this.

We perhaps don't need to try to understand things for OUR "comfort." But perhaps we need to for the comfort -- the theological health -- of others.

Churchmouse: I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the task of apologetics or with wrestling with the text. That's all necessary.

Doc: And that’s all we’re doing.

Churchmouse: But I don't really have a lot of confidence in our ability to get it all figured out.

Doc: Me either, at least not with any degree of certainty. But I’d be happy with some plausible possibilities which serve to reinforce our confidence that God is as he is in Jesus dying on the cross, not as he seems to be in commanding kids to be stoned and womens hands to be cut off for defending their husbands.

Sure you and I and Mephi can live with it: but a) some can't;
b) its cognitive dissonance, and we're wired to try to resolve it; (remember, we are to worship God with OUR MINDS too!)
c) even those of us who can "live with it" may have linguiring doubts about God's character rooted in these texts. a Yes-but faith..
d) I want to know and love God more. And so I can't help but inquire into these texts, like I would my wife.

Personally, I found that, though he gives a piece that passes understanding, you can't seriously be a disciple of Christ and have any concern for "comfort."

Churchmouse: I'm bracing myself. Be kind.

Doc: You ignorant wretched pathetic excuse for a mouse! I call down the giant foot of the Almight mouse squisher upon you, you weeny rodant retard! I call upon 42 she-cats to maul and eat you. How dare you question me!!!

I AM OZ!!!!

How was that?

Now for {b]PoW: Doc, do you think that a-time/timeless and experience foreknowing-yet-experiencing have any trouble going together. it fits my imagination pretty well. Like a potter "knowing" the shape of a vase that is yet to be made--not, spoke to slowly 'cause its made now...and ya know what, it is interesting, none-quite like it....I knew it would be!!!

Doc: Sorry POW. I don’t see any element of timelessness in your analogy of the vase. If the vase didn't quite turn out as you thought, clearly the experience of making the vase is different than foreknowing the vase. And how it could be combatible with eternally knowing the vase, while having some rooting in your imagination, as you say, is utterly beyond me. Try saying it a different way, more slowly. maybe I'll get it then.

Last word. My wheels are turning on the variables to be considered in interpreting various difficult biblical texts. Heres' a very very brief and wholly biased summary.
* Mephi and Mouses encouragment to be humble and accepting and, when all is said and done, willing to admit that some things we just can't figure out.
* My insistence that, even if we can't figure it out, these text should not be given normative status except insofar as they agree with the revelation of God in Christ on the cross.
* Semeia's, Modes, Still Unsures (and others) view that there's a sense in which God learns.
* Semeias insight into how God's packaging to audiences affects the what is and is not highlighted in the story line.
* My view that the council of the gods is perhaps an important consideration here.

I think theres a lot here. Undoubtedly there are other considerations.

Last last word. I'm chewing on coming back with something more substantial on the gods, because I'm really convinced this is a central, almost universally neglected, variable. I'm also thinking it can be combined with Semeia's packaging piece in a way that may shed light on some things.

We'll see. later. night night.

Greg

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/6/2001 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, I decided to go for it now. Since I’ve only slept 7 hours in three days, why start trying to get normal now, right???

A Discourse on the Council of the Gods. Is Everything Scripture Says God Did Really Some God Personally Did?

I. The Gods
I am convinced that the concept of God’s heavenly council, the assembly of the gods, is far more important to our understanding of God’s interaction with the world than Christians generally suppose.

There are 247 to the Lord as "The Lord of Hosts" (mistakenly translated as "Lord Almighty" in the NIV). The idea is that the Lord is the captain of an army. Every time the expression is used it calls to mind the vast spiritual realm that God heads up. "O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, who are enthroned above the cherubim, you are God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth (Isa 37:16). Relatedly, there are over 400 references to "gods" other than Yahweh in the Bible, over 300 references to angels, and over 150 references to "heavenly beings" with other terminology ("sons of God," spirits, etc.. Indeed, in typical ancient fashion, things like the stars and moon were conceived as part of God’s council Deut. 4:19 Judg. 5:20 Job 38:7 Is. 14:13 Hab. 3:11 ). Though rarely noticed, this stuff is all over the place. Modern people think only of, or primarily of, God and humans in our understanding of things. Not so with the ancients.

II. The Heavenly Counsel
It seems that, even though the gods are not all good, they together form something of a t heavenly council. In Psl 82 the gods have been carrying out their duties poorly. In I Kg 22:19 ff. a lying spirit is among the council. However figuratively or literally we take it, there is something like an "assembly meeting" that occurs in heaven, and God is in charge. "One day the heavenly beings (literally, "sons of God") came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them" (Job 1:6; 2:1). Part of the assembly seems to be to hold the gods accountable (Ps 82, perhaps also implied in Job 1). This (and other things) suggests that the gods, like humans, are given a domain of authority to carry out but, like humans, are not preprogrammed to necessarily carry it out exactly as God wills. They are allowed input (as we are in prayer) and given some freedom in carrying out the wills of the captain. Things in heaven are not so different than they are here on earth. (Why should they be: the same designer designed them!)

III. Emissaries as Extensions of Kings
Now here’s the interesting part. Ancient people were accustomed to seeing all emissaries of a king as extensions of a king. Though guilt only attached to the emissaries when they acted in violation to a kings wishes, they STILL were considered extensions of the king, and the king assumed all responsibility. What they did could be ascribed to the king, even if the king himself didn’t will what they did!!!!

I wonder how much of this carries over into the Old Testament narrative. Think how many times an "angel of the Lord" is identified as the Lord himself (I don’t have time to look them all up – someone else pick up the mantel here and supply the quotes, okay?). It happens frequently. So too, when an angel announces something, it is assumed that God announces it. And when an angel does something, it is assumed that, for all intents and purposes (according to the ancient logic of potentates) God himself does it. (Again, we need to give the biblical examples of this – a nice research project for someone to take on – but they are all over).

My point is that perhaps ("guardians of truth and right thought, not the subjunctive nature of this

love ya!) this applies even when the gods don’t carry out "the King’s" wishes. As the LORD of hosts and the Creator of the world, the Lord takes responsibility for everything – even when his creations and emissaries are guilty of wrongdoing. Perhaps this is why e.g. the book of Job says that Job’s friends consoled him for all the trouble "the Lord had brought on him" (Job 42) even though the same book shows us that Satan was the actual agent who brought the stuff on him (Job 1-2) and the general explanation for evil is related to Leviathan and Behemoth (Job 40-41). Perhaps this is why God admits that he makes muteness and deafness (Ex 4:11) even though Jesus uniformly attributes such things to Satan.

And so I wonder – as a thought experiment – how much else that is attributed to the Lord might actually be the work of his wayward emissaries. The angel of death that slew the first born child in Egypt? The fire that consumed God’s enemies which John and James wanted to replicate? Over zealous angel, or Yahweh himself? There’s of course no way to know definitely (yeh churchmouse) but its worth a question.

These emissaries are given permission by the King to do what they do – as all free agents are -- but what they do may not be what the King ideally would want them to do. Nevertheless, they act as part of the council, as (poor) representatives of God.

IV. Packaging to the Audience
Lets combine these thoughts with the insight from Semeia that God’s PR department packages things according to the audience. The people of this time equated, as a matter of course, the behavior of emissaries as extensions of kings. They also routinely accepted "might is right" and didn’t wrestle with the problem of evil the way we do. With the exception of Job, all the complaints of injustice with God are about his covenantal promises to his people, not about the problem of evil "in general." Hence, the author of 1 Kings feels no need to go beyond a simple description of Elisha’s curse and the kids mauling. Whether it was God who did it, an over zealous god who did it, or an innate power Elijah misused (don’s idea) makes no difference to them. It happens. God is ultimately responsible, and assigning guilt is, for them, irrelevant. No one questions the king or his emissaries. To most of us moderns, however, it matters mattes a great deal who is guilty.

We see God taking responsibility for all the suffering of the world on the cross. But the question of guilt remains – it is the problem of evil. And to this end reflecting on the counsel of the gods seems to be pertinent. I don’t know how far to push this. I don’t know to what extent, if any, it helps square some of the more ferocious episodes in the OT with the God revealed in Christ. But I believe it is an important variable.

Chew on it. What do you think?

Doc

ps. you know whats nuts. In the half hour or so I took to finish this and post again, this thread had moved to number five in the category of Theological Q and A. MAN is the board getting BUSY!!! That's good news, I guess. But keeping up is utterly Impossible -- unless you have no life and no sleep!

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Edited by - GregBoyd on 12/06/2001 11:51:44 PM

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 12/6/2001 7:52 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Doc,

Boy, I expected a much meaner response when I pulled out the "N" word (nominalist).

The most important part of what I said is "at the end of the day, when all is said and done..." I love what you do with theology, but after every argument, after every attempt at understanding God, I feel like a confession is in order. So I confessed. I know you're with me on that.

Oh and as to...

quote:

Doc: You ignorant wretched pathetic excuse for a mouse! I call down the giant foot of the Almight mouse squisher upon you, you weeny rodant retard! I call upon 42 she-cats to maul and eat you. How dare you question me!!!

I AM OZ!!!!

How was that?

I'm not afraid of you, you big old bully. OZ indeed. Don't forget that OZ was just a little guy behind a curtain. And another thing...[MEOW...HISS...SCRATCH..."AAHHHH, HELP ME! I'M BEING MAULED BY A BUNCH OF SHE-CATS!!!!!"

]

Mauled Mouse

"We're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy." Seal

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/6/2001 8:24 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
...that God’s PR department packages things according to the audience.

What do you think of substituting the phrase "God learns" to "God is continually creating"? The PR department insight would work within the idea that God is continually creating. Since God dealt with people differently before Christ than after his death, would it not suffice to say that God CREATES new ways to work with humanity? Could this "continually creating" idea be why God reacts radically different in the person of Jesus than how He is depicted in the Old Testament stories?

Now, I'll go one step further by pondering the idea that perhaps it's because of the Spiritual battle that God has to be continually creating new ways to communicate and relate with humanity. Perhaps it's not that God is "learning" per se, as much as it is that God is fighting against the enemy in order to reach humanity.

What do you think?
trosie

Edited by - trosie on 12/07/2001 01:25:56 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/7/2001 12:22 AM (GMT -6)

I see your wheels turning up there Trosie.

quote:

What do you think of substituting the phrase "God learns" to "God is continually creating"? The PR department insight would work within the idea that God is continually creating. Since God dealt with people differently before Christ than after his death, would it not suffice to say that God CREATES new ways to work with humanity? Could this "continually creating" idea be why God reacts radically different in the person of Jesus than how He is depicted in the Old Testament stories?

Now, I'll go one step further by pondering the idea that perhaps it's because of the Spiritual battle that God has to be continually creating new ways to communicate and relate with humanity. Perhaps it's not that God is "learning" per se, as much as it is that God is fighting against the enemy in order to reach humanity.

What do you think?
trosie

You are expanding the differentiation department within... Then you will need to ask how that squares with what we know of the over-all and over-arching plan of salvation. It is said that there was a cross in the heart of God from before the creation of the world. (Incarntion plans were on-line; crucifixion a contingency -- I speak WAY to informally here, don't I?)

But in your thought-piece above, I would critique that the ONE event of the death-crucifixion-resurrection does not in itself proove (or point the way to) OTHER such "new ways". Questions to ask are: are there any other such new ways that are anticipated since, say...the fall? ("crush the serpant's head.")

A big feature in the very real "new way" is putting His Spirit within us, ussuring in the kingdom INTO the church, rather than the kingdom being here in Christ's body among us (33 years); or the Spirit coming UPON in the OT.

I like the continuity that Doc has meantioned that is more than just "between" OT and NT, but "proceeds through" the OT and NT. Any new thoughts must check-in for inspection by those sentries.

PoW

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/7/2001 1:20 AM (GMT -6)

to Doc: Sorry you didn't get that.

quote:
Now for {b]PoW: Doc, do you think that a-time/timeless and experience foreknowing-yet-experiencing have any trouble going together. it fits my imagination pretty well. Like a potter "knowing" the shape of a vase that is yet to be made--not, spoke to slowly 'cause its made now...and ya know what, it is interesting, none-quite like it....I knew it would be!!!

Doc: Sorry POW. I don’t see any element of timelessness in your analogy of the vase. If the vase didn't quite turn out as you thought, clearly the experience of making the vase is different than foreknowing the vase. And how it could be combatible with eternally knowing the vase, while having some rooting in your imagination, as you say, is utterly beyond me. Try saying it a different way, more slowly. maybe I'll get it then.

Not "timeless" but a-temporality. If there wasn't a difference before, there is now. "Timeless" seems so strongly refered back to time, so as to continue being defined by it.

Here's the picture:

I'm borrowing from something that I actully know something about, for a change.

I did not intend to put in ANY element of "timelessness", any more than one would accept eternity as bad-infinity. I tried to glyph (new verb for keyboard-compositing), by maybe globbed instead. But my glyph really says: a-time and a-timeless ("aahhh-time") to attempt to distance from both.

The vase-throwing analogy (no bad puns, please!) draws upon the sense that the potter has for the vase, which spans across many vases and many throwing sessions. (Mentioning Plato would distract from the narrative.) (i'm not sure how to make logi useful--and can't spell it either)

While this analogy has to be limited in its fit, I like it this morning as much as last night:

The potter "knows" the pot, before it is made. The pot has lots to say about what happens. Throwing is a synergistic event. When the pot, that one pot, is done, the potter sees what he "knew". The vase DID turn out as he "thought"; and maybe that is what I like about this analogy -- the thinking is a different sort of thinking that most discussions in theo/philo. (Philosophical aesthetics, like in Seervelt, has the term "imaginativity." There are elements of imaginativity that might be useful in springing past the scale of time.) The potter didn't not know; it is not the case that the pot, as you said: "didn't turn out as you thought". Because of the kind of relationship of potter and pot, it DID turn out. Any non-synergistic or non-imaginativized (My wife hates my trying to make up words.) method just wouldn't produce a LIVE pot -- which is one of the main things that the potter wants! To help make this clearer, or at least more clear in its ambiguity, let me comment that the potter (I can not go past the analogy of my own "imaginatative" ezperiences) knows the pot both the same way as before ANd a different way than before. He maybe knows the next pot both the same way and different, and also the same. (I won't try to differentiate in words the two sames--so ignore this part.)

As to foreknow, I'm using the sense of that word found in the John of Damascus piece I'd put on here a few times. Reading John it does not come off as determinism at all. And it has the sort of responsiveness you see in the Bible -- since most of his examples to illustrate this, as he explained it to his Arab countrymen were form the OT, making pairing the events in his storied examples kind of fun.

That is all about the vase and working within an artisitc sensibility. Now I've got to switch gears. (grind, groan...)

To be tranparent, I feel comfortable extending the EO tradition of God being unknowable in his "essence", though directly knowable in his "energies" (contra to the Latin's searchable rationally even in His essence, but not directly experiencable in His energies....leading to "created grace") extending it and applying it here to God and time. (Why not?)

In some manners God, in His energies, where God is the object but we are focusing on the direct object (matter, time, "plans"/contingencies--hinting that divine "plans" can change without God's "will" changing),

PROLOG:

I offer that imagination and "imaginativity" as a philosophical category might be a track for allowing one to consider the actions of God, unilateral and synergistic, etc. along side "eternal." ----- TOO LATE, GOT TO GET THE KIDS UP!

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/08/2001 08:18:29 AM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/7/2001 3:25 AM (GMT -6)

Some brief things...from Meph's perspective.

Doc says:

quote:
If my wife, whom I know to have a splendid character, suddenly acts in a horrible way, I 'd inquire into why she acted like that. If I couldn't access her to inquire, I'd surmise in my head possible scenarios that would explain her behavior. I wouldn't inquire if I didn't love her, and didn't have reasons for thinking she had a wonderful character.

This, I take it, is something like we're doing as we try to understand some aspects of the God of the OT in light of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Does that take Chutspah, or just love?

I hear you. But isn't it in cases like these that the loved ones in question OFTEN delude themselves with denial and passive justification? Working in a psychiatric hospital for wayward and often hostile children and adolescents, I see this ALL the time. Parents in absolute denial. Parents attempting to cope with the distinction between what they "know" about their child and the behavior exhibited by said child.

"My son didn't do those things. He's an all A student. He's a member of our churches choir. He'd never hurt a fly. There's some mixup."

or....

"My daughter couldn't have done those things they say. It MUST be a mistake"

I'm not trying to break your stride, Doc. I understand that it's right to think the best and trying to reconcile the bad data, especially given certain evidence.All I'm saying is that the situations that we are talking about are the most RIPE for people who love "good" people who do bad things to pull out EVERY trick in the book---every "plausible" alternative--- in order to avoid the obviousness of the truth. I think this is ALSO done with God. Just an honest thought.

Doc said:

quote:
BUT when you meet people whose picture of God is a kid-mauling picture of God, as I do ALL THE TIME – well, then what we DO with these passages IS a big deal. Some understandably reject the kid-mauling God and are unbelievers. I'd like to bring them into a relationship with the true God. Others, to their detriment, try to live it. Because their view of God is rooted in certain OT passages, they try to "love" a God whom they can only be terrified of. I'd like to help them get free. It helps these people nothing if I say "yep, its confusing sometimes." I know you agree with all this.

We perhaps don't need to try to understand things for OUR "comfort." But perhaps we need to for the comfort -- the theological health -- of others.

This was my issue that I mentioned before LONG ago with Tom. Is theology just primarily meant to facilitate some type of relationship with God...even to the point of adjusting and explaining away things to do so? OR is theology primarily an attempt to PRESENT God to us for the need of relationship. Sure, I know all the stuff about there being different models of God that help facilitate certain ideas. But to me, HONESTLY, it becomes too much like "Play-Doh Make-Your-Own-God-That-YOU-Feel-YOU-Can-Serve"
Could the plain fact of the matter be that people nowadays have an EXTREMELY romanticized view of "love" and what it means to "love" someone? Could it be that people need to be shaken out of their Pollyanna fantasies and understand that even though love is the best thing in the world, it can HURT LIKE HELL...with the main culprit being the very Beloved to which you are committed? Just maybe...

At any rate, like I said before, I would rather a person just NOT BELIEVE in God, than for me to try to couch and hedge ideas such that people are pleased with God enough to be able to love and serve Him. Bump that. And honestly, my atheist compadres really respect me for the position I take on that. I know one that finds many of the theological constructions today INSULTING to the intelligence and delusions of wishful thinking. I find it hard NOT to agree with him.

Doc said:

quote:
Me either, at least not with any degree of certainty. But I’d be happy with some plausible possibilities which serve to reinforce our confidence that God is as he is in Jesus dying on the cross, not as he seems to be in commanding kids to be stoned and womens hands to be cut off for defending their husbands.

Sure you and I and Mephi can live with it: but a) some can't;
b) its cognitive dissonance, and we're wired to try to resolve it; (remember, we are to worship God with OUR MINDS too!)
c) even those of us who can "live with it" may have linguiring doubts about God's character rooted in these texts. a Yes-but faith..
d) I want to know and love God more. And so I can't help but inquire into these texts, like I would my wife.

Personally, I found that, though he gives a piece that passes understanding, you can't seriously be a disciple of Christ and have any concern for "comfort."

Let me be completely honest here. I think of God as a loving, yet often slightly abusive, confusing husband. (I guess you could put wife, mother, father, brother, sister here as well) I've really been thinking about it. (I actually want to write much more on this idea.) One who at one moment lavishes you with such love that you feel that you will die it you receive anymore...then at another looks at you in utter silence in your darkest times when He knows that ONE WORD from Him would make all the difference in the world to you. One who makes a glorious proposal to you, such that you feel the highest of honors to be asked...little knowing that in the marriage you will suffer more than you have ever known in your life.

Tell me this idea doesn't fit the God we see in the Bible. From mountaintops of PASSIONATE, OVERFLOWING LOVE to cold, dispassionate silence and disdain. You know I'm right, here, y'all. It's all there. Read the Psalms. Read the Prophets. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Hmmm... And ANYONE who's walked with the Lord for any length of time should SURELY know what I'm talking about. So why try to keep people happy by trying to exonerate God out of every bad or evil thing that occurs? We all KNOW that God can put you through hell without you knowing why. And what do we do? We do JUST like the Psalmists and Habbakkuk do.
We reflect on the WONDERFUL things that God has done for us in the past and say to ourselves (like them ol' praying saints in them Pentecostal tabernacles...tarryin' and all) :

"Ok. things are bad right now. But OH, my soul recalls when God delivered me BEFORE. Oh, my sould remembers when God showered his love on me BEFORE. I will remember these things and HOPE in the God that did them...to coin a phrase...

Though He slay me,

YET

WILL

I

TRUST

HIM.

What YOU gotta say 3 Hebrew Boys?

"We KNOW that our God is well able to deliver us from your hand, you silly king. BUT IF HE DOES NOT, we still won't bow to your punk idol!"

That's faith, mes amis. Pure and simple. Call it an dysfunctional relationship if you want, peeps. But try and show me that it's NOT borne out in the lives of Biblical God believers AND contemporary faithful missionaries, evangelists, and preachers everywhere.

What.

Anyway, all this is MY thoughts and where I'm coming from. I'm not faulting anyone for thinking differently cause that's your right. This is just my thing. Holla if you hear me...

Brutally Honest,

If I was your one and only friend,
would you run to me, if somebody hurt you,
even if the somebody was me?

-----Lyric from Prince's "If I Were Your Girlfriend"

Edited by - Mephi2K on 12/07/2001 08:36:16 AM

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 12/7/2001 4:49 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi, thanks so much for your post. Many women—brilliant and fierce scholars—have given up on God the Father, even declaring Him dead, because they are not interested in a god who is only good for some people (esp. men) some of the time. These women abandon the Bible and recover or create their own healthier and more inclusive spirituality. Sounds nice, but it’s oh-so self-referential. As for the "Play-Doh Make-Your-Own-God-That-YOU-Feel-YOU-Can-Serve," you can buy "Create Your Own Goddess" kits complete with modeling clay and a catalogue of idols at Barnes and Noble. No kidding. Their critiques of power are important and very much needed, but they fail to recognize the arrogance of taking God into their own hands, of inaugurating religion on their own terms, of presuming what is good for them is good for the universe. Empowerment or Power Trip? Are we really the consumers that the world calls us, or are we creatures of the Living God?

I wish these women would take the Scriptures’ testimony to the Creator God and the creation more seriously (OF COURSE there will be major issues, but can we handle it?) and I wish the church would take the criticisms and concerns of these women WAY more seriously. Otherwise those outside the church and those within the church merely reinforce their own dubious conclusions to the point of metaphysical reification (is this not a spiritual stronghold?) rather than having them challenged and enriched and humble before God and others.

So Meph, I resonate with you. But let’s deal with some of the SERIOUS issues this conviction raises. You asked, "Could it be that people need to be shaken out of their Pollyanna fantasies and understand that even though love is the best thing in the world, it can HURT LIKE HELL...with the main culprit being the very Beloved to which you are committed?" Could it be that the real "Pollyannas" are the ones who try to justify and rationalize abuse? How would you respond to the criticism that religious conviction like this promotes resignation to unhealthy and abusive conditions rather than resistance? The obvious example is women who stay in abusive relationships, risking their own lives and the lives of their children instead of getting help—is this resignation righteous or sinful? Your conviction makes the answer to this question ambiguous. Mad love, pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time. § Iconoclast

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/7/2001 5:30 AM (GMT -6)

Pia said:

quote:
"Could it be that the real "Pollyannas" are the ones who try to justify and rationalize abuse? How would you respond to the criticism that religious conviction like this promotes resignation to unhealthy and abusive conditions rather than resistance? The obvious example is women who stay in abusive relationships, risking their own lives and the lives of their children instead of getting help---is this resignation righteous or sinful? Your conviction makes the answer to this question ambiguous."

This is where it seems like to me this is leading...
"Well, if people hold to your theological view, won't some people EXTEND said view to either 1) oppress others by taking the authortarian role of "God" or 2) play the helpless person who acquieses? Won't this model of God be more harmful than helpful?"

Hmmm. Here is my problem with this. Since when is a theological position something that is meant to be EMULATED in human relationships. Since when did theology become fundamentally PRAXEOLOGICAL in terms of human interaction? Think about why, for some people, Doc's view is so the bomb. It teaches that theological reality is FUNDAMENTALLY about revolt against perceived evil. God's a good God and the Devil's a bad devil, as Oral Roberts would say. And lucky us, this idea can be applied in pretty much all areas of life. You see evil, you combat it. You see evil, it's not of God. That simple. Or so we are made to think...

But I've always found this whole idea "Do EXACTLY like God does" impractical. Theological formulations are NOT to be merely PRAXES by which we seek to work. Or at least they shouldn't be. Why? Because we are NOT GOD! Some things are bound to be different because of that fact. And those who don't seriously take that into account are not being very smart. Some people just don't seem to get that God being God MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Just maybe there are certain things that God can do or be that we can't which makes completely trying to EMULATE his actions imprudent. Sure, we have lots of information about what God does and what God wants us to do. (Think of Micah 6:8) We have PLENTY of information about the Kingdom of God in the Bible to KNOW to fight evil and trust God in the midst of it. So, do we need to formulate a whole VIEW of God for us to have some model for us to do right??

Frankly, I'd have some REAL problems with people who look at theological models and say "Hmm. I'm going to pattern my personal life exactly on this model of God." without any relflective activity at all. First of all, the obvious thing: NONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED ARE GOD. Either the oppressed or the oppressor. Now hear this: THIS is the problem with trying to identify God TO MUCH with human beings. People mix up being godly with trying to be JUST LIKE GOD. If ONLY people could understand there is a difference!

Pia, the only way that I see my conviction would make the answer to the "resignation to personal abuse" ambiguous is if people are doing the fallacious things I'm talking about above...at which point, THAT problem needs to be addressed.

Sweet stuff

PS: Pia, from what we are discussing here, can you see how some theologians can use theological position PRIMARILY for HUMAN AGENDAS that they want to proport...rather than merely trying to project a possible idea of God's reality?

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 12/7/2001 5:45 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said

quote:

III. Emissaries as Extensions of Kings
Now here’s the interesting part. Ancient people were accustomed to seeing all emissaries of a king as extensions of a king. Though guilt only attached to the emissaries when they acted in violation to a kings wishes, they STILL were considered extensions of the king, and the king assumed all responsibility. What they did could be ascribed to the king, even if the king himself didn’t will what they did!!!!

OH Doc! Please tell. Where did you get that? do you have a bibliographic reference or a name. I've always used this arguement for my street apologetics but a reference helps when you put it in a paper.

A slightly different angle on the same concept would be to place God in the position of the first cause. And since he is the first cause he has done everything that has been done. Definately a perspective that stretches the mind of those who are steeped in individual responsibility.

Cibertus

Anabaptists demonstrate a total lack of intelligence. There is nothing to be learned from their ideas.--John Calvin

ScottEmerson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17

Posted 12/7/2001 6:52 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Scott: the explanation that God was "getting" the kids for placing a threat on Elisha's life is the simplest explanation possible for me.

Doc: Thanks for the info Scott. It was helpful. The thing about the little boys being teenagers, however, seems a stretch.

The word used for children is na'ar. It is used 238 times in the OT and is mostly used for young men or servant. Joseph when he was in prison was called na'al in Gen 41:12 to Pharoah.

Qatan, which is translated little, is given in Strong's the definition of "1) young, small, insignificant, unimportant."

I find it interesting that qatan na'ar also appears in I Kings 3:7, where Solomon calls himself a qatan na'ar in his prayer to God. He was between the ages of 16-20 when he ascended a chapter earlier!

Hadad, in I Kings 11:17, is called a qatan na'ar, even though he is old enough to start a rebellion against Solomon.

Because I tend to be skeptical about translations, I like to find other instances of words or phrases to compare the passages in question. Because of this, I must conclude that the qatan na'ar in II Kings 2 are, indeed, youths old enough to 1) know better and 2) receive appropriate punishment for their actions.

I hope that helps, Doc...

SEC

Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/7/2001 5:05 PM (GMT -6)

I must say that I'm seriously surprised. I thought for sure that my reference to God as confusing and abusive would ruffle someone's feathers...though I honestly wasn't doing it to be controversial. Do you guys agree with my assessment or disagree? And why? I'm open to being persuaded.

Very Interested,

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 12/7/2001 5:56 PM (GMT -6)

I'll go with confusing, but I think you're off on the abusive part. Abusive makes the relationship nonsense. I understand why you're going there, but I think you're perception of abusive is an outgrowth of the confusion.

Mouse

"We're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy." Seal

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/7/2001 6:32 PM (GMT -6)

Meph Man,

Abusive? Well, from whose perspective? I suppose that makes a difference.

It was God, not Satan who initiated the conversation about Job...GOD, I say! Had God just kept quite, Satan would have probably never pushed the issue! Ah, but there was a hedge around Job, was there not (at least according to Satan)? But it was soon lifted.

Silence, pain, agony, no response from God until Job is at the lowest. Abusive? Well, from anyone's perspective watching, I suppose. IT WAS NEVER SUPPOSE TO BE THIS WAY! Neither job nor you nor me nor anyone else was EVER suppose to have to fight with all we have to love God, stay faithful, and worse, live in an upside down world where it takes trial and tribulations to bring for the shining brilliancy of faith (I peter ch one). I mean, talk about inside out, upside down, backwards, twisted and screwed up! It was never supppose to be like this. God cannot help it if we so messed things up that He has to work in complete antithesis from who and what He is in order to promote security of faith, love and trust within an individual. "Inconceivable!" to quote the Italian in "The Princess Bride" (bad, eh!)

I figure it this way: listen, God agreed with Noah to work within our sphere of sin, evil and the abuse we give out to each other. Scripture reveals enough to convince me that what I don't understand (and more so, what looks abusive and unfair from God) is surely not worth giving into. Two things: I contribute to the mess we're in which somehow has inverted the the way God would have normally related to us; and I simply can't see behind the scenes to understand the process He currently uses.

Hanging in there,

Starkman

Triskal
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198

Posted 12/7/2001 8:38 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi,

I see where you're coming from on this issue. You made some excellent points. However, couldn't one do just the opposite? If you accept the view that God is often behind evil acts, then how do you determine which events He's behind and which ones He's not? It seems to me that this would create a sort of inconsistent, contradictory confusion that could lead people into a paranoid, delusional panic: "God, are you trying to tell me something here? Was that you behind the killing of both my parents? What about when my dog got run over last week, were you behind that? Am I doing something wrong?" You see where i'm getting at?

You make the point that with Doc's line of thinking someone could easily fall into a pattern of constantly trying to explain away everything evil that appears to come from God. However, couldn't someone using your line of thinking just as easily fall into the pattern of taking everything evil that APPEARS to come from God as JUST THAT? Furthermore, if God's nature is as inconsistent as you believe it to be, who is to say what God is and isn't behind? And where would the difference between abuse coming from God and abuse coming from Satan lie?

Just a couple of questions that came to mind.

In His Grip,
Matt

"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/7/2001 9:26 PM (GMT -6)

Pia Could it be that the real "Pollyannas" are the ones who try to justify and rationalize abuse? How would you respond to the criticism that religious conviction like this promotes resignation to unhealthy and abusive conditions rather than resistance? The obvious example is women who stay in abusive relationships, risking their own lives and the lives of their children instead of getting help—is this resignation righteous or sinful? Your (Mephi's) conviction makes the answer to this question ambiguous.

Doc: Pia.... you are goooooood.

Meph, you already know you are.

My point about the wife analogy is that if I am convinced my wife is a loving person, I will TRY to conceive of a scenario that would explain her cruel behavior. So too, if we are convinced that we see God when we see Jesus, we will (or at least should) TRY to concieve of a scenario that would explain his (apparently) cruel behavior. If I were to say in response to my wife's apparently cruel behavior, "oh well, women are mysterious," it would show a lack of love and (as Pia pointed out, I think) a certain apathy toward those she was cruel to. So it is with our relationship with God.

I AGREE wholly with your recommended attitude of trust in the face of mystery. But I'm not talking about suspending trust till we understand: I'm talking about "trust seeking understanding."

Great thoughts you guys

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/7/2001 9:49 PM (GMT -6)

Ciberius OH Doc! Please tell. Where did you get that (viz. the material on emissaries being extensions of kings)? do you have a bibliographic reference or a name.

Doc: I got it somewhere long ago in my OT studies, and I thought the same question when I wrote it. ( I recall that some of it comes from studying ancient Mesopotamian texts). The research to find all this lies in the future. (Off hand, I remember the story of the centurion sending a servant to Jesus to ask for healing for his daughter. One Gospel says the centurion came, the other says he sent a servant. Some commentators, I recall, use the "emissary as extension" line to explain the apparent contradiction.)

Ciberius A slightly different angle on the same concept would be to place God in the position of the first cause. And since he is the first cause he has done everything that has been done. Definitely a perspective that stretches the mind of those who are steeped in individual responsibility.

Doc: "he has done everything that has been done"???? If I'm understanding you correctly, I see this as a TOTALLY different angel on a totally different concept. It’s a dominino argument used by Calvinists that works only if you deny free will. If free will exist, then God is the cause of the free will, but not what the free will does.

Doc to Scott: Scott, thanks for the fine info. You’ve convinced me the kids could be at least teenagers, or maybe servants (of one of Yahweh’s enemies?).

Still, more must be involved in the episode than these teens hurdling insults at Elijah to justify, in any ordinary sense of justice, the action which followed. We can say, with Mephi, "God is mysterious," or we can TRY to postulate what else might have been involved which would render the episode more intelligible. The fact that the passage doesn’t say Elijah was admirable for cursing them, or that it was God who sent the bears, may be significant. Often the Bible just records things with a strange detached objectivity (as with the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, something God explicitly forbids, yet the passage gives the impression that Jephthah was goddly for slaying her). Here Semeia’s "packaging department" thoughts are significant.

Triskal: You (Mephi) make the point that with Doc's line of thinking someone could easily fall into a pattern of constantly trying to explain away everything evil that appears to come from God. However, couldn't someone using your line of thinking just as easily fall into the pattern of taking everything evil that APPEARS to come from God as JUST THAT? …. where would the difference between abuse coming from God and abuse coming from Satan lie?

Doc: I think Triskal is making an excellent point. If Jesus isn’t our criterion for what does and does not come from God, we have no sure criterion. For example, suppose fire comes down from heaven and consumes a bunch of people. How many Christians would immediately conclude that it was God’s wrath? Probably most. But Jesus rebuked the disciples for encouraging him to do this, though it seems God in the OT did this, and Jesus rebuked people in his time for interpreting catastrophes as judgment from God (Lk 13:1-5). Could we not just as easily conclude that Satan, or some other god, rained the fire down? Can we assume that Satan or some other god lacks this power in some circumstances? Why assume this?

Blessings
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

121 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual