quote:

---

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...?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Look at relationships from a more existential standpoint. How far would "confusing" behavior of your loved one have to go before you would call it "abusive" from your perspective? In other words, how many confusing, hurtful things would you accept as merely "confusing" until you got to the point "Hey, this is really hurting me. I would say this is somewhat abusive on your part."? Just wondering.

___________________________________________


Stark said:

quote:

---

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.

---

I would firmly agree with the part that of your statement that I bolded. I haven't given into it. If I had, I might not "love" God at all. Respect and serve, yeah. Love? Probably not. But as far as your take on the "it was never supposed to be way" absolving much, it just doesn't work for me.

___________________________________________


Triskal said:

quote:

---

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?

---

I find it interesting that you mention these things. Simply for the fact that I brought up something like this months ago in dealing with the open view as it relates to God's providential care. (I'll find the thread and post it) I thought that I cogently showed that open view theists would have to deal with this type of ambiguity ANYWAY...IF they were truly consistent with their ideas. One could NEVER know with any amount of certainty what God is definitely behind and what He's definitely NOT behind. One wouldn't know for certain UNLESS God revealed it to you (which he does't do very often!) One could know GENERAL TRENDS that God takes and act upon them, but not really more than that. That's why I place such a high premium on the Spirit and trying to flow with what He's doing. With this ambiguity, the only thing one can do to stay truly sane is NOT to foster theological models that do nothing but give psychological certainty...but to follow the commands of our Lord humbly, EVER DEPENDING on the Holy Spirit for guidance. Any person who would act in such a neurotic manner as you detail (either way) is OBVIOUSLY not being very Spirit-led, but trying to find out what happened. I should say that though the two may coincide, there is a distinction to be made.

_____________________________________


Doc said:

quote:

---

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.

---

Two things. First, the idea of Jesus. I think we should try to explain Jesus' sometimes "cruel" behavior. In other words, let's really look at Jesus and examine his statements and behavior MORALLY and see what we say. I think this may change some of our views dramatically.

Second, I'm not saying that people should not TRY to explain their loved ones cruel behavior. I thought that I made that plain. What I was noting was the tendency of people to "grasp at straws" for ANYTHING to exonerate their persons from being significantly morally culpable (extenuating circumstances, etc) because of their "knowledge" of their loved one. This CAN be taken to the extreme of wholesale throwing out of possibilities (LIKE their loved one is just plain different from what they originally thought) For anyone to just say, "Oh, well, loved one X is just a mysterious person" OFF THE BAT would be ludicrous and any person who did that WOULD be essentially showing indifference to the perpetrator and victims alike. HOWEVER, if one goes through the explaining process and just gets to the point that "Look, let's just face some damn facts here", put away some of the more extravagant postulations, and sometimes they have to take a punch in the gut and just say "Well, maybe...just maybe...loved one X really DID do it."




Doc said:

quote:

---

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."

---

Trust seeking understanding in this case could be somewhat analogous to "innocent until proven guilty", right? In other words, we do the absolute BEST WE CAN to trust in someone's innocence in the face of a crime while looking at the evidence as THOROUGHLY as possible...until we genuinely have reason to believe that the simplest, most probable, most RECONCILING option is to say that that person MAY NOT be innocent. I agree that this is the way to go. And that's what I do.

Doc said:

quote:

---

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?

---

Hmmmm...remember what I said about using theological views as PRAXEOLOGICAL GUIDES primarily? What you seem to want to do is make a praxeological grid theologically such that ambiguity is lessened when interpreting God's actions. Basically it goes like this:

God is a good God. The Devil is a bad devil. Unless given SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OTHERWISE, the chief assumption will be that, for every incident of evil:

1) God is working as hard as he can against it.
2) God is not DIRECTLY or significantly behind it.
3) God empathizes with the people suffering from it and "suffers with them."

And this is all based primarily on your take on Jesus' warrior stance of the Kingdom of God vs. the Kindom of Darkness. (That needs to be discussed perhaps) What I want to note is exactly what I say (that is, mind you, CONSISTENT with what open view theists should be saying in the first place):

DON'T USE A FRIGGIN GRID. We don't NEED one. God has revealed Himself in Christ to be loving and have solidarity with us. But God has also put some people flat on their backs and allowed or did some stuff that many of us would call "evil" ALONG WITH THIS, there exist Satan and demonic angels who are on an anti-Creator crusade and wish to oppose Him whenever they can. With all this mess, it's not really POSSIBLE to say WHAT FORCE did WHAT EVIL unless God reveals it to you. So, what do we do? We don't focus on the "whys" too much. We focus on the WHAT DO WE DO NOW. And that's fairly simple. Trust in God and be SPIRIT-LED in all your ways! Don't use some abstraction to make God trustworthy. Either you will trust his revelation in Christ as a sign of God's solidarity DESPITE all the other crap...or you won't. The choice is up to you.

See what I'm saying? See, human beings don't LIKE ambiguity. We want clear cut delineations of things. That's why the Kingdom of God vs Kingdom of Darkness thing works so well. Because it is so clear. But here's my issue. Perhaps the Kingdom of God IN ALL ITS FACETS is greater than many of us think it is. From what I see, a significant amount of theologians turn the idea of the Kingdom of God into mere MORALISM (ie God's good, devil's bad) Though this may be significantly true, has anyone ever stopped to think of the Kingdom War in terms of ALLEGIANCE rather than morality? WHO YOU WIT??? Are you with God...OR are you with Satan and/or yourself? See, THIS is what I believe is at the crux of the matter. THIS is why I like TSE! When one looks at the Kingdom War primarily in terms of ALLEGIANCE then some things (NOT ALL) get much more ambiguous!

_____________________________________

Another thing. Perhaps I should have given some context to the word "abusive" My bad. Probably many people around here would associate "abusive" with INTENTIONALLY MALICIOUS towards one. That's not necessarily what I'm saying. I'm using the term "abusive" in more terms of NEGLECT or FEELINGS OF NEGLECT. (From what I understand, isn't this kinda the thought that Annie Dillard spoke about in "Holy the Firm"??) Just like the Psalmists felt like God wasn't answering his/her prayers. Just like Jeremiah felt that God has left him to be mocked. I would say that they would say that they felt that God was "abusive", (if they understand 20th century psychological terminology)

__________________________________________

One more thing. I really want to know. What is your MAIN REASON for serving God like you do? From the answers most of the people here give, I can only gather absolute dogmatic ASSERTION of God's philosophical omnibenevolence. I get the impression that if many here couldn't believe in God's INABILITY to do any kind of autocratic, arbitrary, or "evil" deeds, they wouldn't serve OR love God anymore...DESPITE what Jesus did on the Cross. So answer this for me. EVERYONE.

What is your MAIN REASON for serving God like you do? and...

What is your MAIN REASON for loving God like you do?

I want you guys to REALLY, REALLY think about it. Don't give abrupt answers. Do some soul searching. I really find this important! I believe that Modes and I do both for pretty much the SAME reasons...on both counts. We'll see.

Later,


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

Edited by - Mephi2K on 12/08/2001 08:57:59 AM

quote:

---

Hmmmm...remember what I said about using theological views as PRAXEOLOGICAL GUIDES primarily? What you seem to want to do is make a praxeological grid theologically such that ambiguity is lessened when interpreting God's actions. Basically it goes like this:

God is a good God. The Devil is a bad devil. Unless given SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OTHERWISE, the chief assumption will be that, for every incident of evil:

1) God is working as hard as he can against it.
2) God is not DIRECTLY or significantly behind it.
3) God empathizes with the people suffering from it and "suffers with them."

And this is all based primarily on your take on Jesus' warrior stance of the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of Darkness. (That needs to be discussed perhaps) What I want to note is exactly what I say (that is, mind you, CONSISTENT with what open view theists should be saying in the first place):

DON'T USE A FRIGGIN GRID. We don't NEED one. God has revealed Himself in Christ to be loving and have solidarity with us. But God has also put some people flat on their backs and allowed or did some stuff that many of us would call "evil" ALONG WITH THIS, there exist Satan and demonic angels who are on an anti-Creator crusade and wish to oppose Him whenever they can. With all this mess, it's not really POSSIBLE to say WHAT FORCE did WHAT EVIL unless God reveals it to you. So, what do we do? We don't focus on the "whys" too much. We focus on the WHAT DO WE DO NOW. And that's fairly simple. Trust in God and be SPIRIT-LED in all your ways! Don't use some abstraction to make God trustworthy. Either you will trust his revelation in Christ as a sign of God's solidarity DESPITE all the other crap...or you won't. The choice is up to you.

See what I'm saying? See, human beings don't LIKE ambiguity. We want clear cut delineations of things. That's why the Kingdom of God vs Kingdom of Darkness thing works so well. Because it is so clear. But here's my issue. Perhaps the Kingdom of God IN ALL ITS FACETS is greater than many of us think it is. From what I see, a significant amount of theologians turn the idea of the Kingdom of God into mere MORALISM (ie God's good, devil's bad) Though this may be significantly true, has anyone ever stopped to think of the Kingdom War in terms of ALLEGIANCE rather than morality? WHO YOU WIT??? Are you with God...OR are you with Satan and/or yourself? See, THIS is what I believe is at the crux of the matter. THIS is why I like TSE! When one looks at the Kingdom War primarily in terms of ALLEGIANCE then some things (NOT ALL) get much more ambiguous!

---

quote:

---

Chance cites Matthew 15:3-6 ("For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' ) and Mark 7:9-13 ("For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.') which seem to present Jesus chastising Jewish leaders for "going light" on these commands.

---

Yes, that's what Jesus clearly seems to be doing.

quote:

---

On this basis chance says: "I myself do not believe that the charge of murder or other serious crimes should have an age limit (Nathaniel Brazil comes to mind). Neither should the sex of a person be a reason for preferential treatment (mass-murderer Yates and Karla Faye Tucker come to mind). If a person is capable of doing the crime then they should receive the same punishment by the government as everyone else regardless of age or sex."

---

I said that to rebut the modern idea that because someone who has committed a crime is either young or a female we should not punish them as harshly as we would someone who is, say, over the age of 18. I should have said capitol crime instead of serious crime to get across more precisely what I was saying.

quote:

---

Doc: I personally find this (the idea, not Chance!) revolting. Yet I have to give it to Chance that the logic follows – if Jesus was indeed validating these laws for today. In fact, Chance himself BACKS OFF the text, for the passage stipulates stoning kids not just for murder, but for insulting there parents!!!!

---

Whoa! You find God's law revolting!? Wow!!

I did not intent to "back off" of the text. I fully support the execution of those who curse father and mother. It's a good law. It is beneficial for the community to have this law enforced. The reason I used the specific capitol crime of murder in my post was because of the recent murder cases that had broad media coverage. The Karla Faye Tucker case and the Nathaniel Brazil case are almost certainly known by all who participate on these boards. I have no case where any teen or female was executed for cursing his parents to refer to in order to stress my agreement with God that age and sex are not a factor when punishing someone for a crime.

quote:

---

Anyone want to do some exegesis here on what Jesus was getting at?

---

Sure

quote:

---

Mark 7:1-13 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash [their] hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 [When they come] from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, [like] the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" 6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with [their] lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching [as] doctrines the commandments of men.' 8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9 He said to them, "[All too] well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 11 "But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me [is] Corban" -- ' (that is, a gift [to God),] 12 "then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

---

The passage is pretty straight forward. The scribes and Pharisees asked Christ why He and His disciples did not baptize themselves prior to eating as the elders did. Christ responds that they follow the commandments of men but do not follow the commandments of God (honor your father and mother Ex 20:12 and those who curse father or mother are to be executed Ex 21:17). Their hearts are far from God because they praise Him with their lips but do not follow His commands (that is, honor and execute).

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)

---

God has the right to spare a capitol offender from being executed. God forgave the adulterous woman in John 8, but it wasn't the first time He had done such a thing. He also forgave David for his adultery and murder (2 Sam 12:13). He also told Hosea to go and love his adulterous wife Gomer as an illustration of God's relationship to Israel (Hos 3:1).

I believe that Christ's forgiving the adulterous woman in John 8 is a demonstration of His divinity (ability to forgive sins Mark 2:5-7). I also see John 8:1-8 as an illustration of God's relationship to His adulterous wife, Israel, much like what we see in Hosea. It is untenable to think that Christ is doing away with or abrogating the law that adulterers are to be executed (Deut 22:22; Matt 5:17-19).

quote:

---

[Christ] in fact broke the law (e.g. picking food on the Sabbath).

---

Actually, it was His disciples that picked grain on the sabbath, not Christ.

quote:

---

Matthew 12:1-2 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw [it,] they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!"

---

Actually, what the disciples were doing was not unlawful as Christ explains (Matt 12:3-12).

quote:

---

Why so harsh on insulting kids? Should kids be getting stoned today?

---

Yes, kids should be getting executed today for cursing their father or mother. This law will definitely be enforced when Christ reigns on the earth (Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 12/09/2001 03:32:28 AM

quote:

---

What is your MAIN REASON for serving God like you do?

---

quote:

---

Dueteronomy 18:18-19 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 'And it shall be [that] whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require [it] of him.

---

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Several points on Mephi's and Semeia's idea that we should not "judge" God; we should GET RID OF THE GRID; we should admit that we cannot oridinarily interprete who or what is behind events, etc...

How far are you going to push this? e.g. A young man is levitating, spitting green pee soup, reviing God and humanity with wild eyes, cutting himself, trying to harm others. (With a church lady voice of SNL), someone askes, "hmmmm.... could this be God -- or SATAN." Would you really want to say, "get rid of your grid! " "can't tell," "its too complex" "don't judge God!"

On a more ordinary note, and with all due respect to Mephi's concern that we not let praxis dictate theology: one of the greatest causes of disbelief, or at least mistrust in God, is people interpreting horrendous events as manifestations of God's will. Do you really recommend total agnosticism on this? Is this not tantamount to saying we can't tell God from Satan?

---

Meph:
First of all, let me repost some things.

One could NEVER know with any amount of certainty what God is definitely behind and what He's definitely NOT behind. One wouldn't know for certain UNLESS God revealed it to you (which he does't do very often!) One could know GENERAL TRENDS that God takes and act upon them, but not really more than that.

and...

With this ambiguity, the only thing one can do to stay truly sane is NOT to foster theological models that do nothing but give psychological certainty...but to follow the commands of our Lord humbly, EVER DEPENDING on the Holy Spirit for guidance.

and...

With all this mess, it's not really POSSIBLE to say WHAT FORCE did WHAT EVIL unless God reveals it to you. [Meph's Note: I actually thought about changing this before, but didn't. What I should have said is ULTIMATELY. It's not really possible to say WHAT FORCE is ULTIMATELY behind any particular evil we see. I figured that that would have been assumed as being what I meant since the alternative (complete agnosticism in the face of reasonable evidence for ALL cases of assigning responsibility) is so very laughable. Teaches me not to assume. ]

and...

From what I see, a significant amount of theologians turn the idea of the Kingdom of God into mere MORALISM (ie God's good, devil's bad) Though this may be significantly true, has anyone ever stopped to think of the Kingdom War in terms of ALLEGIANCE rather than morality?

It was my sincere impression that my suggestions would NOT just leave things to some type of nebulous agnosticism about evil. You notice that I mention evaluation of 1) God's general trends 2)Jesus' commands and 3) a THOROUGH-GOING dependence on the Holy Spirit. How on earth could you think that, with all this said, I imply that there is no way to discern pro-God stuff from anti-God stuff (I think this is a better category than "good" and "evil" perhaps) Doc states:

"But to grant that we can't know the "whys" of the actual particulars of a evil episdoe is not to say that we can't know THE KINDS of factors that go into bringing events about, or the CHARACTER of beings that bring about certain kinds of events (viz. evil comes from evil characters). "

Again, this seemed almost self-evident to the point of NOT having to make the assumption formally stated (I was wrong, obviously) I can't help but think that ALL of this stems from the fact that I didn't insert the word "ULTIMATELY" into my thought above. The intent of this whole thing was NOT to be that discernment is NEVER POSSIBLE. It was intended to say that discernment based rigidly on a "grid is doomed to oversimplification and inaccuracy. Even in some cases when we THINK we have all the facts, we don't...and botch it


Doc then says:

I agree with Mephi's point that we should align ourselves with God's side, however confusing life may be. But unless we can discern good from evil, we don't even know what we are fighting against!

With this response I have to ask some questions:

1) Aren't some of the broader themes of God's activity and sanctioning towards humanity (INCLUDING Jesus Christ) sufficient to tell us that God favors life-affiring paradigms, generally speaking...WITHOUT making a grid of your type?

2) Doesn't your whole idea of discernment perhaps reveal a significant lack of fundamental trust in the Holy Spirit FOR discernment and leading? (I note the "unless WE can discern...)


See, here's the bottom line, Doc. I see your grid creation like a Pharissee's thoughts. Clear demarkations of what is ULTIMATELY (and peripherally) God and what is not. They had their psychological certainty and surety of vision and purposed...AND MISSED GOD'S TRUE WORKING IN HISTORY! Jesus, on the other hand, thrived on ambiguity and blew a lot of people's socks off. WEIRDNESS. So much so his FAMILY thought that he had lost his mind, yes? But Jesus was resolute in following 1) the "spirit" or intentionality of the Law and 2) living in the Spirit. No grid creation. Humble trust and following, discerning using God's previous workings while, at the same time, LIVING in the Spirit.


Wanna see an example of your thought? That's how you can with such utter surety (which baffles me) unqualifiably say that Sept 11th had NOTHING to do with God's judgement. I never received a response from you when I gave a hefty critique on that line of thinking and the ASSURANCE with which you stated it. Now what made your statment possible? YOUR THEOLOGICAL GRID and your rigid application of the same. Otherwise, you would have never made such a categorical statement on THAT issue. See what I'm saying? I'm not knocking discernment. I believe that it's essential. However, I firmly and deeply disagree with your persistence in creating a theological model that, if consistently applied, places SO LITTLE VALUE on being Spirit-led. Am I saying that you don't believe in being spirit-led? Nope. You specifically talk about it in Satan and the Problem of Evil However, what I am saying is that if someone takes your idea to an extreme, it almost turns into a "We know with SURETY how God acts" type of thing and builds praxis on that basis. Which I believe gets to screwed results in some important cases.

__________________________________________________

From what I see, the main thing here is TRUSTWORTHINESS. For some odd reason, we have to have different criteria with trusting God than with trusting HUMAN BEINGS. Despite the personal experiences with Christ and the love we've felt from Him directly (not to mention other experiences in which your personal relationship has been built), they are NOT seen as enough to engender making Christ (God) one's Absolute. There MUST be some bedrock PRINCIPLE upon which we hang God so that we can be SURE of heaven and God's ultimate goodness. Someone PLEASE explain to me how this is truly different, IN PRINCIPLE, from the biblical inerrancy fiascos (and redefinitions) that we keep seeing? Psychological certainty at the price of unnecessary abstraction.

Ooops. Gotta go. Be back.



To Pia: I got the book today. Reading it now.


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

Edited by - Mephi2K on 12/09/2001 1:29:57 PM

Edited by - Mephi2K on 12/10/2001 09:13:54 AM

quote:

---

Doc: Aside from the holy massacre of the Canaanites, the biblical story that has most disturbed me over the years concerns Elisha. Just after Elijah had been taken up into the clouds, and just after receiving a double portion of the blessing that was on his predessor, the Bible says, Elisha "went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys." 2 Kg 2:23-24.

---

quote:

---

" When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them [as Elijah did]?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them [and said, "you don’t know what spirit you are of, for the Son of Man has not come to destroy the lives of human beings but to save them." ]

---

quote:

---

From what I see, a significant amount of theologians turn the idea of the Kingdom of God into mere MORALISM (ie God's good, devil's bad) Though this may be significantly true, has anyone ever stopped to think of the Kingdom War in terms of ALLEGIANCE rather than morality?

---

quote:

---

Re: Meph's questions

Here are at least my answers, simple as they may be:

1. Would Christ INTENTIONALLY cloak important information from people about God?

[I]If it made sense to. Several times, he was almost captured by the Pharisees. If he had already decided on an appropriate time to give up his life, then it would make sense that he would have to monitor his own self-revelations in order to not cause a riot.

2. Call someone outside of his ethnicity a "bi#ch" just BECAUSE she was another ethnicity? (another word for a female DOG)

Regarding this story, it is important to remember these following things:

Israelites used to call Gentiles “dogs.” It appears that it was used in a derogatory way, perhaps because the dog was considered an unclean animal to which unclean meat could be thrown (Exod 22:31). More than that, an inferior would frequently refer to themselves as a dog (see 2 Sam 9:8: “What is your servant, that you should look upon a dead dog such as I?”).

So, in Jewish terms, Jesus uses a word which means a Gentile, or one who is supposedly inferior, after she has fallen at his feet (she will call him ‘Sir’). But Jesus softens the usual Jewish term to “puppies.”

The woman immediately understands what he is saying: “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs." She is very glad to pick up anything that has fallen from the table of the “children” (of Israel). After all, the Jewish response to Jesus’ feeding and other miracles has been poor.

My guess is that the dog reference was a joke really and Mark’s original readers would have thought of Jesus and the woman having a good laugh!

3. Would Jesus make statements that significantly seemed to break up integrity of the family structure?

If they were out of context, probably not. Family seemed to be very important to him - indeed, when he was on the cross, he thought of his dear old mum. "Woman! Behold thy son!" he shouted. If we examine his in their proper time, context, and culture, his quotes are not hostile or cruel, but a commentary on the importance of the Gospel.

4. Would Christ kill plants in a rage because they give us no fruit?

He had a purpose - a parallel. From what I can tell, plants have no soul, and since Christ was involved in the creative process, I assume the tree was his to destroy. Why shouldn't He be allowed to do it?

5. Would Jesus allow or ordain (perhaps via another Party) the killing of people who just LIE to God about financial matters? (although BEFORE He would spare the life of an ADULTERESS caught in the act....)

One could argue that a lie to another person (which is adultery) is not as severe as a lie to God (Could this be considered a blaspheme?) This, to be honest, is a somewhat troubling passage for me, but I perceive it in a similar way to his expulsion of the moneychangers at the temple. To put it frankly, don't screw with God's house, which the moneychangers and Ananias and Sapphira clearly did. (Can I use that word in here?) I believe that is action here was not incongruous with his Spirit, his nature or his message, but this question, more than the other four, are based on my own personal feelings, not any philosophical or theological diatribe.

I think these are great questions, and I am eager to hear what others have to say....

SEC

----------------------

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

---

How is it that faithful Christian interpreters would have to be blamed for aggravating the situation in each of these cases? It seems that each time SEC goes into the languages he comes out with a softer kinder Jesus or God. Is this because the previous translators were trying to make God out to be tyranical? Isn't it just as likely that previous translators too were trying to present the message in as positive, and yes still honest, a form as possible? And as we dig back into it, we want a still kinder softer God/Jesus? I have to assume that what is happening here is various possible meanings to given words in a Greek/Hebrew dictionary are being researched and the most positive one is being chosen. Please, no offense to SEC, but is this not what is happening? I recognize that it seems to be doing God's character a service to do so, but who gets to do this?

So far, I find the above response to #1 unsatisfying. Jesus was clearly not forthright at all times and it wasn't to cover his butt. See MArk 4:9-12(and parallels). What do the Pharisees have to do with this?

#2 no matter how you spin it, #2 represents Jesus as insulting this woman. (see Mark 7:24-30) Jesus is being evasive and (appearantly?) testing her. OR worse, he is being somewhat beligerant and she challenges him. Either way, she gets what she asks for after persistence is shown. This seems like a living breathing example of the "unjust judge" principle. I see nothing in the text that indicates humor. Yes, diminutive is used to indicate that the dog is the sort that are pets which children play with in the house, not the sort that are running loose about town, BUT this is still no compliment. We are not given Jesus' tone in the text, and that is what is needed. But the words themselves are not friendly by nature.

#3 of course, Jesus did say, you must hate your father and mother (granting the comparison and that this is a hyperbole, but it IS dramatic!), and he did ask the question in the presence of his immediate family "Who are my mother and my brothers?" and he did say that he had come to seperate children from parents and he did deny his followers the right to bury their dead...and so forth. These are hard sayings and they are not rare in Jesus' rhetoric. I can't see how one can spin Jesus as being "pro-family" in the usual sense.

#4 of course Jesus is allowed to destroy what he has created, but the implications of this are disturbing and far reaching.

#5. I agree that this too is very troubling, we will need more discussion on that one.

Truly, no offense intended here to anyone. I appreciate SEC's offerings and I may be sympathetic to some of them in the end, but let's do a careful assessment of the situation publicly before we domesticate it.

And yes, SEC, you can use that word here.

Blessings

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

quote:

---

How is it that faithful Christian interpreters would have to be blamed for aggravating the situation in each of these cases? It seems that each time SEC goes into the languages he comes out with a softer kinder Jesus or God. Is this because the previous translators were trying to make God out to be tyranical? Isn't it just as likely that previous translators too were trying to present the message in as positive, and yes still honest, a form as possible? And as we dig back into it, we want a still kinder softer God/Jesus? I have to assume that what is happening here is various possible meanings to given words in a Greek/Hebrew dictionary are being researched and the most positive one is being chosen. Please, no offense to SEC, but is this not what is happening? I recognize that it seems to be doing God's character a service to do so, but who gets to do this?

---