 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Problems With the Old Testament! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
ScottEmerson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 12/12/2001 4:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Modes wrote: How is it that faithful Christian interpreters would have to be blamed for aggravating the situation in each of these cases?
I say: How is it that faithful Christian interpreters were male chauvinists, and let that influence their work? 
Quit picking on SEC you brat! 
I agree - to examine many of the translations, such as KJV, RSV, or even some of the newer translations, there is an apparent bent towards theology - even male theology. That is why we have to examine Scripture and let the language translate the language, instead of history, theology, or personal slants!
Thanks for the kind words, Springs!
SEC
SEC
------------------------
Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 12/16/2001 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | You bet SEC.
I still love this thread.
Modes wrote:
#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.
I disagree. Read it in Mathew 15 from verse 21. The disciples wanted to send her away. I think Jesus was teaching the disciples a lesson, not the woman.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him crying out, “Lord, Son of David have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terrible from demon possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord help me! She said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” The Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed that very hour.
Maybe the Lord was waiting to see if any of the disciples would take pity on her. When they didn’t he said the words to her that they wanted to say, but I believe he said it with such compassion and love in his eyes she was emboldened to reply. She may have even understood that he was initially relaying to her what the disciples felt. She may have well been aware of the disciples distain by then. Yes I know this is extra biblical. But you said yourself you couldn’t hear the tone. I just chose to place the tone in keeping with the rest of the revelation I have of Christ and say he was not belligerent and if he was testing anyone it would be the disciples.
IMHO
Springs
"God has instituted prayer so as to confer upon his creatures the dignity of being causes." — Blaise Pascal
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/16/2001 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott, I deeply appreciate your biblical insight on these matters. Its stuff I'm too busy and too tired to look up and contend for right now. You're feeding me.
May I move the "Troubles in the OT" discussion along a bit further. Remember, I 'm just being honest here. Airing out time. Thinking openly among friends [take note guardians!].
Can Scott or anyone else give me help on this very nasty troubling verse of the Bible (one that C.S.Lewis thought was demonic!  ).
Psa. 137:8-9 O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
OUCH!
So much for "bless those who persecute you" and "don't return evil for evil, but return evil with good" etc...
Now, I know it was customary in those times to celebrate victory by popping infants' heads against rocks. In the middle ages the sport was to catch them on spears (esp. in the crusades). So, one could perhaps argue (as I in fact once preached!) that the POINT of the passage is that David is calling on God to vindicate himself and vanguish Babylon, and that the terms and concepts he uses are those of his barbaric culture.
fine fine, cultural relative packaging and all that. I can live with it.
But still.... this is supposed to be God-breathed. And it bugs the exrement  (guardians are listening in] out of me that God comes so close to CONDONING this sort of demonic behavior!
Any light would be appreciated.
The Doc who loves kids.
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/17/2001 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc quoted:
quote:
Psa. 137:8-9 O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
I'm looking to throw a curveball here; that way I can't be involved in any comparing of fastball speeds! Here's the wind up....
What if we set THAT verse, not in parallel, but merely in an analogy, to : quote:
Jonah 3:4 On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
Psalm 137 was not delivered to Babylon as a warning. There can be no parallel, then. but the thread of analogy can be that just as if/when Nineveh repents, so the same for Babylon.
To carry from what others have argued on another thread verses 1way and chance the judgement in on the actions (sin) and not on the worth of the person (created in God's image and still bearing that image--however obscured, it is still there in their nature.)
How close to the plate ump?
_o_ | | Back to Top | | |
|
ScottEmerson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 12/17/2001 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Can Scott or anyone else give me help on this very nasty troubling verse of the Bible (one that C.S.Lewis thought was demonic! ).
Psa. 137:8-9 O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
OUCH!
Any light would be appreciated.
I've always viewed this as the poet saying what was on his mind. He was not a perfect man (as no one is), so I can excuse his rage here. He was pretty ticked. To me, this is a whole lot different than if this was an edict from God. The psalmist was simply wishing harm on his own enemies, and telling God what he wanted Him to do. By taking the little ones' lives, the Hebrews could assure that the Babylonian line of evildoers would be completely and utterly destroyed. Perhaps in doing this, the kingdom of God (Israel) would be enlarged.
However, I agree that this is completely opposite of the nature we'd like to think about God. There are, though, many passages where God tells his children to utterly destroy the men, women, and children from an ungodly land.
Here's my perspective on that: I believe (maybe because it's fruitful for me to believe it) that after the death of Christ, he spent time in hell preaching to all the souls who died before His death as it mentions in one of Peter's letters. Wouldn't those who died before still have to make a choice as to whether follow Christ or reject him; does everyone have a chance?
If this is, indeed, true, than even those who were killed as children before the death of Christ, had a chance to follow him and go to Heaven.
There aren't too many Scriptural passages I can provide to "prove" this perspective. I only use a close reading of I Peter to confirm this theological leaning. However, it does make sense that God would not forget those who died without having a chance for Christ's salvation.
In this way, I can read about the God who doesn't mind killing children who didn't have a choice, because they eventually do get a choice. God in his infinite wisdom provided them a way to choose salvation.
This passage, though, to me, should be written as a prayer request, not an edict from God.
I don't know if that helps, but that's my best shot at it...
SEC
------------------------
Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 12/17/2001 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In this way, I can read about the God who doesn't mind killing children who didn't have a choice, because they eventually do get a choice. God in his infinite wisdom provided them a way to choose salvation.
Geez...does EVERYTHING come out in the eschatological wash in Christianity? Heaven just absolves everything, huh. Sheesh. Hmmm... | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 12/17/2001 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | A few aesthetic observations on Psalm 137
While Psalms of Ascent were sung during pilgrimages to Jerusalem, Psalm 137 laments Jerusalem’s destruction and the Israelites’ exile—it is a "Psalm of Descent."
The Israelites sang "songs of ascent" because they always went "up" to Jerusalem, both literally and metaphorically. So the author’s use of repetition in verse 7 emphasizes the Edomites’ sacrilege and offense against Jerusalem:
Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
The day of Jerusalem’s fall,
How they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!
Down to its foundations!’
This accusation immediately follows the author’s pledge to set Jerusalem above his highest joy.
Psalm 137 also uses repetition very effectively in the first three verses. The word, "there" recurs in each verse, calling attention to the setting, "there we sat down and wept," "there we hung up our harps," and "there our captors asked us for songs." Verse 4 explains the Israelites’ refusal to grant their request: "How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?" The fact that the Israelites were there (in Babylon) and not where their hearts were (Jerusalem) is identified as the source of their lament.
The use of the repetition also identifies a major theme in this psalm: remembering. In verse 1 the Israelites wept when they remembered Zion. In vs. 4–6 the author calls curses upon himself "if I do not remember [Jerusalem]." In vs. 7, he invokes the Lord to "remember…against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem’s fall." In this psalm, remembering is a source of grief but also a source of hope. The author trusts that his commitment to remembering Jerusalem and God’s remembering of its destruction will ultimately result in justice.
This first section of this psalm seems almost pastoral. "By the waters" recalls the "still waters" of Psalm 23. However, the peaceful imagery of water, willows, harps, and mirth is juxtaposed against more unsettling images like weeping, captors, and tormentors. Water itself is an ambiguous image, often symbolizing ambivalence or chaos in ancient Hebrew literature (c.f. Gen. 1:2). The tension between peaceful and provocative language in this opening section reflects the archetypal enmity between Zion and Babylon.
The pastoral imagery in the first three verses of Psalm 137 suggests that the Israelites may be able to adjust to life in Babylon and that their wounds may heal in time. However this possibility is eliminated in the next section, where the depth of the author’s passion and commitment to Jerusalem is revealed. In this final section of the poem, the pastoral setting is imaginatively transformed into a rocky wilderness where captors become bereaved mothers and captives are happy killers. Weeping over the past glory of Zion becomes gladness at God’s future judgment of Babylon and a chance to get even. This song of Zion does not offer any mirth to an enemy of Jerusalem.
In the second section the poet addresses Jerusalem and pledges to remember it always. In the final section, the author lashes out at Babylon in an aggressive and emotionally charged apostrophe: "O daughter Babylon, you devastator!" This apostrophe serves as the climax of a chiastic structure which calls for judgment against Edom and justice for Jerusalem.
A few theological implications
Theologically, Psalm 137 poses many problems for Christians. What about Jesus’ teaching against oath-taking and his command that we are to love our enemies and bless them instead of cursing them? And what about the sanctity of life, a topic which preoccupies so many Christians. How can the Bible be inerrant if it contradicts itself?
Provocative scriptures such as imprecatory psalms are often ignored, dismissed, or taken less seriously than other scriptures in order to avoid raising questions like these. How can we preserve the powerful and important language of this psalm as well as preserving the authority of scripture in the minds of many Christians?
While Jesus’ teaching on our attitude toward our enemies is prescriptive, Psalm 137 is emotionally descriptive. Emotional truth is often dismissed in favor of intellectual truth, but the presence of emotional expression in the scriptures testifies to its value and importance (Apparently God is not as daunted by provocative expression as we are).
The nature of the figurative language used in the psalms is more experiential and engaging than ideas expressed in sermons or epistles. Imprecatory psalms offer an opportunity for readers to identify with the emotion that is being expressed—without necessarily agreeing with it or coming to the same conclusion. For example, Psalm 137 may serve to encourage readers who are in the position of exiles, or to convict readers who are in the position of captors. It may also be affirming for readers to realize that God hears our cries of anguish. We don’t need to censure ourselves before God.
The presence of the imprecatory psalms in the Bible is one of the few opportunities western Christians may have for hearing the anguish of oppressed people. It is not a pleasant sound. In our culture, the voices of exiles, captives, and refugees are not encountered and engaged. For readers of the psalms, however, this encounter is unavoidable. Unfortunately, many of us choose to dismiss the challenges these voices call us to rather than engaging them.
The author of Psalm 137 lacked the political, military, or economic power necessary to retaliate against his oppressors. But this psalm demonstrates that through the imaginative power of literature he was able to express his devotion to Jerusalem and his trust in God’s justice.
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
The dragon sits by the side of the road, watching those who pass. Beware lest he devour you. We go to the Father of Souls, but it is necessary to pass by the dragon. § St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Edited by - pia†desideria on 12/17/2001 11:48:23 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ScottEmerson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 12/17/2001 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Geez...does EVERYTHING come out in the eschatological wash in Christianity? Heaven just absolves everything, huh. Sheesh. Hmmm...
Not EVERYTHING. A lot. But not EVERYTHING.
SEC
SEC
------------------------
Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/17/2001 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | What only surfaces within discussion boards as this one or within honest and thinking Christian(anity) reflections is the tension that is so prevelant between the Old and New Testaments (within the OT and NT themselves, for that matter).
I find references to Leviticus 19:18 by James and Jesus as frustrating on one hand because it's selective to choose those verses and ingnore the rest of the "Law" (besids the Ten Commandments). There's this underlying concept of "take only that of the law that fulfills loving God and loving your neigbor and utilize only it literally in practical application". The rest is either "fulfilled in Christ" or "Oh, that was civil law" or something like that.
It's like trying to follow the prophecies quoted by the NT writers; you check back to the original reference and there's sometimes such a big gap between the original (OT) and applied usage (NT) that one could start saying, "What? Well, if that's what it really meant, okay!".
Still following the thread...
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/18/2001 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Very helpful comments I think. Scotts recognition of the honest -- yet base -- longings of the pslamists' Pia's insight on the nature of impecatory pslams and the idea of emotional identification; and Scotts eschatological perspective (with which I wholly agree) really help provide a frame of reference within which this passage can be made more (but not, for me, completely) intelligible. Thank you.
Any other "nasty" passages we need to discuss? We've done the child-mauling bears and smashing babies heads... others?
For me, I'm still thinking there's a lot more mileage to be gotten, by way of explanatory power, from the biblical portrayal of "the council of the gods." But I'm not ready to develop it just yet.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 12/18/2001 7:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Rats!!! The council of the gods was the part I wanted to discuss! I really think there is more to God mediating power to humans and angels than is admitted.
Ah well.
Maybe in the New Year.
Springs
"God has instituted prayer so as to confer upon his creatures the dignity of being causes." — Blaise Pascal
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Dulcine
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 12/21/2001 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What only surfaces within discussion boards as this one or within honest and thinking Christian(anity) reflections is the tension that is so prevelant between the Old and New Testaments (within the OT and NT themselves, for that matter).
Starkman,
I'm with you on this one. There are often times that the NT and the OT have tension, and it's good to see some very intelligent reflections taking this tension into account. I'm content to just read the posts, because every time I see something I have a response to, I read on a few posts and my response has already been adressed! I love this stuff.
But I have a specific problem addressed to all:
I am looking for a good way to interpret apparent (and real?) contradictions in the Bible. Any good books to recommend?
One specific example is God sparing Cain when he murdered his brother. Later on, according to OT law, he'd have been executed for such a crime. Why the change in mind?
I'm no theological whiz, but it seems we have a few on this site. ;)
Dulcine
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/22/2001 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Welcome to the board Dulcine! Glad you finally jumped in.
One source I've consulted over the years is Gleason Archers Handbook (or Encyclopedia) of Biblical Difficulties. Bob Steins series on "Difficult passages in the Bible" is also very good.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/23/2001 11:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Dulcine,
Hey, welcome!
I'm JUST NOW learning to think. It was awefully intimidating at first to jump in with comments because I was so afraid of getting so badly shot in the foot (boy, you gotta watch Doc and Mephi...they're vicious...vicious, I tell you  !). Ha! Just kidding! They're great! All here are great!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 12/27/2001 3:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Dulcine said
quote:
But I have a specific problem addressed to all:
I am looking for a good way to interpret apparent (and real?) contradictions in the Bible. Any good books to recommend?
One specific example is God sparing Cain when he murdered his brother. Later on, according to OT law, he'd have been executed for such a crime. Why the change in mind?
I believe that God could have just given the law to Adam and Eve after they sinned and had a criminal justice system in place where murderers would be executed for their crime(s).
I believe the reason why God did not give the law immediately after sin entered the world seems to be because God wanted to show the world what a world full of wicked people would be like without any laws to constrain them. If someone asks God "Why have any law at all? Why not just let man be a law unto themselves?" He can point back to this period in history where wicked men lived without any laws to constrain them.
God gave the foundational law to any good criminal justice system, the death penalty, to the world in Gen 9:6.
quote:
Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
It upholds the fact that God made man in His image when we execute murderers. When we let murderers live we deny that God made man in His image.
I started reading an excellent book last night by Paul Borgman titled Genesis: The Story We Haven't Heard. He has some interesting insights on the first eleven chapters of Genesis so far, but when he quoted Gen 9:1-7 he skipped over the institution of capitol punishment by God so I found no help answering your question there. Despite that fact it is still an illuminating book.
May edit this post later
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Dulcine
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 12/29/2001 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Welcome to the board Dulcine! Glad you finally jumped in.
One source I've consulted over the years is Gleason Archers Handbook (or Encyclopedia) of Biblical Difficulties. Bob Steins series on "Difficult passages in the Bible" is also very good.
I am actually using Stiens "Diffucult passages in the New Testament" right now in my studies, but it only starts to address the concerns I have. It did, however provide a quite insightful way to approach the apperant contradiction between James and Paul's teachings on faith and works. It's a good start. :)
I think I'll look into the Gleason Archer's Handbook. That sounds more in depth.
Thanks for the help.
Chance - I appreciated your observations.
"It upholds the fact that God made man in His image when we execute murderers. When we let murderers live we deny that God made man in His image."
I don't totally follow you here. I have many questions concerning this statement.
1. Are not the murderers made in God's image as well?
2. Isn't there some hypocrisy involved in killing a killer?
3. How does God's mercy fit in to this? Not that I don't have a sense of justice. Certainly God has a sense of justice!
4. This is my main question - HOW are we "upholding" the fact that God made man in His image when we execute murderers? Is it really as simple as upholding the worth of one individual by paying for it with another?
There are numerous questions I have concerning the death penalty, obviously not all can be addressed here! Not to mention this is becoming a quite off-topic post! Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic of the Death Penalty in some cases , but even then there are many things to question.
Another major question: How does the OT transition a law - based position into a mercy and grace position in the NT. I am probably oversimplifying the issue, sorry!
I am not expecting an in-depth answer to the above questions on a discussion board. I've got many books to read! :D
Ok, I'm done. Finally. I rant sometimes.
Dulcine
Dulcine | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/29/2001 5:35 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm with you too, Dulcine.
I read a book on Ethics by a Greek Orthodox Sem. professor named Stanley Harakas. (was at Holy Cross Sem.) Ethics is a much more comprehensive field in the Orthodox perspective.
His point was very clear, that in contradistinction from the Latin Augustine and Augustine's idea of a "just war", Orthodoxy makes no such room. In war, sometimes there is a choice between two evils. But both are evil. But as to capital punishment, NO room is made for it, at all. Anything that denies someone the ability to exercise their Free Will is viewed as absolutely against God's will, for that reason -- if not others also. And in a tradition that never canonized hell as eternal punishment (it is a prison locked from the inside, where torment is caused by oneself under the "pain" of God's unwanted and unrelenting Love/Light...) and room has been left by some mystics for even the eventual salvation of the demons -- such an all-embracing vision of God's love. Viewed from that kind of perspective, HOW could capital punishment ever be embraced. (What are you going to say to the guy once you meet him in heaven?)
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Dulcine
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 12/30/2001 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
His point was very clear, that in contradistinction from the Latin Augustine and Augustine's idea of a "just war", Orthodoxy makes no such room. In war, sometimes there is a choice between two evils. But both are evil. But as to capital punishment, NO room is made for it, at all. Anything that denies someone the ability to exercise their Free Will is viewed as absolutely against God's will, for that reason -- if not others also. And in a tradition that never canonized hell as eternal punishment (it is a prison locked from the inside, where torment is caused by oneself under the "pain" of God's unwanted and unrelenting Love/Light...) and room has been left by some mystics for even the eventual salvation of the demons -- such an all-embracing vision of God's love. Viewed from that kind of perspective, HOW could capital punishment ever be embraced. (What are you going to say to the guy once you meet him in heaven?)
PoW,
Very interesting.
I wonder what your take on the book of Joshua is! It seems God has no problems with war, as long as he is the one leading it. Not that I have any problem with that. For a war to be "just" one side would have to be totally right and standing for total goodness and righteousness. Not to mention, that one would have to know the situation fully. God would be the only being out there who could justifiably wage war in any circumstance as far as I am concerned! Humans, especially the Isrealites, aren't shining examples of goodness, righteousness, or knowledge, so we just don't fit the bill.
As for the view of hell and punishment, well, I have a few concerns. I highly doubt a demon would ever want salvation let alone attain it. Imagine going against eons of hate and self-centeredness. Old habits die hard. Same thing goes for people. Some people are doing a great job of preparing themselves for hell already! The more years you add to a way of being the heavier the weight of it is. Maybe that's the "hell" of it.
Enough for now,
Dulcine | | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 12/30/2001 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | |
In the OT, was the holy spirit working in peoples lives? Or did people just worship God out of civic duty?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ChadD
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 1/5/2002 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | I have a very difficult time with this issue, but I think the key is to not forget that God, though love, is also just:
But as long as it is the topic, and though I have not yet read the entire thread, I have yet to see anyone mention what to many people (myself not one of them) may be perhaps the most disturbing account in all the Old Testament: Genesis Chapter 1; the account of God's irresponsible risk, a choice that has been truly agonizing to millions upon millions of people who had they known what was to come, might well have chosen to simply cease to exist immediately upon emerging from the womb.
Wether God explictly willed or fully knew all that would happen if He created the Earth, or whether He simply knew in exhaustive detail all of the suffering and torterous pain that could possibly come of it, is to a great extent, irrelevant. How is either persuasive to the non-believer?
- If the former then God has directly caused or authored more pain than the most dreadful of tyrants.
- If the latter then God undertook his plan to create the earth knowing full well what might happen while having no intention to prevent much or perhaps most of it. Indeed, when He saw what was happening, He (despite an initial second-thought) let it continue, and has let it continue to this day.
God created because it pleased Him to do so. God has continued to allow many to exist and to die in their pain, many of them never having hardly a (or perhaps no) chance to exist elsewise, because He saw fit to do so (because it was Just). I can give all of my money to the poor, and give all my life to helping those who suffer, and yet if I do so while calling God a murderous child-like tyrant for what His Word says that He has done, I will burn in Hell for all eternity, "Where their worm dieth not and the fire shall never be quenched," because I have not submitted to God, because I have not done His Will.
Either the God of the Old Testament and of Creation is a goat-herder's myth, or God is sovereign, the sole and ultimate arbitor of justice; what fallen man in his foolish wisdom desires himself to be. Yet, we have been given a chance. It is the only chance that we will ever get. Our choice (?) of whether or not to accept what is freely given, and this is all that matters, yes?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/5/2002 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | THIS IS NOT A PAID PLUG FOR "LORD OF THE RINGS!"
quote:
As for the view of hell and punishment, well, I have a few concerns. I highly doubt a demon would ever want salvation let alone attain it. Imagine going against eons of hate and self-centeredness. Old habits die hard. Same thing goes for people. Some people are doing a great job of preparing themselves for hell already! The more years you add to a way of being the heavier the weight of it is. Maybe that's the "hell" of it.
Enough for now,
Dulcine
Interesting trying to empathize with demons!
But its been done--almost.
I remember reading in Tolkein's Silmerilian (sp? -- Its the character stories background to the Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit.) that of the two REALLY bad guys in the Lord of the Rings the one that had to serve the other, for just a few eons of his megamulti-eon life (I'm not being exact) was a little less bad than the one who had never had to serve anyone. THAT was Tolkein's "MYTHOPOETIC" IMAGINATION.
(The movie is great!)
Hobbit on Wheel
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/05/2002 9:28:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 121 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:44 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|