 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Matt 5:42 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/15/2005 6:49 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Sahid said...
Thanks for the happy birthday. I do get genuinely frustrated when after saying "God is holy," people think I'm suggesting that God is not holy. But, even more, I'm glad to have you guys to talk to. I'm grateful for you, Spark, and everyone else who posts here.
Your welcome, Sahid. I also appreciated all of the people that contribute to this board.
Apparently we differ in what constitutes holy.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most holy and 10 being the most evil, where would you rate Hitler?
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/15/2005 7:40:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/15/2005 11:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | Spark, Hitler's a 10, just like all of us without Christ.
Jeff, I agree that the children issue is important, it's just that right now I'm not dealing with it. I also agree that the WHO is being changed not the WHY. What I disagree with is this: "And [the question of 'why'] is summarized in WHATSOEVER YOU WOULD THAT MEN DO UNTO YOU, DO YE UNTO THEM ALSO." Where does this address purpose? It doesn't. It's clear on how to deal with others, but it says nothing about why. The why is because it is what God does.
You state the golden rule. I ask why. You repeat the golden rule back to me. The golden rule doesn't say why.
"So what does the verse mean once you claim absolute ignorance about how you love yourself?"
When did I claim absolute ignorance about how I love myself? Seriously, most of your objections are not to me. How have I taken scripture out of context?
"Also, with respect to imitating the Father: James said there were those who did not receive because they asked amiss. That means, seemingly, that God doesn't give MERELY because one asks. Second, compare 1Pet. 3:12 with James' comment about the fervent prayer of a RIGHTEOUS man availing much. 1Pet. 3:12 seems to strongly suggest that God doesn't hearken to the prayers of evil-doers. Which is really the same as James' point, anyway."
Jesus said, "Ask and you will receive... For everyone who asks receives."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/16/2005 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Zach: Jesus said, "Ask and you will receive... For everyone who asks receives."
Jeff: I've asked God for lots of things that I didn't receive. I'm confused. What does "receiving" mean to you. With people doing the giving it would seemingly mean that they get WHAT they ask for. If not, then you are under no obligation to give a "weapon" just because THAT is WHAT they ask for.
Also, since James said they received not because they asked amiss, is James wrong and Jesus right? Or am I misinterpreting James? Not sure which you're saying. Also, see Christ's own qualification in Matt. 21:22.
As for the golden rule, he says "WHATSOEVER ye would that men do unto you..." Maybe I'm wrong to read into that "WHATSOEVER ye would NOT have men do unto you, do NOT do unto them." But if that's a fair read, it would seem to mean that if I don't want men to PURPOSELY help my persecutors persecute me, I shouldn't PURPOSELY help their's persecute them.
Zach: "And [the question of 'why'] is summarized in WHATSOEVER YOU WOULD THAT MEN DO UNTO YOU, DO YE UNTO THEM ALSO." Where does this address purpose? It doesn't. It's clear on how to deal with others, but it says nothing about why.
Jeff: I woud say that the "THEREFORE" at the beginning of that sentence and the "THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" refer back to Christ's original statement that he had not come to "destroy the LAW AND THE PROPHETS." In other words, the "THEREFORE" says that the golden rule was meant to be an interpretive constraint on the meaning of all the rest of the law, including why and when we give. So when he says "ye have heard it said," he immediately says "but I SAY (no ego, the emphasis is on SAY)," for he is going to give a fuller interpretation of that based upon the golden rule approach.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/16/2005 6:42:58 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/16/2005 9:37 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
If I throw a stone in a lake, I am causing the ripples i.e. I am morally culpable for the ripples. If I give money, funiture, or hangers, to a girl, she chooses how to use them i.e. she is morally culpable for the ripples. Spark, Hitler's a 10, just like all of us without Christ.
You’re assuming Hitler was not a Christian. In fact he was baptized a Christian and had early aspirations of becoming a priest, he even attended seminary school. Many churches in Germany supported him and he referenced God in many of his speeches. He married his girl friend before the eyes of God right before he died.
In some respects, Hitler said, I’m holy as God is holy as I give just like God gives. Hitler just “gave to people want they asked for” as the majority of the German nation feverishly asked Hitler to give them a supreme-race that God would look favorably upon. Hitler never killed six million Jews with his own hands (Hitler never threw the rock, thus made no ripple) he was just a (#11) “fascinator”, by giving the German people the instruments to do it themselves.
On other hand, one might say that holy means that which is consecrated and set apart for sacred uses. A holy grail would not be the same as a grail that was used to carry weapons with the intent to do evil. Holy would be to give instruments with the good intent of its sacred use.
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. Matthew 21:43 (NRSV)
Thus you will know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:20 (NRSV)
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/16/2005 10:16:31 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/16/2005 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | Spark, I'm sure Hitler did some nice things. I'm sure he got wet and called himself a Christian. I'm not sure how it's a good thing, but he also got married (I didn't know that before you told me).
If you give me a specific example of an action, I'll tell you what I think of it. Hitler did encourage killing. This was evil. I would (I hope) never encourage killing. Whether or not he actually killed, he encouraged killing and that's an evil action on it's own.
Hilter did give some people what they asked for, but this was wrong. Not all giving of what is asked for is good. We've already been over this. If you are being asked to sin, you shouldn't sin. If you are asked to encourage or approve of sin, you should refuse.
"On other hand, one might say that holy means that which is consecrated and set apart for sacred uses."
Sure, one could say that, but that one would be speaking nonsense. Biblically speaking "sacred," "consecrated," and "holy" are the same thing. I could similarly say "A cup is that which is cup-shaped and used as a cup."
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. Matthew 21:43 (NRSV)
Thus you will know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:20 (NRSV)
Amen. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. No argument here.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 9/16/2005 7:36:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/16/2005 7:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: Also, since James said they received not because they asked amiss, is James wrong and Jesus right?
Zach: I'm not really firm on this, but until I hear a good argument otherwise... Yes, James is wrong and Jesus is right. The Bible is not lord or God. James is not the lord or God. But Jesus is "my lord and my God." I will have no other God's before him.
Jeff: As for the golden rule, he says "WHATSOEVER ye would that men do unto you..." Maybe I'm wrong to read into that "WHATSOEVER ye would NOT have men do unto you, do NOT do unto them." But if that's a fair read, it would seem to mean that if I don't want men to PURPOSELY help my persecutors persecute me, I shouldn't PURPOSELY help their's persecute them.
Zach: Jesus wasn't the first to say the golden rule. Most major religions have it and had it before they had heard of Jesus. The weird thing is that they almost always say it in the negative like you've done. Was Jesus making a point by turning the old rule on it's head? I'd like to think so. The people were probably familiar with the negative form of the rule, just like they were familiar with most of the other rules he shook up. There's a good chance he would have caught some funny looks from the crowd when he said it "backwards."
Still, it's the same issue either way. Negative or positive, neither claims that facilitation equals culpability.
Jeff: I woud say that the "THEREFORE" at the beginning of that sentence and the "THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" refer back to Christ's original statement that he had not come to "destroy the LAW AND THE PROPHETS." In other words, the "THEREFORE" says that the golden rule was meant to be an interpretive constraint on the meaning of all the rest of the law, including why and when we give. So when he says "ye have heard it said," he immediately says "but I SAY (no ego, the emphasis is on SAY)," for he is going to give a fuller interpretation of that based upon the golden rule approach.
Zach: I disagree. I think "therefore" signifies consequence not purpose. I don't have a greek lexicon on me right now, but dictionary.com says, "For that reason or cause; consequently or hence." So in english either one of us could be right. I'll check a lexicon for ouv when I get home.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 9/16/2005 7:25:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/16/2005 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: I'm not really firm on this, but until I hear a good argument otherwise... Yes, James is wrong and Jesus is right. The Bible is not lord or God. James is not the lord or God. But Jesus is "my lord and my God." I will have no other God's before him.
Jeff: The book of Matthew is a biblical book. You don't know what Jesus commands us from the book of Matthew any more than I know what Jesus commands us from the book of James. Both books were written by persons other than Jesus. Both, neither, or only one of them could be right. You didn't deal with the verse in Matthew. It's one of the passages that speaks of "believing" as being requisite to receive. How is that any different than James? And Christ said it, supposedly.
Both give qualifications not mentioned in the Sermon. But if the point of the sermon is WHO and not WHY, that's not problematic at all. It's only problematic if you think God gives to all who ask, without qualification. But that verse, too, could be about WHO and not WHY. I.e., God gives to ALL who ask (not just SOME), when the conditions are right for God to give (to be discerned from other passages, etc.).
Zach: Still, it's the same issue either way. Negative or positive, neither claims that facilitation equals culpability.
Jeff: It would imply, however, that one's love of self is a guide for how one should treat others. Granted, that would differ from person to person. But Christ said it, nonetheless (supposedly!).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/16/2005 10:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Hitler did encourage killing. This was evil. I would (I hope) never encourage killing. Whether or not he actually killed, he encouraged killing and that's an evil action on it's own. How about if he only encouraged to stop the rain on the seeds of life?
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/17/2005 4:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff, you're right. I totally missed Matt 21:22. You got me. I didn't look up anything before responding. If I'd looked at either James or Matthew, I probably wouldn't have said that stuff. I apologize. I jumped to conclusions.
So now what? Well, we've got unqualified ask=receive and then ask+believe=receive. The weird thing is that the same paradox is in James 1.
James 1 says...
"5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord;" Believe what? Maybe it is the simple belief that when we ask God for something, we are not just talking to ourselves. Like Heb 11:6. This kind of belief is certainly necessary for prayer, but is it enough? What do you think? Is that a good interpretation?
The human-to-human consequence would be almost absurd though. Where it's easy to imagine someone praying without even this belief, it's not likely that someone will ask me for help without believing in my existence.
As to the Who and Why thing... I think the sermon addresses both. I think I'm agreeing with you that the point of the sermon was to WHOM we are to give. But (as this thread proves) the idea of giving even to the wicked would have done more than raise eyebrows. Why should they listen to Jesus when he commands something that seems so wrong? So, Jesus gives them the WHY. Not to make life easier or safer, but to be like the Father.
I also agree with you that "one's love of self is a guide for how one should treat others." But if you are right that it "would differ from person to person," then doesn't the golden rule descend into meaninglessness? Even the most sadistic, masochistic, evil person at the most basic level desires (albeit perverted) good for him/herself. This most-twisted person still wishes his (admittedly evil) desire to be fulfilled. If Jesus is referring to that common, basic desire which we all share, then the rule can make sense. In addition to loving ourself, we should love others.
Sorry to waste your time by being dumb about James. All try to keep that kind of stupidity down to a minimum.
Spark: How about if he only encouraged to stop the rain on the seeds of life?
Zach: You're gonna have to run that by me again. I don't understand. Is this a metaphor?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/17/2005 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | Ok, I've got an entire page on ouv.
1. Inferential, denoting that what it introduces is the result of or an inference from what precedes - so, therefore, consequently, accordingly, then.
2. Marker of the continuation of a narrative - so, now, then.
3. Possibly older Greek usage is emphatic - certainly, really, to be sure, indeed, of course etc.
4. Possibly adversive - but, however.
The last two are guesses and, if correct, are not very common ways of using the word. The second applies to narrative. The first is the most likely. It could be "so" or "therefore," but I think "because" or "and this is why" are pretty much ruled out.
But I can agree with the end referring back to the beginning of not destroying the Law and Prophets, but fulfilling them. But if the Law is to be fulfilled this implies that it was only partial before. We should expect from this disclaimer that Jesus is going to build on but not abandon the Law and Prophets. Either way things will be changed. Paul compares the Law to the slave who walks the children to school. This descript ion is very helpful for me. The slave himself is not bad and should not be changed at all, but the slave eventually becomes obsolete and our relationship to him does change.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/17/2005 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
"Also, with respect to imitating the Father: James said there were those who did not receive because they asked amiss. That means, seemingly, that God doesn't give MERELY because one asks. James 4:3 (NLT)
And even when you do ask, you don't get it because your whole "motive" is wrong—you want only what will give you pleasure.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/17/2005 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: But I can agree with the end referring back to the beginning of not destroying the Law and Prophets, but fulfilling them. But if the Law is to be fulfilled this implies that it was only partial before. We should expect from this disclaimer that Jesus is going to build on but not abandon the Law and Prophets. Either way things will be changed.
Jeff: I think one could look at it another way. Namely, Christ is saying that the only way ALL the commandments could be fulfilled, the least and the greatest, is if "love thy neighbor as thyself" constitutes the interpretive constraint on the meaning of the other laws. Thus, Christ could agree that the mint and cummin be tithed as long as the weighter matters of the law were properly regarded. And he could agree that the ox should be gotten out of the ditch on the sabbath, but that it would imply that HUMANS should be saved from harm or illness on the sabbath, too. And so forth. This is the only way I can make sense of all his sayings, in a non-contradictory manner.
As for the problem of the subjectivity implied in "as thyself," I would say that the subjectivity is reasonably constrained by the CLEAR passages in the bible. Hebrews says that only by USE of scripture do we acquire the ability to discern good and evil in a mature manner. We must trust God to not allow us to be tempted above what we are able in the meanwhile. It is this providential protection ALONE that accounts for the ability of very diverse people to remain faithful in our journey towards spiritual maturity, despite our subjective differences. There is just no way to account for a complete, mathematically-precise definition of all our duties. scripture is clear that a MATURE capacity for wisdom and judgement comes with time, discipline, and an intellectually honest pursuit of truth.
And your are right; there is nothing easy about it. But we can have joy in the midst of our suffering, nevertheless, because of our hope and the sense of dignity we can have IN that suffering by virtue of being counted worthy to suffer with ONE who is worthy of all ADORATION. But for me, that kind of joy only comes when I have the peace that comes from BELIEVING what I'm living out. I just can't have peace when my mind is conflicted--and it certainly would be conflicted if I couldn't take Christ's words in the their most plausible meaning, given ALL of what he said.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/17/2005 11:31:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/17/2005 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
Jeff: I think one could look at it another way. Namely, Christ is saying that the only way ALL the commandments could be fulfilled, the least and the greatest, is if "love thy neighbor as thyself" constitutes the interpretive constraint on the meaning of the other laws. Thus, Christ could agree that the mint and cummin be tithed as long as the weighter matters of the law were properly regarded. And he could agree that the ox should be gotten out of the ditch on the sabbath, but that it would imply that HUMANS should be saved from harm or illness on the sabbath, too. And so forth. This is the only way I can make sense of all his sayings, in a non-contradictory manner.
As for the problem of the subjectivity implied in "as thyself," I would say that the subjectivity is reasonably constrained by the CLEAR passages in the bible. Hebrews says that only by USE of scripture do we acquire the ability to discern good and evil in a mature manner. We must trust God to not allow us to be tempted above what we are able in the meanwhile. It is this providential protection ALONE that accounts for the ability of very diverse people to remain faithful in our journey towards spiritual maturity, despite our subjective differences. There is just no way to account for a complete, mathematically-precise definition of all our duties. scripture is clear that a MATURE capacity for wisdom and judgement comes with time, discipline, and an intellectually honest pursuit of truth.
And your are right; there is nothing easy about it. But we can have joy in the midst of our suffering, nevertheless, because of our hope and the sense of dignity we can have IN that suffering by virtue of being counted worthy to suffer with ONE who is worthy of all ADORATION. But for me, that kind of joy only comes when I have the peace that comes from BELIEVING what I'm living out. I just can't have peace when my mind is conflicted--and it certainly would be conflicted if I couldn't take Christ's words in the their most plausible meaning, given ALL of what he said.
Amen!
Good job Jeff, God Bless You.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/17/2005 2:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: Namely, Christ is saying that the only way ALL the commandments could be fulfilled, the least and the greatest, is if "love thy neighbor as thyself" constitutes the interpretive constraint on the meaning of the other laws.
Zach: If Jesus said that, it may or may not have made sense. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that this is not what scripture claims that Jesus said. Both Matthew and Luke claim that the purpose of giving is to be like the Father. The golden rule is presented as the summing up of the sermon and all the commandments, never the "interpretive constraint." If the word ouv/therefore meant "because," then it would be saying what you want. You're system may be interally consistent, but it explicitly contradicts the sermon. If I understand you, you think it says, "You must not resist an evil person, and you must give to the one who asks, because you must love your neighbor as yourself." It doesn't say that.
Matt 5 "42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
Luke 6 "34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High."
The marked word means "in order that" or "so that". It expresses purpose. Jesus doesn't just tell us to do good; he lets us know what good is.
Jeff: And so forth. This is the only way I can make sense of all his sayings, in a non-contradictory manner.
Zach: That's odd, because I've been presenting another non-contradictory interpretation. I don't recall anyone complaining that my interpretation was contradictory. To say that we should give in order to be like the Father is not even interpretation; it's translation.
Jeff: As for the problem of the subjectivity implied in "as thyself," I would say that the subjectivity is reasonably constrained by the CLEAR passages in the bible. Hebrews says that only by USE of scripture do we acquire the ability to discern good and evil in a mature manner. We must trust God to not allow us to be tempted above what we are able in the meanwhile. It is this providential protection ALONE that accounts for the ability of very diverse people to remain faithful in our journey towards spiritual maturity, despite our subjective differences. There is just no way to account for a complete, mathematically-precise definition of all our duties. scripture is clear that a MATURE capacity for wisdom and judgement comes with time, discipline, and an intellectually honest pursuit of truth.
Zach: What I think you're saying is something like there are no strict biblical guidelines on this matter, we must rely on the Spirit's leading. I would agree in the external sense. There are no strict guidelines on how our imitating the Father must be expressed outwardly, but our internal motivations and their general consequences are precisely prescribed by Jesus. I'll admit that you can get around Jesus' exact words with hyperbole, but you could do that with anything. You could say "love your enemies" is hyperbole too. In fact you'd almost have to because the command is sandwiched between two passages that you hold to be hyperbolic (Actually I don't know what you think about "that you may be sons of your Father." Whenever I mention it, you ignore it and recite the golden rule.)
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/17/2005 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: I'll admit that you can get around Jesus' exact words with hyperbole, but you could do that with anything. You could say "love your enemies" is hyperbole too.
Jeff: I don't know of anything off the top of my head that contradicts "love your enemies." I've brought up several scenarios that seem to contradict "give to him who asks," if that is taken in an absolute and unconditional manner, and that seems to contradict that God does so.
Zach: Actually I don't know what you think about "that you may be sons of your Father." Whenever I mention it, you ignore it and recite the golden rule.
Jeff: I explicitly addressed it in the safe haven thread.
Mark posted the james verse in full:
James 4:3 (NLT)
And even when you do ask, you don't get it because your whole "motive" is wrong—you want only what will give you pleasure.
There is NOTHING in that verse that suggests they don't believe in God. Such a view seems utterly implausible to me. I don't know what else to say Zach. I absolutely agree that taking the Matthew verse alone means something different than I think. But the James verse, Matt. 22:21(?), and a host of others seem to clearly say that God does NOT give merely because one asks. Thus, your whole argument makes no sense to me.
I'm done. I feel liking I'm wasting the very short amount of time God has given me on this earth to seek Him and do His will. I agree to disagree in peace, bro.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/17/2005 3:33:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/17/2005 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: I don't know of anything off the top of my head that contradicts "love your enemies." I've brought up several scenarios that seem to contradict "give to him who asks," if that is taken in an absolute and unconditional manner, and that seems to contradict that God does so.
Zach: I think this might be the root of our disagreement. You seem to only want to resort to hyperbole when it is necessary to resolve apparent contradictions. Using this hermenuetic, you can make the Bible say anything. I see you doing this:
- Start with the belief that the Protestant Bible is without contradiction.
- Resolve all apparent contradictions using the hyperbole trump card only when necessary.
By starting with the assumption that the Bible is non-contradictory and supplying yourself a trump card in hyperbole that you can use whenever convenient, you have left yourself without any means of being intellectually honest. You can't resolve an apparent contradiction when you start with the assumption that it is impossible for there to actually be a contradiction.
This is the same logic that people like Borg use to "disprove" a literal resurrection. By assuming the conclusion before coming to the argument, they render their argument circular. For a hypothesis to be proven, there must be a way to prove it false. You will use reason and exegesis as long as possible, but right before your hypothesis is disproven, you can play your eisegetical hyperbole trump card. I'll grant that there probably is much hyperbole in Jesus' teaching, but to see it wherever it suits your preconceptions is to impose your beliefs on the scripture.
Jeff: I explicitly addressed it in the safe haven thread.
Zach: Explicitly huh? You'll have to tell me where, because I can't see it.
Jeff: James 4:3 (NLT)
And even when you do ask, you don't get it because your whole "motive" is wrong—you want only what will give you pleasure.
There is NOTHING in that verse that suggests they don't believe in God. Such a view seems utterly implausible to me. I don't know what else to say Zach. I absolutely agree that taking the Matthew verse alone means something different than I think. But the James verse, Matt. 22:21(?), and a host of others seem to clearly say that God does NOT give merely because one asks.
Zach: This is the stuff I want to talk about! This is a biblical argument against me. I don't have an answer. But to say "this is not contradictory, because of hyperbole which we can claim because the Bible is not contradictory" is a circular argument. Your argument doesn't make sense either. I started this thread so that people would point these biblical problems out and so that they could be resolved. If this is where you get off, that's fine. But for me, I've finally dispelled most of the misconceptions (I hope), and now I can actually get to the point - What does the Bible say about this?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/17/2005 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: I started this thread so that people would point these biblical problems out and so that they could be resolved.
Jeff: And all I'm saying is that I see your route as being even more implausible than mine--not only on textual grounds, but on grounds of ethical application (the children and the whole bit). When you get your answer, post it. I may change my mind. Indeed, if your hypothesis is correct, ask God for a resolution, and He will provide it. Peace, bro!
P.S. One thing I would like an answer to: Why does Jesus say (Mat. 7:7), side by side, "Ask and it shall be given" AND "Seek and ye shall find?" Is he giving us a menu option where we can pick the easy route (MERELY ASK) or the hard route (SEEK)? Or is he saying you have to seek AND ask? For now, I must assume the latter to make sense of other passages, like the following, which can be assumed to be contradictory or not. I think it's NOT contradictory.
James 1:5-7
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/18/2005 6:15:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/22/2005 10:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Zach,
I see you’re still hacking at the Sermon on the Mount. Check out Kent’s following commentary:
RESPONDING TO BORROWING (v. 42)- Hughes, R. Kent
Finally, there is the matter of the believer who is being persecuted through others' borrowing. The Lord's advice is: "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Does this mean we are to give to every freeloader and panhandler who comes our way? I do not think so. I read about a Cambridge research student who thought otherwise — and ended up bankrupt as he went without while he supplied half a dozen men with the money for alcohol that they would have been better off without. Jesus is not recommending that his followers give to every open hand, though, of course, he calls us all to deep generosity.
What then does he mean? He means that the righteous are to give to those who are attempting to hurt them through borrowing. Luke refers to this kind of persecution when he says, "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back" (6:35).
We must realize that Jesus' advice is for a specific situation in which a believer is being persecuted. Moreover, Jesus does not say how many times one is to loan to his persecutors. Nor does he mention the restraint that love will impose on one's generosity. As Alexander Maclaren wisely said:
If turning the cheek would make the assaulter more angry, or if yielding the cloak would make the legal robber more greedy, or going the second mile would but make the press gang more severe and exacting, resistance becomes a form of love and duty for the sake of the wrongdoer.[89] —Preaching the Word
Hopefully helpful,
Mark
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/23/2005 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Zach: I think I'm easing off from unqualified giving, but I can't go to the other extreme of utilitarianism either. There may be a time to refuse to give, but I don't see Jesus teaching that we determine that time based on the consequences.
Jeff: My take is this: Utilitarianism looks at good (i.e., pleasure/satisfaction) in a statistical sense, only. Moreover, it judges with a view to ONLY those consequence that occur in THIS LIFE. The Jews were used to thinking in terms of blessings in THIS LIFE due to obedience IN THIS LIFE. But even then, the disobedience of the many prevented the righteous minority (prophets, etc.) from partaking of those temporal, national blessings. The Pharisees may have perverted this doctrine into the view that INDIVIDUAL righteousness would guarantee INDIVIDUAL blessing/prosperity IN THIS LIFE. This was not true.
Christ is talking to Jews who were living in the "times of the Gentiles," wherein it was prophecied that they would not obtain those blessings promised by the Law to an obedient nation. He reassures the nation, however, that it is STILL important to do what is right, because there WILL be consequences AFTER THIS LIFE. Much of his teaching is about just that.
Consequently, righteousness need not be defined based on consequences IN THIS LIFE, alone, much less statistically. That's why I think right actions are those actions which, if practiced by EVERYONE, would result in the highest good of ALL, when consequences are viewed over this life AND post-mortem life.
CLEARLY righteousness can cause one to SUFFER in this life, and sometimes suffer GREATLY. That's why Paul says that if he had hoped in Christ for this life ONLY, he of all men would have been the most miserable (perhaps a bit of hyperbole to make the point). For we are NOT reigning already as the Corinthians falsely supposed.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/23/2005 4:18:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/24/2005 9:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: But in dealing with other persons, their desires must be taken into account. There was a time when Christian threatened pagans with death if they did not convert. They, in effect, force upon others what was best for them. But in doing so they treated them like objects. It would have been best for the Jews not to have accepted resonsibility of Jesus' execution, but Jesus didn't make them mute. It would have been best for Peter not to have cut off the ear in the first place, but God did not turn his sword to rubber.
Jeff: Since conversion is a heart action and not a bodily action, the "christians" were NOT doing what was best for them. They were silly to think conversion works that way.
As for God, one of the reasons why He forebears with longsuffering, per Paul, is to show His wrath. Is God, in your opinion, acting in love when He shows wrath? If so, would it prove that I would be acting in love by showing MY wrath? Or would I be loving if I forebore the wrongs done to me with the intent of showing my wrath? I don't assume that I can legitimately imitate God in ALL things. I believe we are to imitate God in the ways He TELLS us to. Beyond that, I just try to do what I think God tells me to do.
Or does the fact that God doesn't supernaturally intervene to give food and drink to those starving, even though in many cases they are begging God for intervention, mean that we aren't to give them food and drink? I just don't see how we can model our obligations after God in all cases.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/25/2005 6:44:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 99 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:59 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 |
|
|