 |
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 9:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | Semeia:
quote:
It seems to me that if God strikes down people for lying (especially about not contributing everything they own to the collection plate) then people would be dropping dead every Sunday at church. Not to mention the absurdity of God striking down someone who withholds money from the church while at the same time letting the likes of Pol Pot go around beheading millions of his own people for such crimes as wearing glasses or being too educated. I guess we would have to conclude that somehow Pol Pot was more a part of doing God's will than Ananais and Sapphira were.
If this is who God is, why wouldn't Jesus have struck a few people dead in their tracks to reveal what God is like? Wouldn't that be an important bit of information about God for Jesus to share? But he never did anything remotely like that. He did the opposite of that - he healed people and brought them back to life.
If anything, I see that scripture as a fundraising tactic of the early church. But it tells me nothing at all about God.
I feel ya. Perhaps Doc or Tom could shed some light on this. Guys?
******************************
Semeia:
quote:
Now, if you had a story about Jesus striking someone dead, then I might have to consider that God operates in such a way.
I’ll use the Markan passage…cause I believe in Markan priority. Heh.
Mark 11:12
On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.
Mark 11:20
In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.” 22 Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
and then Matthew…
Matt. 21:19
And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. 20 When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” 21 Jesus answered them, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done.
Obvious discrepancy between Matthew and Mark, I know. But do we have here. We have Jesus cursing something and it dying. GASP! Jesus CURSING SOMETHING and CAUSING IT TO DIE?? Say it ain’t so! Wow! Oh, but it’s just a plant. That doesn’t really matter, right? But wait a second! Isn’t that kind of like what we have in Acts with A and S?
And what about this?
Acts 13:4
So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also to assist them. 6 When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet, named Bar-jesus. 7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God. 8 But the magician Elymas (for that is the translation of his name) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now listen—the hand of the Lordis against you, and you will be blind for a while, unable to see the sun.” Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he went about groping for someone to lead him by the hand. 12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was astonished at the teaching about the Lord.
Very interesting. So we seem to have a pattern of Spirit led, spirit empowered people…CURSING THINGS to blindness and death. Even Jesus. Hmmm… I suppose that we could TRY to say that it wasn’t GOD who did it, but the empowered people and therefore THEY were responsible not God. But Jesus IS God, right? And in the last instance, Paul SPECIFICALLY said that the HAND OF THE LORD was against Elymas. Hmmm…
But surely that can’t be…for the God that we know in Jesus wouldn’t curse anything..er..um…and definitely wouldn’t use spiritual power to cause..uh…death….and uh…destruction...
MuaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Psa. 50:15
Call on me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.”
John 12:28
Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”
OOOH. Feel like having CHUUUUUCH up in here! Believe in the Glorification Principle. BELIEVE.
SOLI DEO GLORIA,
PS: At one of the buildings at ORU is an inscription that was said to encapsulate Oral Robert's ministry: "For the Glory of God and the Healing of Mankind" That so impressed me that I've not yet forgotten it. I think it says so much. And is remarkably true to God's operation in Creation. I was just struck right now about how much my ideas resonate with Brother Roberts' ideas. Very cool. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
I think impetuous Peter caused this just like Elisha caused the bears to kill those juveniles. I think they both went overboard. Jesus (God) would not have this.
  
heh... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | MAN, I feel like preachin...something about talkin' about the glory and majesty of the Lord! Who's got the organ? 
PRAISE HIM, SAINTS! Let ALL things that have BREATH, praise the Lord of All Creation!
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi said:
But do we have here. We have Jesus cursing something and it dying. GASP! Jesus CURSING SOMETHING and CAUSING IT TO DIE?? Say it ain’t so! Wow! Oh, but it’s just a plant. That doesn’t really matter, right?
Semeia:
OH NO! Next thing you'll be telling me that Jesus KILLED and ATE a FISH!!!!!!!!! My theology crumbles. Don't tell me he once stepped on an ANT, too?!?! The HORROR!!! 
"Bring us a shrubbery, or we will say 'Nee' to you!" 
Mephi said:
But wait a second! Isn’t that kind of like what we have in Acts with A and S?
Semeia:
You're kidding, right? You want to offer Jesus shriveling up a FIG TREE as evidence that God strikes PEOPLE dead for lying about how much money they made selling their field?
Since it seems that Jesus used withering the fig tree as an example of the power that the disciples themselves would have if they had enough faith (power enough to move a mountain into the sea), then by corollary we could say that those same people might be capable of misusing this power, could we not?
And once again we are left with no evidence at all that God killed Ananias and Sapphira.
Jesus did not metaphorically heal people; he actually healed them. If God strikes people dead for lying and withholding money, why wouldn't Jesus actually strike people dead for such things, rather than metaphorically striking dead a fig tree? And why wouldn't he draw a clear comparison by saying something like, "That fig tree could be you under the right circumstances..., like say, if you withheld money from the church collection plate..."
Joking aside, I cannot even fathom the comparison. I mean, you're equating the death of a PLANT with the death of a HUMAN. Does not compute. It does show, however, how little Jesus gives you to work with.
I have no problem at all believing that God could temporarily blind someone, as he did Saul on the road to Damascus. But that is a long, long way from 9-11 or rape or torture.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Time for another hip-hop break! Conservatives, hang on to yer hats. Run that track! Uh, uh, uh...
Have you ever seen the Lord bless some saints with His holy Presence…smooth praisin’ like…
HAYELL, YEAH!
Have you ever felt the Lord forgive you for all of your sins…grace amazin’ like…
HAYELL, YEAH!
Have you ever seen the Lord bringing love to the down-and-out…heart blazin’ like…
HAYELL, YEAH!
Have you ever seen 5000 saints crazy turnin’ it out…hands raisin’ like…
HAYELL, YEAH!
Using the beat from Ginuwine’s R&B hit “Hell, Yeah!”
http://www.mtv.com/bands/az/ginuwine/artist.jhtml
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
Are you saying that Jesus cursing a LIVING THING and it dying has NO significance? Morever, are you equating Jesus CURSING a tree and it DYING because of that curse…to him killing and eating a fish?
I’m telling! DOC!!!!!
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Back to business, yo.
So, I see that Semeia’s having some serious reservations about things as I currently have them. Anyone else? Hey, any CALVINISTS that want to pipe in…that’d be cool?
What are your main sources of problems with with I have right now? Remember the significant changes!
Briefly…
Two main divine intentions for Creation (as I think are evident in Scripture):
1) God wanted to have a context where sentient created beings would freely LOVE God, love each other, and in so doing, form a Bride that will join the “dance’ of love with the Triune God.
2) God wanted to reveal Godself in myriad facets to Creation, including being a Creator, Sovereign Ruler, Savior, Healer, Miracle Worker, etc., in order to magnify God’s own glory.
God may certainly have more stuff. But these are two that I truly think are prevelant. I am suggesting that all of the Creation, and the self-limiting creational factors within, are contoured by these two ideas.
This works out such that we have an Creation where expanded libertarian freedom and continuous carefully detailed divine direction (1st and 2nd type) both exist with respect to sentient beings. With the 1st type compatibilism…
A) God ONLY exhibits continuous, carefully detailed, divine direction such that God is ultimately behind a PARTICULAR act of pain, suffering and loss (morally initiated or otherwise)…when it is the case that some form of REDEMPTION, either for the persons involved and/or others, is ensured to emerge from it. Moreover, any sentient beings who are under this carefully detailed, divine direction while doing such things are NOT morally responsible for those actions, but will suffer natural reprecussions for the actions taken, whatever they may be.
and…
B) God does NOT ordain sentient beings to their final states unconditionally. But, FOR THE SAKE OF SOME TYPE OF REDEMPTIVE ACTIVITY as described earlier, God CAN ordain that a being will not choose God FOR A SPECIFIC TIME and PURPOSE.
Thoughts?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/29/2003 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
Iconoclast:
quote:
One concern I have with this is that it seems to leave open the possibility that God would do something unloving to person A in order to bring about some form of redemption for person B. Any pain caused by God to ANYONE it seems to me would be designed to cause greater probability of redemption (their greater disposition to choose love) for EVERYONE involved.
Yes, that possibility is there intentionally. This is the “sacrificing the rook for the queen” idea. In dealing with the “God does the most that God can do” idea, this is indispensible. Bottom line: Sometimes the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one. This is NOT to say that God doesn’t love every individual. This is to say that, in some cases, sacrifices become necessary. To be sure, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, God tries to be redemption to everyone involved. But sometimes, it has to be a “greater good” idea because of certain situations…where God does the most for the MOST possible.
Iconoclast
I don’t agree with the “sacrificing the rook for the queen” idea as you are using it here. My view is that since God is omniscient and omnipotent that He can always overcome what to us look like insoluble conflicts of the one versus the many. Now, I certainly agree that there are metaphysical categories where God cannot “solve the conflict”. Love must be chosen is such a category. But when it comes to the good of a city versus the good of an individual or a set of individuals then I don’t see any reason not to believe that God is above this sort of conflict and knows how to intervene in such a way that ALL are dealt with in a loving way.
Do you have some examples that you consider problematic to this view?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
God wanted to reveal Godself to us humans in such a way as to show us what Glory really looks like. That it is pretty much the opposite of what humans typically think that God's Glory ought to look like. That true Glory is when the Creator, Sovereign ruler, Miracle Worker becomes the Savior and Healer of mankind by loving us so much that He laid down His life for us.
We could call it the "anti-glorification principle".
I see a BIG problem biblically with the way you and Semeia are dealing with God’s glory. It’s NOT just this one way. There is a REVEALED and HIDDENESS to God. Sure, God’s glory was seen in Jesus dying a criminal’s death on the Cross. But God’s glory was ALSO seen in the terrifying dark thick cloud up on Mt. Sinai that scared the bejeezus outta everyone. Yes, God’s glory was seen in a stinky manager at Jesus’ birth. But the glory was ALSO seen in BRIGHT LIGHT and wonder at the Tranfiguration and the voice from Heaven at Jesus’ baptism that roared like thunder! You CANNOT just take one aspect of God’s glory…and leave all the rest because you don’t like it.
Ex. 14:4
I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD. And they did so.
Ex. 14:17
Then I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and so I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army, his chariots, and his chariot drivers. 18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gained glory for myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his chariot drivers.”
We CAN’T IGNORE this.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey! Where IS everybody? Only Iconoclast and Semeia have been talking to me for a minute!
Do y'all have me BLOCKED?!?! 
Awwww...(sniff) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/29/2003 9:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: Those who respond to God’s overtures and offers of love constitute the Bride. But wording it this way means a) your first postulate is all-embracing (which is not now the case as you have it worded), and b) you’ll have to reword your second postulate, which you probably don’t want to do. The second would have to be embraced by the first and worded something like: “All that God does brings glorify to Godself.” Is this not enough?
Mephi: In making your change, you KNOW that you are excluding all determinists. But think about it. With my current definition, you could STILL say what you are saying with out violating it. But the definition allows for people who want to say that SOME people can be compatibilistically divinely directed for MOST of their existences.
I’m not excluding all determinism, for I grant that God may unconditionally determine some things. What I’m excluding is only “unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior,” that is, God holding agents responsible for what God unconditionally predetermines them to do. You seem to agree with this now, so you’re excluding determinists at precisely the same points I am.
quote:
1) I’m not saying that God is trying to ACHIEVE glory. God IS glorious. What I’m trying to say is that God is MORE GLORIFIED as more facets of God are revealed in various contexts. To the extent, those contexts arise, God has more opportunity to reveal Godself in different, even UNIQUE ways to people.
2) I’m NOT saying that God has to actualize all facets of Godself. In fact, God doesn’t.
If you concede that there will remain unrealized contexts which reveal God’s glory uniquely (and so God’s glory will remain unrevealed in this respect) then you’re settling for total revelation of God that glorifies God less than you admit it could. I agree that “to the extent those contexts arise” God has more opportunity to reveal himself. And God is committed to act in such contexts in a manner that is glorious. No problemo. But whereas I admit that some of these “contexts” arise contingently, you wanted to claim God unconditionally predetermines that they arise.
quote:
3) If you believe in the INEVITABILITY OF SIN, like me, Modes, Doc and about MOST OTHERS here do, then there’s no problem. We talked about this LONG time ago when we first was dealing with the glorification priniciple. It’s not like we are saying that God PLANNED the actual emergence of sin. God NOT BEING NAÏVE and infinitely intelligent to boot, realized that sin was an inevitability and that it WOULD come to be. Thinking thusly, it is completely possible that God would say that ONCE SIN EMERGED (which it would), certain things that he had predestined for particular beings to do WOULD come to pass. The first postulate doesn’t NEED to guarantee that some people don’t make it. SHEER STATISTICAL PROBABILITY does that!
Well, I just wonder whether or not the noetic affects of sin don’t mean that our believing sin was “inevitable” reflects a certain naiveté. Be that as it may, one actually can agree that God knew sin would arise and some humans would be eternally lost and that God knew his own actions in response to this would rebound to his glory.quote:
4) Keep in mind my latest thing. I'm NOT SAYING (right now) that God unconditionally determines END STATES. That's important.
5) Judgment of sin takes place in earthly existence too. So, God would be revealed as judge of sinners...WITHOUT positing that this means compatibilistically determining end states.
This certainly helps. But if end states are excluded, then a) you’ve excluded all determinists as well, and b) you exclude a context in which God may be more glorified, which leaves me wondering why God must be thought to require such contexts in this life, or at all.
About Ananias and Saphira, I’m not so sure God was not behind it. How about the guy getting zapped and killed when he touched the Ark in the OT? No human mediator was even present so we can’t say God’s human representative was doing something God wouldn’t do. I don’t have a problem with God withdrawing the life of Ananias and Saphira. In fact, I think that’s what happened. Great fear fell on all who heard it. Luke’s seems to think this was a healthy thing. But this is nowhere near unconditional determination or compatibilism. They sinned greviously. They knew it. God judged ‘em.
I appreciate your persistence Mephi! Sometimes you’re more brazen than normal, but hey, nobody’s perfect.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/29/2003 9:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: End result? ALL times of compatibilistic action with beings that involve some type of pain, suffering, or loss ALL deal with some form of redemption (either for the persons involved or others) from which God gets glory. NO persons are compatibilistically consigned to hell, but can be prevented for choosing God for a specific time and purpose of God's design.
Tom: “Prevented” doesn’t work because it amounts to coercion. It sounds like the person WANTS to come to God and is TRYING to but God is forbidding it. This is a problem. Assuming that nobody comes but that God first draw her, I suppose you could say the Spirit doesn’t draw or call people, or doesn’t get involved in convicting persons. This seems very strange and I’d be inclined to deny it. But it’s better than sending ‘em to hell!
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I’m not excluding all determinism, for I grant that God may unconditionally determine some things. What I’m excluding is only “unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior,” that is, God holding agents responsible for what God unconditionally predetermines them to do. You seem to agree with this now, so you’re excluding determinists at precisely the same points I am.
It seemed to me that your reconstruction of my first postulation was doing more than that. If all you were trying to do was say what you are saying HERE, then I wouldn’t have a problem. I DO appreciate Doc’s thing though. He said:
Over all, once you take out the eternal destiny bit, I have little problem IN PRINCPLE with the idea of God occasionally removing libertarian freedom for reasons that are beyond us (the "glorification" principle). I would only add that in so far this happens, the person being acted on is not morally responsible for their action except insofar as their action is an expression of an antecedent character they themselves have freely chosen.
I like that. He's hinted at this before, but said it more explicitly now. This basically HELPS things for the determinists. Doc is basically saying here that 2nd type compatibilism DOES ALLOW for moral culpability! And this, will INDEED go a long way.
********************************
Tom:
quote:
If you concede that there will remain unrealized contexts which reveal God’s glory uniquely (and so God’s glory will remain unrevealed in this respect) then you’re settling for total revelation of God that glorifies God less than you admit it could. I agree that “to the extent those contexts arise” God has more opportunity to reveal himself. And God is committed to act in such contexts in a manner that is glorious. No problemo. But whereas I admit that some of these “contexts” arise contingently, you wanted to claim God unconditionally predetermines that they arise.
Nope. I want to say that SOME of the contexts can be unconditionally predetermined to arise just like SOME of the contexts will arise contingently. This is quite allowable.
*************************
Tom:
quote:
This certainly helps. But if end states are excluded, then a) you’ve excluded all determinists as well, and b) you exclude a context in which God may be more glorified, which leaves me wondering why God must be thought to require such contexts in this life, or at all.
Regarding A, I haven’t excluded all determinists. I have excluded ONLY THOSE who believe that God MUST determined all end states by 1st type compatibilism. I can’t do anything about that.
Regarding B, the context is not excluded at all. Remember God KNEW that, given the scope of his aim for Creation and the inevitability of sin, that at least ONE being would fall away from God. So God WOULD experience that context in which to glorify Godself. So, no loss at all.
**************************
Tom:
quote:
About Ananias and Saphira, I’m not so sure God was not behind it. How about the guy getting zapped and killed when he touched the Ark in the OT? No human mediator was even present so we can’t say God’s human representative was doing something God wouldn’t do. I don’t have a problem with God withdrawing the life of Ananias and Saphira. In fact, I think that’s what happened. Great fear fell on all who heard it. Luke’s seems to think this was a healthy thing. But this is nowhere near unconditional determination or compatibilism. They sinned greviously. They knew it. God judged ‘em.
Aww, now, Tom. ALL that stuff that Semeia said about that particular text…and this is all the reply? No, man. You’ve gotta give me MORE. (Good anticipation, by the way. I was gonna do the “God playing Zeus” thing next) The issue is that SOME PEOPLE seem to think that God doesn’t DO stuff like take peoples lives for stealing from God…or killing people via LIGHTNING BOLT just for trying to stop that Ark from falling to the ground. Some people think that God wouldn’t cause things to DIE for God’s glorification…even IN judgement! I figure that a good biblical scholar like yourself could TELL us something about that. Time to flex those exegetical muscles, man.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
Mephi: End result? ALL times of compatibilistic action with beings that involve some type of pain, suffering, or loss ALL deal with some form of redemption (either for the persons involved or others) from which God gets glory. NO persons are compatibilistically consigned to hell, but can be prevented for choosing God for a specific time and purpose of God's design.
Tom: “Prevented” doesn’t work because it amounts to coercion. It sounds like the person WANTS to come to God and is TRYING to but God is forbidding it. This is a problem. Assuming that nobody comes but that God first draw her, I suppose you could say the Spirit doesn’t draw or call people, or doesn’t get involved in convicting persons. This seems very strange and I’d be inclined to deny it. But it’s better than sending ‘em to hell!
The emboldened part is pretty much what I’m saying. I don’t see how it’s very strange at all. I’ve always heard stuff like “the Spirit of God won’t ALWAYS strive with man” and junk like that. Meaning that God CAN give people over to a depraved mind. So it not like it DOESN’T happen. That the Spirit doesn’t CEASE TO WORK on a person. All I’m saying is that God’s Spirit can, for a PURPOSE, let people stay in their sinful ways for a time. It’s applying the same idea in a different way. Nothing wrong with that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/30/2003 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB
About Ananias and Saphira, I’m not so sure God was not behind it. How about the guy getting zapped and killed when he touched the Ark in the OT? No human mediator was even present so we can’t say God’s human representative was doing something God wouldn’t do.
MephEternal
(Good anticipation, by the way. I was gonna do the “God playing Zeus” thing next) The issue is that SOME PEOPLE seem to think that God doesn’t DO stuff like take peoples lives for stealing from God…or killing people via LIGHTNING BOLT just for trying to stop that Ark from falling to the ground.
Iconoclast
Fellas, fellas, why so literal? There is deep metaphysical truth behind what is happening here. Why see it as the angry God being jealous that the man did not follow his detailed instructions so He zaps him with lightning? Can you even imagine Jesus doing this? “Excuse me but you called me ‘good sir’ and I AM THE LORD.” Zap you’re dead.
Exd 40:3 And thou shalt put therein the ark of the testimony, and cover the ark with the vail.
This is just getting at the reality that the ark is the ‘ark of the testimony’. That the ark is the place where the epistemic distance from God is much less than elsewhere. It is where God’s light shines greater. This is because this is DIRECT from God – NOT filtered as much as everything else. This is God’s word in a more direct (less epistemically distant) way. And IT has power by ITSELF. This is a metaphysical issue. Why cover the ark with a vail? To increase the epistemic distance of this power of more direct testimony.
Lev 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy [place] within the vail before the mercy seat, which [is] upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
And we can see that here. This is no different than God saying, “DON’T touch the stove or you will get burned.” This is not a judgement issue. Like God REALLY wants us to do some bizarre ritual in order to approach Him. Again, this is simply metaphysical reality. Choosing love REQUIRES epistemic distance BECAUSE otherwise we DIE on the spot. Eternal Life - “continuing intimate” direct contact with God requires that we have chosen love else we experience it as death – we DIE on the spot.
And THIS is what I think happened with the guy who touched the ark in order to keep it from falling to the ground. He touch the stove and NATURALLY (metaphysical truth) got BURNED.
I assume no one would argue that God zapped him because he broke the law – a simple judgement thing – because his INTENT was not bad – his intent was GOOD. He were trying to protect the ark of the covenant! Moreover, don’t you think this was an AUTOMATIC response? Something of deep and meaningful value, something he REVERED was about to fall and he AUTOMATICALLY tried to help. In other words – out of GOOD character – he unconsciously responded to HELP out. And God zaps him for it!?!? No way.
So, I assume that you would argue that God’s GLORY somehow required this ritual behavior and that since this basically metaphysically meaningless RITUAL was transgressed God just HAD to protect His glory lest someone thinks God is not sovereign. To me this is a HUMAN idea of glory and not at all what I see as God’s definition of Glory.
I think the only consistent interpretation of this passage is that a METAPHYSICAL principle was involved here.
The metaphysical principle that too little epistemic distance from God results in instant death. I would also suggest that the amount of epistemic distance required is proportional to exactly how much we have progressed in choosing to love God.
Another example of this is when Moses asked to see God’s face.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/30/2003 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
I assume no one would argue that God zapped him because he broke the law – a simple judgement thing – because his INTENT was not bad – his intent was GOOD. He were trying to protect the ark of the covenant! Moreover, don’t you think this was an AUTOMATIC response? Something of deep and meaningful value, something he REVERED was about to fall and he AUTOMATICALLY tried to help. In other words – out of GOOD character – he unconsciously responded to HELP out. And God zaps him for it!?!? No way.
1Chr. 13:1
David consulted with the commanders of the thousands and of the hundreds, with every leader. 2 David said to the whole assembly of Israel, “If it seems good to you, and if it is the will of the LORD our God, let us send abroad to our kindred who remain in all the land of Israel, including the priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands, that they may come together to us. 3 Then let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we did not turn to it in the days of Saul.” 4 The whole assembly agreed to do so, for the thing pleased all the people.
1Chr. 13:5
So David assembled all Israel from the Shihor of Egypt to Lebo-hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim. 6 And David and all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim, which belongs to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, the LORD, who is enthroned on the cherubim, which is called by his name. 7 They carried the ark of God on a new cart, from the house of Abinadab, and Uzzah and Ahio were driving the cart. 8 David and all Israel were dancing before God with all their might, with song and lyres and harps and tambourines and cymbals and trumpets.
1Chr. 13:9
When they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen shook it. 10 The anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God. 11 David was angry because the LORD had burst out against Uzzah; so that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day. 12 David was afraid of God that day; he said, “How can I bring the ark of God into my care?” 13 So David did not take the ark into his care into the city of David; he took it instead to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 14 The ark of God remained with the household of Obed-edom in his house three months, and the LORD blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that he had.
Ummm…NO metaphysical principle. Anger BEFORE the death, fear AFTER the death. Just like with Ananias and Sapphira, huh?
Tom! Doc! Where ARE you??
Just for MORE cognitive dissonance...
Ex. 4:21
And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is my firstborn son. 23 I said to you, “Let my son go that he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; now I will kill your firstborn son.’”
Ex. 4:24
On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met him and tried to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then she said, “A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.”
God was mad, because he had Moses hadn't circumcised his son. God was going to KILL HIM because he hadn't taken the friggin FORESKIN off of his son. Hmmm...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/30/2003 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | | | Just a note. It is ALL THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR from God that I try to take into account with my personal theologizing. How is the God that would kill a man over a foreskin, zap a man for GOOD INTENTIONED breaking of a ritual code, take out Ananias and Sapphira for LYING, and all that...the God we see in Jesus? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/30/2003 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
1Chr. 13:9
When they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen shook it. 10 The anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God. 11 David was angry because the LORD had burst out against Uzzah; so that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day. 12 David was afraid of God that day; he said, “How can I bring the ark of God into my care?” 13 So David did not take the ark into his care into the city of David; he took it instead to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 14 The ark of God remained with the household of Obed-edom in his house three months, and the LORD blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that he had.
Iconoclast
I put forth an argument that shows how contradictory your interpretation is regarding everything else we know. You respond with a literal interpretation as though that is conclusive. You don't seem to understand that I am directly challenging your literal interpretation as being an incorrect or at least impoverished / limited understanding.
Years ago I told my 6 year old girl not to play with my exacto knife. I do not recollect but I am sure I tried to impress upon her that it would be a really bad thing to do. One day she sheepishly came up to me with her right palm cupped and in it an overflowing pool of blood. When I asked her what had happened the answers made absolutely no sense. It wasn't until after cleaning it up that I saw that she had a deep knife wound in the palm of her hand. I quickly started looking for my exacto knife to find that it was missing.
Shockingly enough my 6 year old was very afraid that I was angry with her for taking the exacto knife. In fact, she interpreted the look on my face, my concern and my incisive questioning AS being very angry with her for taking my exacto knife. It was only after totally changing my tones and expressions and working very hard to convince her that I was not angry but concerned for HER well-being that she confessed what she had done.
To this day, my daughter STILL interprets my concern about her getting hurt by doing something that could hurt her as anger toward her for being "bad". She is also STILL very afraid of knives and probably always will be more so than young children who did not have such a bad experience with them. I can't even juggle the knives anymore without her yelling at me to stop.
Also, why do you think "the LORD blessed the house of Obed-edom and all that he had" MUST be interpreted literally. David forces Obed-edom to take the ark because David is afraid. So God literally decides to then bless Obed-edom and ALL that he had because Obed-edom could not stop David from putting the ark there? Do you think the point of this scripture is to teach us that God arbitrarily blesses people? There is no moral here - and neither is one trying to be expressed. What is being expressed is that the very presence of the ark blesses people - again, metaphysical principle.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/30/2003 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/30/2003 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | And now...a station break from the God of glory...
Is. 42:5-9
Thus says God, the LORD,
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people upon it
and spirit to those who walk in it:
I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness,
I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
I have given you as a covenant to the people,
a light to the nations,
to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
I am the LORD, that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to idols.
See, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth,
I tell you of them.
God, the glory hound. Heh…
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:00 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 |
|
|