a quick Christmas quiz:
1. Which of the four gospel authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) records the Christmas story of the Magi (the 'three wisemen') following the star to visit Jesus after his birth?
2. Which of the three remaining gospel authors records the Christmas story of the shepherds visiting the scene of Jesus birth?
3. Which of the two remaining gospel authors records the Christmas story that includes a great red dragon?
December 20, 2010 8:43 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven J said...
1. Which of the four gospel authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) records the Christmas story of the Magi (the 'three wisemen') following the star to visit Jesus after his birth?
That would be Matthew, although he doesn't specify that there were three of them.
2. Which of the three remaining gospel authors records the Christmas story of the shepherds visiting the scene of Jesus birth?
Luke.
3. Which of the two remaining gospel authors records the Christmas story that includes a great red dragon?
That would be John, assuming that Revelation and the gospel of John are in fact
by the same author.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
@Steven J
quiz grade: A
Yes. Revelation 12 is a Christmas story from a different vantage point. It tells the story of what Christmas looked like from the perspective of heaven.
(As you correctly point out, it's been traditionally held that the John author of Revelation is the same author as the gospel of John, although scholarly research suggests these two were penned by two different authors.)
@BOTS
quiz grade: D
You kind of missed the entire point of the quiz there, chief.
You are correct, the Bible omits mention of the number of wisemen. That particular detail is not reported.
But you are incorrect, in reporting that I am unaware of this detail, or that I have made assumptions.
It's not clear you even noticed that the question referred to "the Magi", followed by a secondary reference to 'three wisemen', in quotes and in parentheses. Perhaps you might consider that was included to clarify what was meant by 'the Magi' to those that might not have known.
You may not have noticed that the question did not say the Magi visited at the time of Jesus birth.
Really? The number of wisemen is the answer you came up with to that quiz. The number of wisemen is clearly not an important detail, so picturing them as three might be extra-biblical, but it's not unbiblical.
December 20, 2010 11:51 AM
Steven J said...
Ray, have I been misreading Spencer7593 all these months? As far as I can tell, his position is very similar to yours: the gospels might appear to contain superficial contradictions, but we can't prove this is the case. If he's being cynical in this question, I don't see it.
Your analogy with witnesses in court is worse than usual; it's not at all uncommon for witnesses to present accounts that cannot be harmonized: if one says he saw the defendant commit the robbery and another says the defendant was with her on the other side of town all day, those aren't complementary accounts. At least one is either mistaken or lying. Quite a bit of research on the unreliability and liability of eyewitness testimony exists.
Now, it's not hard at all to harmonize the divergent details that Spencer7593 listed (I'm assuming that the dragon was intended as a figure of speech, to be sure). If you work at it, you can harmonize Luke's explanation for how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem (Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth, but went to Bethlehem for a census) with Matthew's (where they seem to have been living in Bethlehem before Mary became pregnant, and to have gone to Nazareth only after the sojourn in Egypt).
You can even, with appropriately convoluted assumptions about what fills in the gaps of history or the proper translation of the text, make Jesus' birth before the death of Herod (4 BC) fit in with the mention of the census under Quirinius (6 AD): the most plausible, in my opinion, is to translate Luke to refer to Jesus being born during a census that happened before Quirinius' census (which was famous for the riots and protests that attended the attempt to impose it) rather than referring to Jesus being born during the first census under Quirinius.
But all this shows is that if you put enough work into it, you can rationalize away any contradiction; it doesn't show that the accounts actually are inerrant and complementary rather than contradictory.
December 22, 2010 10:16 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
stranger.strange.land said...
I was more than just a little bit baffled when I saw this post answering Spencer7593's Christmas quiz.
First, let me say that the quiz was a good one, Rev.12 is not a scripture that usually comes to mind when we think of the christmas story, but Spencer is right. Revelation 12 is a "snapshot" of the history of the church from the time of Christ's birth-life-ascension to heaven.
What baffled me even more is that whoever wrote the post apparently didn't realize that Spencer is a Christian, and has been a consistent commenter here for quite a while. A quick look at his blog shows that he likes to answer our skeptic friends here who address apparent contradictions in the Bible. Spencer is just the opposite of that which the writer of this post seems to think he is.
Hopefully by now (1:15pm p.s.t.)the post writer has realized his mistake and made things right with Spencer. I really feel bad for him.
@Spencer7593
It was a good quiz. Juan nailed the solution and even posted the relevant scriptures. I hope that you are not too discouraged.
Happy Advent to all.
Craig B
=-=-=-=-=-=-
@Juan
Quiz grade: A
You are exactly right. Revelation 12 is the Christmas story, but told from a different perspective. It gives an account of what that first Christmas looked like, from the vantage point of heaven.
At first blush, it might seem that Revelation 12 doesn't have anything to do with Christmas (what with no reference to 'shepherds tending their flocks by night', and no 'we three kings from orient are'.
As different as the Matthew and Luke accounts are, Revelation 12 is yet another account of that first Christmas.
Rather than a contradiction, however, all three of these accounts give details about the exact same momentous event.
Merry Christmas, Juan!
@Craig
Thank you for the kind words.
I think Ray illustrates a very important point: the Bible is complete and consistent, despite claims to the contrary.
Many opponents of the Bible are quick to point to discrepancies they observe, and declare them to be "contradictions".
They are opposed to considering the idea that they have injected their own meaning into the symbols, and that the contradiction they observe is an illusion of their own invention.
My quiz was intended to point out that there are more than two "Christmas" accounts in the Bible. Many of us are familiar with the account from Luke ('shepherds tending their flocks by night') and the account from Matthew ('we three kings of orient are ... following a star ...').
A much less familiar Christmas story is Revelation 12. (Actually, start with the last verse of Chapter 11).
The carolers sing "Silent Night ... all is calm " Really? Was it really a "silent night"?
According to Revelation 12, in heaven, it was a night of war, between Michael and his angels and the great red dragon (Satan), and Satan was "thrown down" to earth.
Satan, the "great red dragon", is just as much a central figure in the Christmas story as the shepherds and the wisemen.
Merry Christmas, Craig!
December 23, 2010 9:31 AM
@Jason B
Thank you.
I think Ray is using my 'Quick Christmas Quiz' to illustrate a very important point. It's one that I would like to be able to illustrate as effectively as he does.
Do be assured, I am not offended by Ray's words, and I hold no animosity towards him. I'm sure he doesn't hold any towards me.
Ray is free to quote anything and everything that I post as comments to his blog, and use them however he wishes.
(I think this is the first time that Ray has ever quoted me in one of his posts.)
It's interesting to note the disparity in responses to that quiz. Yours, by far, was the most amusing, made me laugh... Glenn Campbell... like a Rhinestone Cowboy...)
Merry Christmas, to you and yours, Jason B! Have a safe and joy filled holiday!
December 23, 2010 9:58 AM
Monday, December 27, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
what is this creator like?
Darkknight56 asks...
Q: What is this creator like?
A: We know what the creator is like from his creation, and by his revelation.
Q: How is it he exists?
A: God exists eternal, beyond the bounds of space and time. God doesn't exist in the sense that the universe exists, but in the sense that He is the foundation of existence. (The "ground of being", per Paul Tillich)
Q: Where did He come from?
A: God didn't come from anywhere. Or from any time. There is no cause for God. God just is, both transcendent and immanent, without cause. God is the "I AM".
Q: Why doesn't He just talk to His creation?
A: God does talk to His creation. God has chosen His way to communicate. You are choosing not to listen.
Q: And without referring to the bible, please.
A: No references from the Bible were provided, per your request.
Q: What is this creator like?
A: We know what the creator is like from his creation, and by his revelation.
Q: How is it he exists?
A: God exists eternal, beyond the bounds of space and time. God doesn't exist in the sense that the universe exists, but in the sense that He is the foundation of existence. (The "ground of being", per Paul Tillich)
Q: Where did He come from?
A: God didn't come from anywhere. Or from any time. There is no cause for God. God just is, both transcendent and immanent, without cause. God is the "I AM".
Q: Why doesn't He just talk to His creation?
A: God does talk to His creation. God has chosen His way to communicate. You are choosing not to listen.
Q: And without referring to the bible, please.
A: No references from the Bible were provided, per your request.
is this not a classic example ?
caveman73 said (regarding finding contradictions in the Bible, referring to the two creation accounts in the Bible) ...
Is this not a classic example of contradiction? Is this not confusing? Why the 2 creation stories?
@caveman73
1) No, the two separate creation accounts are not an example of a contradiction in the Bible.
2) Yes, this is an example of your confusion. You seem to be puzzled by the differences between the two accounts.
3) Yes, there are two distinct creation accounts. (That part you seem to grasp.)
The two accounts are deliberately different. There is a purpose served in relaying each account, they each illustrate different ideas.
The first account focuses on the order of creation. God created, over a period of time, an ordered universe, finishing with the creation of man.
The second account focuses on the topic of Man as the pinnacle of God's creation, His crowning achievement.
There is no real contradiction between the two accounts.
You introduce confusion, by superimposing your own meaning to invent a contradiction. You interject the (unwarranted) idea that both the first and second creation accounts are presented in chronological order.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Merry Christmas, caveman73!
Is this not a classic example of contradiction? Is this not confusing? Why the 2 creation stories?
@caveman73
1) No, the two separate creation accounts are not an example of a contradiction in the Bible.
2) Yes, this is an example of your confusion. You seem to be puzzled by the differences between the two accounts.
3) Yes, there are two distinct creation accounts. (That part you seem to grasp.)
The two accounts are deliberately different. There is a purpose served in relaying each account, they each illustrate different ideas.
The first account focuses on the order of creation. God created, over a period of time, an ordered universe, finishing with the creation of man.
The second account focuses on the topic of Man as the pinnacle of God's creation, His crowning achievement.
There is no real contradiction between the two accounts.
You introduce confusion, by superimposing your own meaning to invent a contradiction. You interject the (unwarranted) idea that both the first and second creation accounts are presented in chronological order.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Merry Christmas, caveman73!
why should we try to avoid punishment?
Mudley asks...
I've asked you this before, but have yet to get an answer:
If all of us, including you, are evil wicked sinners that deserve to burn in hell for our wickedness, why should we try to avoid the punishment we so rightly deserve?
If you really believe that we deserve this punishment, why would you try to avoid it?
@Mudley
Your question deserves an answer, I'm kind of surprised no one offered you one. It is an eminently reasonable question.
The answer is that God desires it. We accept what God offers because it is what God wants.
God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV)
He wants not only us but everyone saved 1 Timothy 2:4 (The Message)
God our Savior, who wishes all men to be saved 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (Amplified Bible)
God does not want anything to come between us and Him. And that anything includes our sin. Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice, because it is what God desired, not because it is something I desired. (If God had not wanted it, Jesus would not have offered himself as a sacrifice.)
He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Matthew 22:41-42 (NIV)
(By "this cup", Jesus refers here to the sacrifice he is about to make; his arrest, trial and execution.)
It's not about us trying to avoid punishment, or us trying to evade justice. It's pointless to even try, because judgment is as inevitable as death.
There is no amount of effort, no matter how mightily we try, or how valiant our attempt, we are utterly unable to save ourselves.
It is only what God desires and by what God has done that we are saved.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Merry Christmas, Mudley!
I've asked you this before, but have yet to get an answer:
If all of us, including you, are evil wicked sinners that deserve to burn in hell for our wickedness, why should we try to avoid the punishment we so rightly deserve?
If you really believe that we deserve this punishment, why would you try to avoid it?
@Mudley
Your question deserves an answer, I'm kind of surprised no one offered you one. It is an eminently reasonable question.
The answer is that God desires it. We accept what God offers because it is what God wants.
God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV)
He wants not only us but everyone saved 1 Timothy 2:4 (The Message)
God our Savior, who wishes all men to be saved 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (Amplified Bible)
God does not want anything to come between us and Him. And that anything includes our sin. Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice, because it is what God desired, not because it is something I desired. (If God had not wanted it, Jesus would not have offered himself as a sacrifice.)
He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Matthew 22:41-42 (NIV)
(By "this cup", Jesus refers here to the sacrifice he is about to make; his arrest, trial and execution.)
It's not about us trying to avoid punishment, or us trying to evade justice. It's pointless to even try, because judgment is as inevitable as death.
There is no amount of effort, no matter how mightily we try, or how valiant our attempt, we are utterly unable to save ourselves.
It is only what God desires and by what God has done that we are saved.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Merry Christmas, Mudley!
Monday, December 13, 2010
lie to save lives
MVP asks...
If you are harbouring Jews and the SS appear at your door do you lie to save their lives or do you tell the truth and give them up to death?
Not all questions deserve an answer. It is not immoral to withhold information from someone that does not have a right to an answer.
As an example, my neighbor's son may ask "How much money do you make?" He does not have a right to an answer.
Or, my coworker may ask, "What did the boss say to you in that confidential conversation, where he asked you not to tell anyone else what you discussed?" Again, I am not obligated to provide an answer.
In the case of the SS officers at the doorstep, inquiring if any Jews are hidden inside the house, I may determine that the questioners do not have a right to an answer to their question.
If I know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that providing an answer to their question will result in the untimely deaths of human beings, then I am not obligated to provide an answer.
The problem I face is that if I choose to remain silent, and to not provide an answer to their question, I am (in effect) answering their question.
As MVP illustrates, not all "lies" are equally immoral.
Some "lies", such as bearing false witness against someone else, saying untrue things about what someone else has said or done are more egregiously immoral than other "lies", such as telling someone, "Thank you so much for the gift, I love it."
Bearing false witness against someone else is the more immoral lie because it is like stealing. Spreading misinformation about someone is taking away someone's reputation, it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.
If you are harbouring Jews and the SS appear at your door do you lie to save their lives or do you tell the truth and give them up to death?
Not all questions deserve an answer. It is not immoral to withhold information from someone that does not have a right to an answer.
As an example, my neighbor's son may ask "How much money do you make?" He does not have a right to an answer.
Or, my coworker may ask, "What did the boss say to you in that confidential conversation, where he asked you not to tell anyone else what you discussed?" Again, I am not obligated to provide an answer.
In the case of the SS officers at the doorstep, inquiring if any Jews are hidden inside the house, I may determine that the questioners do not have a right to an answer to their question.
If I know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that providing an answer to their question will result in the untimely deaths of human beings, then I am not obligated to provide an answer.
The problem I face is that if I choose to remain silent, and to not provide an answer to their question, I am (in effect) answering their question.
As MVP illustrates, not all "lies" are equally immoral.
Some "lies", such as bearing false witness against someone else, saying untrue things about what someone else has said or done are more egregiously immoral than other "lies", such as telling someone, "Thank you so much for the gift, I love it."
Bearing false witness against someone else is the more immoral lie because it is like stealing. Spreading misinformation about someone is taking away someone's reputation, it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
there is no hope for me...
caveman73 says...
HA! So there is no hope for me or anyone that applies critical thinking to the bible. If only was able to blindly follow the confusing, contradicting, hate inspiring, genocidal writings of men from 2000 years ago. Especially Revelations, a book written by a man that is obviously trippin’ on shurooms.
@caveman73
You seem quite convinced of your position. You say that there is no hope for you. But I disagree. I think there is still hope. You can apply critical thinking to the Bible. There is still time for you come to your senses, and recognize the truth.
You find the Bible "confusing" and "contradicting". That doesn't really come as a surprise.
How do you expect Revelation to make sense to you, when you can't even make sense of even the simplest truth revealed in Genesis 1:1: "God created"
If you reject the notion that God exists, and reject the idea that God created the universe, then why would you expect anything in the book of Revelation to make sense to you?
There is no "secret decoder ring". And even if such a thing did exist (outside of you imagination) it would not enable to you to make sense of the Bible.
The keys to unlocking and understanding the meaning of the Bible are IN THE BIBLE. The symbols of Revelation are explained in the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself, it contradicts your meaning.
You seem to be looking at the Bible like an incomprehensible jigsaw puzzle, with pieces that don't seem to fit. When you reject a truth revealed in the Bible, it's as if you are throwing a piece of the jigsaw puzzle away. When you misinterpret the words of the Bible to fit your own meaning, it's as if you are flipping pieces of the puzzle upside down. If that's the approach you take, then the Bible is going to be incomprehensible to you.
It would be a fruitless endeavor for you to attempt to understand Revelation, if you reject the truth of the pieces you do understand.
There is still hope for you, caveman73. While you are still breathing, there is hope.
HA! So there is no hope for me or anyone that applies critical thinking to the bible. If only was able to blindly follow the confusing, contradicting, hate inspiring, genocidal writings of men from 2000 years ago. Especially Revelations, a book written by a man that is obviously trippin’ on shurooms.
@caveman73
You seem quite convinced of your position. You say that there is no hope for you. But I disagree. I think there is still hope. You can apply critical thinking to the Bible. There is still time for you come to your senses, and recognize the truth.
You find the Bible "confusing" and "contradicting". That doesn't really come as a surprise.
How do you expect Revelation to make sense to you, when you can't even make sense of even the simplest truth revealed in Genesis 1:1: "God created"
If you reject the notion that God exists, and reject the idea that God created the universe, then why would you expect anything in the book of Revelation to make sense to you?
There is no "secret decoder ring". And even if such a thing did exist (outside of you imagination) it would not enable to you to make sense of the Bible.
The keys to unlocking and understanding the meaning of the Bible are IN THE BIBLE. The symbols of Revelation are explained in the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself, it contradicts your meaning.
You seem to be looking at the Bible like an incomprehensible jigsaw puzzle, with pieces that don't seem to fit. When you reject a truth revealed in the Bible, it's as if you are throwing a piece of the jigsaw puzzle away. When you misinterpret the words of the Bible to fit your own meaning, it's as if you are flipping pieces of the puzzle upside down. If that's the approach you take, then the Bible is going to be incomprehensible to you.
It would be a fruitless endeavor for you to attempt to understand Revelation, if you reject the truth of the pieces you do understand.
There is still hope for you, caveman73. While you are still breathing, there is hope.
God's law is fallible?
High Tempo said...
spencer7593
"God stepped down from heaven to earth in a human body, and finished the work that the Law was unable to complete."
Work that the Law was unable to complete? I thought God's law was perfect. Are you saying that God's Law is fallible?
December 11, 2010 1:07 PM
@High Tempo
If you find a contradiction in what I have said, perhaps you have not understood what I was trying to say, perhaps you missed my meaning.
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; Psalm 19:7 (ESV)
The "law" serves as a schoolmaster, it teaches us God's perfect standard. God gave the "law" to his chosen people, the descendants of Jacob whom he rescued from bondage. He set apart and gave them the law, for his specific purpose.
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. Galatians 4:5
(redeem = to "buy back", to pay a specified price to re-acquire ownership of something)
(adoption as sons = Roman legal proceeding which allowed for an adopted son to attain full legal status (rights and benefits) as a heir and citizen)
God's purpose to was "buy back" those who belonged to His family.
The "law", by itself, is unable to do this. But the "law" was entirely suitable to God's purpose.
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Only one perfect man walked the earth, with no sin, and with no violation of God's law. Only one man, Jesus, perfectly satisfied the requirements of the perfect law.
Jesus did not abolish the law; he came to fill it out to its deeper meaning.
And because he was without sin, he was the perfect sacrifice. The sacrifice of Jesus was the "set price" for God to buy back those who belong to Him.
So, when I say "the work the Law was unable to complete", I am not meaning that the law is fallible. And I'm not saying that the "law" is not able to complete the task to which it is set.
My meaning was that there was work to be done other than what the "law" could complete by itself.
The "law" was necessary for the work, but something else was necessary too. The "law" by itself does not complete the work.
The work is now complete, in the sacrifice of Jesus. That's what Jesus meant by his words spoken on the cross, "It is finished". Jesus meant that the work had been completed.
I hope that helps answer your question.
spencer7593
"God stepped down from heaven to earth in a human body, and finished the work that the Law was unable to complete."
Work that the Law was unable to complete? I thought God's law was perfect. Are you saying that God's Law is fallible?
December 11, 2010 1:07 PM
@High Tempo
If you find a contradiction in what I have said, perhaps you have not understood what I was trying to say, perhaps you missed my meaning.
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; Psalm 19:7 (ESV)
The "law" serves as a schoolmaster, it teaches us God's perfect standard. God gave the "law" to his chosen people, the descendants of Jacob whom he rescued from bondage. He set apart and gave them the law, for his specific purpose.
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. Galatians 4:5
(redeem = to "buy back", to pay a specified price to re-acquire ownership of something)
(adoption as sons = Roman legal proceeding which allowed for an adopted son to attain full legal status (rights and benefits) as a heir and citizen)
God's purpose to was "buy back" those who belonged to His family.
The "law", by itself, is unable to do this. But the "law" was entirely suitable to God's purpose.
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Only one perfect man walked the earth, with no sin, and with no violation of God's law. Only one man, Jesus, perfectly satisfied the requirements of the perfect law.
Jesus did not abolish the law; he came to fill it out to its deeper meaning.
And because he was without sin, he was the perfect sacrifice. The sacrifice of Jesus was the "set price" for God to buy back those who belong to Him.
So, when I say "the work the Law was unable to complete", I am not meaning that the law is fallible. And I'm not saying that the "law" is not able to complete the task to which it is set.
My meaning was that there was work to be done other than what the "law" could complete by itself.
The "law" was necessary for the work, but something else was necessary too. The "law" by itself does not complete the work.
The work is now complete, in the sacrifice of Jesus. That's what Jesus meant by his words spoken on the cross, "It is finished". Jesus meant that the work had been completed.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
contradiction: justice and mercy
imadallasguy said...
Ray I notice your always speaking about how "just" your God is. Yet each time you speak of this you contradict yourself. Because you also believe that your God is going to show mercy on you and deliver you to heaven, instead of hell. Because mercy is the suspension of justice, your God can't be "just" and merciful. So is He just, or not? Is He merciful, or not? Are you going to heaven or hell? If you say heaven, then you can never claim your God to be a just God.
This is such a blatant contradiction that I'm surprised even one with as much cognitive dissonance as yourself could miss it for so long. Yet time and again you engage in this very double-speak, it's one of your recurring topics that you enjoy so much.
December 8, 2010 3:22 PM
@imadallasguy
The truth is that God is perfectly just, and is infinitely merciful. This may appear to you to be a contradiction, where at least one of those attributes must not be true.
The crux of your argument is your statement that "mercy is the suspension of justice". And you are correct, if that assertion is true, then there is a contradiction.
But, mercy is NOT the suspension of justice. Justice demands that a penalty is due. Mercy is a suspension of punishment. Perhaps this is an explanation of the paradox.
Justice demands a penalty, and the penalty is paid in full. It is by mercy that Jesus takes the penalty upon himself. God's justice is satisfied AND God grants mercy, to those that accept it.
It's a paradox not a contradiction.
Understand this: God's justice will be satisfied. A penalty is due. And the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross is a full payment of the penalty that is due.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Ray I notice your always speaking about how "just" your God is. Yet each time you speak of this you contradict yourself. Because you also believe that your God is going to show mercy on you and deliver you to heaven, instead of hell. Because mercy is the suspension of justice, your God can't be "just" and merciful. So is He just, or not? Is He merciful, or not? Are you going to heaven or hell? If you say heaven, then you can never claim your God to be a just God.
This is such a blatant contradiction that I'm surprised even one with as much cognitive dissonance as yourself could miss it for so long. Yet time and again you engage in this very double-speak, it's one of your recurring topics that you enjoy so much.
December 8, 2010 3:22 PM
@imadallasguy
The truth is that God is perfectly just, and is infinitely merciful. This may appear to you to be a contradiction, where at least one of those attributes must not be true.
The crux of your argument is your statement that "mercy is the suspension of justice". And you are correct, if that assertion is true, then there is a contradiction.
But, mercy is NOT the suspension of justice. Justice demands that a penalty is due. Mercy is a suspension of punishment. Perhaps this is an explanation of the paradox.
Justice demands a penalty, and the penalty is paid in full. It is by mercy that Jesus takes the penalty upon himself. God's justice is satisfied AND God grants mercy, to those that accept it.
It's a paradox not a contradiction.
Understand this: God's justice will be satisfied. A penalty is due. And the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross is a full payment of the penalty that is due.
I hope this helps answer your question.
why isn't Ray out there killing ?
Iago said...
Oh so God only finds it detestable if the Jews are homosexuals not anyone else. Got it.
So why isn't Ray out there killing homsexuals since he is a Jew ?
@Iago
Because the Law was fulfilled in Jesus.
God stepped down from heaven to earth in a human body, and finished the work that the Law was unable to complete.
The requirement of the Law was that we be made perfect. The Law illustrates for us that we are utterly unable to attain righteousness, except through Jesus.
The entirety of the Mosaic Law can be summed up: "make yourselves pure". The Law is instruction to the tribes of the descendants of Jacob... to set themselves apart from the cultures surrounding them, to be set aside for a special purpose, to be marked as God's chosen people, to abide by His commandments and to live in accordance with each and every one of his instructions.
What the Law was unable to do, Jesus has already completed. That's what Jesus meant when he said "It is finished."
I hope this helps answer your question.
Oh so God only finds it detestable if the Jews are homosexuals not anyone else. Got it.
So why isn't Ray out there killing homsexuals since he is a Jew ?
@Iago
Because the Law was fulfilled in Jesus.
God stepped down from heaven to earth in a human body, and finished the work that the Law was unable to complete.
The requirement of the Law was that we be made perfect. The Law illustrates for us that we are utterly unable to attain righteousness, except through Jesus.
The entirety of the Mosaic Law can be summed up: "make yourselves pure". The Law is instruction to the tribes of the descendants of Jacob... to set themselves apart from the cultures surrounding them, to be set aside for a special purpose, to be marked as God's chosen people, to abide by His commandments and to live in accordance with each and every one of his instructions.
What the Law was unable to do, Jesus has already completed. That's what Jesus meant when he said "It is finished."
I hope this helps answer your question.
Friday, December 10, 2010
it tells you to kill them
Iago says...
Correct the Bible does not tell you to hate them, it tells you to kill them. Go to Leviticus 20 to see.
@Iago
Leviticus 20 instructs the children of Israel to be different from the cultures that surround them. It calls them out to observe a perfect standard, to be pure.
So, when you say "it tells you to kill them", that is quite true, as long as by "you" and "them" we are referring specifically to members of the tribes of Israel.
There is no instruction for this rule to be applied BY any one other than the tribes of Israel, or to be applied TO anyone other than the tribes of Israel.
Correct the Bible does not tell you to hate them, it tells you to kill them. Go to Leviticus 20 to see.
@Iago
Leviticus 20 instructs the children of Israel to be different from the cultures that surround them. It calls them out to observe a perfect standard, to be pure.
So, when you say "it tells you to kill them", that is quite true, as long as by "you" and "them" we are referring specifically to members of the tribes of Israel.
There is no instruction for this rule to be applied BY any one other than the tribes of Israel, or to be applied TO anyone other than the tribes of Israel.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
outside of heaven with us heathens
Caveman73 said...
REVELATIONS 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
(144,00? Hmmm You might be on the outside of heaven with us heathens Amy)
@Caveman
Much of the language of Revelations is symbolic. That is, the symbols have a spiritual meaning, beyond the literal meaning (e.g. the lamb that was slain, the seven golden lampstands, the twenty four thrones).
John heard (we note that this was something he was told, not something that he saw) that the number is 144,000. And this of the tribe of Israel (the Jews, the descendants of Jacob.) We note that there were twelve tribes of Israel. The question we ask ourselves, is this a literal number, or is there a deeper meaning. The nation of Israel divided into twelve tribes, twelve apostles. Interestingly, we note the number 144 is divisible by 12, and the result is 12. The number is 12 * 12 * 1000. We ponder whether this is a literal number that John heard, or whether this was number was a sign or symbol.
We also note that John is told that this is the number sealed from the "among the tribes of the children of Israel", the Jews, the descendants of Jacob. So, this number does not appear to include Gentile believers.
Perhaps caveman73 understands the author's meaning sufficiently enough to explain it to the rest of us.
December 8, 2010 6:30 PM
REVELATIONS 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
(144,00? Hmmm You might be on the outside of heaven with us heathens Amy)
@Caveman
Much of the language of Revelations is symbolic. That is, the symbols have a spiritual meaning, beyond the literal meaning (e.g. the lamb that was slain, the seven golden lampstands, the twenty four thrones).
John heard (we note that this was something he was told, not something that he saw) that the number is 144,000. And this of the tribe of Israel (the Jews, the descendants of Jacob.) We note that there were twelve tribes of Israel. The question we ask ourselves, is this a literal number, or is there a deeper meaning. The nation of Israel divided into twelve tribes, twelve apostles. Interestingly, we note the number 144 is divisible by 12, and the result is 12. The number is 12 * 12 * 1000. We ponder whether this is a literal number that John heard, or whether this was number was a sign or symbol.
We also note that John is told that this is the number sealed from the "among the tribes of the children of Israel", the Jews, the descendants of Jacob. So, this number does not appear to include Gentile believers.
Perhaps caveman73 understands the author's meaning sufficiently enough to explain it to the rest of us.
December 8, 2010 6:30 PM
inerrant and never changing
Iago asked...
Amy2, so God changed his mind about killing the homosexuals and the adulterers ?
Hmm I thought God was inerrant and never changing ?
@Iago
You are quite right, God is inerrant and never changing.
And to answer your question, no, God did not change his mind. God gave specific instructions to specific people.
Those instructions were given to the Jews. Those instructions were never given to the gentiles, or to the church.
And those instructions still stand unchanged, indelibly, for those specific people in that specific time.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Amy2, so God changed his mind about killing the homosexuals and the adulterers ?
Hmm I thought God was inerrant and never changing ?
@Iago
You are quite right, God is inerrant and never changing.
And to answer your question, no, God did not change his mind. God gave specific instructions to specific people.
Those instructions were given to the Jews. Those instructions were never given to the gentiles, or to the church.
And those instructions still stand unchanged, indelibly, for those specific people in that specific time.
I hope that helps answer your question.
the Law is still in effect
Iago said...
All those things are in your Bible and Jesus said the Law is still in effect.
@Iago
You are quite right. Jesus said that all those things (i.e. the Law) was still in effect. What he said was true. The Law WAS still in effect.
It was in effect UNTIL the temple curtain was torn in two, at the moment of Jesus death, when he cried out and gave up his spirit.
It was at that moment, the perfect sacrifice fulfilled the law. The death of Jesus on the cross was full payment for the debt penalty.
The tearing of the temple curtain was a momentous event, and it signified that no longer was the holy of holies only to be entered by the high priest once a year.
Now, there is an even higher priest, Jesus, through whom all are invited to enter the holy of holies.
It was at that point that Jesus became the way through whom we move near to God.
So, you are quite right, Iago. When Jesus spoke those words, the Law was still in effect.
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, Hebrews 10:19-20 (ESV)
(The "holy of holies" was the innermost part of the temple, only the high priest entered, and only once a year.)
(Because of the sacrifice of Jesus, all can now enter the holy of holies.)
(The "curtain" (or veil) was the heavy fabric wall that separated the "holy of holies" from the rest of the temple, through which only the high priest was allowed to enter.)
(The old curtain was no longer in effect, the flesh of Jesus became the "curtain" through which we can enter the holy of holies.)
When the temple curtain was torn, at the exact point in time that Jesus cried out, gave up his spirit, and died, that marked the point that the Law was fulfilled.
=-=-=-=-=
Also, you hadn't considered: whom was Jesus addressing? Was it Jews, or was it Gentiles, or was it the church? When did he say this? Before he died on the cross, or after the resurrection?
=-=-=-=-=
I agree with you, you are quite right to point out that Jesus said the The Law was still in effect. When he said it, it WAS still in effect, because the requirements of the Law had not yet been satisfied.
I hope this helps answer your question.
All those things are in your Bible and Jesus said the Law is still in effect.
@Iago
You are quite right. Jesus said that all those things (i.e. the Law) was still in effect. What he said was true. The Law WAS still in effect.
It was in effect UNTIL the temple curtain was torn in two, at the moment of Jesus death, when he cried out and gave up his spirit.
It was at that moment, the perfect sacrifice fulfilled the law. The death of Jesus on the cross was full payment for the debt penalty.
The tearing of the temple curtain was a momentous event, and it signified that no longer was the holy of holies only to be entered by the high priest once a year.
Now, there is an even higher priest, Jesus, through whom all are invited to enter the holy of holies.
It was at that point that Jesus became the way through whom we move near to God.
So, you are quite right, Iago. When Jesus spoke those words, the Law was still in effect.
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, Hebrews 10:19-20 (ESV)
(The "holy of holies" was the innermost part of the temple, only the high priest entered, and only once a year.)
(Because of the sacrifice of Jesus, all can now enter the holy of holies.)
(The "curtain" (or veil) was the heavy fabric wall that separated the "holy of holies" from the rest of the temple, through which only the high priest was allowed to enter.)
(The old curtain was no longer in effect, the flesh of Jesus became the "curtain" through which we can enter the holy of holies.)
When the temple curtain was torn, at the exact point in time that Jesus cried out, gave up his spirit, and died, that marked the point that the Law was fulfilled.
=-=-=-=-=
Also, you hadn't considered: whom was Jesus addressing? Was it Jews, or was it Gentiles, or was it the church? When did he say this? Before he died on the cross, or after the resurrection?
=-=-=-=-=
I agree with you, you are quite right to point out that Jesus said the The Law was still in effect. When he said it, it WAS still in effect, because the requirements of the Law had not yet been satisfied.
I hope this helps answer your question.
why aren't you out there upholding the Law ?
Iago said...
Matthew 5:18 (New International Version, ©2010)
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
endquote
Or if you prefer
Matthew 5:18 (King James Version)
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
endquote
So please tell me why you aren't out there upholding the Law ?
@Iago
Because Jesus fulfilled the Law. The purpose of the Law as accomplished in Jesus.
Not even one tiny detail of the Law was changed (the Pharisees were meticulous in their copying, even one wrong letter meant the entire manuscript would be destroyed, it was so important to them)
Jesus says the Law would NEVER be changed UNTIL the time the purpose of the Law was achieved, until the Law was fulfilled.
And the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross WAS the fulfillment of the Law. It filled out the reality of which the Law was only a shadow.
Also, the Law was given to the Jews. It was not incumbent upon gentiles to abide by the Law. And it is not incumbent upon the church to abide by the Law.
There is warrant for the idea that the Law was to be enforced except within the tribes of Israel.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Matthew 5:18 (New International Version, ©2010)
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
endquote
Or if you prefer
Matthew 5:18 (King James Version)
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
endquote
So please tell me why you aren't out there upholding the Law ?
@Iago
Because Jesus fulfilled the Law. The purpose of the Law as accomplished in Jesus.
Not even one tiny detail of the Law was changed (the Pharisees were meticulous in their copying, even one wrong letter meant the entire manuscript would be destroyed, it was so important to them)
Jesus says the Law would NEVER be changed UNTIL the time the purpose of the Law was achieved, until the Law was fulfilled.
And the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross WAS the fulfillment of the Law. It filled out the reality of which the Law was only a shadow.
Also, the Law was given to the Jews. It was not incumbent upon gentiles to abide by the Law. And it is not incumbent upon the church to abide by the Law.
There is warrant for the idea that the Law was to be enforced except within the tribes of Israel.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
family is not important ?
caveman73 said...
MATTHEW 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
(Your family is not important, nor your home, nor your country… Only God)
We notice that Jesus is responding to a question asked by Peter:
"We have left everything to follow you, what will there be for us?"
And we notice that this question was in response to Jesus interaction with the rich young man, and his discourse that followed the encounter.
I don't see that Jesus means here that family is not important. What I see here is that Jesus is saying that nothing is more important than to follow him.
With the rich young man, there was something that was "in the way" of his following Jesus. He put more stock in his possessions than he did on Jesus. The young man considered his wealth more important than following Jesus.
Jesus was illustrating a point. There are many things, many stumbling blocks, that will keep us from following him.
We also note that Jesus instruction to the rich young man was an instruction given specifically to that man. It was not an instruction he gave to everyone, not an instruction he gave to everyone in the church.
But we do take notice, Jesus was not saying that wealth was the only stumbling block.
The disciples are astonished. And Peter asks 'what about us? we left everything we had'
And in the verse that caveman73 quoted, Jesus tells Peter that Peter will inherit everlasting life.
I don't see here that Jesus is saying that family is not important.
But perhaps caveman73 is right, and has a better understanding of this passage than I do. Perhaps caveman73 has a more thorough insight on this verse.
MATTHEW 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
(Your family is not important, nor your home, nor your country… Only God)
We notice that Jesus is responding to a question asked by Peter:
"We have left everything to follow you, what will there be for us?"
And we notice that this question was in response to Jesus interaction with the rich young man, and his discourse that followed the encounter.
I don't see that Jesus means here that family is not important. What I see here is that Jesus is saying that nothing is more important than to follow him.
With the rich young man, there was something that was "in the way" of his following Jesus. He put more stock in his possessions than he did on Jesus. The young man considered his wealth more important than following Jesus.
Jesus was illustrating a point. There are many things, many stumbling blocks, that will keep us from following him.
We also note that Jesus instruction to the rich young man was an instruction given specifically to that man. It was not an instruction he gave to everyone, not an instruction he gave to everyone in the church.
But we do take notice, Jesus was not saying that wealth was the only stumbling block.
The disciples are astonished. And Peter asks 'what about us? we left everything we had'
And in the verse that caveman73 quoted, Jesus tells Peter that Peter will inherit everlasting life.
I don't see here that Jesus is saying that family is not important.
But perhaps caveman73 is right, and has a better understanding of this passage than I do. Perhaps caveman73 has a more thorough insight on this verse.
why waste time
vikingmonkey asks...
Why waste time proposing when all you have to do is be a good christian and rape someone?
@vikingmonkey
You would have us believe that the passage you quoted condones rape, and condones sexual relations outside of marriage (which is expressly forbidden in other passages).
And you would have us believe that this passage provides for punishment of the violated woman, rather than setting up a boundary to PROTECT an unmarried virgin woman from violation.
Perhaps you would be more pleased with the instruction in this passage if it said nothing about what was to become of the woman. Perhaps you would rather not specify what was to happen to the woman, and allow whatever happens to her happen, which, in that cultural context, would be for her to be either stoned by the tribe, or at least shunned by the tribe, which is essentially equivalent to a death sentence.
It leaves one to wonder what your instruction to the tribe would have been, given this circumstance. We wonder what specific remedy would you have imposed on the man and on the woman.
December 7, 2010 8:51 AM
Why waste time proposing when all you have to do is be a good christian and rape someone?
@vikingmonkey
You would have us believe that the passage you quoted condones rape, and condones sexual relations outside of marriage (which is expressly forbidden in other passages).
And you would have us believe that this passage provides for punishment of the violated woman, rather than setting up a boundary to PROTECT an unmarried virgin woman from violation.
Perhaps you would be more pleased with the instruction in this passage if it said nothing about what was to become of the woman. Perhaps you would rather not specify what was to happen to the woman, and allow whatever happens to her happen, which, in that cultural context, would be for her to be either stoned by the tribe, or at least shunned by the tribe, which is essentially equivalent to a death sentence.
It leaves one to wonder what your instruction to the tribe would have been, given this circumstance. We wonder what specific remedy would you have imposed on the man and on the woman.
December 7, 2010 8:51 AM
trumps your concern
Chris B said...
So if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that your allegiance to God and His commands trumps your concern for the well-being of others? Is that fair to say?
@Chris B
Those were not the words I used, Chris. The words you choose to represent what I said, and the way in which you frame the question, really connotes a different meaning. So, it would not really be fair to claim that is what I said.
It is because I seek after God that I choose to act in a way that I believe to be right. I believe that I have been provided with an absolute moral standard, and that standard does seek the best interests for me, for others, and for society as a whole.
I strongly believe that it is right to allow human babies to live, and (in Iago's words) "let them grow up". I believe it is wrong to kill an unborn baby.
Further, I do not presume to have the moral authority to take away from any individual their choice of eternal destiny.
I would not presume to make that decision for you, for Iago, or anyone else, even as an infant. I do not believe it in anyone's best interest that I usurp the free will of another.
I believe (and perhaps this is the idea that you don't agree with) that each individual should have the right to choose for oneself what is in his best interest.
And I do not believe I have the authority or the obligation to take action that would prevent a human, made in God's image, to make their own choice.
I hope that helps answer your question.
So if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that your allegiance to God and His commands trumps your concern for the well-being of others? Is that fair to say?
@Chris B
Those were not the words I used, Chris. The words you choose to represent what I said, and the way in which you frame the question, really connotes a different meaning. So, it would not really be fair to claim that is what I said.
It is because I seek after God that I choose to act in a way that I believe to be right. I believe that I have been provided with an absolute moral standard, and that standard does seek the best interests for me, for others, and for society as a whole.
I strongly believe that it is right to allow human babies to live, and (in Iago's words) "let them grow up". I believe it is wrong to kill an unborn baby.
Further, I do not presume to have the moral authority to take away from any individual their choice of eternal destiny.
I would not presume to make that decision for you, for Iago, or anyone else, even as an infant. I do not believe it in anyone's best interest that I usurp the free will of another.
I believe (and perhaps this is the idea that you don't agree with) that each individual should have the right to choose for oneself what is in his best interest.
And I do not believe I have the authority or the obligation to take action that would prevent a human, made in God's image, to make their own choice.
I hope that helps answer your question.
... if you let them grow up.
Iago said...
Spencer7593, so it is better to let these babies grow up, die and then go to Hell ?
Where is your compassion ? You are condemning countless millions of souls to an eternity of torment if you let them grow up.
@Iago,
I already answered the question you addressed to Amy2.
Amy2 a further question for you, since you state that you believe all babies that die before they are aware of "The Law", why are you against abortion ? Afterall if they grow up they most likely will end up in Hell. So why not spare them that ?
I am afterall using "Real Christian" logic here.
The answer to that question is that the moral imperative in the sixth commandment "You shall not murder" conflicts with the desire to "save" unborn babies by killing them.
You can refer to my previous post for a more thorough explanation.
That is a sufficient answer to your question "following 'Real Christian' logic here."
So, is it better to allow unborn babies to live, than it is to kill them? The simple answer to that question is yes. Every unborn baby is made in the image of God, and killing an unborn baby is a violation of God's moral imperative.
Where is my compassion? I think its here with me, I don't recall losing it, or leaving it anywhere. Where do you keep yours, Iago?
Iago says...
You are condemning countless millions of souls to an eternity of torment if you let them grow up.
@Iago
You insist that I am responsible for "countless millions of souls". I don't recall any ethical obligation or moral imperative that instructs me that I own responsibility for "countless millions of souls".
I suppose that might be true, but I'd really need some evidence. Absent evidence, it's an unsupported assertion. (If you aren't clear on what an unsubstantiated assertion is, then ask coach Dimensio about it.)
I do believe I have a moral imperative concerning souls. I believe that I am fully responsible for exactly one soul, and I have the authority to condemn exactly one soul.
I do not have the moral authority, or the power or responsibility, to condemn any soul other than mine, much less "countless millions" of them.
Iago says...
if you let them grow up.
@Iago,
I not only allow them to grow up, I encourage it. I fully expect that a human baby will grow, and mature from a fully dependent baby and become a responsible adult. I do not know of any parent that expects their infant to remain an infant, or their child to remain a child.
So, yes, we allow them to grow up.
Am I concerned with their eternal destiny? Yes, I am concerned. But I don't extrapolate that concern into an action that contravenes a specific moral imperative.
The sixth commandment is reason enough not to kill unborn babies.
But beyond the specific instruction, even if that instruction were not given. I have not been given the moral authority to determine the eternal destiny of another human being.
Just as I am responsible for a single soul (mine), so should each individual is responsible for their own soul.
I don't find any warrant for the idea that my concern should override the free will of another soul, which is made in God's image. I do not find that I have the right to wield that power, and make such a choice for another individual.
But again, the moral imperative of the sixth commandment is sufficient reason not to kill unborn babies.
Spencer7593, so it is better to let these babies grow up, die and then go to Hell ?
Where is your compassion ? You are condemning countless millions of souls to an eternity of torment if you let them grow up.
@Iago,
I already answered the question you addressed to Amy2.
Amy2 a further question for you, since you state that you believe all babies that die before they are aware of "The Law", why are you against abortion ? Afterall if they grow up they most likely will end up in Hell. So why not spare them that ?
I am afterall using "Real Christian" logic here.
The answer to that question is that the moral imperative in the sixth commandment "You shall not murder" conflicts with the desire to "save" unborn babies by killing them.
You can refer to my previous post for a more thorough explanation.
That is a sufficient answer to your question "following 'Real Christian' logic here."
So, is it better to allow unborn babies to live, than it is to kill them? The simple answer to that question is yes. Every unborn baby is made in the image of God, and killing an unborn baby is a violation of God's moral imperative.
Where is my compassion? I think its here with me, I don't recall losing it, or leaving it anywhere. Where do you keep yours, Iago?
Iago says...
You are condemning countless millions of souls to an eternity of torment if you let them grow up.
@Iago
You insist that I am responsible for "countless millions of souls". I don't recall any ethical obligation or moral imperative that instructs me that I own responsibility for "countless millions of souls".
I suppose that might be true, but I'd really need some evidence. Absent evidence, it's an unsupported assertion. (If you aren't clear on what an unsubstantiated assertion is, then ask coach Dimensio about it.)
I do believe I have a moral imperative concerning souls. I believe that I am fully responsible for exactly one soul, and I have the authority to condemn exactly one soul.
I do not have the moral authority, or the power or responsibility, to condemn any soul other than mine, much less "countless millions" of them.
Iago says...
if you let them grow up.
@Iago,
I not only allow them to grow up, I encourage it. I fully expect that a human baby will grow, and mature from a fully dependent baby and become a responsible adult. I do not know of any parent that expects their infant to remain an infant, or their child to remain a child.
So, yes, we allow them to grow up.
Am I concerned with their eternal destiny? Yes, I am concerned. But I don't extrapolate that concern into an action that contravenes a specific moral imperative.
The sixth commandment is reason enough not to kill unborn babies.
But beyond the specific instruction, even if that instruction were not given. I have not been given the moral authority to determine the eternal destiny of another human being.
Just as I am responsible for a single soul (mine), so should each individual is responsible for their own soul.
I don't find any warrant for the idea that my concern should override the free will of another soul, which is made in God's image. I do not find that I have the right to wield that power, and make such a choice for another individual.
But again, the moral imperative of the sixth commandment is sufficient reason not to kill unborn babies.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
why not spare them that?
Iago asks...
Amy2 a further question for you, since you state that you believe all babies that die before they are aware of "The Law", why are you against abortion ? Afterall if they grow up they most likely will end up in Hell. So why not spare them that ?
I am afterall using "Real Christian" logic here.
@Iago
Your logic is reasonable. (Albeit, the wording is a bit odd, seems like part of the idea is missing: "babies that die before they are aware of 'The Law', why ..." Just seems kind of incomplete.)
But, more to the point, your logic is eminently reasonable. If we could spare babies from being condemned from hell, shouldn't we take every action that we could to prevent that? It certainly seems like we should.
Unless, of course, there is some other directive that proscribes such action. When we follow (to borrow your words) "Real Christian" logic, we discover a directive that does prohibit ending the life of an unborn human baby. We find a moral imperative given in the sixth commandment,
"You shall not murder" Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17.
This commandment can be viewed as purely concerning human relationships with one another. But it can also be viewed as having a deeper meaning, at least according to "Real Christian" logic. Man is created by God, and is created in God's image. Christians view the taking an innocent life as a direct offense against God.
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. Genesis 9:6 (ESV)
(It would be a categorical mistake to assume that "man" here excludes unborn babies, because we know that they too are created by God, and made in God's image.)
And we also know (again, following "Real Christian" logic) that the sixth commandment was not abrogated with the New Covenant. Jesus repeats this commandment, and extends it to its fuller meaning.
So, while preventing unborn babies from being condemned to hell is desirable, and it seems like ending their lives before an age of accountability would be an appropriate action, we find that ending an unborn babies life is expressly prohibited, a violation of a direct command from God.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Amy2 a further question for you, since you state that you believe all babies that die before they are aware of "The Law", why are you against abortion ? Afterall if they grow up they most likely will end up in Hell. So why not spare them that ?
I am afterall using "Real Christian" logic here.
@Iago
Your logic is reasonable. (Albeit, the wording is a bit odd, seems like part of the idea is missing: "babies that die before they are aware of 'The Law', why ..." Just seems kind of incomplete.)
But, more to the point, your logic is eminently reasonable. If we could spare babies from being condemned from hell, shouldn't we take every action that we could to prevent that? It certainly seems like we should.
Unless, of course, there is some other directive that proscribes such action. When we follow (to borrow your words) "Real Christian" logic, we discover a directive that does prohibit ending the life of an unborn human baby. We find a moral imperative given in the sixth commandment,
"You shall not murder" Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17.
This commandment can be viewed as purely concerning human relationships with one another. But it can also be viewed as having a deeper meaning, at least according to "Real Christian" logic. Man is created by God, and is created in God's image. Christians view the taking an innocent life as a direct offense against God.
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. Genesis 9:6 (ESV)
(It would be a categorical mistake to assume that "man" here excludes unborn babies, because we know that they too are created by God, and made in God's image.)
And we also know (again, following "Real Christian" logic) that the sixth commandment was not abrogated with the New Covenant. Jesus repeats this commandment, and extends it to its fuller meaning.
So, while preventing unborn babies from being condemned to hell is desirable, and it seems like ending their lives before an age of accountability would be an appropriate action, we find that ending an unborn babies life is expressly prohibited, a violation of a direct command from God.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Justice
MVP said...
So you are happy for an innocent person to take the penalty for someone elses crimes and that person to therfore get off scott-free?
@MVP
Yes, I'm totally okay with that. Again, as I stipulated before, as long as the person that bears the penalty does so voluntarily, by his own choice.
If someone else voluntarily bears the penalty, the guilty party is no longer subject to it.
[As an aside, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the term "scott-free." I believe the phrase 'scot free' originally referred one who did not pay taxes that were due.]
But, to follow that up, I am not so sure that the guilty party does not have some consequences. They still live with the knowledge of their guilt, and their knowledge that someone has made a sacrifice to pay the penalty due.
MVP said...
Your definition of justice is so way off the mark as to be absolutley ridiculous.
@MVP
You already judge me to be (and I quote) "a disgusting person" (albeit you conditioned that judgment on a concretely unconditional condition.) You already judge me to be "very simple". So I am I too be surprised that you judge my definition of justice to be way off. And although I have never provided you with a definition of justice, I'm fairly certain (given your illustrious track record), that you will provide a definition and attribute it to me.)
There is more than one definition of justice, and many ideas about the purpose of human justice, whether it should seek the most good for everyone, or whether it should instead seek retribution.
MVP said...
I am quite sure that if someone murdered someone close to you, and then that person got some masochist to do the time for them, you would NOT be hapy woth that situation.
@MVP
My "happiness" with a situation neither confirms nor denies whether justice has been satisfied. Quite often, when justice is served, there are many people who are not "happy".
I think the issue here is whether justice is served, whether the justice is satisfied with a penalty paid.
I will note that the analogy I used had to do with a guilty verdict and the penalty of a fine. I suggested that justice would be satisfied when the fine was paid, whether that fine was paid by the guilty party or by someone else.
But your analogy works as well, albeit yours plays on emotion and how one feels, rather than on an objective measure of whether justice is satisfied.
MVP said
Your version of justice leaves an innocent man punished and a criminal completely free from any responsibility.
@MVP
Not quite.
The man being punished does not necessarily have to be innocent, he may be guilty as an accomplice, or guilty of some other crime. But the man bearing the penalty could be innocent of any charge.
I said that the penalty was paid, and that the man found guilty was free from serving the penalty, because it had been paid.
I did not say the man was absolved of all responsibility for his actions, or that he would be free from all consequences for his actions. As I noted before, the man will live with his conscience ("with knowledge") of the wrong he has done, and of the pain he has caused.
Beyond earthly, temporal justice and consequences is real justice. A perfect judge who will judge with complete knowledge, from whom nothing can be hidden.
Though human justice has been served, he still faces God's justice, on that appointed day in front of the perfect judge.
MVP said...
Justice? Insanity. Whats more we don't even have to go that far - hows this for a fitting analogy:
If the judge finds me guilty of the emotion of 'hate' (which the court recognises as murder for reasons unknown to anyone but the court)
@MVP
Perhaps the court could make it known to you what the crime is, and why the court finds it so serious. With that knowledge, you could avoid the crime.
Perhaps the court finds no crime in the emotion, but defines the crime more deeply than that. Perhaps the court judges against murderous thoughts.
MVP said
, and the penalty is torture for life,
@MVP
Or, perhaps the penalty is death. The wages of sin is death and utter destruction for eternity.
MVP said
then the penalty must be carried out.
@MVP
Justice would not be perfectly served if the penalty is not satisfied. If the fine is not paid, then justice is incomplete. If the sentence is not carried out, then justice is not perfect.
MVP said
The penalty is on me,
@MVP
Who should the penalty be on, if not the guilty party? Perfect justice would require the penalty on the one who is judged guilty.
MVP said...
but the court is satisfied if someone else is very briefly (in comparison)tortured for me.
@MVP
The court will be satisfied only if the entire penalty is served. If the penalty is death, utter destruction and separation from God, then that penalty must be served.
No, the court would not be satisfied with someone being "very briefly tortured". That would not be a satisfactory payment. The sin debt must be paid in full.
When Jesus bore the penalty for my sin upon the cross, it wasn't just "very briefly". God is eternal, beyond the bounds of time. Jesus felt the full penalty, an eternity of separation from God on the cross and in the grave. (From an eternal perspective, there is an infinite amount of time to spend in a single minute. A single day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a single day.)
("Eternity" doesn't refer to a really, really long time, or even to an infinite amount of time. That notion is incomplete, that definition constrains eternity to within the bounds of time.)
When Jesus bore the penalty for my sin debt, he paid it in full.
It wasn't just the physical torture at the hands of men he endured. And it wasn't just for a few days. He endured the full punishment that was due for my sin.
His anguish upon the cross was much deeper, it was much more than physical pain and emotional suffering.
Jesus bore the entire cost of the penalty upon himself. He did so voluntarily, for you. He took your place.
MVP said...
In that analogy there is no justice once again as both men are innocent
@MVP
By what standard have you judged the man found guilty to be innocent? How can a man be found guilty by the perfect judge, and yet you deem him to be innocent.
Is your standard of justice superior to the infinitely perfect standard of God's justice?
MVP said
and the punishment outweighs the non-crime by many ridiculous orders of magnitude.
@MVP
By what standard do you measure the orders of magnitude that the penalty is unjust? Have you raised your own personal standard of justice above and beyond that of creator God?
MVP said
Lust and hatred are personal emotions.
@MVP
By what standard to you judge your sins against a Holy God to be acceptable? Do you believe that you can hide your sin, or disguise it by calling it something else?
MVP said
There is no victim, no harm to anybody.
@MVP
Is that the standard by which Almighty God, creator of the universe will judge? That there was "no harm" to anybody? How is that your knowledge superior to an omniscient God?
MVP said
A passing feeling caused by external factors – that’s all.
@MVP
Perhaps the court finds no crime in "passing feeling caused by external factors". Perhaps, that is not a crime. The only sure way to know would be to measure against God's standard of righteousness, the ten commandments.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Ten Commandments will be the standard by which you will be judged, when you stand before the throne on that appointed day. The entirety of your thoughts and actions, everything that you have done.
And the standard is not whether you did more good things than bad things.
Even the court of man, the legal system, doesn't judge a man to be innocent of a crime because it is outweighed by all of the other good things he has done. Even earthly human justice doesn't do that, because that is not justice.
What will be your defense on that appointed day in the courtroom of God's perfect justice? Is your defense prepared, or are you ready to bear the penalty when you are found guilty?
It's not too late.
So you are happy for an innocent person to take the penalty for someone elses crimes and that person to therfore get off scott-free?
@MVP
Yes, I'm totally okay with that. Again, as I stipulated before, as long as the person that bears the penalty does so voluntarily, by his own choice.
If someone else voluntarily bears the penalty, the guilty party is no longer subject to it.
[As an aside, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the term "scott-free." I believe the phrase 'scot free' originally referred one who did not pay taxes that were due.]
But, to follow that up, I am not so sure that the guilty party does not have some consequences. They still live with the knowledge of their guilt, and their knowledge that someone has made a sacrifice to pay the penalty due.
MVP said...
Your definition of justice is so way off the mark as to be absolutley ridiculous.
@MVP
You already judge me to be (and I quote) "a disgusting person" (albeit you conditioned that judgment on a concretely unconditional condition.) You already judge me to be "very simple". So I am I too be surprised that you judge my definition of justice to be way off. And although I have never provided you with a definition of justice, I'm fairly certain (given your illustrious track record), that you will provide a definition and attribute it to me.)
There is more than one definition of justice, and many ideas about the purpose of human justice, whether it should seek the most good for everyone, or whether it should instead seek retribution.
MVP said...
I am quite sure that if someone murdered someone close to you, and then that person got some masochist to do the time for them, you would NOT be hapy woth that situation.
@MVP
My "happiness" with a situation neither confirms nor denies whether justice has been satisfied. Quite often, when justice is served, there are many people who are not "happy".
I think the issue here is whether justice is served, whether the justice is satisfied with a penalty paid.
I will note that the analogy I used had to do with a guilty verdict and the penalty of a fine. I suggested that justice would be satisfied when the fine was paid, whether that fine was paid by the guilty party or by someone else.
But your analogy works as well, albeit yours plays on emotion and how one feels, rather than on an objective measure of whether justice is satisfied.
MVP said
Your version of justice leaves an innocent man punished and a criminal completely free from any responsibility.
@MVP
Not quite.
The man being punished does not necessarily have to be innocent, he may be guilty as an accomplice, or guilty of some other crime. But the man bearing the penalty could be innocent of any charge.
I said that the penalty was paid, and that the man found guilty was free from serving the penalty, because it had been paid.
I did not say the man was absolved of all responsibility for his actions, or that he would be free from all consequences for his actions. As I noted before, the man will live with his conscience ("with knowledge") of the wrong he has done, and of the pain he has caused.
Beyond earthly, temporal justice and consequences is real justice. A perfect judge who will judge with complete knowledge, from whom nothing can be hidden.
Though human justice has been served, he still faces God's justice, on that appointed day in front of the perfect judge.
MVP said...
Justice? Insanity. Whats more we don't even have to go that far - hows this for a fitting analogy:
If the judge finds me guilty of the emotion of 'hate' (which the court recognises as murder for reasons unknown to anyone but the court)
@MVP
Perhaps the court could make it known to you what the crime is, and why the court finds it so serious. With that knowledge, you could avoid the crime.
Perhaps the court finds no crime in the emotion, but defines the crime more deeply than that. Perhaps the court judges against murderous thoughts.
MVP said
, and the penalty is torture for life,
@MVP
Or, perhaps the penalty is death. The wages of sin is death and utter destruction for eternity.
MVP said
then the penalty must be carried out.
@MVP
Justice would not be perfectly served if the penalty is not satisfied. If the fine is not paid, then justice is incomplete. If the sentence is not carried out, then justice is not perfect.
MVP said
The penalty is on me,
@MVP
Who should the penalty be on, if not the guilty party? Perfect justice would require the penalty on the one who is judged guilty.
MVP said...
but the court is satisfied if someone else is very briefly (in comparison)tortured for me.
@MVP
The court will be satisfied only if the entire penalty is served. If the penalty is death, utter destruction and separation from God, then that penalty must be served.
No, the court would not be satisfied with someone being "very briefly tortured". That would not be a satisfactory payment. The sin debt must be paid in full.
When Jesus bore the penalty for my sin upon the cross, it wasn't just "very briefly". God is eternal, beyond the bounds of time. Jesus felt the full penalty, an eternity of separation from God on the cross and in the grave. (From an eternal perspective, there is an infinite amount of time to spend in a single minute. A single day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a single day.)
("Eternity" doesn't refer to a really, really long time, or even to an infinite amount of time. That notion is incomplete, that definition constrains eternity to within the bounds of time.)
When Jesus bore the penalty for my sin debt, he paid it in full.
It wasn't just the physical torture at the hands of men he endured. And it wasn't just for a few days. He endured the full punishment that was due for my sin.
His anguish upon the cross was much deeper, it was much more than physical pain and emotional suffering.
Jesus bore the entire cost of the penalty upon himself. He did so voluntarily, for you. He took your place.
MVP said...
In that analogy there is no justice once again as both men are innocent
@MVP
By what standard have you judged the man found guilty to be innocent? How can a man be found guilty by the perfect judge, and yet you deem him to be innocent.
Is your standard of justice superior to the infinitely perfect standard of God's justice?
MVP said
and the punishment outweighs the non-crime by many ridiculous orders of magnitude.
@MVP
By what standard do you measure the orders of magnitude that the penalty is unjust? Have you raised your own personal standard of justice above and beyond that of creator God?
MVP said
Lust and hatred are personal emotions.
@MVP
By what standard to you judge your sins against a Holy God to be acceptable? Do you believe that you can hide your sin, or disguise it by calling it something else?
MVP said
There is no victim, no harm to anybody.
@MVP
Is that the standard by which Almighty God, creator of the universe will judge? That there was "no harm" to anybody? How is that your knowledge superior to an omniscient God?
MVP said
A passing feeling caused by external factors – that’s all.
@MVP
Perhaps the court finds no crime in "passing feeling caused by external factors". Perhaps, that is not a crime. The only sure way to know would be to measure against God's standard of righteousness, the ten commandments.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Ten Commandments will be the standard by which you will be judged, when you stand before the throne on that appointed day. The entirety of your thoughts and actions, everything that you have done.
And the standard is not whether you did more good things than bad things.
Even the court of man, the legal system, doesn't judge a man to be innocent of a crime because it is outweighed by all of the other good things he has done. Even earthly human justice doesn't do that, because that is not justice.
What will be your defense on that appointed day in the courtroom of God's perfect justice? Is your defense prepared, or are you ready to bear the penalty when you are found guilty?
It's not too late.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
God's responsibility (2)
MVP says...
God desires us to know about Him and His wants and needs but has shunned his responsibility to tell us those things.
@MVP
Yes, and no. Yes, God desires a relationship with us. But, no, God has not "shunned his responsibility".
He has entrusted the message to His church.
Earlier, you asked, why it was any of my responsibility to spread the gospel message.
The answer to that question remains the same. It is a task that has been entrusted to me.
It's not my (or Ray's) responsibility to "save" anyone; that is God's prerogative alone. The task of the Church is to let His light shine, to share His message with all of the world.
November 30, 2010 10:21 AM
God desires us to know about Him and His wants and needs but has shunned his responsibility to tell us those things.
@MVP
Yes, and no. Yes, God desires a relationship with us. But, no, God has not "shunned his responsibility".
He has entrusted the message to His church.
Earlier, you asked, why it was any of my responsibility to spread the gospel message.
The answer to that question remains the same. It is a task that has been entrusted to me.
It's not my (or Ray's) responsibility to "save" anyone; that is God's prerogative alone. The task of the Church is to let His light shine, to share His message with all of the world.
November 30, 2010 10:21 AM
The real question
MVP asks...
How many denminations are there?
@MVP
You are of course inquiring about denominations within the Church, not of U.S. Treasury Notes.
There is one. There is one church. There is one head, Christ. Within the church, there is unity. The church is a single unit. One.
There are many parts, and not all the parts are the same.
There are non-essentials that can be debated vigorously within the church. But those topics are secondary, and are no reason for division.
On essential Christian doctrine, the body of Christ stands as one.
MVP asks...
How many people saying they have the right message?
@MVP
Most people believe they are right. Some people are willing to admit that their knowledge is imperfect, and are open to correction. But some people have already made up their minds, and have invested so much in "being right" that they are unwilling or unable to admit they might be wrong.
MVP asks...
How many SEEMINGLY contradictory statements in the bible that lead to ambiguity?
@MVP
Seemingly contradictory statements needn't lead to ambiguity. I believe that they lead us to a better understanding.
Seeming contradictions are indicators to us that we have not grasped the meaning. It shows that we've missed the meaning, probably because we've injected our own meaning in place of the author's intended meaning.
Seeming contradictions in the Bible do not present an obstacle to understanding. The real obstacle is one's belief that one is already right.
But the real question, MVP, is not whether I am "right". The essential question, the one upon which my eternity hinges, is whether I am "right with God".
Will I be saved, or will I be condemned?
There is no ambiguity in the answer to that question.
November 30, 2010 10:15 AM
How many denminations are there?
@MVP
You are of course inquiring about denominations within the Church, not of U.S. Treasury Notes.
There is one. There is one church. There is one head, Christ. Within the church, there is unity. The church is a single unit. One.
There are many parts, and not all the parts are the same.
There are non-essentials that can be debated vigorously within the church. But those topics are secondary, and are no reason for division.
On essential Christian doctrine, the body of Christ stands as one.
MVP asks...
How many people saying they have the right message?
@MVP
Most people believe they are right. Some people are willing to admit that their knowledge is imperfect, and are open to correction. But some people have already made up their minds, and have invested so much in "being right" that they are unwilling or unable to admit they might be wrong.
MVP asks...
How many SEEMINGLY contradictory statements in the bible that lead to ambiguity?
@MVP
Seemingly contradictory statements needn't lead to ambiguity. I believe that they lead us to a better understanding.
Seeming contradictions are indicators to us that we have not grasped the meaning. It shows that we've missed the meaning, probably because we've injected our own meaning in place of the author's intended meaning.
Seeming contradictions in the Bible do not present an obstacle to understanding. The real obstacle is one's belief that one is already right.
But the real question, MVP, is not whether I am "right". The essential question, the one upon which my eternity hinges, is whether I am "right with God".
Will I be saved, or will I be condemned?
There is no ambiguity in the answer to that question.
November 30, 2010 10:15 AM
The same people
MVP asks...
So the bible goes out of its way to enforce the idea that men are wretched sinners deserving of hell but has the same people as the message bringers?!
@MVP
Yep.
Who has the need of a physician, those that are well, or those that are ill?
The church is not a museum for saints, but is a hospital for sinners.
God has chosen to use imperfect men, wretched sinners, to bring the message to the world, to deliver the good news of Jesus.
November 30, 2010 9:40 AM
Delete
So the bible goes out of its way to enforce the idea that men are wretched sinners deserving of hell but has the same people as the message bringers?!
@MVP
Yep.
Who has the need of a physician, those that are well, or those that are ill?
The church is not a museum for saints, but is a hospital for sinners.
God has chosen to use imperfect men, wretched sinners, to bring the message to the world, to deliver the good news of Jesus.
November 30, 2010 9:40 AM
Delete
I'm okay with that
MVP asks...
If the judge finds me guilty of a murder, and the penalty is life imprisonment, then the penalty must be carried out. The penalty is on me, but the court is satisfied if someone else is imprisoned for for me. I therfore go completley unpunished for something that I am responsible for.
You OK with that? It was your analogy!
@MVP
Yes, I'm okay with that. I'm totally okay with that, on one condition. I will stipulate the person that takes your place in prison, the person that bears the penalty for the crime you committed, does so by his own choice. I'm totally okay with that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. ... It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known. -- Charles Dickens
November 30, 2010 9:35 AM
If the judge finds me guilty of a murder, and the penalty is life imprisonment, then the penalty must be carried out. The penalty is on me, but the court is satisfied if someone else is imprisoned for for me. I therfore go completley unpunished for something that I am responsible for.
You OK with that? It was your analogy!
@MVP
Yes, I'm okay with that. I'm totally okay with that, on one condition. I will stipulate the person that takes your place in prison, the person that bears the penalty for the crime you committed, does so by his own choice. I'm totally okay with that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. ... It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known. -- Charles Dickens
November 30, 2010 9:35 AM
The body of Christ
@MVP
The phrase "body of Christ" is not "gobbledigook" [sic].
The term has you flummoxed. The meaning is not clear to you. Perhaps this will help.
The term "body of Christ" refers to the members of His church throughout history. The "body of Christ" is the church, composed of all of those that have accepted Jesus Christ as personal savior.
cf. Mark 14:22
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body-whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 (NIV)
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. Ephesians 1:22-23 (NIV)
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 1 Corinthians 12:27 (NIV)
The "body of Christ" is a complex term... it encompasses many ideas, including the idea of unity (the body is one unit, even though it is made up of many parts), and including the ideas of organization, the idea of purpose, the idea that it is suitable for work, et al.
It is a complex term, so your confusion is understandable.
HTH
The phrase "body of Christ" is not "gobbledigook" [sic].
The term has you flummoxed. The meaning is not clear to you. Perhaps this will help.
The term "body of Christ" refers to the members of His church throughout history. The "body of Christ" is the church, composed of all of those that have accepted Jesus Christ as personal savior.
cf. Mark 14:22
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body-whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 (NIV)
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. Ephesians 1:22-23 (NIV)
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 1 Corinthians 12:27 (NIV)
The "body of Christ" is a complex term... it encompasses many ideas, including the idea of unity (the body is one unit, even though it is made up of many parts), and including the ideas of organization, the idea of purpose, the idea that it is suitable for work, et al.
It is a complex term, so your confusion is understandable.
HTH
Heaven and hell
@Iago
There is much misinformation about what the Bible says about heaven and hell, from many sources.
First, we must recognize that the words heaven and hell are English words, with no direct ties to Hebrew or Greek roots.
Hebrew is a very literal language. The English word heaven is usually used by translators in the place of the Hebrew word shamayim. The Hebrew word is most commonly thought to mean "the skies", literally, the atmosphere above the earth.
Similarly, the Hebrew word sheol is most commonly thought to mean "the grave", literally, the earth below.
Why, then, would translators choose the English words "heaven" and "hell", rather than a more literal translation to "the skies" and "the grave"?
We need only look to Isaiah for more detailed descriptions of ethereal things (chapter 6) and of infernal things (chapter 14). Those passages make clear to us that there is a very real "heaven" and a very real "hell" beyond the earthly meaning of the symbols.
The very clear teaching of the Bible is that the dead will be resurrected. Both the wicked and the righteous will be raised, and will be judged.
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2 (NIV) cf. Isaiah 26:19
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out-those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29 (NIV) cf. Revelation 20
Question for you, Iago. When you stand before the throne and God declares a verdict, what will that verdict be?
And don't be fooled into thinking that you can offer "contradictions in the Bible" as a defense. That won't work.
The contradictions we "find" in the Bible are a clue to us that we have missed the meaning. They indicate that we have grasped the real meaning, most probably because or we have injected our own meaning.
November 30, 2010 9:24 AM
There is much misinformation about what the Bible says about heaven and hell, from many sources.
First, we must recognize that the words heaven and hell are English words, with no direct ties to Hebrew or Greek roots.
Hebrew is a very literal language. The English word heaven is usually used by translators in the place of the Hebrew word shamayim. The Hebrew word is most commonly thought to mean "the skies", literally, the atmosphere above the earth.
Similarly, the Hebrew word sheol is most commonly thought to mean "the grave", literally, the earth below.
Why, then, would translators choose the English words "heaven" and "hell", rather than a more literal translation to "the skies" and "the grave"?
We need only look to Isaiah for more detailed descriptions of ethereal things (chapter 6) and of infernal things (chapter 14). Those passages make clear to us that there is a very real "heaven" and a very real "hell" beyond the earthly meaning of the symbols.
The very clear teaching of the Bible is that the dead will be resurrected. Both the wicked and the righteous will be raised, and will be judged.
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2 (NIV) cf. Isaiah 26:19
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out-those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29 (NIV) cf. Revelation 20
Question for you, Iago. When you stand before the throne and God declares a verdict, what will that verdict be?
And don't be fooled into thinking that you can offer "contradictions in the Bible" as a defense. That won't work.
The contradictions we "find" in the Bible are a clue to us that we have missed the meaning. They indicate that we have grasped the real meaning, most probably because or we have injected our own meaning.
November 30, 2010 9:24 AM
No plan B
MVP said...
Spencer believes there was another way (though he is not specific in any way about how) so that those people who did/do not have the gospel can still enter heaven
@MVP
I have corrected you on this before, several times. And I will correct you again.
There is no "other way".
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 (ESV)
There is no "plan B".
MVP asks...
After Jesus died did the rule 'believe in and repent in Jesus to get into heaven' become reality?
No, this is and was the reality from the very beginning, from before the universe was created, from before there was time.
Again, I refer you to chapter 11 of Hebrews. The truth existed and was known, even though it was not seen.
November 22, 2010 6:03 AM
Delete
Spencer believes there was another way (though he is not specific in any way about how) so that those people who did/do not have the gospel can still enter heaven
@MVP
I have corrected you on this before, several times. And I will correct you again.
There is no "other way".
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 (ESV)
There is no "plan B".
MVP asks...
After Jesus died did the rule 'believe in and repent in Jesus to get into heaven' become reality?
No, this is and was the reality from the very beginning, from before the universe was created, from before there was time.
Again, I refer you to chapter 11 of Hebrews. The truth existed and was known, even though it was not seen.
November 22, 2010 6:03 AM
Delete
Jesus prayed to himself
MVP said...
So Jesus went and prayed to himself.
Remind me again - how is Christianity NOT a polytheistic religion?
@MVP
Jesus prayed to the Father.
To remind you again: Jesus and the Father are one:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4
cf. Mark 12:28-34
There is one God, and God is revealed in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
One God, three persons.
The three persons of the Godhead are manifested in relationship to one another. For example, the Father sends the Son, the Son prays to the Father, the Father and Son send the Spirit.
This idea of "one God, three persons" is an idea that we may not be able to fully comprehend, but it is an idea that we can apprehend.
November 21, 2010 7:47 PM
So Jesus went and prayed to himself.
Remind me again - how is Christianity NOT a polytheistic religion?
@MVP
Jesus prayed to the Father.
To remind you again: Jesus and the Father are one:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4
cf. Mark 12:28-34
There is one God, and God is revealed in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
One God, three persons.
The three persons of the Godhead are manifested in relationship to one another. For example, the Father sends the Son, the Son prays to the Father, the Father and Son send the Spirit.
This idea of "one God, three persons" is an idea that we may not be able to fully comprehend, but it is an idea that we can apprehend.
November 21, 2010 7:47 PM
The sins of the parents
Steven J said...
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
November 27, 2010 10:09 AM
Blogger
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
November 27, 2010 10:09 AM
Blogger
David goes to his son, where?
@Steven J
We know that David is dead and buried (Acts 2:29), and we know that he will be resurrected (Jeremiah 30:9), and will rule as a prince (or king) over the 12 tribes of Israel (Ezekial 34), with the apostles each one a throne over one of the 12 tribes (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus taught that no man, presumably including David, had yet ascended to heaven (John 3:13). And Jesus teaches that his followers will inherit the kingdom of God when Jesus comes again, the second coming.
"where I will be, there you will be also"
And Hebrews clearly teaches that those that died before the time Jesus walked the earth did not yet inherit the promise, not even Abraham (cf. Acts 7)
The resurrection of the dead will occur when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4)
So, when David says that he will go to his son... is he meaning that he will go to his son in the grave, when he is dead and buried?
Or, is perhaps David looking further ahead than that, and looking forward to his inheritance, his existence in the coming Kingdom of God?
November 25, 2010 8:15 PM
We know that David is dead and buried (Acts 2:29), and we know that he will be resurrected (Jeremiah 30:9), and will rule as a prince (or king) over the 12 tribes of Israel (Ezekial 34), with the apostles each one a throne over one of the 12 tribes (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus taught that no man, presumably including David, had yet ascended to heaven (John 3:13). And Jesus teaches that his followers will inherit the kingdom of God when Jesus comes again, the second coming.
"where I will be, there you will be also"
And Hebrews clearly teaches that those that died before the time Jesus walked the earth did not yet inherit the promise, not even Abraham (cf. Acts 7)
The resurrection of the dead will occur when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4)
So, when David says that he will go to his son... is he meaning that he will go to his son in the grave, when he is dead and buried?
Or, is perhaps David looking further ahead than that, and looking forward to his inheritance, his existence in the coming Kingdom of God?
November 25, 2010 8:15 PM
Contrary statements
darkknight56 requests ...
Please explain how both could be right when they are both making contrary statements.
@darkknight56
Both can be right because the two are not contrary statements.
The apparent contradiction is superficial; it's not real. There is no real contradiction.
When we take a closer look at what Scripture says, paying attention to the context and the purpose, the apparent contradiction simply evaporates.
We can give numerous examples of paradoxes in the Bible, examples of apparent contradictions. But upon careful examination, these apparent contradictions turn out to be illusory.
(There is no need for me here to present you with examples. I'm certain you have a long list of contradictions "found" in the Bible.)
This particular case, the proposed "contradiction" about the destiny of infants and small children that die, is not a contradiction in the Bible.
When we "find" a contradiction in Scripture, that's a clue to us that we have missed some part of the meaning. It's a clue to us that we've read our own meaning into the text, rather than allowing the text to communicate its meaning to us.
Don't fall into the dangerous trap of rejecting the truth of Scripture because of invented contradictions.
November 25, 2010 9:54 AM
Please explain how both could be right when they are both making contrary statements.
@darkknight56
Both can be right because the two are not contrary statements.
The apparent contradiction is superficial; it's not real. There is no real contradiction.
When we take a closer look at what Scripture says, paying attention to the context and the purpose, the apparent contradiction simply evaporates.
We can give numerous examples of paradoxes in the Bible, examples of apparent contradictions. But upon careful examination, these apparent contradictions turn out to be illusory.
(There is no need for me here to present you with examples. I'm certain you have a long list of contradictions "found" in the Bible.)
This particular case, the proposed "contradiction" about the destiny of infants and small children that die, is not a contradiction in the Bible.
When we "find" a contradiction in Scripture, that's a clue to us that we have missed some part of the meaning. It's a clue to us that we've read our own meaning into the text, rather than allowing the text to communicate its meaning to us.
Don't fall into the dangerous trap of rejecting the truth of Scripture because of invented contradictions.
November 25, 2010 9:54 AM
Hebrews 11
MVP said...
All you say is "Hebrews 11" which has nothing to do with repentance or Jesus (it does in fact show other ways in which people got into heaven - by faith - so your "repentance to Jesus is the only way" is refuted by your own bible reference)
@MVP
Hebrews 11 has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus. And it does NOT "in fact show" any OTHER way "in which people got into heaven [sic]". It shows that the ONLY way to be saved is by way of Jesus.
And, just to clarify, I've not used the phrases "repent in Jesus", "repentance in Jesus", or "repentance to Jesus".
You are the one that chooses to use those awkward constructs. Given the large degree of confusion you have about some pretty simple ideas, well, it just leaves one to wonder what sort of meaning you twist into those awkwardly constructed phrases. I'm not even going to venture a guess what you mean.
But I would like to clarify something for you. In the Bible, the verb "repent" refers to a physical action. It is an action. It means that I stop moving in the direction one I'm heading, I stop dead in my tracks, and I to turn around. I turn around 180 degrees, facing in the complete opposite direction, and I begin moving in the new direction. That's the word picture of what the word "repent" means.
In Biblical terms, the term "repent" means that I stop moving away from God, with my back to God, and I stop and turn to face towards Him, and I begin moving towards Him.
There is a Biblical focus on "repentance". And this is because this is an action that is under my control. It is a decision that I am free to make. It's a choice that no one else can make for me.
God promises to honor my decision. If I choose to move away from Him, then God will honor that decision even after I die. God allows me to make the choice. If my desire is to move away from God, and that's the decision I make, then God will honor that choice when I die. God will not force me to be in His presence.
God gives me a choice. But... I have to make that choice now, before I die.
Have you made your decision, MVP?
It's not too late, for you to stop moving in the direction you are heading, and to turn back towards God.
The choice is yours.
November 24, 2010 12:48 PM
All you say is "Hebrews 11" which has nothing to do with repentance or Jesus (it does in fact show other ways in which people got into heaven - by faith - so your "repentance to Jesus is the only way" is refuted by your own bible reference)
@MVP
Hebrews 11 has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus. And it does NOT "in fact show" any OTHER way "in which people got into heaven [sic]". It shows that the ONLY way to be saved is by way of Jesus.
And, just to clarify, I've not used the phrases "repent in Jesus", "repentance in Jesus", or "repentance to Jesus".
You are the one that chooses to use those awkward constructs. Given the large degree of confusion you have about some pretty simple ideas, well, it just leaves one to wonder what sort of meaning you twist into those awkwardly constructed phrases. I'm not even going to venture a guess what you mean.
But I would like to clarify something for you. In the Bible, the verb "repent" refers to a physical action. It is an action. It means that I stop moving in the direction one I'm heading, I stop dead in my tracks, and I to turn around. I turn around 180 degrees, facing in the complete opposite direction, and I begin moving in the new direction. That's the word picture of what the word "repent" means.
In Biblical terms, the term "repent" means that I stop moving away from God, with my back to God, and I stop and turn to face towards Him, and I begin moving towards Him.
There is a Biblical focus on "repentance". And this is because this is an action that is under my control. It is a decision that I am free to make. It's a choice that no one else can make for me.
God promises to honor my decision. If I choose to move away from Him, then God will honor that decision even after I die. God allows me to make the choice. If my desire is to move away from God, and that's the decision I make, then God will honor that choice when I die. God will not force me to be in His presence.
God gives me a choice. But... I have to make that choice now, before I die.
Have you made your decision, MVP?
It's not too late, for you to stop moving in the direction you are heading, and to turn back towards God.
The choice is yours.
November 24, 2010 12:48 PM
Monday, November 29, 2010
God's responsibility
MVP asks...
How is that your responsibility? Thats God's responsibility, if He exists. And he has shunned it.
God has not shunned the responsibility. God has entrusted the task to the body of Christ. God has delegated the task to the church.
we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.
1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (NIV)
God has given me the responsibility of serving his church by proclaiming his entire message to you.
Colossians 1:25 (NLT)
And the things you have heard me [Paul] say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
2 Timothy 2:2 (NIV)
This is God's command. This is his mandate for His church.
God entrusts ordinary people with this weighty responsibility. And this is not a mistake; this is God's sovereign plan.
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Matthew 28:18
So, yes, I have been commissioned to preach the good news of Jesus.
November 29, 2010 12:36 PM
How is that your responsibility? Thats God's responsibility, if He exists. And he has shunned it.
God has not shunned the responsibility. God has entrusted the task to the body of Christ. God has delegated the task to the church.
we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.
1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (NIV)
God has given me the responsibility of serving his church by proclaiming his entire message to you.
Colossians 1:25 (NLT)
And the things you have heard me [Paul] say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
2 Timothy 2:2 (NIV)
This is God's command. This is his mandate for His church.
God entrusts ordinary people with this weighty responsibility. And this is not a mistake; this is God's sovereign plan.
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Matthew 28:18
So, yes, I have been commissioned to preach the good news of Jesus.
November 29, 2010 12:36 PM
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Punishment of the children
Steven J said...
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Another Contradiction
imadallasguy burbled...
So your contention is that the Bible says that babies go to heaven and also says babies go to hell.
@imadallasguy
No, that is not my contention. That "contradiction" is your own invention. You built that one yourself, you own it, not me.
I suggest that we allow Scripture to reveal the truth to us, rather than making a sport of rejecting truth because of contradictions we invent.
I believe Amy2 has already provided you relevant scripture verses. But to summarize...
Scripture reveals to us that infants are not condemned to hell. As one example, King David's newborn son became ill, and died after seven days.
Does the Bible say that David's infant son is destined to hell? No. The Bible indicates (quite clearly) that he is destined for "the house of the Lord", together with King David.
cf. 2 Samuel 12:22-23, Psalm 23:6
Jesus reveals in his teaching that little children are eligible to inherit the kingdom of God.
cf. Matthew 18:3-5, Luke 18:16-17
It's clear that infants and little children are not destined to hell.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him. -- (?) paraphrase of Spurgeon (?)
November 24, 2010 11:48 AM
So your contention is that the Bible says that babies go to heaven and also says babies go to hell.
@imadallasguy
No, that is not my contention. That "contradiction" is your own invention. You built that one yourself, you own it, not me.
I suggest that we allow Scripture to reveal the truth to us, rather than making a sport of rejecting truth because of contradictions we invent.
I believe Amy2 has already provided you relevant scripture verses. But to summarize...
Scripture reveals to us that infants are not condemned to hell. As one example, King David's newborn son became ill, and died after seven days.
Does the Bible say that David's infant son is destined to hell? No. The Bible indicates (quite clearly) that he is destined for "the house of the Lord", together with King David.
cf. 2 Samuel 12:22-23, Psalm 23:6
Jesus reveals in his teaching that little children are eligible to inherit the kingdom of God.
cf. Matthew 18:3-5, Luke 18:16-17
It's clear that infants and little children are not destined to hell.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him. -- (?) paraphrase of Spurgeon (?)
November 24, 2010 11:48 AM
Inflict those punishments
Iago blathered...
For any "Real Christian" out there, still waiting to hear regarding Leviticus 20 and why you are not out there doing anything about the laws laid out by God ? I mean God did lay out what He finds detestable. And since God is unchanging he must still find those things detestable. And since God laid out the punishments rather clearly regarding those acts, he must still want you to inflict those punishments.
Why aren't you lobbying for those punishments to be made mandatory ?
@Iago
I'm certain this has been explained to you before. The instructions to which you refer were given to the descendants of Jacob, the tribe of Israel.
"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves" Leviticus 11:44 (ESV)
"Consecrate yourselves and be holy," Leviticus 20:7 (ESV)
It is not incumbent upon gentiles, or the New Covenant church to adhere to the rules and regulations of the Mosaic law, which was intended for the Jewish nation.
The church is instructed NOT to abide by the Levitical purity ritual sacrifices, and NOT to adhere to the dietary restrictions.
The Bible also teaches that it is not necessary for New Covenant followers to first convert to Judaism.
There is no need for gentiles to be encumbered by the rules and regulations laid down for a "tribe of illiterate, nomadic sheepherders"
The Mosaic law of the Old Covenant was only a shadow. The reality was revealed in the person of Jesus.
cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23–26, Hebrews 10, Acts 10, Matthew 15
So, that answers your question as to why Christians aren't out calling for adherence to the Mosaic Law and Levitical rituals.
If that's not enough of an answer, it is enough to get you started on your own research.
I trust you find this helpful, and I hope this finds you well.
November 24, 2010 12:18 PM
For any "Real Christian" out there, still waiting to hear regarding Leviticus 20 and why you are not out there doing anything about the laws laid out by God ? I mean God did lay out what He finds detestable. And since God is unchanging he must still find those things detestable. And since God laid out the punishments rather clearly regarding those acts, he must still want you to inflict those punishments.
Why aren't you lobbying for those punishments to be made mandatory ?
@Iago
I'm certain this has been explained to you before. The instructions to which you refer were given to the descendants of Jacob, the tribe of Israel.
"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves" Leviticus 11:44 (ESV)
"Consecrate yourselves and be holy," Leviticus 20:7 (ESV)
It is not incumbent upon gentiles, or the New Covenant church to adhere to the rules and regulations of the Mosaic law, which was intended for the Jewish nation.
The church is instructed NOT to abide by the Levitical purity ritual sacrifices, and NOT to adhere to the dietary restrictions.
The Bible also teaches that it is not necessary for New Covenant followers to first convert to Judaism.
There is no need for gentiles to be encumbered by the rules and regulations laid down for a "tribe of illiterate, nomadic sheepherders"
The Mosaic law of the Old Covenant was only a shadow. The reality was revealed in the person of Jesus.
cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23–26, Hebrews 10, Acts 10, Matthew 15
So, that answers your question as to why Christians aren't out calling for adherence to the Mosaic Law and Levitical rituals.
If that's not enough of an answer, it is enough to get you started on your own research.
I trust you find this helpful, and I hope this finds you well.
November 24, 2010 12:18 PM
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
It's impossible ...
imadallasguy burbled...
It's impossible to harmonize Ray's Biblical interpretation with Amy2's. So there are only three possibilities:
1) Ray is right and Amy2 is wrong.
2) Amy2 is right and Ray is wrong.
3) They are both wrong.
@imadallasguy
You've made the claim that "it's impossible".
cue the squawking parrot: unsupported assertion. SQUAWK. unsubstantiated premise. SQUAAWWK. undemonstrated proposition. AAAWWWK. I am Dimensio. SQUAAAAWWWWK
There is, of course, the fourth possibility that you choose to reject out of hand:
4) Both Ray and and Amy2 are right.
=-=-=-=-=-=
"A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him." - attribution: unknown
November 23, 2010 11:16 AM
It's impossible to harmonize Ray's Biblical interpretation with Amy2's. So there are only three possibilities:
1) Ray is right and Amy2 is wrong.
2) Amy2 is right and Ray is wrong.
3) They are both wrong.
@imadallasguy
You've made the claim that "it's impossible".
cue the squawking parrot: unsupported assertion. SQUAWK. unsubstantiated premise. SQUAAWWK. undemonstrated proposition. AAAWWWK. I am Dimensio. SQUAAAAWWWWK
There is, of course, the fourth possibility that you choose to reject out of hand:
4) Both Ray and and Amy2 are right.
=-=-=-=-=-=
"A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him." - attribution: unknown
November 23, 2010 11:16 AM
Monday, November 22, 2010
be nice to everyone
Chris B said...
I thought one of the core principles of Christianity was to be nice to everyone (or at least treat them as you'd want to be treated) regardless of time of year or religious beliefs.
@Chris B
You've been misled, if you think "be nice to everyone" is a core principle of Christianity.
November 22, 2010 5:42 PM
I thought one of the core principles of Christianity was to be nice to everyone (or at least treat them as you'd want to be treated) regardless of time of year or religious beliefs.
@Chris B
You've been misled, if you think "be nice to everyone" is a core principle of Christianity.
November 22, 2010 5:42 PM
Lurker said...
We're going to dump a bunch of your books into Boston Harbor, Ray. We've had enough of your tyranny.
@Lurker
And what's next after that? Perhaps authoring a Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that some primates are further evolved, that they accord themselves certain implicit Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
November 22, 2010 5:26 PM
We're going to dump a bunch of your books into Boston Harbor, Ray. We've had enough of your tyranny.
@Lurker
And what's next after that? Perhaps authoring a Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that some primates are further evolved, that they accord themselves certain implicit Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
November 22, 2010 5:26 PM
there should be no objection
Wait What said ...
Then there should be no objection by Christians on religious grounds to allow homosexuals the right to marry, openly serve in the Military or any other form of equal rights?
@Wait What
Christians should believe in equal rights, when speaking of the inalienable rights endowed upon all people, by the Creator. All men are created equal, and all men have equal rights.
But lets be clear: not every privilege is a "right".
I have a responsibility to provide my children with air, water, food, clothing, shelter, protection, education, and health care. All of those things I consider "rights".
But my children do not have a "right" to unlimited television viewing, unlimited cell phone usage, and unlimited purchases of video games. Those things are privileges, not rights.
My children do not have a "right" to steal, to destroy property, or to torture animals.
So, from the get go, let's be clear. Not every want and desire is to be labeled as a "right".
As to marriage, Christians see marriage as an institution of primary importance. Christians believe that God created marriage as the first and most important human institution.
Marriage was the first relationship between people; before family, before tribes, before government, before business. God designed marriage as the building block of human civilization. Marriage is important to Christians because marriage is important to God.
Christians believe that marriage was defined by God as a relationship between one man and one woman. Not between a woman and a dog. Not between a man and his motorcycle. God defines marriage as one man, and one woman.
That definition of marriage is important to Christians, because it's the definition given by God.
Then there should be no objection by Christians on religious grounds to allow homosexuals the right to marry, openly serve in the Military or any other form of equal rights?
@Wait What
Christians should believe in equal rights, when speaking of the inalienable rights endowed upon all people, by the Creator. All men are created equal, and all men have equal rights.
But lets be clear: not every privilege is a "right".
I have a responsibility to provide my children with air, water, food, clothing, shelter, protection, education, and health care. All of those things I consider "rights".
But my children do not have a "right" to unlimited television viewing, unlimited cell phone usage, and unlimited purchases of video games. Those things are privileges, not rights.
My children do not have a "right" to steal, to destroy property, or to torture animals.
So, from the get go, let's be clear. Not every want and desire is to be labeled as a "right".
As to marriage, Christians see marriage as an institution of primary importance. Christians believe that God created marriage as the first and most important human institution.
Marriage was the first relationship between people; before family, before tribes, before government, before business. God designed marriage as the building block of human civilization. Marriage is important to Christians because marriage is important to God.
Christians believe that marriage was defined by God as a relationship between one man and one woman. Not between a woman and a dog. Not between a man and his motorcycle. God defines marriage as one man, and one woman.
That definition of marriage is important to Christians, because it's the definition given by God.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
are God's actions just
Steven J asks ...
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
In any case, according to Deuteronomy, it is forbidden to punish offspring for the crimes of their parents (this is in notable contrast to, e.g. a Babylonian law code that prescribes that if man A kills the son of man B, man A's son can be killed in punishment, which is the sort of law code you seem to feel God is abiding by in killing the firstborn of the Egyptians). This is, of course, a rule for humans, not for God Himself, but in Ezekiel, God famously declares that He will Himself abide by this rule: each person will die for his own sins, not for the sins of his forebears.
Now, either God's treatment of the Egyptians was unjust by what are said to be God's own standards, or an unchanging God promulgating an unchanging absolute morality makes major revisions in the definition of "moral" from time to time.
Or, of course, the Bible is a purely human work reflecting the different opinions about what is moral held by different people at different times.
Side note: ancient Egypt was not a democracy. Indeed, according to the legends in Genesis, the people of Egypt were the slaves of Pharaoh, because Joseph had made them so. It seems dubiously fair to me to punish the people of Egypt for something that God Himself (who favored Joseph and brought his evil schemes to fruition) had helped to bring about: their necessary acquiescence in whatever Pharoah [sic] did.
@Steven J
Certainly, you have sufficient cognitive capacity to research the answers to these questions yourself. So, I make no effort here to answer your questions.
However, I will note that the Mosaic Law (the 613 precepts) were given to the Israelites after their release from captivity in Egypt.
These are instructions from God to his firstborn, the tribe of Jacob's descendants. It would be a categorical mistake to think that the 613 Mitzvot given in Deuteronomy are a complete description of God's moral equity.
It is also a categorical mistake to think that the Mosaic Law was incumbent on the Israelites prior to the exodus, or that is incumbent upon gentiles (i.e. everyone else who is not an Israelite), or that it is incumbent upon the church (i.e. the disciples of Jesus.)
I also note that the Bible describes "justice" as intrinsic attribute of God. That is, the Bible says that God's justice does not conform to any principle or law or standard that is external to Him.
The Bible says that God's actions are in accordance with His own nature. God is Himself the standard for His own principles, including the ideal of moral equity.
I believe (the English transliteration for) the original Hebrew theonym is tzedek, which speaks to this ideal of righteousness, moral equity and justice.
Also, I will note that God's penalty, the ten plagues, is upon Pharaoh and Egypt.
In light of this, you might consider asking yourself whether the question you asked makes sense:
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
You might want to consider these questions:
Where in the Bible does it say that any action of God is contrary to any of His intrinsic attributes?
Is it possible for God's actions to violate His own nature?
If God Himself is His own self-existent standard for tzedek, is it possible for God to take any action that would not be tzedek?
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
In any case, according to Deuteronomy, it is forbidden to punish offspring for the crimes of their parents (this is in notable contrast to, e.g. a Babylonian law code that prescribes that if man A kills the son of man B, man A's son can be killed in punishment, which is the sort of law code you seem to feel God is abiding by in killing the firstborn of the Egyptians). This is, of course, a rule for humans, not for God Himself, but in Ezekiel, God famously declares that He will Himself abide by this rule: each person will die for his own sins, not for the sins of his forebears.
Now, either God's treatment of the Egyptians was unjust by what are said to be God's own standards, or an unchanging God promulgating an unchanging absolute morality makes major revisions in the definition of "moral" from time to time.
Or, of course, the Bible is a purely human work reflecting the different opinions about what is moral held by different people at different times.
Side note: ancient Egypt was not a democracy. Indeed, according to the legends in Genesis, the people of Egypt were the slaves of Pharaoh, because Joseph had made them so. It seems dubiously fair to me to punish the people of Egypt for something that God Himself (who favored Joseph and brought his evil schemes to fruition) had helped to bring about: their necessary acquiescence in whatever Pharoah [sic] did.
@Steven J
Certainly, you have sufficient cognitive capacity to research the answers to these questions yourself. So, I make no effort here to answer your questions.
However, I will note that the Mosaic Law (the 613 precepts) were given to the Israelites after their release from captivity in Egypt.
These are instructions from God to his firstborn, the tribe of Jacob's descendants. It would be a categorical mistake to think that the 613 Mitzvot given in Deuteronomy are a complete description of God's moral equity.
It is also a categorical mistake to think that the Mosaic Law was incumbent on the Israelites prior to the exodus, or that is incumbent upon gentiles (i.e. everyone else who is not an Israelite), or that it is incumbent upon the church (i.e. the disciples of Jesus.)
I also note that the Bible describes "justice" as intrinsic attribute of God. That is, the Bible says that God's justice does not conform to any principle or law or standard that is external to Him.
The Bible says that God's actions are in accordance with His own nature. God is Himself the standard for His own principles, including the ideal of moral equity.
I believe (the English transliteration for) the original Hebrew theonym is tzedek, which speaks to this ideal of righteousness, moral equity and justice.
Also, I will note that God's penalty, the ten plagues, is upon Pharaoh and Egypt.
In light of this, you might consider asking yourself whether the question you asked makes sense:
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
You might want to consider these questions:
Where in the Bible does it say that any action of God is contrary to any of His intrinsic attributes?
Is it possible for God's actions to violate His own nature?
If God Himself is His own self-existent standard for tzedek, is it possible for God to take any action that would not be tzedek?
Monday, September 13, 2010
pointing out a false convert
Coryat said...
[Y]ou never point out a false convert before they are exposed by their fruits, Ray. Why is that? Do you rely on works to discern, or do you lack the spiritual insight?
@Coryat
Ray doesn't point them out because it's not his job to. In fact, it's Ray's job NOT to. Jesus warns against identifying false converts and removing them from the church. See Jesus parable of the wheat and the tares, Matthew 13:24-30. God reserves the job of judgment for himself.
[Y]ou never point out a false convert before they are exposed by their fruits, Ray. Why is that? Do you rely on works to discern, or do you lack the spiritual insight?
@Coryat
Ray doesn't point them out because it's not his job to. In fact, it's Ray's job NOT to. Jesus warns against identifying false converts and removing them from the church. See Jesus parable of the wheat and the tares, Matthew 13:24-30. God reserves the job of judgment for himself.
The Second Commandment
Thomas said...
[The second commandment is] obviously about making and worshipping literal, physical idols.
@Thomas
No. You've missed the meaning of the second commandment. God is a jealous of our love. I use the word "jealous", not as a bad thing, but as a good thing.
As a father, I'm jealous of the love of my daughter. I don't want my daughter to be taken home by some other man. I don't want for my daughter to call another man "Dad" and to hug him. No. I want that exclusively to myself. I want to be the exclusive "Dad" to my daughter. I'm jealous of my daughter's love.
That's an illustration of what God wants from us. God wants to be the exclusive desire of our heart. God wants exclusivity. He wants for us to call him alone God. He doesn't want anyone or anything to take His exclusive place.
That's the meaning of the second commandment.
Anything that our heart desires for, in the place of God, is an idol. An idol doesn't have to be a physical statue. Anything that we seek after instead of God, in place of God, is an idol. Whether it be power, prestige, comfort, pleasure. Anything that takes the place of God as the object of our desire is an idol.
The second commandment is not a rigid rule against making a physical statue. No. It's a guideline for the members of God's family. It's a boundary that God sets up for the benefit of His children.
[The second commandment is] obviously about making and worshipping literal, physical idols.
@Thomas
No. You've missed the meaning of the second commandment. God is a jealous of our love. I use the word "jealous", not as a bad thing, but as a good thing.
As a father, I'm jealous of the love of my daughter. I don't want my daughter to be taken home by some other man. I don't want for my daughter to call another man "Dad" and to hug him. No. I want that exclusively to myself. I want to be the exclusive "Dad" to my daughter. I'm jealous of my daughter's love.
That's an illustration of what God wants from us. God wants to be the exclusive desire of our heart. God wants exclusivity. He wants for us to call him alone God. He doesn't want anyone or anything to take His exclusive place.
That's the meaning of the second commandment.
Anything that our heart desires for, in the place of God, is an idol. An idol doesn't have to be a physical statue. Anything that we seek after instead of God, in place of God, is an idol. Whether it be power, prestige, comfort, pleasure. Anything that takes the place of God as the object of our desire is an idol.
The second commandment is not a rigid rule against making a physical statue. No. It's a guideline for the members of God's family. It's a boundary that God sets up for the benefit of His children.
On this rock
@Thomas
When Jesus says "and on this rock I build my church" Matthew 16:18(NIV)
Jesus is not referring to Peter. Jesus is referring to Simon Peter's answer.
Jesus: "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
It's Simon Peter's statement that serves as the rock solid foundation of the church.
The point is that if Jesus is not "the Christ, the Son of the living God", then there is no solid foundation upon which to build the church.
When Jesus says "and on this rock I build my church" Matthew 16:18(NIV)
Jesus is not referring to Peter. Jesus is referring to Simon Peter's answer.
Jesus: "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
It's Simon Peter's statement that serves as the rock solid foundation of the church.
The point is that if Jesus is not "the Christ, the Son of the living God", then there is no solid foundation upon which to build the church.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
How can one ever be sure ...
Steven J said...
On the other hand, if one's perception of something ... is necessarily limited and incomplete, how can one ever be sure ... that one knows ...
@Steven J
That's an excellent question. It's a question that the great minds of philosophy have wrestled with for centuries.
I excerpted from your response, removing the references to "Ray" and "God" to highlight the essential question.
You may choose to believe that Ray's belief in God is the heart of the issue. But I submit to you that what is REALLY at issue is the "problem of knowledge", the framework of the your response.
The "absence of belief that there is a God" is ALSO subject to the problem of knowledge. (It really doesn't matter whether you frame it as an "absence of belief of existence" or a "belief of non-existence", both are subject to the same problem.)
All of which leads us back to the problem of evidence, that is, observations and interpretation of those observations, weighed as evidence. And that is informed by one's worldview (the philosophical framework by which one interprets the world around them.)
On the other hand, if one's perception of something ... is necessarily limited and incomplete, how can one ever be sure ... that one knows ...
@Steven J
That's an excellent question. It's a question that the great minds of philosophy have wrestled with for centuries.
I excerpted from your response, removing the references to "Ray" and "God" to highlight the essential question.
You may choose to believe that Ray's belief in God is the heart of the issue. But I submit to you that what is REALLY at issue is the "problem of knowledge", the framework of the your response.
The "absence of belief that there is a God" is ALSO subject to the problem of knowledge. (It really doesn't matter whether you frame it as an "absence of belief of existence" or a "belief of non-existence", both are subject to the same problem.)
All of which leads us back to the problem of evidence, that is, observations and interpretation of those observations, weighed as evidence. And that is informed by one's worldview (the philosophical framework by which one interprets the world around them.)
Monday, July 5, 2010
Using God's Name In Vain
James Romance said...
In all of history, no one has ever used God's name in vain. How do I know that? Because no one knows what God's actual name is.
@James Romance
You make an extraordinary claim to a knowledge of history. I believe your knowledge is incomplete, and inaccurate.
The ancient Jews did know what God's personal name was. They held God's name in high regard, in reverence, that His name was not to be spoken.
God's personal name is Yahweh. (In the Hebrew, of course, it is just four consonants. We represent the Hebrew consonants using the Roman letters YHWH.
And God has another speakable personal name, the name of Jesus. The name before which every knee will bow and every tongue confess.
So, it's not at all true that no one knows the name of God. Put that silly notion aside.
The bigger question, of course, is: what does the Bible mean when it speaks of "taking the Lord's name in vain"? What is the actual meaning?
For one thing, it means taking a solemn oath in God's name, and then not honoring that oath. That devalues the name of God.
Actually, any usage of God's name that devalues God is consider "vain". That is, "taking the Lord's name in vain"would be any usage of His name that imparts a lack of substance or worth. Basically, any foolish (unwise) use of God's name.
Such usage is sometimes referred to as "swearing" or "cursing". (I think we get the idea of "swearing" from the meaning of swearing an oath on something of value, and we get the idea of "cursing" from the meaning of God causing a curse to fall upon a group or an individual.)
N.B. This notion of cursing is not to be confused with the more generic "vulgarity", which simply means an inelegant or coarse expression, one that could be offensive to good taste or propriety.)
In summary, a true understanding of the third commandment is much deeper than the superficial meaning you propose.
HTH
In all of history, no one has ever used God's name in vain. How do I know that? Because no one knows what God's actual name is.
@James Romance
You make an extraordinary claim to a knowledge of history. I believe your knowledge is incomplete, and inaccurate.
The ancient Jews did know what God's personal name was. They held God's name in high regard, in reverence, that His name was not to be spoken.
God's personal name is Yahweh. (In the Hebrew, of course, it is just four consonants. We represent the Hebrew consonants using the Roman letters YHWH.
And God has another speakable personal name, the name of Jesus. The name before which every knee will bow and every tongue confess.
So, it's not at all true that no one knows the name of God. Put that silly notion aside.
The bigger question, of course, is: what does the Bible mean when it speaks of "taking the Lord's name in vain"? What is the actual meaning?
For one thing, it means taking a solemn oath in God's name, and then not honoring that oath. That devalues the name of God.
Actually, any usage of God's name that devalues God is consider "vain". That is, "taking the Lord's name in vain"would be any usage of His name that imparts a lack of substance or worth. Basically, any foolish (unwise) use of God's name.
Such usage is sometimes referred to as "swearing" or "cursing". (I think we get the idea of "swearing" from the meaning of swearing an oath on something of value, and we get the idea of "cursing" from the meaning of God causing a curse to fall upon a group or an individual.)
N.B. This notion of cursing is not to be confused with the more generic "vulgarity", which simply means an inelegant or coarse expression, one that could be offensive to good taste or propriety.)
In summary, a true understanding of the third commandment is much deeper than the superficial meaning you propose.
HTH
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Measuring God's Morality
James Romance concludes...
Clearly the Bible's concept of what is moral/immoral falls short of many higher standards by which morals can be measured.
@James Romance
By what standards does one measure morality? And of these standards, which is of the most importance?
By what token do you esteem any standard "higher" than that of the Most High, the author and creator of the universe?
God is the sole author of right and wrong. He judges the thoughts and actions of all men perfectly.
On that appointed day, when you stand before the throne of judgment, what will be your defense before the judge that knows all things perfectly, even those things hidden in your heart. That there was a "higher" human morality which stands above God's perfect morality? That you have chosen to elevate your own morality above that of God?
"Behold, he has become like one of us, knowing right from wrong."
Make no mistake about this. The truth is that the wrath of God that will be poured out on those who use foolish and deceitful words to lead people astray from the truth of God.
You have an opportunity to turn away from evil and turn back towards God. He is anxious to forgive. The gift of God's mercy is free, there is nothing you need to do to earn it. There is nothing you can do to earn it. All you have to do is accept it.
The choice is yours. Choose wisely.
Clearly the Bible's concept of what is moral/immoral falls short of many higher standards by which morals can be measured.
@James Romance
By what standards does one measure morality? And of these standards, which is of the most importance?
By what token do you esteem any standard "higher" than that of the Most High, the author and creator of the universe?
God is the sole author of right and wrong. He judges the thoughts and actions of all men perfectly.
On that appointed day, when you stand before the throne of judgment, what will be your defense before the judge that knows all things perfectly, even those things hidden in your heart. That there was a "higher" human morality which stands above God's perfect morality? That you have chosen to elevate your own morality above that of God?
"Behold, he has become like one of us, knowing right from wrong."
Make no mistake about this. The truth is that the wrath of God that will be poured out on those who use foolish and deceitful words to lead people astray from the truth of God.
You have an opportunity to turn away from evil and turn back towards God. He is anxious to forgive. The gift of God's mercy is free, there is nothing you need to do to earn it. There is nothing you can do to earn it. All you have to do is accept it.
The choice is yours. Choose wisely.
Is Murder The Same As Hatred
captain howdy asks...
Spencer, tell me--Is murder morally really the same as hatred? Is thinking about doing something ethically the same as doing it? Because that's what your religion is saying here.
@captain howdy
Yes, in a sense, they are the same. God cannot abide even the tiniest amount of sin. God abhors all sins, great and small.
So, yes, in a sense, they are the same. The end result of all sin is the same. Sin separates me from God.
And it's not "religion" that is saying this. God says it clearly. This is exactly what Jesus said.
Let's be clear. All sin will be punished justly. I am free to choose my thoughts and actions. But I am not free to choose the consequences.
HTH
Spencer, tell me--Is murder morally really the same as hatred? Is thinking about doing something ethically the same as doing it? Because that's what your religion is saying here.
@captain howdy
Yes, in a sense, they are the same. God cannot abide even the tiniest amount of sin. God abhors all sins, great and small.
So, yes, in a sense, they are the same. The end result of all sin is the same. Sin separates me from God.
And it's not "religion" that is saying this. God says it clearly. This is exactly what Jesus said.
Let's be clear. All sin will be punished justly. I am free to choose my thoughts and actions. But I am not free to choose the consequences.
HTH
Pick Up Sticks
Steven J asks...
Are you suggesting that we (or you) are free to pick up sticks on the Sabbath because Jesus is the fulfillment of the fourth commandment?
@Steven J
Yes, exactly.
I am free in Christ to gather firewood on the (ritual Jewish) Sabbath. In Christ, I am not under the condemnation of the Law.
Recall that the religious leaders accused Jesus of violating the Law when he picked grain on the Sabbath.
Matthew 12:1
Mark 2:23
Luke 6:1
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and I am in Christ, the life of Jesus is in me.
Would also prohibit me from wearing fabrics woven of two kinds of thread, or prohibit me from having bacon on my cheeseburger?
I am not under the curse of the powerless law. I am set free in Christ.
HTH
Are you suggesting that we (or you) are free to pick up sticks on the Sabbath because Jesus is the fulfillment of the fourth commandment?
@Steven J
Yes, exactly.
I am free in Christ to gather firewood on the (ritual Jewish) Sabbath. In Christ, I am not under the condemnation of the Law.
Recall that the religious leaders accused Jesus of violating the Law when he picked grain on the Sabbath.
Matthew 12:1
Mark 2:23
Luke 6:1
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and I am in Christ, the life of Jesus is in me.
Would also prohibit me from wearing fabrics woven of two kinds of thread, or prohibit me from having bacon on my cheeseburger?
I am not under the curse of the powerless law. I am set free in Christ.
HTH
Do Not Covet
James Romance said...
The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others", in real life it only says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors [things]", which Christians twist around to mean "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others". It says nothing about coveting things which belong to strangers, just neighbors.
@James Romance
You seem to make a careful distinction between "strangers" and "neighbors".
Have you ever considered what the Bible has to say about who your neighbor is?
Since it was God that gave the instruction concerning a "neighbor", perhaps should consider what God means by "neighbor".
---
One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?"
The man answered, "'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
'Right!' Jesus told him. 'Do this and you will live!'
The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Luke 10:25-29 (NLT)
Jesus gives the man an answer to his question, in the form of a parable. The answer is that a stranger is a man's neighbor.
HTH
The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others", in real life it only says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors [things]", which Christians twist around to mean "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others". It says nothing about coveting things which belong to strangers, just neighbors.
@James Romance
You seem to make a careful distinction between "strangers" and "neighbors".
Have you ever considered what the Bible has to say about who your neighbor is?
Since it was God that gave the instruction concerning a "neighbor", perhaps should consider what God means by "neighbor".
---
One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?"
The man answered, "'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
'Right!' Jesus told him. 'Do this and you will live!'
The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Luke 10:25-29 (NLT)
Jesus gives the man an answer to his question, in the form of a parable. The answer is that a stranger is a man's neighbor.
HTH
God Does Not Sin
Pvblivs said...
So, if Jesus ever got angry (according to your interpretation) he was a sinner. And if your deity "pours out his wrath" on people, he is a sinner as well. Anger is a prerequisite for wrath. You can be angry, but not act it out, in which case you are not wrathful. Or you can act on it, in which case you are wrathful.
Not all anger is unrighteous. And the righteous wrath of God is not preceded by unrighteous anger (contrary to your assertion.)
The anger of Jesus in the temple was righteous. The anger of Jesus was not of malice or spite. His anger was rightful at the desecration of his father's house. Jesus took righteous action. There was no sin in the anger of Jesus.
Jesus teaches the meaning of the commandment clearly. It's not just the action of taking an innocent life that breaks the commandment. It's the condition of a man's heart that finds him guilty of breaking the commandment. This isn't something I made up. This is the clear teaching of Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:21-23)
But you choose to disregard the clear meaning of God's word, and choose to substitute your own contorted thinking. For what reason? Do you find pleasure in misrepresenting the truth of God's word? Do you take delight in leading people astray from the path that leads to life?
I fear that you have fallen prey to Satan's desire to lead the whole world astray. (cf. Revelation 12:9)
So, if Jesus ever got angry (according to your interpretation) he was a sinner. And if your deity "pours out his wrath" on people, he is a sinner as well. Anger is a prerequisite for wrath. You can be angry, but not act it out, in which case you are not wrathful. Or you can act on it, in which case you are wrathful.
Not all anger is unrighteous. And the righteous wrath of God is not preceded by unrighteous anger (contrary to your assertion.)
The anger of Jesus in the temple was righteous. The anger of Jesus was not of malice or spite. His anger was rightful at the desecration of his father's house. Jesus took righteous action. There was no sin in the anger of Jesus.
Jesus teaches the meaning of the commandment clearly. It's not just the action of taking an innocent life that breaks the commandment. It's the condition of a man's heart that finds him guilty of breaking the commandment. This isn't something I made up. This is the clear teaching of Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:21-23)
But you choose to disregard the clear meaning of God's word, and choose to substitute your own contorted thinking. For what reason? Do you find pleasure in misrepresenting the truth of God's word? Do you take delight in leading people astray from the path that leads to life?
I fear that you have fallen prey to Satan's desire to lead the whole world astray. (cf. Revelation 12:9)
Two Sets of Ten Commandments
Coryat said...
Why Ray old bean, I'm afraid you'll have to be far more specific. More than one version of the commandments was given; see for example the contrasting versions given in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34.
Also, you've yet to answer how you decide what is for example 'ceremonial' law, and what isn't. Since I know you follow a straight sola scriptura reading, surely you could fill us in?
Curious minds want to know!
@Coryat
Exodus 34 says that words written on the replacment tables were the SAME WORDS written on the original tablets:
"The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke." Exodus 34:1
God gives instruction to Moses. He tells Moses to write down other things, which are different from the words that God himself engraves on the stone tablets.
cf. Deuteronomy 4:13
cf. Deuteronomy 5:22
God himself engraves the Ten Commandments on the first stone tablets.
God himself engraves the SAME WORDS on the replacement tablets.
God also commands Moses to write down OTHER commandments for the Children of Israel.
Why Ray old bean, I'm afraid you'll have to be far more specific. More than one version of the commandments was given; see for example the contrasting versions given in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34.
Also, you've yet to answer how you decide what is for example 'ceremonial' law, and what isn't. Since I know you follow a straight sola scriptura reading, surely you could fill us in?
Curious minds want to know!
@Coryat
Exodus 34 says that words written on the replacment tables were the SAME WORDS written on the original tablets:
"The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke." Exodus 34:1
God gives instruction to Moses. He tells Moses to write down other things, which are different from the words that God himself engraves on the stone tablets.
cf. Deuteronomy 4:13
cf. Deuteronomy 5:22
God himself engraves the Ten Commandments on the first stone tablets.
God himself engraves the SAME WORDS on the replacement tablets.
God also commands Moses to write down OTHER commandments for the Children of Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)