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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)