the Nature of God
You there. Yes you! Person reading this blog! Please take my little multiple-choice quiz, by posting a comment with your answers. Feel free to justify your answers and make up your own. If you are not a Christian, you can always use option d) I don't believe in God/Christianity/the Bible.
Question 1:
Mel is gay and Christian. This makes him
a) a fraud, not a real Christian. Extra wrath for him!
b) a man struggling with the sin of homosexuality. We should pray for his healing.
c) a courageous man who happens to interpret complex scriptures differently. Welcome to our church!
Question 2: 1 Samuel 15:3... "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants.". God's motive is requesting the death of the infants is
a) Anger. The sin of the Amalekites is so vile that it infects even their babies who become guilty by association.
b) Practicality. A nation at war, like Isreal, can not reasonably adopt orphaned babies.
c) Mercy. He is welcoming the kids into heaven, rather then forcing them to grow up as desised orphans.
Question 3: The doors of hell are
a) Red hot, gleaming with the eternal wrath of God.
b) Locked from the inside, because men remain too stubborn to repent and enter heaven.
c) the gateway to salvation, after the sinner has repented and been purified.
Question 4: You are watching "The 40 year old Virgin" with Jesus. He is
a) Angry. Promisquity and cursing offends His Holy Nature.
b) Sad. Why must you waste your time on such drivel that pollutes your mind?
c) Amused. That Steve Carell is funny!
Question 5: The doctrine of double predestination is(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_predestination)
a) True and a reflection of God's Perfect Soveriegnty.
b) Biblically supportable, but morally troublesome.
c) A horrible travesty and a slur on the Love of God.
Question 6: Is AIDS God's punishment for sexual sin?
a) yes
b) no, because it also infects innocent children
c) no, because God would not cause such suffering
Question 7: At a Hindu worship ceremony, miraculous events occur. This shows that
a) the Hindus are worshipping demon-gods, which have evil powers
b) God's goodness transcends the religion of human beings
c) we should all convert to Hinduism.
Question 8: Those that never hear about Jesus are
a) all going to hell (see Romans 2)
b) saved if they respond to what little they know about God (see Romans 2)
c) as much God's beloved children as Christians
Question 9: On Judgement Day, God's response to this quiz will be:
a) Anger at such blasphemy. Less rewards for Filth-Man.
b) Sorrow at such confusion. It's all so clear in the Bible!
c) Pride at Filth-Man's honesty. Searching for truth gets you extra rewards!
I'm not a very good Christian. After 24 years at it, I still haven't figured out the fundamental spiritual question: what is the nature of God?
A very wise person once asked me "why must God be good?" I had no answer. There is no logial reason I can think of why a god couldn't be vindictive, or hateful, or capricious, or use the Earth as His personal playground. Skeptics love to argue that the God of the Bible portrays all these characteristics. (I was dicussing "Bible controversies" with a friend the other day. I mentioned eternal security, women's roles in the church, and predestination. He suggested "the Old Testament".)
I, for one, am not equipped to discuss the "goodness" of God. It is too big a topic for me, too broad, and too philosophically complex (is whatever God does "good" by definition)? But I do feel prepared to ask "does God act the way we would expect a good human being to act"? Jesus certainly did. How about now?
When C.S. Lewis choose to portray God (or Jesus, I guess) as a Lion in the Narnia books, he made a brilliant choice. Lions are awesome. Who doesn't love lions? They are beautiful, majestic, and flat-out cool. Just let one look at you though. Just let it stare at you with its dead golden eyes. If that's too much for you, look away, and notice that it's forearms and chest are massive, a perfect wrestler's build for taking down prey much bigger than you. Much as you admire the lion from a distance, get within range and you become nothing but meat, and both of you now it.
Just like lions, God scares me. I'm fascinated with, but afraid of God. I can't help wondering if the fundementalists are right, if God is just waiting to pour out his wrath and anger on a sinful, fallen world, a world that he created and is going to destroy. And even if He does, does that make Him wrong? I don't feel qualified to judge God's morality, but I do need to determine my own response. Should I worship an angry God so that He doesn't smite me? Or should I worship a gentle God, out of gratefulness that He won't? Such questions...
I think I need to decide what I believe about God's nature before I read the Bible. The Bible is just too confusing otherwise. God punishes and God rewards, God smites and God forgives, God predestines Pharoh to destruction, God calls all people to himself, and Filth-man keeps scratching his head. Wonder how we got so many denominations? Try reading the Bible... not just the parts you like, but all of it. Most Christians, I think, have a basic idea of God in their head. This idea helps them understand difficult passages ("well, we know God is loving, so there was a good reason for smiting that person") and make sense of the general mess of scripture.
I went to the Christian bookstore the other day, hoping to find a book on hell reccomended to me by my pastor. The store had one shelf of unhelpful theology books, compared to about 8 shelves of romance. (A Christian romance must be the most boring book ever written. "He looked into her eyes, and felt weak with the desire to begin a Harris-approved courtship, cumulating suprisingly quickly in a demure, alcohol-free wedding.") So it's up to you, my friends/bored people surfing the internet. Answer the questions above. Then tell me what you think about the nature of God.
41 comments:
My answers:
1)C (look at the two most important commandments)
2)D- that is the old testament and the old testament does not count :) or option E- the death of children was not as vile and offensive as it is now (basically a cultural thing of war we don't understand)
3)D-Not as Christians what we should be focusing on, as it is certainly not what the Bible focuses on (ie: i dunno but God has not explained it so I can understand so I am going to try and follow what I do understand)
4)B-not because the movie is terrible but we have better things to do (however Steve Carell is hilarious)
5)C (however I would not use those words to describe it)
6)D-No for God promised to not cause such mass suffering again/AIDS can be controlled by people and therefore is not like locusts falling from the sky
7)Maybe B? I dunno that is a hard one (can we prove it is a real miracle?)
8)C
9)C although sorry Filth-man there is no points system with God, God loves me just as much as you even though you are much smarter then me :)
Closing brilliant thoughts: If you had to know the fundamental nature of God to be a good christian then I guess no one is being saved and we are all going to Hell. God talked in parables and metaphors, through men and women, with prophets and prostitutes. If God wanted everyone to have a nice clear cross-cultural unifying understanding of what He is about then instead He would have created a book of lists and procedures.
I have a boss who I listen to because he gives me money with which I use to live and survive. I get a list of rules and regulations to which I must obey, if I don't I am fired. If you are lucky you will respect your boss and even like them however it is rare you will actually "love" your boss.
From everything I can tell God does not want to just be our "boss". God wants us to love Him. You do not get someone to love you by ordering them around and giving them lists of chores. You do it by caring for them and being there when they need you.
To love someone you also need to have faith and trust. God must have faith and trust in people that we will find Him despite the lack of step-by-step instructions and confusing pain and evil in the world. And we as humans must have faith and trust that God is there even when we cannot understand His true nature and the world seems entirely too confusing.
If God just wanted to be the boss he would have made things much easier for us.
1 b.
2 d. Displaying the severity of His holiness. God means business when he requires perfection, and the implications of our actions sometimes have an effect on people around us--including loved young ones. (So, maybe close to answer a.)
3. d. Broken down and filled with a massive pile of rubble. Although there is a way in & out, no one but Jesus has ever passed through.
4. c with maybe a sprinkling of a.
5. d. Intellectual masturbation. Who cares whether Christians are called/predestined/ordained or not & conversely, non-Christians? It is not our job to figure these things out: it _is_ our job, however, to spread the word of Christ's supremacy over death & sin.
6. d. Maybe. See Question 2.
7. d. Uncertain: perhaps a or b. I'd hafta know more about these ceremonies.
8. d. All of the above.
9. c.
More comments & thought later, when I have time ;)
LE.
looking at your answers:
Kathryn's anwers to 1,4,5,6 (basically the same as c)7,8,9 are clear. Your "closing" is brilliant. God did indeed speak through a bunch of different people in a bunch of different places. Maybe we should be amazed at the Unity rather than Disunity of Scripture.
About # 2, what do you mean by "the OT" does not count? The killing of children probably wasn't as vile to the soldiers doing it as it would be today... but does that change how God feels about it?
#3, I will have to disagree with you, as the nature of hell is my personal obsession. I think it speaks volumes about God's character how he treats his enemies. (for those who don't know, "the Gates of Hell are locked from the inside" is C.S. Lewis phrase meaning that man, not God, is what keeps men in hell.)
LE:
Answers to 1,2,3,6,7,9 are clear.
For #4, is Jesus both amused and angry? Come to think of it, that does seem very Jesus-like.
#5 may seem pointless to debate for us.. the problem is I've seen the effects of hard-core Calvinism (ie apartheid supported by the church) and I don't like them. Remember, I'm trying to discover the nature of God. Surely, a God who arbitrarily chooses has a different nature from one who gives people free will.
I don't understand your answer to 8. How can people "all be going to hell" and "be saved" at the same time?
I'd love to hear your extra thoughts.
I was joking when I said the OT does not count (note the smiley face). It was in reference to how Christians tend to only concentrate on the NT.
As for the idea of Hell. I truly do understand your conflict with the nature of Hell. However I think it is more telling what God concentrates on with the Bible. He does not go on with great explicit length about the nature of Hell. However he does go on with great explicit length about the nature of love, grace and forgiveness. Those are the things I choose to focus on (perhaps as a cope out of the hard questions that will never truly be answered until answered by God himself). Think about it, the only true list of rules God gives down to the people of the earth focuses mainly on love. There is no mention of Hell or punishment. I think that is the most telling.
Sorry my list I am referring to of course is the ten commandments
Keeping in mind I posted questions I DON'T know the answer to, my best guesses:
1:
b, though I do think he should be welcome in our church anyway.
2: All the above. In a harsh world, harsh decisions need to be made (b) A and C are relevant as well, though... the adult Amalekites are defnitely destroyed in anger, and the kids (hopefully) have at least a shot at heaven afterwards.
3: leaning towards c... I tentatively believe in the potential for salvation after death, but some people might not accept it as in answer b.
4: b
5: c. Not to say there is no Biblical basis, but I hate Calvinism.
6: I'm guessing C, but it's certainly a nasty natural consequence of sexual immorality.
7: I think most "miracles" aren't real miracles at all. I would have to see the one individual miracle to pass judgement. A or B.
8: B.
9: Let's hope C:)
Criticize please...
Question 1:
Mel is gay and Christian. This makes him
B: So long as he recognizes it as a sin and truly is repentant. It is ok to struggle with sin and to fail but not give into it as if it is acceptable.
Question 2: 1 Samuel 15:3... "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants.". God's motive is requesting the death of the infants is
D: By leaving descendents of a concurred people you leave people who have motive to bring back and explore old belief systems. It was necessary to remove these belief systems. God being all knowing knew that if this was not done other problems would ensue. It is also a lot easier for people to get right then. “Kill them all except the ones at these addresses :S”
I have not looked up the full context of this passage, but if anything is out of whack, let me know and ill give a more detail response for the situation. Also it should be noted that God has asked for people to be destroyed and humans did not obey resulting in further death from wars.
Is it wrong to kill 1000 people so that 2000 years later 1000000 people more get saved?
Question 3: The doors of hell are
B: is what the word says but I believe all the descriptions in the bible about hell are given in the most layman’s of terms. The reason for this was given by Jesus “If you cannot understand earthly things, how are you going to understand heavenly things”
Basically, Hell = Bad, Heaven = Good. Anything beyond that is rather moot.
Question 4: You are watching "The 40 year old Virgin" with Jesus. He is
D: He would not watch it and would be Angry and Sad. All are works are filthy rags to God, and as a Christian you should know better. Probably sad as well, and if I was him (which I’m not and do not aim to speak for God) I would feel betrayed… what was the point of my death so future generations could gorge themselves with sin.
Question 5: The doctrine of double predestination is(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_predestination)
A,B and C: This is complex and to much to write down. Lets go for coffee and ill tell you how this theory is right and yet wrong at the same time.
Question 6: Is AIDS God's punishment for sexual sin?
D: No, punishment happens after death for those not under Jesus.
Question 7: At a Hindu worship ceremony, miraculous events occur. This shows that
A and D: Mass hypnotism, delusion, even illusions for someone. Im sure there are others options as well
Question 8: Those that never hear about Jesus are
Moot point but good question. If we work from Christianity we must believe God is good, we must also believe that we are unfit to judge who should go to hell and who should go to heaven. If God is good, whatever happens to these people must be right.
Also there are only 2 ways to get into heaven from what I understand
1. Jesus
2. Being perfect (good luck with that one)
Question 9: On Judgement Day, God's response to this quiz will be:
D: Minimal compared to the rest of your life.
NOTE: if anyone thinks my theology is wrong i ask you to correct me. I will of course defend it. Whom ever wins both partys should adoped that belief.
Elliot... I will comment on your answers, but I don't think "winner-takes-all" arguing is a surefire way to come up with correct understandings of God.
1) we have the same answer
2) You give a common (and fairly Biblical) answer, but I'm curious how small Amalekite children, adopted by Isreal, would affect the salvation of others down the road.
3)I agree, but looks of fundamentalists "know" EXACTLY what heaven/hell are like. Maybe you should debate them:)
4)Is watching an offensive movie always sin? How offensive?
5)Your answer is a logical contradiction, but whenever you try to reconcile an omniscient, omnipotent being with human free will you're bound to run into those.
6)Do you think that (unlike in the Bible) God never punishes people here and now?
7)Gotcha... now you need to convince the Hindus:)
8)I agree, but... the whole point of this post is to try and find out the nature of God, which would then help us to answer such questions. Some theologans think hell is justice regardless of circumstances and therefore "good:. I don't.
9)Perhaps, though given an infinite amount of time, every thought or deed has plenty of time to be dealt with.
Thank you for your answers, they are well thought out. I wolcome more combatitive people to challenge Elliot's theology!
Final comment, when Elliot states the only realistic way to get into heaven is "Jesus"... there are tons of opinions around from what that means, from Unitary Universalism (the price has been paid, everyone gets into heaven), to CS Lewis (those who strive to see God will), to contemporary Evangelical thought (say a prayer of salvation to Jesus specificallly) to Paul Washer (dedicated, consistent Christ-following is necessary).
People disagree about the nature of God. People also disagree about the "acceptable" practices surrounding God.
Do you not think that prophets and disciples were always in complete agreement with each other about their understanding of God, and then the practice of that understanding? Jesus was ON EARTH and they still argued amongst themselves.
Can someone argue that one of the disciples or prophets or whomever will NOT go to heaven because of those disagreements? Paul did not get into heaven because he did not quite understand. One of the strongest arguments against that position is that so many people in the Bible had different ways of worshiping God and yet we are told they are people of God and with whom God is pleased.
It is ludicrous, and personally it is one of the most frustrating things about being Christian (which is why i now go one this tangent on the divisive nature of the Church), that because people disagree one person is right and the other is wrong.
I understand the need for dialog however not confrontation. Let's all argue until someone gets frustrated or tired or the other person finds some logical fallacy to hold onto. Then that person can "win" and we can all "praise God" because we have been shown the "true light" and are no longer in mortal danger.
Just because someone can "win" an argument with their human understanding, does not mean that they understand God.
No one does.
nothing about God is logical!!! (well perhaps not "nothing" but a lot of stuff does not follow logically)
That is ok, He is God, that is His prerogative.
Kathryn, I hope you do not understand my purpose in writing this post. You, of all people, should know how much church division bothers me. You should also know that I believe that many people, of many different beliefs, will find themselves in heaven one day.
However, the truth is that what we believe DOES matter, to some degree or another. "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved"... we can argue until we are blue in the face about what exactly that entails... the point is it does matter (to some degree at least) and our actions will reflect our ideas.
If we believe God to be vengeful and destructive to his enemies, how will that affect our treatment of those we dislike? If we believe God is infinitely forgiving, how will that affect our attitudes toward those who sin against us? If we believe that God has pre-destined everything, how does that affect our efforts to change things?
Finally, Kathryn makes some great points:
Jesus disciples argued lots. The Bible records Peter and Paul getting into a major theological debate. I find it hard to believe that, say, Paul and James would have identical theologies.
And winning an argument about some of the toughest theological issues around, which have puzzled the great theological and philosophical minds throughout the centures, is NOT the same thing as understanding God. Kathryn is quite correct.
For those interested, my friend Jacob has an excellent post about how our beliefs- in this case, about hell- affect our behaviour. See http://twentyfeet.blogspot.com/2006/11/problem-with-hell.html.
2. I refer you to this chaos theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
If you are an all knowing God and outside of time, you will know how everything will transpire and actually see the differences of allowing just one person to live and the mistakes men will make. I don’t think God loves killing people but if he has to let some go to save many more then he will, he is the only one capable of working for the greater good… men can never do this.
4. Sin translates to missing the mark. What that is referring to is the mark of perfection. Everything we do is sin, EVERYTHING we do that is not perfect is sin, it misses the mark. It is like a bulls eye in a bulls eye in a bulls eye shot with a bow, utterly imposable. (Note even if someone hit absolutely perfect, there was still sin in that they may have moved not as perfect as they could have.
Is watching an offensive movie always sin? No I don’t believe it is (at least by the way humans categorise sin.) If I am watching a movie to learn and understand a culture, that is alright, so long as it does not cause me to error while doing so. For example I can understand how a whore house works and witness to them, but I cannot partake in there immoral behaviour… I’m not sure Jesus ever found sin funny and we are to strive to be like him. We will error but we need to be aware that we error and keep walking the walk.
5. No it isn’t. But to be fair to both of us, I never explained how it can actually work. You cannot take all of A and all of B and all of C and say it works but you can take from each and they do work without logistical errors.
6. I believe that people punish themselves sufficiently. I don’t see god with a magnifying glass hitting ants. I see him as a loving father wanting all to be saved but unfortunately this cannot happen in an acceptable fashion. He is a God taking us away from hell, rescuing us in the night, a God who always holds out his hand just hopping you will grab it. I believe god will let you fail and fall and die but out of love and sovereignty. God has seemed to move away from the direct “punishing” method from the old testament, this does not rule out god doing this in today’s world but (and I’m asking a question here) not tell people when they are being punished by him?
8. Why don’t you? If God being only good says that it must happen… how could it not be good?
(is the book Stan mentioned the 4 views on hell?)
COMMENT: On the idea of discussion
We need to make sure we stick to the fundamentals. I believe arguing if one should buy tim hortans coffee is rather a waist, (though talking about how you are convicted is fine) but arguing fundamentals is necessary. It is not ok (despite what our culture says) for you to believe what you believe and for me to believe what I believe, when it comes to Christianity.
I as a Christian cannot believe in the resurrection of a baby Jesus in Ottawa on the 1st of every month … I’m sorry you’re wrong. I can also not believe that Mr. Smith found some gold plates from a vision and that it said I can be a God and have spirit babies… sorry you are also wrong.
Test everything to scripture that is how to know if you are on the right path… and I’m going to have to side with Paul Washer on how to be saved… everyone in the bible who was saved did what Paul is telling us to do (because we have managed to forget)
I would just note that arguing whether Christ is born every Thursday is NOT a fundamental belief of Christianity.
crap Elliot, that's a ton of commentary. Nicely done.
2: I understand where you're coming from. So is World History the best of all possibilites? How depressing.
4: Good explanations.
5: yes, please do explain this one to me. The more I think about it, the more I think crossing omniscience and omnipotence with human free will HAS to create logical problems.
6: I understand. There's no shortage of "prophets" claiming speak for God when something bad happens. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/tsunami04c.htm) I tend to think they're full of it.
8: yes. that's the book.
If God does something I consider the height of Injustice, that creates a problem, does it not? My thoughts on hell have been beaten to death on this blog. IF you are interested, here are the links... (
http://filth-man.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html) 5th post down and
(http://filth-man.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=33) 4th one down. Dang it why won't "blogger" link properly?
My thoughts about the imporance of belief are in the comment to Kathryn above. In theory, I agree with "test everything by scripture", the problem is that the Bible is so darn confusing. (Imagine basing your views on, say, Abortion on 1 Sam 15:3).
We always need to ask ourselves 2 questions: a)how important is it to be right (vs wrong) in this issue and b) how I can I be so sure that I myself am right?
I have thoughts on Paul Washer but they don't really fit here. I will post them at a more appropriate location. For those interested, the link is http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=3504800273.
Joel, stop being useful at camp and come instruct us with dazzling theology!
Kathryn is right, we all know Christ was born every Wednesday:)
*snaps fingers* gerr why do i always think thursday!!
I quite like your reasoning about the asking of questions to yourself before doing something in regards to scripture. (ill be pocketing them for future)
Oh and *i know i am going to step into it when i say this... but how is the bible confusing?
I know some people find it confusing (saying more might get me stoned to death) perhaps i am being nit picky but i would class it as thought provoking.
All answers are there i simply need to learn more about God and his word. (it is my weakness not the books) There are many ways to do this and make sense of scripture.
Can you facebook me an area that would be a good example? Im not saying i won’t be confused but a few verses in the bible hardly makes the whole bible confusing.
Perhaps I should have said "I find the Bible confusing". Where the fault lies doesn't really matter, what matters it that I am confused. It is certainly thought provoking as well. And "all" answers are not there, which is why I can ask the questions I have on this blog and get a variety of answers. Perhaps you mean that all the answers God wants us to have are there?
Go to your Bible and read John 3. Then read Matthew 25. Both passages talk about that all-important concept, salvation. Both are speeches by Jesus. They may not flat-out contradict one another, but they certainly don't say the same thing either.
Dude that is like 2 whole chapters... ill see what i can do
I started writing something and just deleted it. To be honest, i don’t see any contradiction at all, in fact I see nothing similar in topic between Matthew 25 and John 3. I might be coming across as ignorant but you are going to have to spell it out for me. Matt seems to be talking about the difference in works coming from faith in God and John seems to be talking about having to be born again and why men resist. Naturaly being reborn will produce works because of your faith in Christ (natural consequence of belief)
Focus on the last parable in Matthew 25, the sheep and the goats. Forget everything you know about Christianity, all preconcieved theologies, and read it. It's about final judgement, right?
According to this chapter, what is the key to heaven? "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink.." If you don't do those things, hell! (Nothing about "faith" or "savior" in THIS PASSAGE, right?)
Now, according to Matt 25, how does God judge a selfish Christian? How does God judge an atheist philanthropist? think about it...
John 3 paints a very different picture of salvation, the one we generally believe as Christians. "He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already". Not a word about helping the poor in this one. Faith (as we all know) leads to salvation.
Now we reconcile these two, because we must, by assuming that the "sheep" in the Matthew passage are doing good works out of faith, and that all non-Christians don't do good works (not a good assumption). That way the scriptures "harmonize"- sort of. We say "naturaly being reborn will produce works because of your faith in Christ"- and so do I- so we have a coherent picture of salvation.
But imagine reading the Bible without a prior knowlede that "salvation comes by faith and not by works". Imagine simply reading, without any prior exposure to Christianity, Matthew and John back to back. I imagine one would be quite confused as to how to attain salvation. One might naturally ask (as might a Roman Catholic) "why is the John passage (written later in history) so much more important that Matthew passage must to forced to align with it?"
If scripture requires such interpretation (adding and changing things around) to make sense (and it does) I, for one, would deem it confusing.
again?
Oh wow, this is a biggie because i going to have to say the i disagree with many of your claims. (Disagreeing out of love of course *hug*)
Now I do think the bible is confusing to those that are not of God. I believe to successfully understand the bible and scripture is not something man can do when he is filled of worldliness and empty of God. So if your point is that someone won’t understand what is being said about sheep and goats… yeah I think they won’t unless they are at the very least seeking rather then challenging. I know many people that have parts of the bible explained to them and still don’t get it… even though it is at times very simple.
That aside I would like to put a disclaimer up now. Anyone that decides to message me with “I find the bible confusing, are you saying I don’t have a heart for god?!?!?!” No that is not what I’m saying. There are parts of the bible we all need help with and the more you go into scripture the deeper everything becomes. However if thinking I meant that will get you to read your bible more… then I meant it ;)
Now as a believer reading even with no past knowledge (which was me up until about 3 years ago) understanding the bible is difficult at times but lets face it there are many MANY supports for you that can help, for example; Google, friends, churchmen, God, the Holy Spirit etc. And that is not to say you should take what you find at face value, it means you should take everything that you can find and then digest it to find the truth.
You may argue that people do this and still get different views, and the bible does address this in areas and how it is ok so long as the fundamentals are not messed with.
I have to say that though I think some of your observations are interesting, I think the majority of the claims that were made here are false. Please allow me to explain.
============
Focus on the last parable in Matthew 25, the sheep and the goats. Forget everything you know about Christianity, all preconceived theologies, and read it. It's about final judgment, right?
=============
~ I am with you so far. This parable is about the final judgment in revelation
=============
According to this chapter, what is the key to heaven? "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink.." If you don't do those things, hell! (Nothing about "faith" or "savior" in THIS PASSAGE, right?)
=============
~ I have to respectfully disagree. We have to go to the first 2 verses of the parable and look at what it says
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
~ It starts with Jesus coming to earth (revelation)
32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
~ He will separate his sheep (believers) from the goats (unbelievers) as a shepherd separates them. We need to stop and look into how a shepherd does this. So lets look,
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_5fkrWRcCYEJ:www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/doc9.htm+how+do+sheep+know+there+shepherd&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6
Now I didn’t read everything there but there is enough to validate my point. Sheep have faith and believe in their shepherd and know his voice, Jesus calls we listen, someone else calls we stay away. My point is to even be a sheep we must believe and have faith, so perhaps this chapter didn’t spell it out, but it is implicate.
=============
Now, according to Matt 25, how does God judge a selfish Christian? How does God judge an atheist philanthropist? think about it...
==============
~God will judge all Christians saved, not on there own merit but because of Jesus. So a selfish Christian would be forgiven. (Note I am not using the thrown around version of Christian, there are many people who claim to be Christian but are not, they will not be saved for they are not actually Christian)
============
John 3 paints a very different picture of salvation, the one we generally believe as Christians. "He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already". Not a word about helping the poor in this one. Faith (as we all know) leads to salvation.
============
~They are both painting the same picture (salvation) but different parts of it. Faith with works leads to salvation (except in extenuating circumstances, like you die 10 seconds after being saved… not much time for works.) To be clear Faith saves you but faith should have works, for faith without works is dead.
============
Now we reconcile these two, because we must, by assuming that the "sheep" in the Matthew passage are doing good works out of faith, and that all non-Christians don't do good works (not a good assumption). That way the scriptures "harmonize"- sort of. We say "naturally being reborn will produce works because of your faith in Christ"- and so do I- so we have a coherent picture of salvation.
============
Ok there are many parts of what you said that I am going to break down. You say we must reconcile these two salvation passages… by saying that means that they are somehow separated and do not work with one another… but they do work (as I hope I made clear above) so we are not reconciling anything but stepping back from the painting and seeing how they go together.
The next thing said was that we had to assume that the sheep in Matthew are doing good works out of faith. To be a sheep you MUST do good works out of faith. There is no written word that I am aware of that says the followers of Christ don’t do good works out of faith. Moreover if you go further down in Matt 25 God tells them they HAVE done good works because of their faith (Matt 25: 35-40)
The next part is that we are assuming that a non Christian cannot do a good work. That once again is not an assumption. Truth is none of us can do a good work without God. That is what separates the sheep and the goats. They could have done the same act, feeding a starving child but the sheep did it out of Gods love and for God, where the goat did it to be kind, for HIS moral or HIS conscience… the goat did it for himself. That is why it does not count and it is not assumption that they did not do a good work.
I want to be clear that all people can do “good” things to the human definition, but the biblical definition “no one is good but God” you can do nothing good if God is not in it.
==========
But imagine reading the Bible without a prior knowledge that "salvation comes by faith and not by works". Imagine simply reading, without any prior exposure to Christianity, Matthew and John back to back. I imagine one would be quite confused as to how to attain salvation. One might naturally ask (as might a Roman Catholic) "why is the John passage (written later in history) so much more important that Matthew passage must to forced to align with it?"
If scripture requires such interpretation (adding and changing things around) to make sense (and it does) I, for one, would deem it confusing.
==========
~Ok as I said I have read the bible without the prior knowledge you speak of, I once recall saying “I don’t get Christianity, why is there a new testament, what was wrong with the old. The fact that they rewrote it shows that they don’t know what there talking about” As you can see… I knew nothing. And I still believe that if someone reads the bible with a closed heart they will not understand it as I did not understand anything. So if I read all of Matthew and all of john and if I still was confused… I could just ask someone.. or better yet I could keep reading. Im not saying people cant be confused when reading the bible but rather I am saying that these chapters are not a contradiction and that the two passages were not forced to align because they already do, as all of gods word does.
For your last 2 claims please show me evidence because I do not know of any.
To say that those people who find some parts of the Bible confusing are not "of God", astounds me. It reminds of the story "The Emperor's New Clothes". People are going to go around pretending that they understand even if they don't just because they don't want to be accused of not being close enough to God. What a horrible stigma to put on someone.
"I am sorry you don't understand? Well that is because you are not 'of God' enough, perhaps if you pray a little more you will get it".
Did apostles not question God? Did prophets never have trouble with scriptures? Were they not "of God"? Did Jesus not say "why have you forsaken me?"
I find that it is an arbitrary statement to throw around that can be potentially damaging to the growth of someone's faith.
It is quite ironic to claim that the Bible is not confusing, and then come up with outside sources to explain one's point of view. Isn't that the essence of confusing? To require clarification (or interpretation) because something is not self-evident on it's own?
When did God start choosing who could understand the Bible?
That sounds very much like predestination to me.
Only the cool "chosen" group gets to understand the Bible.
This is not some secret society that God is trying to keep a secret. He wants everyone to understand and know Him.
I personally think that God is going to respect and be more pleased with those that question and try and understand Him rather then those who blindly follow whatever "googled" answer they can find that makes the most sense to them.
Elliot and Kathryn, thank you for your comments.
I will post again on this topic, but somehow I feel we will end up "agreeing to disagree".
First of all, Kathryn gets it. Good answer. We should get together and get married someday.
Elliott...
"I know many people that have parts of the bible explained to them and still don’t get it… even though it is at times very simple." If many people don't understand something, perhaps that makes it confusing, no? Have you considered that your own "simple" understanding of a particular issue may be incorrect?
I think your understanding of the "Sheep and Goats" is very Biblical. However, the fact that you need to make reference to outside sources shows that it is not-self evident in meaning. In fact, Jesus agknowledges the confusing-ness of his own parables. (Luke 8:10). Please remember that when Jesus preached- in person- the general response was often "huh?" Ever since Jesus spoke, people have been confused by his teaching.
The many different denominations, beliefs, theogies and the like all centered on Jesus and the Bible point to the wide variety of ways in which Scripture is interpreted. There are two possible responses, I think, to this fact:
A: Believe that the Scriptures are difficult to understand, and as a result me may/will get it wrong sometimes. This is my position.
B: Believe that the Spirit of God brings correct knowledge of the Bible to those that are "of God". In this case, we are left with some uncomfortable questions:
1: "Why does God only reveal the Bible correctly to some?" Why do people as devoted to God as Billy Graham, CS Lewis and Mother Theresa have varying theologies? Are some of them "not of God"?
2: "How can I be sure that I am in the correct group"? You say "well the Spirit told me so.. but I have news for you, the "Spirit" tells lots of people lots of things. Reverend Fred Phelps from Westboro Baptist Church of "God hates Fags" fame probably believes that God helps him to understand the Bible correctly.
So unless we can find some way to separate those who "Really" have the Spirit guiding them to those who think they do (and "well, I can feel Him moving" doesn't cut it) we're back to confused. (Sorry, but "the Spirit told me" is a pet peeve of mine".
About the parable... most of the ways we disagree will not be resolved by arguments.
I will just point out again, that, in the parable Jesus tells, the "sheep and goats" are NOT defined by belief. They are defined by specifically explained actions.
I'm not sure which "last 2 claims" you want evidence for. Sounds like you are agreeing with me, that you DID read the gospels and you DID find them confusing.
I'm not sure that we will come to any agreement on this topic. I think we disagree onsuch a fundamental level, that we will ahve to "agree to disagree", so to speak.
If you want to find more scripture that others find confusing, do a "google" search and you'll find plenty. If you really want to get into it you could google up atheist websites or the "skeptics annotated Bible" (which is petty and annoying, BTW). If you want to know more of my thoughts on this issue (though I'm not sure why you would) I will direct you to this post:
http://filth-man.blogspot.com/search/label/fiction
Ok, well after the lashing I just received I feel the need to reply.
Lets look at my statements about the bible being confusing, since it seems to have been jumped on.
For clarity’s sake
1. People with a hardened heart to God will not understand his word, certainly not the same as someone who has had there heart replaced by God.
2. There are parts of the bible that everyone will find confusing, Christian and non Christian. There are resources for these people, the primary one being there mind which will be used to filter all the other resources they read up on.
3. I am not ranking Christians by biblical understanding, I am saying that with a heart from God you can understand and if you don’t have a heart from God you can’t because you will be forced to rely on your own understanding not Gods.
4. The bible will never be fully understood because God is too big. But with prayer and time you will continue to grow in understanding. This is because the bible is complex but not confusing.
5. If you look at the outside source it is quotes of the bible and descriptions on being a shepherd. I don’t think that is quite an outside source. I could have pasted all the bible links to the verses but I thought that a webpage with them listed would have been sufficient.
Ok now 3 things ill reply to (I don’t plan to look at this blog again)
1. Skeptics bible, I have looked at it, and on the surface it seems fairly decent. But if you look farther and online you can find sites that answer every objection it has.
2. By being called sheep and being separated from the Goats they by definition have to be followers of Christ and thus must be believers or they would not hear his voice. This is stated well before Jesus talks of works. And it said repeatedly throughout the bible
3. Our God is not a God of confusion, to say the bible confusing says he is. This does not make it confusing but something that is very complex. There is a massive difference between being confused by something complex and the bible being confusing.
4. And this is not what I said at all, please refer to the above, I’m sorry that you took it this way.
"I am sorry you don't understand? Well that is because you are not 'of God' enough, perhaps if you pray a little more you will get it".
Did apostles not question God? Did prophets never have trouble with scriptures? Were they not "of God"? Did Jesus not say "why have you forsaken me?"
I find that it is an arbitrary statement to throw around that can be potentially damaging to the growth of someone's faith.
Note this is what i actualy said
===========
That aside I would like to put a disclaimer up now. Anyone that decides to message me with “I find the bible confusing, are you saying I don’t have a heart for god?!?!?!” No that is not what I’m saying. There are parts of the bible we all need help with and the more you go into scripture the deeper everything becomes.
==========
Elliott, Thanks for your response. Since you don't plan to look at this blog again, and I see that we will never fully agree (and that is ok) this'll be the end of it. Thank you for your comments, and no hard feelings I hope.
Oh and I don't take the skeptic's Bible seriously either. It's, as I said, petty and annoying, just thought you might be interested.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28967
An a different note, above is a pretty sarcastic answer to questions 2 and 6. I'm not sure if it's sacreligious or not, but the underlying idea is worth thinking about.
This has been a very interesting (and at times painful) commentary to read through. Just thought I'd return the discussion to the original questionnaire (if you're still interested), and throw in my two bits... (As a sidenote, Filth-Man, Ruth and I are exceedingly impressed by your articulate responses).
Question 1: Mel is gay and a Christian. This makes him...
d) Gay and a Christian. (Before going any further, I'm going to assume that "Mel" is a man.) The decision to identify himself as "gay" means that he has catapulted himself into a sphere in which he must reconcile his sexual impulses with his religious faith. My perspective on this issue is that sexual orientation (straight or otherwise) is always a choice, and like most things that involve the practice of choice, it will beget further choices. By choosing to follow through with a particular sexual attraction, he has made it necessary for himself to choose whether or not to endorse a particular reading of church doctrine (i.e., the perspective that says the proscription against homosexual acts in the Bible is not a condemnation of a loving, committed, homosexual union today). At this point, his strategies for reconciling his sexuality with his faith can only be a matter between him and God. From my perspective, then, I can only follow Kathryn's response and love Mel as I would love myself. The answer might be different if the question was, "You are experiencing same-sex attraction, and you consider yourself a Christian..." If this was the question, then personally I would have to say that I cannot endorse a reading of Scripture that is purely cultural in that context (see Bill Webb's book on "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals"). But that is purely a personal decision, and has to remain as such. I think the call not to condemn (that is, to love unconditionally) is stronger than any fabricated call to project personally-confirmed morality onto another person.
Okay... that was a long answer. I'll try to be more pithy in the next eight answers.
Question 2: God's motive is requesting the death of the infants in the Bible is...
Part of me would like to answer all three (A, B, and C)... but another part of me wants to say that the scene is actually unjust. And that doesn't make God's request unjust in the context of the event. Is it possible to say that we -- capable of looking back to that brutal, early period in human history, from the perspective of two world wars and millenia of ethical progress -- do understand justice better than it could possibly be understood at the time, and that that makes God's request unjust from perspective of history, but just in the context of the event itself? I'm not sure that such a response is logical -- I guess it probably isn't. That's my answer, though, I think.
Question 3: The doors of hell are...
Oh, Filth-Man, no wonder the comments on this post are so long -- you ask hard questions! Of course, none of us are actually giving the full, detailed responses that percolate and sputter along the edges of our consciousnesses. Just a little blurb...
I think I will answer "b" with a dash of "c". I find it much easier to believe in purgatory, than in an eternal, punitive hell. Then again, I'm only 25 years old, and have seen so little of the world and its evil, so I'm expecting the details of my answer might change.
Question 4: You are watching "The 40-year-old Virgin" with Jesus. He is...
d) Bemused? I think, first of all, that he would be disappointed with our taste in comedy. I'm not saying that Jesus and I share movie interests, but I didn't find "40-year-old Virgin" very funny at all. In terms of the "smuttiness" of the movie, though, I don't think Jesus would care very much. The verse in Philippians 4:8 that one might quote in relation to this question is emphatically positive in its recommendations for what we ought to think about. The other verse about "setting no unclean thing" (Psalms 101:3) is possibly more relevant, but read in conjunction with the other passage, I think that the point is that we're not supposed to waste our lives. And, honestly, the "40-year-old Virgin" is a waste of 90 minutes. That said, I'm really not sure to what extent Jesus involves himself emotionally in our misuses of time -- so, I'll stick with my answer: bemused. By contrast, I am almost positive that Jesus would bring the popcorn for Serenity -- ooh, that Chiwetel Ejiofor, he's soo good.
Question 5: The doctrine of double predestination is...
d) Actually, I didn't want to take the time to look up what "double predestination" is, so I'm not going to answer this question. That said, sometimes I wonder whether predestination might not be a much more complicated idea than we give it credit for ... I mean, sure, there are lots of arrogant prigs out there who like the idea of "predestination" because it facilitates the dictation of who's in and who's out, but there are also quite a few very very intelligent Calvinists, who must be smart enough to have thought through the implications of what seems at first glance to be a rather presumptuous theological position.
Question 6: Is AIDS God's punishment for sexual sin?
d) No. Well, maybe, but I doubt it. It seems, like many other realities in an effed up world, the result of being in an effed up world -- tragically coincidental.
Question 7: At a Hindu worship ceremony, miraculous events occur. This shows that...
b) God's goodness transcends the religion of human beings, AND
d) Religious experience is a fundamental (and mundane) reality in human life. To call such events "illusory" is a rather reductive (and Western) perspective. Instead, I would suggest that the events are natural (and I don't mean that derisively) phenomena that we, with our so-called "Enlightened" point of view, are simply no longer capable of comprehending. I would say that these events have historically contributed to the construction of human religions.
Question 8: Those that never hear about Jesus are...
c) As much God's beloved children as Christians, BUT
d) They may have to live their lives in fear of death because they do not have the assurance (or, at least, the hope) of resurrection that comes with faith in Jesus. After they die, I have no idea what happens -- I just know that God is good and that he is far more just than I am... in fact, he is so just that he understands how justice and mercy are somehow inextricable from each other.
Question 9: On Judgement Day, God's response to this quiz will be:
c) Pride at Filth-Man's honesty. Searching for truth gets you extra rewards! (Well, maybe not pride... I think that he'll be happy that you used your head, since that's why he gave us one at all).
Jeff, your answers are great! I have nothing to argue against them, but to answer your musings...
Yes, the hypothetical Mel is a man, named after Philip Yancey's Gay Christian friend.
For #3, I met a lot of very bad people in South Africa, and I still find it easier to believe in Purgatory than eternal punishment.
double predestination is predestination to both heaven and hell. I realize and agree that predestination can be incredibly complex- reconciling divine soveriegnty and free will is always tricky). Unfortunately, my (very limited) exposure to Calvinist thought has been negative
I found the 40 y old virgin pretty funny, I guess I'm still imature. I haven't seen "serenity".
Oh and Jeff, I appreciate the compliment. Thank you.
Re: the 40-year-old Virgin, we all have immature movie likes... for example, I am somewhat obsessed with Reign of Fire... Dragons and Christian Bale... it doesn't get much better than that.
Ok, I'm here. I confess I haven't read all the comments, but I'll give you a brutally brief summary of my opinions on these issues as of 1 AM, August 6.
1. C, more or less. I think our duty as Christians towards people whom we may believe to be living in sin is to love them, listen to them, and keep our effing mouths shut until we've earned their respect. If we could all really do that, I wouldn't much care what any of us said once we got around to saying things.
2. I really hope God didn't say this. But if he did (and I concede he might have)... it must have been done out of necessity and (somehow) mercy, although my human mind can't grasp how this could be.
3. I hope for C, or something even better. I admit the possibility of B, but it grieves me. Could He allow it? I pray not.
4. Probably B.
5. B and C.
6. To me, this is essentially question 2, with a few details changed (also the answers don't entirely line up). AIDS orphans are no less innocent than were Amalekite infants, so if we believe that justice and convenience/practicality/necessity could move God to slaughter Amalekites, I think we must admit the possibility that it moves him to slaughter modern Africans (and others). I can't believe in a God who uses horrific diseases as instruments of wrath, but it seems that this is exactly the kind of God that Moses believed in.
7. It shows nothing. Good luck finding the cause of any "miraculous events". All three (and numerous other explanations) are possible, but I'm rooting for B.
8. This is the sort of thing I like to leave in God's hands (seems to be how most of us deal with it). I guess I'd say that from him who has been given little, little will be demanded. So maybe B, except that I don't think the final judgment will be a pass/fail thing.
9. C ...ish. I decided long ago that some of us were made to search for truth, and some of us were made for it all to be so clear in the Bible. (Of course, it's really more of a spectrum than a dichotomy.) I think God will be pleased with your search, but no more or less pleased than with those who only ever trusted and obeyed.
So what is the nature of God? Romans 1 notwithstanding, I don't think any of us really know. But you asked what I think the nature of God is, and the answer to that, I think, is that I believe about God what I can. That seems to be how these things work.
Good answers, Jacob. You are right, the AIDS questions is much like the Amalekites question, only even "worse" because society as large is damaged by AIDS whereas the killing of a robber tribe (the Amalekites) would at least potentially benefit others. Also, many AIDS victims are Christians.
For 3 8, I'm intrigued by the idea that the final judgement may be just that, a judgement, not a pass/fail exam.
On a side note, I will be out of town until Saturday. Keep the comments coming guys, and please keep things civil (as everyone has so far, good job everyone) so I don't have to do any deleting when I get back.
Post a Comment