Originally posted by kirksey957Well, you been hoein’ a lot longer than me—I don’t know how you do it. I’m tired already.
I went to see this old guy the other day. A really nice guy and he was talking about various TV programs that have raised all kinds of questions about Jesus and the scriptures. He said that really didn't like those programs because "it's all in the Bible." Then he went on to say that they get you to question the language of the Bible which he didn't ap ...[text shortened]... ou sure?"
Keep preaching, Stephen. You've got a long road to hoe as they say.
1 edit
Originally posted by Big MacI never said that I completely dismiss any part of the Bible...I think every word has meaning, just that some have more substance and depth than others. I would personally regard the words of Jesus more than the words of humans (who wrote the Bible), but I'm willing to debate this.
Based on what do you "pick and choose?"
According to the Bible, it is all inspired by God. Is that part one of the portions you choose to leave out?
I'd understand if you chose to not believe any of it accept for the parts that you find elsewhere in the world or other religious scriptures. But, if that's the case than you can do away with the Bible as ...[text shortened]... nt to keep that parts that are easy for you or shed your situation in a shiney, happy light?
For example, referencing the current thread discussing religious views on the death penalty, many cultures during and in which much of the OT were written considered the death penalty acceptable, claiming the old "an eye for an eye" philosophy. However, Jesus flat out dismissed this and claimed to love your enemies. I personally hold Jesus' words with more value than the others, but that's my opinion, again. And again, as I said earlier, I shouldn't (and try my best not to) dismiss any one portion; I try to wrestle the issues out in my head.
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwOkay, I’m just doing this quickly—
Why, so you can prove there is? Or are you not sure?
Was Jesus born while Herod was still alive, or when Quirinius was governor of Syria (which included Galilee and Judea) and conducted the census?
Do you really think the Romans made people travel to their place of birth to be “registered” when the purpose of the census was for taxes?
Jeremiah, in 7:22, said: “For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
But the Book of Exodus differs.
From the point of view of the core message, does any of that matter?
EDIT: The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke cannot be reconciled without going outside the text to make assumptions...
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyJust to not lose the sharpness—the author of the 1st letter of John says (twice) ho theos agape estin; “The/This God is love.” (Both theos and agape are in the nominative case; the ho may simply indicate which “subject” comes first, it can also be for emphasis.) This seems to be one of those statements that is sufficiently bold and clear that it cannot be diminished by contextualization; but rather needs to be a lens through which to read other texts. God either is, or is not, agape essentially—not sometimes loving and sometimes not.
Let's start with one apparent contradiction. God is a God of love. God is a God that judges and punishes. Can the two go hand in hand?
I know I’ve become something of a pain on this point, but...
With that said—
http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#1.
Originally posted by vistesdSo you view a punitive God and a God that shows agape love as incapatible?
Just to not lose the sharpness—the author of the 1st letter of John says (twice) ho theos agape estin; “The/This God [b]is love.” (Both theos and agape are in the nominative case; the ho may simply indicate which “subject” comes first, it can also be for emphasis.) This seems to be one of those statements that is sufficient ...[text shortened]... a pain on this point, but...
With that said—
http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#1.[/b]
Is it punitive to withdraw oneself from those who reject you or to force themselves upon you? I say it is punitive for God to withdraw himself because all that is good comes from God so what are you left with without him? Yet it would not be loving to force oneself upon another. Where is the love if one does not have a choice to love back? Can you force someone to love you?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI said none of those things. I simply insisted that John defines God as agape—i.e., that is the definition of God’s essence. If you think he didn’t mean what he wrote, your quarrel is with him.
So you view a punitive God and a God that shows agape love as incapatible?
Is it punitive to withdraw oneself from those who reject you or to force themselves upon you? I say it is punitive for God to withdraw himself because all that is good comes from God so what are you left with without him? Yet it would not be loving to force oneself upon another. ...[text shortened]... here is the love if one does not have a choice to love back? Can you force someone to love you?
The threat of eternal punishment for refusal by the beloved to love in return is a form of coercion. Love is not a juridical concept. For punishment by the lover of the beloved to be loving, it would have to be for the ultimate benefit of the beloved (e.g., correctional or educational).
The Greek word soterias—translated as salvation—means to make well or whole, to heal. It is not a juridical concept either. If your beloved developed a mental illness and could not love you, would you refuse to see that she received proper “salvational” care? What if that care required a period of separation, even perhaps a long one? What if you were not a mortal being who is subject to all the frailties and failures of the human condition in making such decisions—but the God who is agape?
Did you read the article cited? When you have read all of it, we can discuss it.
Originally posted by vistesdEDIT TO PRIOR POST: There ought to be enough hints here for you to see that the only reasons for the contradiction you referenced in your first post to remain is if you insist upon it. If God “punishes” for any other reason than the one I gave, or if the “punishment” is eternal, so that there is no hope for it contributing to the well-being of the beloved—then either there is a contradiction or God is not agape.
I said none of those things. I simply insisted that John defines God as agape—i.e., that is the definition of God’s essence. If you think he didn’t mean what he wrote, your quarrel is with him.
The threat of eternal punishment for refusal by the beloved to love in return is a form of coercion. Love is not a juridical concept. For punishment by ...[text shortened]... gape[/i]?
Did you read the article cited? When you have read all of it, we can discuss it.
Properly recognizing that salvation means healing, and realizing that “sin” is itself not strictly a juridical concept—but refers to all manner of human shortcoming, error and failure (in both the Hebrew and the Greek, the words mean to fall short, or to miss the mark)—then the contradiction does not even arise; unless God refuses to heal the sinfulness, in which case God is not agape.
Those are the choices.