Imagine
by Greg Prout
By Greg Prout, January 8, 2014
It's funny how song lyrics can sleep in one’s brain for years and then suddenly reappear demanding another look. Almost as if the lyrics had a life of their own, waiting patiently in your mental library, and when they feel the time is ripe, they check themselves out. John Lennon's “Imagine” (1971) is like that. The lyrics:
Imagine there's no heaven, it’s easy if you try/ No hell below us, Above us only sky/ Imagine all the people, Living for today… Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do/ Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too/ Imagine all the people living life in peace… You may say I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one/I hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will be as one. Imagine no possession. I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people Sharing all the world… You may say I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one/I hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will live as one.
I have always loved this song, but dismissed the lyrics as politically whimsical and possibly detrimental, as he suggested we do away with religion. I disagreed, believing religion, like a bus, was the vehicle God drove as He came to visit us. Now I have a different view. Religion is a body of beliefs that identify one group while excluding another, and that is precisely what's wrong with “religion.” I suspect that was Lennon’s point. Such segregation is very human but not very divine. Sure, religion has beneficial qualities, like a sense of belonging, but fundamentally, I believe religion by its exclusion misses the embrace of God, who “will draw all men to Himself (Myself)” John 12: 32.i Diana Butler Bass, a leading authority on American religion, gives a good definition of the religion of which I speak: “In modern times, religion became indistinguishable from systematizing ideas about God, religious institutions, and human beings; it categorized, organized, objectified, and divided people into exclusive worlds of right versus wrong, true versus false, ‘us’ versus ‘them.'”ii
There are 40 million people in America today who refer to themselves as “Nones,” denying religious affiliation and opting for their own blend of spirituality. The Nones, also called the “Prodigals” by Kinnaman,iii claim religion has failed, authoritarian churches and doctrines have been weighed and found wanting.iv Perhaps the traditionalist dismisses this horde as simply evidence of unbelievers being shaken from “the Church,” a faithless rabble persistent in rebellion. For others like myself, I see this as an indictment against strict church dogma that excludes via elitist piety; that falsely believes their Truth sets them apart from errant masses as they sit in arrogant citadels of religious self-importance. Religion fosters this perception, false or not. People nowadays want more than to know about God via doctrines and creeds; they want an encounter with God without jumping through hoops of church dogma.
Experience over knowledge is the new reality. Again, Diana Butler Bass writes, “We need religion imbued with the spirit of shared humanity and hope, not religions that divide and further fracture the future.”v For millions it is more popular to refer to one’s self as “spiritual,” as opposed to “religious”; impugning the word “religion.” “Spiritual” expresses the experience of God over the religion about God.vi
Though I am bedrock Christian, I understand why myriads today are turning from the Christian religion to find spiritual satisfaction elsewhere. Unfortunately, like George Costanza (dramatized) turning his girlfriend Susan into a lesbian,vii the action and history of authoritarian religion has turned many into non-believers.
Harvey Cox describes our times as the “Age of the Spirit” where the “experience of Jesus” is paramount and where people seek “nondogmatic, nondenominational, and non-hierarchical Christianity, based on a person’s connection to the ‘volatile expression’ of God’s Spirit through mystery, wonder, and awe…. A religion based on subscribing to mandatory beliefs is no longer viable.”viii We can dismiss his observations, but he is not alone. A plethora of literature, researchers and studies, scholars and theologians across the spectrum of Christianity are making similar observations.
What is happening? I have observed in my own religio-social circle a common theme of grown children of pastors and conference personnel, of family and friends, of fellow believers, exhibiting a diminished fervor for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, many no longer attending. My guess is you have as well. Like society at large, there is a great divide in the Church with an alarming number finding their answers outside Adventism while simultaneously there is resurgence and re-trenching of traditional Adventism symbolized by our current World Leader.
Something is definitely brewing. Clearly there are rumblings of a significant number wanting more than what is traditionally offered. We can ignore it or dismiss it, but if we’re serious about the love of Jesus, we must address it. I see no North American trends of masses running to embrace our historical-religious platform. Our club-footed reluctance to ordain women is further evidence of authoritarian religion practicing exclusion thus turning off and turning away many hungry for spiritual community. Apparently our leadership views their long-held position against ordination of women as an indication of their careful regard for God’s holiness, as if segregation reflects God’s heart.
Perhaps a review of God’s holiness is required to underscore the church’s need for more focus on compassion and community. Adventists historically have viewed God’s holiness as autoclaved, gloriously uncontaminated, hyper-sensitive to humanity’s bacterial nature, requiring a buffer between us and Him to save us from instant extinction. His honor is petulant and ready to strike with consuming fire anyone foolish enough to consider approaching. Thank God for Jesus! He saves us from the Father’s holy, obsessively moral, surgically clean and wholly unrelational character. The violated Law dictates God kill somebody to satisfy its need for justice, thus setting Him free to forgive offensive humanity. Jesus says, “Kill me.” The Father agrees. “I will kill my Son and the Law will be placated, and I can forgive-love humanity.” Holiness in this case fixated on “legal perfection” and “moral rectitude” as if this was the driving force about God. Jesus, therefore, is our Savior from the Father’s justice.
But switch gears and take another look. View God’s holiness as the perfect love and community that exists between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; witness their pure unalloyed relationship. This is His character which sets Him apart from our selfish fallen nature: His unspoiled selfless sharing, communing and compassion.ix Jesus didn’t come to save us from the Father’s consuming fire of holiness, or deliver us from His cold forensic justice, but instead He arrived to “explain the Father” (John 1: 18); the Father is just like the Son (John 14: 7, 9); Jesus sent from the Father manifests His name (John 17:6, 26). In other words, the Father is no different than Jesus in His adoration of us. He sent Jesus from His bosom (heart)–John 1: 18–to demonstrate His embrace and inclusion of you and me. Again, Holiness is God’s perfect love as seen in His flawless relationship and community displayed in the fellowship of the Trinity, the holiness for which the world is starving. “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6: 36). Immanuel.
While we’re examining our self-righteous navel, the recipients of our message are going elsewhere. We are engaging in inbreeding by preaching to a choir that is leaving the building. In place of such septic theology, we need to throw open the doors of our church and show the world that Adventism is about a compassionate God eagerly seeking to welcome and accept; a church of which John Lennon might sing.
Lennon’s lyrics are a chorus of love to me now. Imagine is about ridding things that divide us. Things like politics (countries), religion, and material things; things like identities that alienate and separate; things and ideas that exclude rather than gather; and he dreams of a world no longer a place of divide, but of oneness and inclusion. He sings about togetherness and peace here and now. Yes, a dream, but he touches a rich spirit that transcends the physicality of things and the tenets of dogma, a spirit that calls us to a higher place. Perhaps Lennon represents the man or woman who stands outside the walls of the Church, a child of God who by the Church’s ecclesiastical standards has an unwashed view of truth; nevertheless he longs for a place stuffed in his heart by his Creator, an environment of peace and belonging, a place we call “heaven.” Lennon here is prophetic.
Could it be that our esoteric view of truth, our arcane understanding of our place and purpose needs some serious tweaking? If truth is so dynamic that only eternity can address it, could it be our 19th century religion needs a new face, like remodeling an old house of great value? What keeps the organized church from such dreams? Why do we fumble intensely with issues of women’s ordination or aggressively resist the inclusion of gays? Why do we fight so fiercely to protect our name and identity, our golden calf, as if that was our mission on earth? Why are we so impervious to the radical idea that “Love changes everything”? Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” Sent from the Father, He came instructing us to love and bless, not judge and condemn. Could it be fear, (and not love) which underlies our exclusive behavior, that breeds the view our image will be tainted by the addition of Samaritans we believe unacceptable? Are we afraid of loving others unlike us, frightened to include them in our church families; fearful that by acceptance we enable them in their sin? We therefore condemn and judge and feel safe separating ourselves from their unholy behavior. We walk by as they lay dying in the road.
Too often we embody the “prodigal’s son’s” older brother. Our holiness is offended at God’s extravagant treatment of those we have judged as pigs. We are proud of our faithful service, our years of obedience, our Sabbath, our Prophet, our striving to protect God’s holy honor, and we’re indignant that God has not thrown us a party. We know Samaritans are lost. Our younger brother (gays, women, secularists, atheists, etc.) don’t deserve such celebratory love, and we are not pleased to embrace them, let alone attend a party thrown for them by God Himself. We are afraid to love as God does.
God never treats us that way nor did He give us such a commission. “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Why can’t we extend charity without agenda in the way God loves us? It is the “ultimate reality” Rob Bell describes in Velvet Elvis, the life of the Kingdom: the God of love, the ultimate truth. 1 John 4:8. It is what Lennon longed for.
Across America millions are waking up to the short-comings of authoritative religion. In our world beyond modernism, where expansive narratives about authoritative truth no longer prove persuasive, people are looking for beliefs that include and accept; they hunger for the Gospel the organized church has failed. Religion can no longer afford to say: “Believe like us and you’re in; if you don’t, there’s the door.”
There's a better way. I have discovered amidst the evolving religious experiences in North America, love seems to be what interests people most; it defies all objections and questions. It’s the stuff I think of Lennon's lyrics for “Imagine.” The church must re-invent its current image and find a way to reach out and embrace humanity in spite of its unique doctrines. If dogma cannot celebrate and lift up unreserved compassion for the Other, then its value is dubious. Love cuts across all authoritarian labels as well as all “spiritual pursuits”; compassion is the common denominator that binds and heals, and the greatest of the Spirit’s gifts (1 Cor. 13). Even atheists respond to benevolence. In Joan Baez's “God is God,” she sings about believing in miracles, and the miracle I believe in most is the possibility to love others simply because they exist. It is an ideal of compassion and generosity that soars above the boundary of country, possessions, and even standard-riddled religion. It's a love so unlike me and yet so inspiring. I can only imagine…
i All Scriptural references are the New American Standard Bible (Illinois: Creation House, Inc., 1972).
ii Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012), p. 97.
iii Kinnaman, David. You Lost Me. Why Young Christians leaving the Church…and Rethinking Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: BakerBooks, 2011), p. 66.
iv Ibid, pp. 68-71.
v Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, p. 96.
vi Ibid, pp. 68, 110.
vii Seinfeld TV Show, Episode 61 (April 15, 1993).
viii Harvey Cox, The Future of Faith: The Rise and Fall of Beliefs and the Coming Age of the Spirit (San Francisco: Harper One, 2009), pp. 213, 221.
ix For an insightful presentation on God’s loving nature, see C. Baxter Kruger’s The Great Dance: The Christian Vision Revisited (Jackson, Mississippi: Perichoresis Press, 2000).
Greg,
Thank you for a wonderful reminder of how much God loves us and how much we need to be loving others.
Religion is man's attempt to wear the cloak of God over filthy layers of sin that prevent it from fitting.
Oh my, Greg …
What you have written is not an addition to anything, but a replacement for everything when it comes to what defines a Christian.
I'm pretty sure you are imagining that this is what the Three Angels Message must be about if we truly believe what Jesus is quoted as saying in John 15, when describing not only his life's accomplishment but its forever measurement across all time. His summary is offered after washing the feet of His disciples and hosting His last meal with them. It is indeed the penultimate testimony of Jesus' life prior to his resurection.
And if so, Seventh-day Adventist evangelists will be discarding quite a few of their Power Point slides before their next series if they are to imagine how we all are truly the object of the love of God as expressed in the life of Jesus.
Have any of us ever heard church leaders quoting Ellen White in declaring that Righteousness by Faith is the Three Angels Message 'in verity' to mean that the Three Angels Message is not about the Seventh-day Adventist denomination? I haven't, either. It is always a quote to support their imagining that the Three Angels Message confirms that Righteousness by Faith means that you will be counted righteous if by faith you believe the Seventh-day Adventist church is identified in Revelation 14.
Or something like that. Because the offical explanation today mentions neither faith nor righteousness. Rather by inference it dismisses faith by declaring that Revelation 14 calls for "a work of repentance and reform" rather than acceptance by faith of God's righteous love for His creation. See http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church/the-remnant-and-its-mission/
John 3 confirms by demonstration as well as by declaration that Jesus is the confirmation that love is utterly about mutuality. There can be no superior/inferior deminsions to love. While there is most certainly a superior/inferior relationship between Creator and creature, Jesus is the embodiement of God's committment to creating mutuality with and within His creation, when it cannot exist otherwise.
Fortunately, such love is not accessed by the human work of repentance and reform, but by faith accepting our universal mutuality with all of God's creation through Jesus Christ, at once the Son of God and the Son of Man.
Thank you so much for imagining what this is in reality!
bill,
thank you for your thoughtful comments. as i see it, one cannot subscribe to the love of which you posted, and which i believe, in a church consumed with its play in the world. you are right, it is not about us and our 'work of reform and repentance.' it is about Him and what He has done. He is my representative, i worry not, my place is in the heart of the Father, and it doesn't get any better than that. but bcause of the church's fundamentalism structure and its obbsession with ITS place in history, it is enslaved to exclusionary religion. but there is hope, and it still is in Christ. thanks again, bill.
greg
Shall we discard the Bible? The oldest religion with most detailed descriptions are the Jewish which was an exclusive ethnic religion as designed by God, if one accepts their story. It was to be VERY exclusive with non-Jews not allowed unless they were willing to first submit to the physical sign of exclusivity: circumcision.
Thus the pattern was established, by God, ostensibly as a division between those who accepted the rules and those who were not members of the tribe. Tribal religions were the earliest form of religions, of which Judaism has left the most records. Christianity, an offspring of that religion, has much of the same distinctions with some of them claiming to be the "true" descendant, as though it were a mark of religious purity.
Many today are rejecting religion for some of the reasons mentioned in the essay, and while a good analysis with the conditions today, there is no solution to return to the days when religion had a much more prominent place in society than today. We cannot turn back the clock, and even if possible, it would not bring more back into the church for the very reasons many left. Organized religion is about as low on the scale of importance into today's society as the census and taxes. Was anyone ever succesful in raising the dead? The church in North America and Europe is dead. Portmortems only reveal; but they cannot revive.
Your comments are great and embolden people like me. I like your eccentric and alternative views towards a complex problem of existence not being objectively derived from an external decision by superior intelligence/authority but, independently realized on personal quest of self-examination and relationship. Our existence is predicated on ability to search for the meaning of existence and to deny others of that inquisitive nature is to deny nature altogether.
Your views are comfortable w/ examining different ways to reveal what the world simply is rather than, convincing ourselves of a physical and ideological uniformity more comfortable in persecuting its mythical negation.
I'm encouraged that organized religion and traditional practices from Passover to 19th century Christianization of pagan Saturnalia are being left behind as outdated. Because that is the final stage of a 2,000 year progression to usher out legalistic and institutional nature of Judeo-Christianity. And begin the revolutionary spiritualization that Christ originated in making Israel for humanity and not Israelites. Religion has become about Christianizing traditions and legalistic and oddly sexist codes. And believers of the modern age are getting past the middle man and middle institutions and Middle Ages and straight to the Divinity.
19th century's Tolstoy extolled that "the kingdom of God is with you" and all of past 6,000 years from Noah and Abraham to now- has all happened so we could realize that existential truth. Why would we turn back on progress? It's unnatural. And it is not society that is forcing Christianity to progress but, Christianity progressing to make personal spirituality a real presence in society.
lynn,
somehow i missed this comment. first, could it be more than 6000 years? i think we are on the cusp of a Spirit-led revolution, a jail-break of sorts. times are exciting when viewed in this lens. here's what know: i love, am loved and free, all else is ancillary. God will never have to ask me: 'and why did you not explore my creation, or why have you not sought all possible answers?' He will never have to be disappointed i retreated from the 'abundant life.'
peace, lynn.
greg
hi elaine,
with your inimitable style, you execute pithiness with aplomb as your verbal sword cuts to the point. i love it. but no, i would never suggest doing away with the bible; i found Jesus in that good book, but i have learned to read it with a questioning mind, something fundamentalism frowns on. like you, i no longer subscribe to a god (notice little 'g') packaged neatly, tied together with our lacey doctrnes we believe capture Him. so the bible is still vital for me, but with a questoning mind. for example, the god who would indiscriminately slaughter women and children so His favorite tribe could take their land is bogus. that's not how you do the real estate business, and that is not God. rather, it is tribal war-loving, blood-letting people who culturally believed 'dashing the heads of their enemies babies against rocks' was something which God ordered and approved. the biblical vision of God is evolutionary in scripture, until you arrive at Jesus, the lamb of God, but i a digressing from your main point.
exclusion might of worked in OT times, even in the 19th and 20th centuries, but it has lost its savor in our era. Truth is dynamic, continually developing as our flawed minds grapple with life and God in 'times that are a-changing.' His incarnation means He injects Himself into the culture of the moment and appears there in all loving acts. people are turning from religion, that is true, but i believe God is running after them, and i hope i am running with Him. i am here as a student of God's love; i am here to learn to love; that is His kingdom, as i see it. so i will cast my lot in that effort. the church might be dead, but God is not. at least that is how i see it. thank you for your response. greg
greg,
Your swift comments are appreciated as sometimes we who comment are rarely recognized by the writer.
The problem as I believe you see, is that the SdA religious institution has lost its cachet and is being replaced by the simplicity of love for others expressed in the Golden Rule. Unique doctrines are no longer the reason for most to join any religious denomination but love and the Holy Spirit never fails to warm hearts, which is what is needed today, not doctrines that have no meaning to modern life.
Thank you for a very provocative essay.
elaine,
amen. exactly!
greg
Elaine,
Indeed most religions have lost their "cachet" and no longer maintain a veil of prestigious authority over the members. The members themselves have taken that away from the central church administration. People join churches not because of doctrine but for the communion with others and hopefully to connect with gods love. SDA doctrine on origins, creation and the sabbath are losing their tyrannical hold over people. These doctrines are no longer relevant in the 21st century.
Nice work Greg. Tho' sooner or later its likely you will be accused of preaching some form or other of 'spiritualism,' or worse, mysticism. But I think its worth asking this question. How does the view of life described in 'Imagine' differ from our idealised view of life in heaven itself? Worth repeating:
Imagine all the people, Living for today… Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do/ Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too/ Imagine all the people living life in peace… You may say I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one/I hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will be as one. Imagine no possession. I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people Sharing all the world… You may say I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one/I hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will live as one.
Personally, I'd love to live in that kind of heavenly world.
Just one further thought. Lennon's other song, "All you need is Love,' in which he repeats this line: 'Love is all there is.' I think sits very nicely with 1John 4.8 God IS Love.
serge,
you and i are on the same page.
blessings,
greg
This is a language even a little child can feel, but fear there are many who do not hear.
To him who hath ears…let him hear.
The sentiments expressed in the blog are admirable and noteworthy, however – to me, it attempts to seek alternative man-made answers to Christian unity and in a broader sense, universal unity, rather than what is clearly an area best left in the hands of God – at least in terms of what the Bible teaches, rather than being based primarily on humanitarian or humanist worldviews, or special interest groups and their cultural groupthink.
Outside of religion, unity in the secular arena has been a dismal failure due to political differences, class distinctions – largely based on socio-economic status, as well as divisions affected by racial and ethnic lines. Religion isn’t an exclusive entity in my opinion. Christianity, for example, is an inclusive religion on the basis of its core objective being to save mankind from the consequences of sin. It identifies our common ground in terms of our struggle with our sinful nature and offers salvation in Christ to all who believe.
Central to this though is the power of God to bring change to our lives in Christ Jesus. It is Christ who ultimately unites us as a Church – and our religion is an expression his working in our life. How one perceives this process makes all the difference in the way we see and value religion.
It is special interest groups that often will cause disunity. These will always grumble about not having rights and positions of power, even to the extent of losing their identity to another, or perhaps the opposite gender and will still never be satisfied or happy because of selfish interests that drive their various agendas.
There's an old hymn that says "God's way is the best way though I may not see" (or may even 'imagine' I might add). We know that Mr Lennon used drugs and followed a lifestyle not quite in harmony with Christian religious beliefs. His core ideals from the way things turned out stemmed from the cultural revolution of the time and built on a humanist construct epitomised by the ‘flower power’ daze which somehow fits in well with the stuff they smoked or shot up. Fairytopia or Utopia was the alternative dream. So whilst his drug induced hyper-imagination gave him a high and inspired him to belt out a real crowd pleaser song, both in tune and lyrics, we know that it wasn't from a spiritual high. He demonises religion in his song as many often do today.
The Bible does not support a humanist ideal; whether guised as universalism, spiritualism, agnosticism or atheism. Mr Lennon forgot to mention an “Imagine there's no sin” line in his song. Or perhaps an “Imagine there’s no Feminism.”
The ebb and flow of religion is best left in God's hands as the passage below shows.
trevor,
thank you for your response. it is obvious you are a committed Christian with strong convictions, just like me, but we are different; we see things and understand things differently. i am sure there is room for both of us, and those we might represent, under God's tent. to be clear: i never suggested we merely resort to a secular approach to our Christian faith, on the contrary, the need to love others and be compassionate, without judgment, as the Lord loves us, which is precisely His message ('This my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you').
of course Lennon wasn't a church member, but he did have a strong spiritual side, and expressed it in his music. yes, as far as i know, he wasn't baptized, but that doesn't mean he couldn't teach us something. nor did it mean God did not/could not have found a way to manifest His goodness in a secular man's words. I believe, because of the Incarnation, God reaches us thru our culture and norms. I have learned to see His presence even in those who know Him not. that is the kind of God i have come to know. whatever the church is doing, it is not working very well. Forty million people leaving organized religions (adventism included) is no small statistic to ignore.
i am suggesting we seriously take a deeper look and see if our 19th century approach needs re-vamping. now, you might not agree, i understand that, but something is afoot and cries out for a new approach. my thinking and experience is we have spent way too much time judging, separating, and removing ourselves from the very people and culture we are commissioned to gospel-ize. i am strongly suggesting we should focus on love above all else; inclusive, accepting love, and let the Spirit do what He does to convict and lead, etc.
And trevor, regarding paul's comment in corinthians (2 cor. 6:11-18), which you shared in your post, i am just glad Jesus didn't take that advice when it came to you and me, or we might not be having this discussion. He incarnated into the worst of us, the weakest of us, to show us the heart of the Father's love. had He separated from the likes of you and me, we would not know salvation or His Father. my whole point is to exercise a CHRISTIAN love that exceeds all boundaries, religions, governments, cultures, life-styles, etc. again, similar to what Lennon was singing about. the Love of God is the whole message as i read the scriptures, something i think about and imagine.
peace and love,
greg
Greg and Trevor,
I hope you don't mind if I also take a pass at 1 Corinthians 6 in the context of John 13.
Paul is not reading John, as it hasn't been written down yet. He is guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus. Nor surprisingly, he is acting out John 13.
"11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also."
I wished that Paul had elaborated a bit, though it can hardly be said that he is not recognized as loving the Corinthians.
What follows, however, is quite another topic. Idolotry is the NIV heading.
"14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[b]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”[c]
17 Therefore,
“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”[d]
18 And,
“I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”[e]"
First let it be noted that this yoking is not a comment regarding marriage. I have no idea who came up with that idea, but it surely wasn't Paul. After all, he wasn't married at the time.
And this assertion with regard to yoking is in no way an explanation by Paul to explain his abandoning of the Corinthians. Quite the opposite. He has just delcared them to be his spiritual children. He sees in them himself. He is not in any way turning away from them. Indeed he is about to write to them of that love, and in the process produce arguably the greatest literary expression of Love the world has ever read, I Corinthians 13.
What he is simply noting is that there is nothing that can be added to Christ's acceptance of humanity. Not just is it impossible to add anything of ourselves as he eloquently notes frequenlty in describing grace, but surely there can be nothing added from the spiritual practices of the day, all of which were oriented toward seeking to appease and indifferent at best and more often a god tending toward anger.
Were the Corinthians living in some inbetween world, not yet having accepted Jesus assurance fully? It seems so.
Paul then quotes the beautiful passages of the Old Testiment where the father of Jesus promises to those who abandon idols that they will be safe from the angor of the gods of the idols. He assures them of not just of His protection, but his enduring love by declaring that He will be their Father, and they will be His sons and daughters.
This is the promise of the Lord Almighty that he will not only protect us, but that as His children we are the inheritors of all that He has.
Paul, in the particulars as well as the larger context, it seems to me, is very much practicing the words of Jesus when He set as the measure of his disciples for all future time, that they be observed loving one another.
Music is perhaps the most powerful medium on Earth. It has magical qualities. It appeals to man of all ages. It touches the innermost feelings, the heart and soul of man.. It comes in many variations, Orchestral, Classical, Sacred, Jazz, Blues, Ethnic Folk, Pop, and many different contempory styles. It produces more revenue per capita than most all other commercial entertainment products combined. This we know. The churches & worship entities worldwide find it impossible to compete with this pied piper industry, including its gods,and the worship they receive of the affections of the masses. Music, although very dear to us all, in types, we as individuals choose to utilize, is a monster which, like a magnet draws young people worldwide into its most vile forms. The kids, amazingly hearing it once, are able to memorize the lyrics. The advances in electronics and the money available to youth has ninety % growing ear buds in their ears, any part of 24/7 they wish. Their Iphones, Macs, PC's and tablets of all sizes, CD's, and newer products available every year upgrading the world's communication devices.
It becomes a more powerful monster every day. i'm ceretain you've seen a group of youngsters five, six or more sitting close but each totally mesmerised by their favored device, ear buds in place, no communication between them. With texting they know exactly what their friends in other places are doing. All of this in total silence, each in their own comfy environment. The chuch hasn't a chance, and won't until something dramatic happens in the world strong enough to get their attention. Wars and rumours of wars don't even faze them; Earthquakes & Sunamis, don't shake them, they are already rocking. How many could relate to you the proportions of the Japan Nucleur disaster? But they can tell you instantly(if you can get their attention) what is happening to their favorite music idols, and Hollywood's beautiful people.
Probably nothing short of worldwide deflationary disasters, 50% unemployment,endless depression with money shortages, that what is available must be used for food, as their earlier enablers are tapped out. This worked to get the global masses attention following World War I, but the masses then weren't
wired electronically, as they are today. Satan is alive and in charge on planet Earth.
earl,
i find your view of teens sad, your view of music just wrong, and your view of a God who, according to you, is not in control to be unfortunate and untrue. the universe wears a smile not a frown inspite of the mess we make here. not to be disrespectful, but i believe it is your view of God and religon that sends many young people to the church exits. i would you encourage to
be more hopeful and optimistic. the Cross and resurrection demand it.
greg, what i believe of God is His love for all His children, so precious are we to Him. He paid the ransom demanded by sin for each of us, we each were the cause of His sacrifice. the Godly message of His love is for us to also love one another as each of us would want to be loved, to love our God with all that we have, every ounce of our mental, spiritual, and physical being.
i love music, many types, just two days ago i listened to Paul McCartney's Oct/2012 concert given in Vancouver, BC.The Beatles numbers i enjoyed most,as in the past, are "I LOVE HER; SHE LOVES YOU; LET IT BE;HERE COMES THE SUN;ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE;ALL MY LOVING; YESTERDAY; I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND; and HEY JUDE". i love
operatic tenors, i love the old comboy songs, i love religious music, used to listena lot to Fred Waring choral group. Attended his "Messiah" concert in Atlanta,Ga in 1985. etc.
i love teenagers, two of my three daughters, were SDA students from kindergarden thu university. i currently have 2 grandchildren attending SDA
college at Southern/Biology, MD hopeful. And at our college in Florence, Italy.
my other granddaughter works in Rabat, Morocco, aiding in refugee settlement in N.Africa, She speaks four languages, working on PHD. my hobby since youth is History. i am in my upper 80's and am a chronicler. i report what i have observed, not what i would wish it to be. i am at ease and at peace at all times, the Holy Spirit is abiding in my soul. faith and trust in my Lord Jesus provides no worry or fear, as i am His child.
i hope to get to know you better.
earl,
in my fervor to make my point and to thwart religion i believe obscures what a loving Father we have, and how adored we are without our efforts, i get over-zwalous and quick to make my judments about a particular situation or perveived understanding. i think i owe you an apology. yes, i do. i am sorry i pigeon-holed you based on brief comments you made in a small and particular context (this site), and arrived at certain conclusons that were less than true, which only goes to show how we must dialog with one another and avoid arguing, of which i am guilty. your points and views are just as valid to you as mine are to me, and we can worship under the same tent inspite of those differences. so again, forgive me for being quick to judge and slow to respect and understand your perspective.
thank you for your last post and for sharing what you did. and know i, too, would like to know you better and learn from your experience and perpsective. i think we both can say Jesus is having His way with us. peace and love to you, earl,
greg
Earl,
I got a little dizzy from the whiplash after reading your diametrically opposed posts. So satan is controlling the world and its youth through music but certainly not your children or grand children. Kids usually figure out what the messages are in the music and they do not necessarily take life lessons from the likes of mysogynistic rappers like M&M etc. People create music not the devil. You sound like Bob Larson, the manical anti-rock prophet pointing out the evils of the 60's and 70's music and he proclaimed that the devil was busy writing the lyrics. We grew tired of his act over time and most thinking people understand that music can reflect both what is good and decent in society and that which is distasteful.
Greg sees what is right with the youth and I do not think he is naive to their tribulations and human failings. I hope you don't miss his point.
bill,
isn't paul saying that to compare worshipping dead stone idols to the living God is like being 'unequally yoked;' there is no comparison?
greg
In a word, Yes, Greg
A yoke is an instrument of work. A yoke is how a creature puts its work muscle against the (tilling) job at hand. It is how the most muscle possible could be applied to the tip of the tiller in the age of animal power. And the tiller was the device that amplified human intent to produce the security of an abundance of sustanance.
So when I shared my comments here with a friend last night, she noted Jesus saying, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
I have to say that preaching as I've often heard it over the decades tends to be along the lines of, Getting in the yoke with Jesus is about the work of keeping the law and letting it till your heart. Jesus assures us that in the end, our pain and suffering will seem easy by comparison to the value of eternal life.
But I now sense that this may not be what Jesus said. Jesus appears to me to be saying that when we learn of Him, when we realize that He is gentle and undemanding (humble), our souls will find rest. The rest is in our very present life.
Writing to the Corinthians Paul is contrasting the two methods of salvation. On the one hand, there is an attempt to appease the indifferent or all too often angry god and on the other hand there is accepting the open assurance of the God who lives with us, walks with us, claims us as His children, and treats us as our Father–meaning that we by inheritance rather than by personal achievement possess the lyrical wealth of God Almighty, indeed the cattle on a thousand hills … and eternal life.
How, Paul asks, can we at once experience our bodies as this God's temple, our life as His life expressed in our breath and at the same time yoke up with those who are by sacrifice attempting to animate an idol?
In a very real way, Paul it seems is saying that in Jesus there is no work; there is no struggle to reach out to God in hope of finding sustanance for the spirit. Every breath we take is God's life-sustaining grace filling the His temple that our very bodies are.
It helps me to understand that Paul is not asking those to whom he is writing to turn their backs on those in Corinth who are still under the spell of their historical religious cultures. The rest of his letter here is quite the opposite message. Books, rather than chapters or especially verses is it seems to me the better way to read Scripture.
Amen. thanks, bill. it is because of what Jesus has done that we have peace and joy and rest. we are hopeful, compassionate and we can sing and laugh with the happiness He has provided.
Finally, I am glad to see that "Grace" finally made it into the picture. I have come to understand that the Ten Commandments, and the 28 Fundamental Beliefs have nothing to do with my salvation. What a relief! For some reason, the Adventit Church is very fearful of grace. Personally, I am thrilled with my "Grace" journey.
david,
isn't that what divine love is? my quest is to find the borderlines of grace. i'm still searching. grace, in my experience, exceeds my selfish and fallen volition; it goes beyond my dictates and directives; grace is what Jesus has done, not what i do or choose; grace is in His hands, not mine. Jesus is grace. and it is NOT cheap; it cost God His life. it is the fire that drives me to love my brother, anyone, as He loves me. grace is the kingdom of God; the ultimate reality.
peace,
greg
But don't mix soteriology (salvation issues) with ecclesiology (Church community) issues either. I don't think we are saved by baptism – do you? Yet baptism is very important – don't you think?
As to what we are 'saved by', we are saved by the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus – that is the Gospel – isn't it. And that message is essentially an eschatological (End Time) message – isn't it. To say you believe in the Gospel means much, much more, than simply believing in Jesus as a great moral teacher – don't you think?
stephen,
of course it is more than Jesus being a great morsal teacher. salvation is God giving me His life, of which i derserved nothing, but received everything. and by His ascension, we now sit with Him on the throne of God. He is my representative, 'flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone.' and i am His 'friend' who breathes and lives the life He so generously gave me. He is my joy, my hope, my life now and my life to come. In Him i have perfect peace knowing he has taken care of everything. He is infinitley more than a perfect moral teacher; He is my brother, friend, creator and redeemer…
greg
Greg,
Elsewhere, Stephen has asked, 'what is salvation?'
I hope he reads your answer above. In particular, the phrase, 'Salvation is God giving me His life.' It might be a tad too mystical for him, but its music to my ears. Thanks muchly.
Good and realising we are saved by Jesus' grace alone, not by our efforts, how should be behave in response? Should we worship God as He expects to be worshiped? If my wife loves me despite all my faults, do I then stop giving her anniversary presents because I technically don't need to do so to get her to love me?
I think many a loving parent has faced this problem with a wayward child.
RE: "I have come to understand that the Ten Commandments, and the 28 Fundamental Beliefs have nothing to do with my salvation."
——–
Dear Mr Peterson
What is salvation sir?
oops typo – sorry, should be Mr Petersen
Trevor, Good Catch! Call me Dave, please.
Salvation for me means that I will, at some point in time, see Jesus eye to eye, period. He askes me only two things. To passionately be in love with Him,. My wife, my kids, everything else must come after Him, but I also must treat other people, including those I may feel are despicable, with respect.
As long as I maintain my relationship with God, I am SAVED!!. I no longer have to worry about keeping all the rules that others my impose on me. Study the book of Galations. I personally have replaced the Laws, which include the Ten Commandents, with two, Love God with all you heart and treat others like you desire to be treated.
This has simplified my life. Yet, it has offended others. It is not my objective to "make someone a Seventh-day Adventist". My objective is to share my love of Jesus with others and let God take it from there. It is God's Grace that assures salvation and it is a gift. I cannot earn it, I can only accept it and show it to others.
Happy Sabbath, Dave
Imagine my wife tells me that she loves me so much that no matter what I do or don't do, she will always love me.
I say, "Great. As of tomorrow darling, our date nights are off, I won't being buying you an anniversary, and by the way I'm taking a mistress."
But she says, "Hang on, that's not very loving."
But I say, "But you said you'll always love me. I'm not going to live by your made-up rules anymore, with talk about such nonsense as date nights or anniversary gifts."
The thing is, even if I accept my wife's declaration, that I don't NEED to do things for her, I shoudl WANT to do those things for her BECAUSE I love her.
So the way you posture this debate as the Ten Commandments vs Love of God is simply a false dichtonomy – a straw man argument.
As for Galatians, Paul was primarily talking about the 'works of the Law' meaning the 613 commands of the Mitzvoth, the 'Jewish' distinctive rites, such as circumcision. Paul was not condemning as irrelevant or non-binding the whole OT, nor the pre-Sinai covenants such as the covenants of Abraham and Noah, nor the eschatolgocial-edenic standard of Adam as was 'in the beginning'.
Adventists don't, or shouldn't, keep the Sabbath out of fear or sense of begrudging obligation. We should keep it out of love, because it is a blessing. The 'distinctive' Adventist practices, such as Sabbath or some food laws, are not 'Jewish' at all. They derive from the pre-Sinai covenants, of the Noachide covenant in Gen 9, the 'Resident Alien' requirements in Lev 17-18, and the Edenic-Eschatological covenant of Adam in Gen 1 and Isaiah 56-66.
Sometimes my comments here are viewed as "driveby" potshots, probably because, all too often, I am pointing out comments that seem typical to me of what I regard as the expressions of worst aspects of adventist culture or tradition. In this thread I see several comments that seem to me far more promising: an emphasis on love of God and others. This is the essence of Christianity at its best, and at its best, Christianity shares common ground with the best of other traditions. Warm wishes to you all, and rain, for those in need of it.
stephen ferguson,
we differ in our beliefs on several fronts and levels, but essentially i view the OT through te filter of Jesus. for example, i don't believe God wiped whole nations so His people cold have their land. i am a realtor, i wish He'd do that for me, but He doesn't. fundamentalists typically believe God did wipe out nations because their inquity had reached the brim of some cup He holds. for the life of me, i cannot see Jesus doing this. 'come unto me little chldren, and if you don't, I will slaughter you.' for me there is an evolution (sorry) of what God is like in scripture. the bloodthirsty warring tribes of te OT saw God as giving them nations so they could inherit the land; it was THEIR view of God doing all the killing, just like david wished God would dash the brains out of the chldren of His enemies. a primitive view of God, but God met them were they were at just like He does with us. but fortunately, we have Jesus to tenor our understanding of our loving Father. so i don't subscribe much to the OT's view of God, unless it portrays Him as lovng and gentle – see isaiah.
and the metaphor of marriage works, even God used it, but it is not a complete and true view of God's love, which surpasses our wildest imagnings and understandings. see Jesus. the holy law was given to guide us and protect us in a flawed and broken world, it has nothing, NOTHING, to do with or salvation.
misguided or deceived, this is my view. your nderstanding of law-love is a fndamentalist view, which i reject out of hand. adventist have difficulty with grace becaus they keep injecting law-keeping somewhere in the discussion. finally, God loves me regardless, and 'there is nothing i can do to make Him love me less, and nothing i can do to make Him love me more.' (yancey).
peace.
But Greg, even adopting your point of view, if I love someone should I spend time with them? If I love someone should I forget our anniversary?
The concept of love covers all the issues, both ceremonial (i.e. how should we worship God) and moral (i.e. how should I treat my fellow human being). As the NT repeatedly puts it, love fulfills the Law. The Law is not against Love – they are two sides of the same coin.
I believe worshiping only Yahweh, not making graven images, not taking His name in vain and keeping His Sabbath is all exprressions of love. To not do these things would be tatamount to idolatry, in putting something before me and God. To truly love God means doing these things with all my heart.
I do struggle to do these things I admit, because I am not perfect. I am not a naturally righeous person, and there is a war within myself, as Paul acknowledged. One day I know the Law will be in my heart, so I'll need no further teaching, but I don't really subscribe to Perfectionism this side of heaven, because I am not quite the fundamentalist you think I am.
How successful would your marriage be if before you took the vows there was a lengthy list prepared: "Six hundred Rules that will be followed to prove that you really love me." How appealing is that? Most intelligent persons would walk away.
There are no written rules for Christians; that ended at the cross. The written rules were given to the Israelites at a time in their lives when it was necessary to institute how to even live together without murdering each other: this was the life they saw during the years in Egypt as slaves.
But Christians are guided by love and with love there is only the thought first for others, not a check list of duties and prohibitions which is for small children until they have learned self-control and understand the reason for such rules. Thinking adults do not need to be told that killing and stealing is wrong as they are innate in being human. But no natural laws would show that a certain day should be set aside for rest; or that certain foods would be "unclean." Humans learned very early which plants were poisonous; which meats should not be eaten, but there is no inherent natural ability that would indict all the 613 laws given to the Israelites.
Christians have a simple command: "Love one another and thus fulfill the Law." Never in a million years would the Law given to the Israelites ever have been revealed through natural law–they are all made by men.
amen and amen! thank you, elaine.
greg
Elaine what were the laws given to Abraham spoken about in Genesis 26:5 KJV? Was this not before the great Exodous of Israel? What are thg commandments of God spoken of in Revelation 12:17?
Matthew 5:17 Romans 7:12
stephen,
we can agree, if you love someone, you do things with them and for them. my view is i get to know God in a sin-filled world; many will reject this. in eternity i will, along millions of others. take our experience of knowing a loving God in a hate-filled world to the heavenly kingdom. i believe i will appreciate even more, because of my time on earth with God, the glories of a land perfect and dynamic.
the law involves feeling-less principles, good but not complete. God wants me to love him from a heart free and unencumbered with 'have-to's,' a heart that has found through trial and error that loving Him comes from His tenderness and grace. i love Him emotionally, not just by principle. perfectionism is a lie. it says their is something i have to do to 'measure up' so i am 'safe-to-safe,' another deception. we are saved eternally because while we were enemies God reconciled us. see rom 5. while i CHOSE to hate Him and fight against Him, He reconciled me. i had nothing to do with that. it is about HIM not me, or us. the work of salvation is thorough and complete because of Jesus. the gospel: He gives me His life in exchange and inspite of my pitiful broken attempts to be good. Grace, all grace.
that said, because i love Him, i will live the life of the kingdom here, the life Jesus exemplified, and that is, i will learn to love all people as He loves me.
thanks, stephen, for this dialogue.
greg
It's great how you've tended to your flock of comments. That is added praise to a thoughtful article. Christianity and her divisions reinforce the poor attitudes people have towards the message and it's " messengers". Segregation is as Christlike as being judgmental is loving.
I love the self-righteous navel admiration bit. The last remnant can be so vain towards their umbilical vestige after the Fall, Flood, Sinai, 1st Temple Destruction, the Cross and the 2nd Temple Destruction, Reformation, 1844 etc. etc. Today, the self righteous navel was born to remember all the painful tribulations it has graciously never endured but, always threatened non-invited outsiders w/. And to the world, Adventists have six-pack abs to sheath their well-formed navel.
Using Lennon is a far out way to simplify the simplest message, which we find an innovative way to deepen the divide. Love all people as love ourselves and love God w/ all our heart. Incredible Lennon was only 30 when he offered such sage-like wisdom, he seemed like he lived 80 years instead 40. And Christ stretched 33 human years into a spiritual eternity w/ His divine wisdom.
lynn,
i like your mind. it has been the Incarnation which opened my eyes to the ever-precence of God. that truth has taught me that God incarnated into our culture and into our every-day lives. i find Him in music, literature, even the writing of a charles bukowski or a jack kerouac. yes, these authors represent a real view of life here on this fouled planet, but even in the dregs of society, i find God's footprints and handprints all over the place. the Incarnation means something; God has not abandoned us; in fact He is Immanuel, 'God with us,' good or bad, righteous or unrighteous, churched or secular, God is with us, period.
so my vision is open to finding God hanging out with the worst of us, as He did in the NT, and there, in that company, His acceptance and love, transform lives. and if lives refuse to be transformed, He is still there. I found Him speaking to me through John Lennon, as He has through a 1000 authors, movies, etc. i catch glimpses, not sytematic theologies, just peeks of His working Love, just enough evidence to know He is around and that comforts me. God is the most interesting, mysterious, frustrating and loving Being i know; i can tell Him anything and argue about everything, and i always have a welcomed audience. He has me in His hands, and i am hooked.
peace and blessings to you.
greg
Elaine: 'There are no written rules for Christians; that ended at the cross. The written rules were given to the Israelites at a time in their lives when it was necessary to institute how to even live together without murdering each other: this was the life they saw during the years in Egypt as slaves.'
Elaine I was almost with you in all that until you demonstrate that some professed Christians (and I don't mean you, because you're not one) don't need written rules because they just have love.
The fact is most humans, including Christians, do need written rules found in the Bible, as Paul himself makes clear (Rom 7:7). The notion that Christians can live in an Anarchist society of love is an eschatological hope, the end-point of sanctification, where the Law will be written in our heats (Jer 31:34) and we will not be able to sin (1 John 3:9). Unless then, even converted Christians need to Bible, as even Paul teaches Christians by quoting the Decalogue (Eph 6:2).
There have been so-called Christian societies for generations, and yet none have been able to operate without rules, or operate just with the rule of love. So-called Christian countries are full of statute books full of laws.
Perhaps you have been too far away from an actual Christian community, rather than just an online one. Churches are full of very flawed people who do not always act according to love and need to be instructed or reminded.
Even Paul in Gal, in writing we don't need the Law (which I believe he actually meant the 613 rules of the Mitzvoth and not the entire OT, and not the pre-Sinai covenants that encompassed the Ger commands) still feels the need to write out his own long list of vices and virtues.
Elaine: 'But no natural laws would show that a certain day should be set aside for rest; or that certain foods would be "unclean." Humans learned very early which plants were poisonous; which meats should not be eaten, but there is no inherent natural ability that would indict all the 613 laws given to the Israelites.'
Is there a natural law that promotes monotheism, or not making graven images? If not, are you seriously saying Christians do not have to practice monotheism because it was just given to the Jews?
Stephen,
You are right: there is no natural law that promotes monotheism of graven images. Why should there be? Humans have been worshiping many things but none of that excludes them from God's love. If that is what you believe that only those who are monotheists, follow the Bible, will be saved, that excludes the majority of people who have ever lived. Then you must believe that only Jews, Christians and Muslims (all montheists) will be saved? No exceptions?
Or, is you interest only in classifying Christians and what they must believe to be saved? Either way, the requirements are too limited to believe that "God loved the world" but only monotheists. I'll let God judge, thank you very much.
Dear Mrs Nelson
Or Are you saying Christians do not have to believe in Jesus because the promise of Messiah is for the Jews?
In John 3:16 we find a well known pasage which says "God loved the world" but in the same verse a 'whosoever believeth in Him' qualifies that statement in terms of who will perish and who will receive eternal life. That would apply to the whole world including Jews, Christians and Muslims among others.
Greg: 'that said, because i love Him, i will live the life of the kingdom here, the life Jesus exemplified, and that is, i will learn to love all people as He loves me.'
Greg I agree with all of that. I believe, as usual, this argument is wrongly being presented as an either-or dichtonomy.
The 613 commands of the 'Jewish' Mitzvoth may no longer apply to Christians; however, in many ways, Christians are expected to live up to a higher standard of behaviour, not less, than the Jews under the Law. You are right in the sense that they obeyed out of a negative sense of obligation – we should obey out of a positive sense of love.
But if we truly love God, should not the basic principles of monotheism not be enhanced then? Should we not offer true worship to God, not out of fear because we have to or we'll get zapped, but out of love because we want to? Does not Paul still say in Gal 5:20, that great 'anti-Law' passage, that those who practice idolatry and sorcery, who do not practice monotheism, will not be in the kingdom of God?
So if you truly love God, wouldn't you worship just Him, not make grave images, not take His name in vain and keep His Sabbath (which specifically acknowledges Him as Creator)? Wouldn't you want to do these things in a positive way, as a natural consequence of love? Isn't this what the New Covenant is all about, not of abrogating the Law but putting it in our hearts (Jer 31:33,34)?
Thus, isn't much of this talk of Law vs Love a false dichtonomy. It is very much a question of right perspective and right motive.
stephen,
i really appreciate you hanging in there with your argument; for taking the time and for sharing your inner-most thoughts. when Jesus touched my life; i didn't need any talk or explanationa about law. it was an 'experience' which filled my heart. it is a real dynamic relationship that i have on a daily basis, without contemplating a law of stone to describe what is warm in my heart. your whole understanding is couched in sda fundamentalist talk, that i was raised on, and which i was taught at seminary, but there is another world out there that goes beyond and exceeds the narrow confines of adventism and its arcane and esoteric view of love and the world.
I found Jesus and the love of the Father away from adventism; i found the freedom Christ purchased with His blood outside the doors of the church. and the commandment i follow, since you need comandments to describe your love, is john 15: 12 and 17: 'This is My commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.' that is Jesus not moses. a living experience with my Lord is a life unto itself.
but as long as you are locked into the 19th century's view of God and religion, you will countinue with your obsession with the language of law and love. and if that works for you, then you need nothing more.
thanks again, stephen, for your enduring conversation.
greg
Greg,
What about many of us who have never experienced the type of emotional epiphany that you describe? People like me do not have "dynamic experiences" with invisible entities. I am skeptical of such and if I had such an experience I would be questioning my personal mental stability. So in your experience with Jesus are you in a "relationship" with what you think he/it is? Or do you really think you are having an experience with a real entity? In William James' the Variety of Religious Experience it appears that most of those having an intense "relationship" with God, Jesus etc seemed to be on the extremes with their emotional vs rational sides of their minds.
doctorf,
i have considered that many times. is my faith some spiritual game i engage with my own mind? is this religion thing just man-made to assuage guilt, find meaning, feel the need to have a larger power in charge, etc. then again, i have had what rudolf otto writes about: an encounter with the 'mysterium tremendum,' something wonderful and unexplainable for It found me while i was not searching. you describe a kind of essence of faith for me: believing when believing seems man-made and non-sensical, one elects to believe anyway. though i clearly understand your point, or think i do, i have also had an existential encounter with Something who presence is best described in the person of Jesus. i have chosen to believe and find my meaning to life in Him.
sincerely,
greg
The mention of a "yoke" triggered my brain to think back to a book by Rob Bell, "Velvet Elvis". He refered to the yoke as the yoke of a Rabbi. Apparently, in Jesus time, "The YOKE of a rabbi would help his talmidim to determine how to interpet Torah correctly, so as to best hear and obey God in everyday situations where one command/principal might conflict with another." (as found on the internet).
With this in mind, Jesus "yoke" was easy. He had two rules, Love God with all your heart and love your fellow man as yourself." That is why His burden is light. 2 rules sure beats 600+ any day.
Dave
Thanks David for the insight on the rabbinical yoke, and the likelihood that this is the yoke Jesus was addressing. It is so easy to mistake the truth for the verbage.
Thanks Stephen Ferguson for struggling for clarity in the face of either or. Whatever is about me, about my sense that I must anything for any reason whatsoever in terms of behavior, is precisely an either me or God kind of either or. And that state of embracing the law prevents my worshiping God because I am focused on what I must be or do and what my behavior must be. And that blindness toward God's love is utterly outside the influence of God's love whether before or after we first sense His love.
God does not ask for our committment. He does not ask for my worship. He does not ask for my love. He asks for my acceptance of Him as enduringly loving of everything that He has created, especially me. And when I accept that, I am everything He ever wanted for me to be having of myself done nothing and ever of myself being able to do anything that will make a difference in His love.
I do not attempt to perfect myself because God loved me, any more than I attempt to perfect myself in order for God to love me. God's love for me predates eternity and will endure beyond eternity.
Paul declares that the law brings us to Jesus because the law enduringly showcases our utter futility against its measure.
In Jesus we find measureless love.
Bill,
Would you kindly cite some actual scriptural statement/text/information/anything, that corroborates your claim that “[God] does not ask for my worship [and] does not ask for my love”?
From a principles perspective don’t Matthew 22:37, John 4:23 and Revelation 22:9 suggest otherwise?
If from nothing but an identity recognition and love-based principles perspective don’t Leviticus 10:3 and Deuteronomy 6:5 in the Old Testament suggest that God expects worship and love from those who claim to be His?
Can anyone interpret 2 Timothy 4:3, 4?
Stephen Foster,
Until one has accepted God as loving without limit, where is the capacity to worship God? When this acceptance is a reality, worship is inevitable it seems. How can I anything but worship a God I acccept as eternally loving of me personally, just as I am, His creation?
When I am caught up in attempting to worship whom I do not accept, in the hope that he will take note of me and respond in kind, I become caught up in law-keeping and other self-focused efforts to make my worship a currency of some sort with God.
Jesus speaks to this point specifically in Mark 7.
7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
And what commands had they let go of? God declared that they were chosen rather than given a chance; that they were created rather than self-defined.
Turning to the passages you list, in Matthew and John each passage you reference is a promise more than a demand, a prophecy rather than a prescription it seems to me. Revelation is a clear testimony of the angel that the mysterious presence was not God, but a created creature like John himself and thus not worthy of worship; it was a correction of a simple case of missidenfication.
The beautiful and lyrical promise in Deuteronomy that you quote is just that, a promise. The Leviticus reference is situational in every respect, coming close being a description. It is, of course, also a wonderful promise that not only will those who come close treat God as holy, but that the people will come close to God because … well, they are God's creation and realize that. There is a reason the OT begins with Genesis, and Genesis begins by establishing the all humanity is God's creation.
As for 2 Timonthy 4, it is Paul's closing instruction to Timothy regarding Timothy's work as a missionary in light of Paul's sense that he, Paul, was soon to be executed in Rome. These are the operable sentences:
5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
What comes before is introduction, offering background with regard to those with whom Timothy will be working in Paul's absence. He is speaking of the very people who have already been evangelized, the church of his day, and dare I say our day? 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
So what are these myths? The long and all too tortured history of those who teach that God is indifferent at best, and otherwise angry with us and that to secure God's favor, we must somehow bribe, if you will, God.
It must have been something to see Elijah on Mt Carmel ( 1 Kings 18) in the stand off between God and Baal. There Elijah was, giving the priests of Baal a taste of their own testimony.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
And when the day had passed and it was time …
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me,Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
Note, this was how the people's hearts were turned back to God; their hearts were turned back to God by God's power, expressed on God's terms, in God's time. It was all on behalf of people who has lost sight of God. God was already their. Baal, despite the priests best efforts never appeared.
So it ever is.
Bill,
It seems to me that the operative phrase is “…it seems to me.” I don’t know brother but it takes tremendous talent and intellect—you have both—to defend the notion that God doesn’t ask for our worship or our love.
You also have my respect and admiration; but it seems to me that the Bible teaches the exact opposite of what you have said with regard to God; that He does demand (and of course deserves) our supreme love and our worship. Promise, prophecy, identification, description; what’s the difference? The Bible is saying that God is to be the Object of our love, and the sole Object of our worship.
A suggestion that God does not demand our love and worship can sound nice; but doesn’t represent what the Bible says.
We can’t bribe God because He owns everything—except, of course, our free will. We can choose to love Him supremely. Once we love Him supremely, worship follows as an all but involuntary natural response.
In faith we decide to love Him. That’s all we can do, is decide. His grace and His Spirit empower our decision as He does this in/for us. It’s a process that begins with deciding. Our will is what He doesn’t own. We can decide to give it to Him and He will do the rest. (It’s more like He is “bribing” us.)
Do you disagree with any of that?
Stephen Foster,
Indeed, the operative phrase is, 'it seems to me.' For us all.
To you it seems that "In faith we decide to love Him."
My sense is that it is by faith that we accept God's love for us.
Is faith a decision or is it a response?
It feels to me that Justification by Faith is a response, or we find ourselves in the pain of having drunk the wine of God's wrath so vividly described in Revelation 14. See my note below to Trevor.
This matter of 'free will' has its origin in humanity's attempt to plumb the mystery of iniquity. I believe iniquity remains a mystery, perhaps more so by reason of the notion of 'free will.'
As I freely note, this is how it seems to me.
Bill,
Everything we do, except breathe and sleep, is a decision; is it not? We eat and drink simply because our bodies demand it; yet do so only because we have decided to remain alive.
Love and faith are largely responses but we can decide not to love, and we can decide not to have faith; which means that we can decide to love and can decide to have faith. We get to decide everything we do.
Our will is ours to give God.
I suppose you are saying that accepting His love is one of our decisions; with which I would, of course, agree. But He unquestionably commands love and worship. Thankfully we discover that He is worthy.
Do you decide and determine your heart rate, your blood pressure, your chemical balance (or imbalance)? These are all autonomic mechanisms that sustain life. We only like to believe we make decisions but there are more that has been determined by forces out of our control that prevent real decision making.
You didn't decide who your parents were; where to be born; and when to be born. All of those are more control factors in life than the decisions you are aware of that you make. Remove those, and you have little choice about all the rest.
Interesting Elaine. So do you think belief in God is hard-wired into us as well? If so, why fight it? In fact, can you fight it, because you seem to be obsessed with this Christian site? I might be too, but I am openly a theistic-Bible-believing Christian.
I think you obsession being here is indicative that despite your clever and witty anti-Adventist statements, of 'choosing' be leave the SDA Church, deep down you are still a believer.
It is the old adage of the anti-homosexual politician passing the toughest anti-gay laws, but where it turns out they are really gay themselves? Is your anti-Adventism akin to rampant homophobia – trying to hide something?
RE: Mr Garber's comment: God does not ask for our committment. He does not ask for my worship. He does not ask for my love.
———-
The Bible strongly suggests otherwise sir.
1] God does xxx ask for our committment. [Romans 12:1, 2]
2] He does xxx ask for my worship. [Rev 14:7]
3] He does xxx ask for my love. [Matt 22:37]
Trevor,
Thanks for sharing verses that encourage you … they encourae me, too.
Romans 11, 12
Doxology
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”[j]
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”[k]
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
A Living Sacrifice
12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
In view of Gods mercy, that is, His love, is your true and proper worship found. Do not confirm to the world that teaches that one can purchase God's alligence by sacrifice. Replace that belief with the truth that it is God who is willing and doing in you His good and pleasing and perfect will. (Paul came back to this theme writing to the Philippians (chapter 2)
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
And in the three little letters of John, which describe such explicit behaviors of the saints, as you might expect, I take note of John describing God's children in chapter 2.
28 And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.
29 If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.
Born of him is not by reason of our commitment, or our worship, or our love … but by His adoption of us which begins and is grounded in His love for us.
My point of course is that our love is always in response to God's love. That is why God never commands us to love Him, but rather loves us and patiently persists until His love has love's natural effect.
The writer of 1 John is so inspiring, especially in culminating his message of assurance.
God’s Love and Ours
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit.14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear,because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
Faith in the Incarnate Son of God
5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of Godovercomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
The texts in Matthew and Revelation also come into focus when seen in the context of a loving God.
Matthew is, of course, how Jesus responded to the Pharisees who attempted to prove themselves superior questioners comapred with the Sadducees. They asked Jesus to pick the greatest commandment, no doubt infering from the Original 10. And Jesus responds describing the natural order of the Christian life … Loving God (and equally by inference, who first loves us), and then loving our neighbor as we love ourselves.
There is great power in being animated by God's love.
Now to Revelation 14. The author of Revelation in his introduction explains that he is writing to the saints in the churches of the empire. The message of the three angels is a single message so comprehensive, that it takes three messengers to fully describe the scene at hand.
The scene of Revelation 14 is, like the book itself, for the encouragement of the saints. It describes the gospel in galactically triumphant terms … angels flying in the midst of heaven ('midair' as the NIV notes, but I much prefer the sensation of heaven).
This scene is of contrast between the saints and those who have no rest day or night in their efforts to rouse a sleeping or indifferent or otherwise-occupied god. The sensation of the failure of self-justification is that of having drunk bad wine (which recent research suggests was the cause of Alexander the Great's death at age 32), in this case wine so debilitating that it is described as imbued with God's fury and quaffed straight without dilution.
The writer ads his own footnote to the message of the angels …
12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.
And Ellen White added her observation that the Three Angels Message was about Justification by Faith 'in verity.'
OK … I'm pretty sure you've noticed that texts have meaning that is in many ways dependent on the reader. One might think that God's intent is somehow compromised by this. Though if He made us this way, who are we to disagree?
Trevor,
Where does god get his auhority for asking/demanding my commitment and worship? Why do I have to worship god? Who says so? So if you worship god then you get the goodies? And if you do not you earn his wrath because you ignored him? If that is the case god sounds like a self centered spoiled child to me.
Dear Mrs Nelson (or any other takers with her worldview)
I don't mean to pester you but I'm curious to know where you stand on this one. You have on many occasions said that certain things were only intended for the Jews and not for Christians. The Sabbath being one. Am I right? This line of reasoning has been used by you to negate the observance of the seventh day Sabbath for Christians, despite the undeniable fact that Jesus, the Disciples and the early Christian Church observed it – even after the Resurrection. I do also understand that you do not accept that God has raised an end-time 'remnant' Church as per Rev 12:17 which calls mankind to worship the Creator and remember the Sabbath day. This message ties in with Christ entering the Holy of Holies in the Heavenly Sanctuary where the Law of God resides, (The Ten Commandments), and more especially, at this juncture, an end-time message, highlighting the Fourth Commandment which forms an integral part of the Three Angels Message of Revelation 14.
So based on your 'for the Jews only' reasoning here is the question which I asked earlier:
Are you saying Christians do not have to believe in Jesus because the promise of Messiah is for the Jews?
Trevor, you are starting way too specific asking Elaine about the Three Angles Message or the Heavenly Santuary.
You better start on something far more simple. Ask Elaine (or Dr Taylor, who I believe shares similar views), whether she even believes in the Bible as anything other than an invention of human imagination, or in the deity of Jesus, or in the historic resurrection of Jesus, or in a literal future Second Coming of Christ.
I also recall something to the effect Elaine doesn't really believe in an afterlife at all, where she has stated on several occassions, if obliquely, that our state after death is the same as it was born we are born – in other words non-existence. In fact, I believe she doesn't really believe in God, not in the way you and I do at least.
Elaine is quite good as hiding her true views at times, such as using the Bible to challenge your views. However, she cleverly does that because she knows you believe in the Bible. But don't assume she actually believes in it, at least not in the authoritative sense you do.
It has taken me years to get to the bottom of Elaine's beliefs (and even harder to get to the bottom of Dr Taylor's) and it really comes down to this – they really don't seem to believe in much at all. Their challenges to your strongly-held beliefs are primarily a game or academic interest, like a person who likes to pull wings off dragon-flies – that what is seems to me.
No doubt they will disputes all this, but only in their usual way speaking full of riddles, and won't be straight with you as to what they do or do not believe. However, I am always more than happy to be corrected, and sincerely apologies if I have misrepresented them. Of course, they can clarify exactly what they do and do not believe on these fundamental issues, but I doubt they will.
If you are unfamiliar with conversing with those who do not accept at face value all you profess to believe, this is an opportunity. Many people go through life without ever talking and discussing, without rancor, someone with quite different beliefs than your usual church-going friends. How will you be able to relate to someone in an open question and answer environement, without ridicule, if it is impossible to do so here? Ridicule cuts short most conversations but I have no emotional investment in these discussions, as some here, so it is all in stimulating conversation that is what we all should aim for: learning from others.
It would really be interesting to discuss with an intelligent, well-educated Muslim, for instance. Those I have seen on TV interviews are most gracious and are not at all perturbed by direct questions. Very mature to be able to know what you believe without the frustration of listening to those who disagree.
Elaine that is all very true, that is, for conversing with a normal person who is open to share their beliefs (or lack of them). However, conversing with you is like conversing with a wiley politician. You are never open with your own beliefs – you simply like to challenge SDA beliefs – probably because of some sort of historical chip.
You always answer a question with a question, or deflect, or simply try to turn the tables. That sort of approach only lends to one-way conversations – with you as the Devil's Advocate inquisitor – and we Adventists as the accussed in the dock.
I'd not mind so much with the comments and questions of you disgruntled ex-Adventists if you were likewise open with your own beiefs. But you always keep your own beliefs close to your chest. That puts you at a distinct advantage, because you obviously know what we believe.
If you want to have a discussion with an intelligent, well-educated Muslim, then I suggest you go find one. Here you discuss with SDAs.
And by the way, your whole response is simply another deflection. You simply could have corrected my summary of your disbeliefs, if they were wrong. Instead you went off onto a tangent discussion, as you always do, about who bad I am, and how bad Adventists are, because we're supposedly not mature and tolerant enough to have a discussion with you.
Just for once, I'd love to have a discussion with an actual Adventist on AToday. We could even have a discussion about an important issue from the context of within the Church, instead of constantly having to defend our beliefs from attacks from outside the Church.
Trevor,
Of course, Jews need not accept the Messiah as they accepted God long before there were Christians. It is only Christians that produced the idea of the Trinity, but it does not change that there is one God, which we learned from the Jews. Do you believe there is more than one god?
There is absolutely no mention in Revelation of Sabbath being a testing truth. That is the unique SdA interpretation, not accepted by a single Christian theologian and a product of the early pioneers which has no Scriptural basis. Neither is there a single word of instruction about Sabbath observance given to the gentile believers. In fact, there are several NT texts where Paul specifically writes that all days are alike and no one should judge whether one observes this day or that day.
No, there is a remnant, but it is comprised by all those who have accepted God, whether they were of any belief system as millions have never heard of either the God of the Jews or the Trinity believed and taught by Christians. Neither are biblical, but interpretations.
I do not believe in the concept taught by Adventists of something of ultimate importance occuring in heaven in 1844; I believe that there was a year 1844, 1845, etc. But there is absolutely nothing in the Bible setting those dates as of such monumental significance except a very faulty interpretation by poorly educated and sincere people at that time; people who did not read the Bible languages nor had better and more accurate translations of the Bible.
There is nothing in the Bible telling us that an end-time message will be about worshiping on the 7th day; this, too, is not biblical.
It is a non-question that Christians need not believe in Jesus, as that is the meaning of the word: one is a Christian who accepts Jesus as his savior.
Do those answer your questions?
Elaine: 'Of course, Jews need not accept the Messiah as they accepted God long before there were Christians.'
But just so we are clear – a God you don't believe in though?
Elaine: 'Do you believe there is more than one god?'
Why ask Trevor that question – you're the one who rejects monotheism.
Elaine: 'Neither is there a single word of instruction about Sabbath observance given to the gentile believers.'
There is no command re-affirming the 2nd command against graven images either. Or infanctice either. Like the Sabbath, they were all requirements of the 'Resident Alien', and so obvious and not in contention (unlike circumcision), they didn't need mentioning. Silence isn't proof for licence.
Elaine: 'No, there is a remnant, but it is comprised by all those who have accepted God…'
So there is a remnant Elaine, but you admit you are not one of them, because you have to actually accept God to be part of the remnant? And given you reject monotheism itself…
Elaine: 'In fact, there are several NT texts where Paul specifically writes that all days are alike and no one should judge whether one observes this day or that day.'
Paul is talking about Jewish-Gnostic synchritist heresies. The 'days' he is talking about in Romans is about is probably mandatory fasting days.
Elaine: 'Neither are biblical, but interpretations.'
Of a Bible you don't believe in.
Elaine: 'It is only Christians that produced the idea of the Trinity… I do not believe in the concept taught by Adventists.'
Forget Adventism specifically – you don't seem to believe in Christianity, or even monotheism.
Elaine: 'It is a non-question that Christians need not believe in Jesus, as that is the meaning of the word: one is a Christian who accepts Jesus as his savior.'
But so we are clear – you're again not one of these Christians. You don't believe in the need for Jesus to save us from our sins do you? At most, Jesus is a great moral teacher, perhaps like Dr King or Ghandi?
Elaine: 'Do those answer your questions?'
How do you seriously write your answers, with such a straight face, talking about God, Jesus and the Bible, when you obviously don't believe yourself? Were you once a lawyer, politician, spy or something like that, because you hide your own beliefs (or rather disbeliefs) so well. It is a real talent Elaine – it really was.
Elaine: 'You are right: there is no natural law that promotes monotheism of graven images. Why should there be? Humans have been worshiping many things but none of that excludes them from God's love.'
Trevor: 'Or Are you saying Christians do not have to believe in Jesus because the promise of Messiah is for the Jews?'
Trevor, this is a rare glimpse of Elaine's true views on Christianity, God and religion – you should be glad to have seen this site – it is much like the unicorn or lochness monster.
As you can see, Elaine doesn't really seem to believe in God – at least not monotheism. She sees as a human construct of human beings – no doubt much in her mind like Santa Claus.
When someone does not even believe in monotheism, the very purpose for which Abraham was called out of Babylon and called righteous, then one can see having debates with them about 'the Law' or the Sabbath as recorded in the Bible is totally pointless.
Elaine: 'If that is what you believe that only those who are monotheists, follow the Bible, will be saved, that excludes the majority of people who have ever lived.'
What pray tell Elaine, do you mean by 'saved'? I thought you didn't really believe in an afterlife? Do you even believe in God? Certainly not a monotheistic god it seems.
Stephen,
What do you mean by heaven? I though you had never been there?
'
As a student, you have far to go. But No. 1 should be that all those who discuss a subject do not take it literally or even believe in it. Theological questions are ALL in the realm of opinions as neither you nor I have seen God, heaven, or all that is being discussed about an afterlife. Because you may believe in an afterlife makes it no more literal than a child believing in Santa Claus: they are not reality.
You explain what you mean by 'salvation' first and then I'll explain what I mean by 'heaven.'
Elaine I think you miss the whole point of Christianity and religion in general. It is not about proof based on absolute evidence; it is based on faith found on hope. A sibling who has lost a sibling may have no absolute proof that they were ever see them again, but they can have hope.
As you have no faith, because you don't really believe in God, or the Bible, or Jesus, then I know these concepts are largely alien to you.
Even if God and an afterlife is total BS, even if a man-made lie like Sanat Claus, I'd still rather believe. To paraphrase the award winning book and movie, you can't really prove or disprove God it either way can you? So it really is just a choice. So why would you choose not to believe, as you do?
Elaine you are an exceptionally clever woman. However, I think you have somewhat become too clever for your own good. I believe Jesus was talking of people like you when He said you need to have the faith of a little child – you know – the ones you do believe in Santa Claus.
Dear Mrs Nelson
But you say that the Sabbath was for the Jews only and the Christian Church therefore has no obligation to it. Based on this premise, is not Messiah only for the Jews (with covenant and all) and not a concept of religious belief for non-Jews who by your reasoning clearly have incorrectly called themselves Christians based on the premise that Messiah is for Jews only? The same can be said of the Ten Commandments. Even of Jesus' death: did he only die for the Jews? After all if he is truly Messiah then that should only be related to Jewish religious beliefs and not in any way be something that gentiles should be obligated to or find need to accept or believe for that matter.
Mrs Nelson says: "Jews need not accept the Messiah as they accepted God long before there were Christians." [Emphasis mine]
——–
Ma'am, I thank you for sharing some of your views and beliefs. It is of course your choice to believe what you may and I respect that. Your statement that "Jews need not accept the Messiah" is a puzzling one indeed, not because I'm somewhat surprised that you would say something like this, but more as to how you would arrive at such a conclusion, which I must admit really baffles me. I'm just concerned though that there may be a very real possibility that you and many other ex-Adventists may not have fully understood Adventism, or perhaps Christianity itself in the first place, yet have left Adventism based on flawed concepts of religious beliefs or embracing secular worldviews – as in the case of Mr Imagination himself – John Lennon.
It's possible that none of really know.
Stephen,
The god you believe in is not a construct? Of course it is. You have constructed your god in your minds eye with your understanding of the bible and theology. When you have not seen the god, jesus, devil or heaven than what is left? A mental construct based on assumptions you believe to be true. Pretty shaky ground if you ask me.
Doctorf, I may not really exist. You have never really ever seen me. You only have glimpses of me through words on a magical screen. The notion that you are having a conversation with an actual person, and not simply an extremely powerful artificial computer programme, is on shaky grounds.
Stephen,
So that is your argument? If you do not exist than stop blogging here. Some assumptions are more reasonable than others and have more supporiting evidence. I am typing here at the moment and a computer is not doing the typing for me. I exist also in the scientific literature and we know that is a product of human endeavors.
Your argument for belief is essentially, if we can't explain it then you insert god. But, what have you explained? The answer is nothing. That is one of the frustrations of faith. God is a human construct and you interpose this construct in the conversation. I am not mocking you for this as its quite common.
A magical construct of God? Oh come on. I can say anything I want with regards to god. If he is listening he might even be amused by our conversations. Your god is a construct and he is built out of your understanding of the bible, religion and theology. But, in the end none of us knows if this construct is real and even if it is real we still do not "know" what it is.
I can speak of a god that is believed in by others yet not believe in it myself. A person who has expertise in the history of religion can speak of how belief in god has altered cultural viewpoints based on scholarly study but not necessarily believe in god.
And Doctorf, how do you know exactly what god I believe in? I suspect the god you don't believe in is also a god I don't believe. You are talking of God largely as a positive construct – what He is. I ultimately believe God is a negative construct – what He isn't.
Take the Big Bang. What existed before it? Technically nothing, not time, not space, not even empty void, because the void is 'something.' So how do we explain that? I explain it by the short cut word 'God'. That is a human construct, but at the same time it is the opposite of a human construct, because it is saying God is beyond a human construct.
All of the 4 first commands of the Decalogue are aimed at preventing an 'magickal' construct of God, where the essence of paganism was to try and define and control the deity. That is why graven images are forbidden. That is why intermediary spirits are forbidden. That is why using God's name as a magical talisman is forbidden.
Trevor,
If you accept the Decalogue, before the Fourth Commandment there is a First:
"You shall have no gods except me."
This is part of the shemai, repeated regularly by Jews:
"Yahweh our God is the one Yahweh. You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength."
This was the most important legacy of Judaism and they have always only had ONE God; which is why they and Muslims reject Christianity because it claims three equal gods. Jesus did not become God in the Christian religion until centuries after the NT canon had been closed and the apostles never taught there was a Godhead.
But Elaine, why are you giving lessons on the Shemai when you don't believe in monotheism yourself?
Dear Mrs Nelson
Surely you must know that the word for God in Genesis 1:1 and throughout the rest of Genesis, is used in the plural [elohiym]. In fact the word is used in much of the OT. God (the father), the Holy Spirit and Messiah (Jesus) can be seen in the OT with much of it in pictures and symbols as well. One God is what we believe in as Seventh-day Adventists, just like many of the other Christian churches. Your assertion that Christianity "claims three equal gods" is a gross misrepresentation of our belief, unless of course, like I said in an earlier comment, that you may have perhaps not really fully understood Adventism and Christianity as a whole. The latter seems to be a common problem nowadays with so much of false doctrines posing as truth doing the rounds.
Trevor, don't you see a slight irony in Elaine lecturing you on Jewish monotheism, and the so-called unbiblical belief of the Trinity, when not a few posts before she rejected monotheism herself?
Do we let bankrupts give us financial advice?
And of course Christians don't worship three gods. That is the heresy of tritheism, found in Hinduism.
This is only an assertion of an opinion, and those who disagree will likely reject it out of hand,
but I am under the impression that Elaine and many other former adventists, have left the church
because they began to see it for what it was, rather than what they had been taught that it was
or just wanted to believe it was. In some cases, I imagine, people embraced a more complete
and comprehensive view of Christianity or religion or spirituality or life.
I do not claim to be any sort of paragon or example to which anyone else should aspire, but
it seems to me that many who remain in the church are extremely narrow in their focus. Others,
including some here, not nearly so much. Some here really "get" the message of Jesus and
show it. Others just endlessly qvetch and quibble.
Joe: 'Some here really "get" the message of Jesus and show it'
And what is "it" that Elaine and the other anti-Adventists "get" exactly Joe? I would genuinely be interested to know.
If you mean His moral teachings, then I don't think you "get" what Jesus was all about either. Jesus was much, much more than a moral teacher. Israel had many of them, including the famour Rabbi Hillel, who said pretty much of what Jesus would say a few generations later. The acient Med world of the 1st Century was also full of great moral teachers. I think Buddha was a great moral teacher, as was Ghandi, as was Dr King. They were all great moralists. I think even Richard Dawkins, who we Christians like to see as the incarnate of evil sometimes, is actually a great and very moral man.
Jesus was much more than that. Jesus claimed, by His own admission, that He was more. Jesus claims to be a King with a Kingdom. Jesus claims to be greater than Abraham. Jesus said He was the long awaited Jewish Messiah. Jesus claimed He was actually 'I Am', God's personal name, and the other Jews went to stone Him. Jesus claimed He was the Jewish Temple, the true one, in flesh. Jesus claimed He would die and be resurrected from the grave.
All Jesus' claims are the good news – the Gospel. The Gospel isn't a great new moral code – because it isn't even new! Even pagans have morals. No, it is Jesus' eschatological life that is what we need to "get" from Jesus' message.
Elaine: '…which is why they and Muslims reject Christianity because it claims three equal gods'
Putting aside the irony of Elaine, who rejects monotheism, attempting to then lecture on the supposed idolatry of the Trinity, based on the authority of a Bible she doesn't believe – yes, Muslims and Jews will accuse Christians of believing in three gods – but are they right?
Christians shouldn't believe in three gods – that is tritheism, like the Hindu Trinity. No doubt many Christians in practice do treat the Father and Son especially as two separate gods, but I am pretty sure the original Greek theologians of the early Ecumenical Councils didn't.
What is 'one' mean exactly, especially when discussing a being-less being like God?
Are you 'one' Elaine, even though you are made up of different limbs? Aren't you conscious, sub-conscious and reptilian-brain functions separate parts of your mind, but doesn't you mind still work togther as 'one', so that you have 'one' identity?
Nice one Stephen!
The alegation that Christians believe in three gods (tritheism) is tantamount to taking a piece of your hair, your tooth and you thereof and saying "behold the three "stephens!"
I would have used limbs and your head but I thought it would be a little gruesome on a christian/non christian blog.
Thanks Tapiwa. I almost can't imagine what this site would be like if Adventists could actually discuss issues with other Adventists – both conservatives and liberals. I suspect we might be able to actually try and achieve AToday's supposed mission, which is to discuss contemporary issues of importance to Adventist members.
But alas, we continue to have the benefit of Ms Nelson's wise teachings. So we get to continually discuss things of absolutely no contention at all amongst Adventists, whether liberal or conservative, from belief in God, to the authority of the Bible, to now the doctrine of the Trinity.
I will say this of Ms Nelson though. Continually battling her here is like the best witness training camp in the world. I don't think I have had an aspect of my faith not challenged by her and her minions in some way. In that way, I think she has been sent by God as a blessing for us all, as persecution strengthens the faith.
Stephen,
When Elaine challenges your position you equate this with "persecution." So you strenghten your faith by entering into this dialogue? How? You remind me of a child putting his hands up to his ears so that you don't listen. Then you cite texts that validate your faith position. I think you bristle by the fact that your cherished beliefs are being challenged by others that are intellectually your peers. I know what you believe because I used to accept the SDA beliefs until I started really thinking for myself and understanding that what I have learned about the natural world does not necessarily support the theology that formed my belief system.
Above you propose non-explanations for things you do not understand. e.g "what was before time and matter"? I agree that explanations fall short but using god to explain anything is no explanation at all. It just makes you feel better.
stephen,
i am a strong believer and i find elaine a breath of fresh air. she thinks, arrives at her own conclusions, and is keenly intelligent enough to argue her point well. she's gutsy, stands on her own, and confronts the best and worst of us, equally with her strong arguments. she is in that case also respectful. she is a gift to the conversation, and in my belief world, a valuable participant. God loves a seeker, and elaine is defintley a seeker. try seeing glimpses of God in her argument and presence; Christ purchased us freedom (2 Cor. 3:17), and elaine is exercising that liberty, the very freedom purchased with His blood. the beauty is we don't agree on some important ideas, but i value her input. in fact, i salute her.
greg
Sorry to say this, Stephen, but you seem terribly and desperately confused. I mean you
no ill will by saying this. I know you are struggling to find meaning.
I suppose you are correct in believing that I think the message of Jesus was a very simple
message that was aimed at urging people to treat one another with decency and respect,
i.e., a moral or ethical message. To the extent that there was more to it than that, it had to
be simple enough for anyone to appreciate. The extent to which there was a single Jesus
person who conveyed a cohesive message is open to some questioning and speculation.
Many believers act as if they know the answer. I agree with you that there have been many
sources other than Jesus who conveyed a similar perspective. I don't think claiming to know
what existed or did not exist before "The Big Bang" helps us much with that. Remember,
whatever the message of Jesus was, it claims to be simple enough to be believed by a
child. On the other hand, I imagine it could be claimed that children can believe pretty
much anything. I recall believing as a child that God and time were without any beginning
and that all that exists was created out of nothing. And even then I knew that Santa Claus
was pretend….
Joe: 'Remember, whatever the message of Jesus was, it claims to be simple enough to be believed by a child'
No disrespect take Joe. I would just say I am not struggling to find meaning, although, I would be happy to admit I am striving to find further meaning. I hope everyone would want to do that, until they draw their last breath. Are you not still seeking meaning in life?
As to what "it" is that people like Elaine supposedly "get' about Jesus' message, I totally agree it is simple. And the NT emphatically explains what that central message is. John 20:18 explains what it is, but I could have chosen a bunch of other texts:
'Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.'
I believe E P Sanders says it best, when he says that for all the disputes about the Law, or circumcission, or divorce, or works, or fruits of the spirit, or of apocalyptic beasts, of all the claims of hypocrites and people who should go castrate themselves, there is only one thing that every NT author and Apostle agrees on – Jesus of Nazareth who is the Jewish Messiah, who was once dead, is now alive!
That's it. Jesus' death and resurrection is the core message. Everything else is subordinate to it. Everthing revolves around it. Everything must be interpreted through the prism of it. This is the literal 'good news' that Mary first proclaimed, which Paul had a vision of, and which continues continue to proclaim – even today.
So the question Joe, is whether you and Elaine "get it" – do you accept that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish Messiah, and despite dying on a Cross is now alive? If you don't, then can I suggest, again meaning no disrespect, that you both don't "get it" – and are yourself desperately confused.
I cannot speak for anyone other than myself.
I think concepts of God and deity and Satan and heaven and hell and sin and salvation
and redemption and judgement and resurrection are all inventions of the human imagination.
I am continually amazed with the extent to which these imaginary concepts are believed
to be literal and real–and how much time and effort goes into trying to figure out how
all these ideas relate to each other and to objective reality. It is as if many people had
split off from objective reality into the depths of paranoid schizophrenia.
But some here accept a real and fundamental hope that sustains them. They seem to be
able to just accept the "God is love" and "golden rule" part without going over the edge
into bizarre machinations of rationalization and wild speculation. They seem to just live
life warmly without requiring that everyone agree with them on all the details. So, to me that
seems pretty cool, and pretty consistent with what we can see of what is represented in
scripture as the message of Jesus.
Well that's the thing Joe, you can't then claim to "get" Jesus' message. And I mean that from the presumption you are right. It was Jesus Himself you seemed to make these claims, so if Jesus did not live up to them, as you claim, then He was obviously a fraud.
It would be like me saying I "get" Al Gore's message of Global Warming, but then denying Global Warming. I might be entirely correct in rejecting Global Warming, but it would be disegenious of me going around saying I "get" Al Gore's message.
And how can one say the concept of God as an invention of human imagination, but then say this same person can simply accept that God is love? Isn't that an apparent contradiction? I thought you said the message of Jesus was supposedly simple – so simple a child can understand it. Whatever clever answer you have, I doubt it'll be simple. I suspect one might need a PhD in philosophy to understand it.
Joe,
Which statements of Jesus best exemplify or represent “the message of Jesus” to you? You seem to be able to distinguish/identify which participants here actually “get” it; so it would be helpful if you would identify for whoever may not “get it,” which statements would be most informative.
There is delicious irony here, asking Joe to tell you who are they that "don't get it". Or intimating Joe is going to even try explain it to you two-even taunting that a"PhD in philosophy" is requisite to understand it-even before he (if he chooses) answers you. I'd suggest that the volumes the STephen and STephen so prolifically (and perhaps try authoritatively) write to exposit their thoughts might require a special decoder ring, in addition to a double-degree PhD.
You (as do we all) likewise have your own "message of Jesus". It's use as a litmus test to reject another is perhaps suspect, and antithetic to the broader and all encompassing "message of Jesus".
One a child even can understand. Sort of like a love-based global warming.
Funny, seems a bit chilly in this room.
‘Rusty,’
It appears that (surprise, surprise!) you’ve misunderstood me. (As usual with us, it’s my fault.) I did not ask Joe “who are they that ‘don’t get it.’” (I assumed that those with whom he has most recently disagreed are among them. I hadn’t communicated with Joe recently, but certainly assumed that I might be included.)
My request was for Joe to identify which statements of Jesus, for him, best represent or encapsulate the “message of Jesus.” As we know, Jesus said a lot. So, since Joe seemed to have a handle on who among us have internalized the message more than others of us; perhaps he can share what statements Jesus made that would be the most informative.
It’s warm enough in here for me, my friend. I’d suggest that you might sense more warmth in the room if you focused more on what is being posted as opposed to detecting and identifying the personal weaknesses and faults of those (like the Stephen F.’s) who are posting.
Would it help you if I for one stipulated (sincerely) that I am not as nice a guy as you are? (I have a stranglehold on the obvious.)
Anyway Joe, I hereby reiterate my request; and is it a behavioral (‘works’) message or is it something more/less/different than that?
Perhaps the unsurprising characterization of "always misunderstanding you" is in truth, as testy as you seem, that you may be discomfitted by someone actually understanding you in this too brief exchange. Seems despite your claim "it's plenty warm in here" you seem a mite chilly. Don't be too proud to accept a blanket.
Or a hug!
Is it needful to remind you of your self-prophessed role of being the one to dicomfit? Nevertheless, some can take what's given, and give it right back. Whether you choose to hear (or see) anyone around your chosen blinders is entirely your prerogative.
As it is mine to express my observations — despite your too many protestations.
Can you appreciate candor and honesty? Truly when my friends are thus with me, I grow.
Even I.
Perhaps the unsurprising characterization of "always misunderstanding you" is in truth, as testy as you seem, that you may be discomfitted by someone actually understanding you in this too brief exchange. Seems despite your claim "it's plenty warm in here" you seem a mite chilly. Don't be too proud to accept a blanket.
Or a hug!
Is it needful to remind you of your self-prophessed role of being the one to dicomfit? Nevertheless, some can take what's given, and give it right back. Whether you choose to hear (or see) anyone around your chosen blinders is entirely your prerogative.
As it is mine to express my observations — despite your too many protestations.
Can you appreciate candor and honesty? Truly when my friends are thus with me, I grow.
Even I.
Rusty: 'You (as do we all) likewise have your own "message of Jesus". It's use as a litmus test to reject another is perhaps suspect, and antithetic to the broader and all encompassing "message of Jesus".'
Stephen Foster: 'I’d suggest that you might sense more warmth in the room if you focused more on what is being posted as opposed to detecting and identifying the personal weaknesses and faults of those (like the Stephen F.’s) who are posting.'
Rusty: 'Seems despite your claim "it's plenty warm in here" you seem a mite chilly. Don't be too proud to accept a blanket.'
I'm glad Rusty is here to continue his self-appointed role as splinter expert. Rusty's modus operandi seems to perceive any sort of theological challenge of ideas as a personal attack, upon which Rusty must come to the rescue.
I remind Rust that Joe's original statement was:
Joe: 'I am under the impression that Elaine and many other former adventists, have left the church because they began to see it for what it was, rather than what they had been taught that it was or just wanted to believe it was. In some cases, I imagine, people embraced a more complete and comprehensive view of Christianity or religion or spirituality or life… Some here really "get" the message of Jesus and show it'
What is wrong with asking Joe to clarify what he means by this statement? If Joe is going to praise Elaine for supposedly understanding the "comprehensive view of Christianity" and "getting" the message of Jesus, what does he mean by this? Especially given Elaine doesn't accept monotheism?
I see the most fundamental message of Jesus as the golden rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. This was not exclusively Jesus' message. Others have identified and advocated the same principle–and Elaine is one such person.
Many messages are attributed to Jesus that are less wise, and it would be wrong of me to claim that the one people should "get" is the one that most appeals to me.
Joe very true about the 'golden rule'. That is a central message of Jesus; although, it actually derives from the OT itself and is found in almost every religion on earth, so it is hardly unique.
As to many messages that are attributed to Jesus that are less wise, what do you think of those who "get" or don't "get" the Greatest Commandment as stated by Jesus in Matt 22:36,37,38:
'“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.'
What do you think a total outsider, say a Buddhist or an Agnostic, would say of someone claimed to be a self-described 'Christian' but did not subscribe to Jesus' own statement of the Greatest Commandment? How do you think an outsider would say most "gets" or doesn't "get" the message of Jesus.
Again, I am not saying that Jesus was right – that Jesus had a good message a modern educated person should try and believe. I might say Osama bin Laden most gets Mohammed's message – it is just that I totally reject Mohammed's message. I might say the LDS fundamentalists who practice polygamy most "get" Joseph Smith's message – I just reject Joseph Smiths messae.
So all I am asking is a question of honesty and integrity, in who best "gets" Jesus' own message – as you have supposedly attributed to Elaine as the one who most "gets" it? Elaine might have the best retrojected religion, as you see it, but does she really "get" what Jesus Himself probably thought to communicate in His message?
Joe very true about the 'golden rule'. That is a central message of Jesus; although, it actually derives from the OT itself and is found in almost every religion on earth, so it is hardly unique.
As to many messages that are attributed to Jesus that are less wise, what do you think of those who "get" or don't "get" the Greatest Commandment as stated by Jesus in Matt 22:36,37,38:
'“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.'
What do you think a total outsider, say a Buddhist or an Agnostic, would say of someone claimed to be a self-described 'Christian' but did not subscribe to Jesus' own statement of the Greatest Commandment? How do you think an outsider would say most "gets" or doesn't "get" the message of Jesus.
Again, I am not saying that Jesus was right – that Jesus had a good message a modern educated person should try and believe. I might say Osama bin Laden most gets Mohammed's message – it is just that I totally reject Mohammed's message. I might say the LDS fundamentalists who practice polygamy most "get" Joseph Smith's message – I just reject Joseph Smiths messae.
So all I am asking is a question of honesty and integrity, in who best "gets" Jesus' own message – as you have supposedly attributed to Elaine as the one who most "gets" it? Elaine might have the best retrojected religion, as you see it, but does she really "get" what Jesus Himself probably thought to communicate in His message?
Joe, as I understand you non-pejorative use of the concept you allude to-to wit, that man has formed these concepts to try understand something so far removed from his frame of reference and direct observation and understanding (and perhaps inspired writ was not a proscriptive treatise of truth to be forensically and laboriously parsed until it utterly loses completely the spirit of its meaning-but before I get too far ahead, undoubtely that is a subject for another hundred threads).
I suspect, and ask, perhaps God DID inspire men, men who wrote, from what else, if not their own experiences and observations? Having read the bible quite throroughly in one manner and another all my life, I've concluded that if I consider God wrote (or inspired men to write) the scriptures from HIS perspective-and it came out like it has, with seeming incosistencies (really? a god of love killing people who kill their children) the cognitive dissonances on multiple levels would have me reject ALL of it-because I could not understand it from his perspective at all. But if I lease that perhaps he wrote it to me, from MY perspective, and it alludes to something so abundantly many magnitudes greater than I can even imagine or dream in my wildest hallucinations, then perhaps the cognitive dissonances I feel would not tear apart my fabric of faith in something so immeasureable as "ultimate Truth".
See, I draw a meta-parallel here. If "science" took one of it's apparent minute understandings, and from that drew a simple metaphoric picture it understood in some fashion-would not the picture be just that? A crude, line drawing, a scratched and partial cueneiform in a language foreign to me, and an absolute caricature of any shred of "ultimate truth".
But if I undertood that truth about unseen dark matter and untouchable dark energy (which vastly overwhelms the direct matter and energy which we can touch and see and test) is something overwhelmingly deeper and vastly more profound than my caricature-I would be in constant awe and wonder. Both spiritually, and "scientifically".
Have we not done this to religion?
The awe and wonder is replaced by the special and forensic knowledge we have caricatured from holy writ-simultaneously denying the window into himself that divinity inscribed into each particle and cell and atom etc etc….have we effectively marginalized the unseen energy and the untouchable matter in the field of theology, likewise?
Perhaps to one who loves life-and his fellow man-living apart from that abundant love and eternal desire for life is already hell. At least thats how it feels, when I look at all the staunch defenders of the "god of love" who would deny love to a liberal, and ultra liberal, an ex-SDA—whoever they can drum out of their ranks on the basis of their primitive line drawings of a "god of love". We no doubt need to color outside the lines, outside the book, out of this universe, even. Or make ourselves (and our theological understandings) our gods.
If you were aware
that in the heart of me
is tucked a tiniest bit
of eternity-
and within me a
a tiny fragment of divinity,
would you still
with your many words
or with your many swords-
would you still
try kill me?
If divinity
is to love,
and to love,
divine-
I suggest there is a problem,
you see,
with the way we define
theology.
Peace to you all.
Rusty, thank you for your wise offering.
Hello, brother Stephen. You are correct to challenge me about my assertions about who "gets it"
and who does not. When I say that, I am implying, if not stating outright that the way I understand
things is THE correct way, and that I approve only of those who agree with me. That is a narrow
position and is not one I wish to hold or defend.
I am as guilty as anyone of selecting out the statements attributed to Jesus that I agree with and
ignoring the others. That is how, I imagine, that I solidified an impression of Jesus, et al., as
a loving God, and of Jesus as a very positive and loving individual. Paying attention to people
like Graham Maxwell reinforced that perspective.
So God/Jesus came to have the characteristics that I could love and admire and accept–
until even that was not consistent enough to be believable to me.
I really have no business specifying to anyone what version of Jesus, or "the message of
Jesus," they should "get." My sincere apologies for suggesting otherwise.
It is rather pollyanna-ish of me to overstate how positive and hopeful was "the message
of Jesus" to me when I believed it.
Joe,
No apologies are necessary my brother. It is, in my view, ultimately quite impossible "to overstate how positive and hopeful the message[s] of Jesus" were and are. This is true, whether believing or not.
I am naturally intrigued by your comment that the characteristics of Jesus “as a loving God, and of Jesus as very positive and loving individual” eventually became “not consistent enough to be believable to you.”
Perhaps we can explore that some time. I’ve personally concluded that God is working with omniscience within the context of benevolence toward free willed creatures; a tough job. He knows everything; including what would and will happen under every conceivable set of circumstances, and is working it all out.
The key for me is His benevolence; because I believe it is His nature. (His omniscience, I believe, is an attribute.) I’ve witnessed, experienced, and benefitted from this benevolence for nearly three score years, Joe. Some of you have for even longer.
Stephen how do you "know" god is omniscient? Where did you get this idea? The people writing in the bible suggest that god is all knowing but in the end we do not know if this is the case. You are stating your beliefs but these assertions may not be true.
Doctorf, how do we know you are even real?
Dr Erwin shows bias in saying "I think concepts of God and deity and Satan and heaven and hell and sin and salvation and redemption and judgement and resurrection are all inventions of the human imagination" in that he has left out one he holds fundamentally dear to: evolution theory – which is undoubtedly an "invention of the human imagination."
Of course, this was not intended as an exhaustive list of inventions of the human imagination.
I agree. Every aspect of science and religion is, I think, invented by humans.
And, of course, I have biases. Do you know of anyone who does not?
Those aspiring to get those reading the work of science to make room for science possibly being bogus in substance as well as conclusions, how about this?
Let have a look at Job. Job is by far the greatest legendary man of faith in all of scripture. And no matter the assults of debunking friends on all sides, remains true to God.
You might be thinking that God would reward Job for his blind faith, and criticize debunking friends. But no. God contends with Job!
Job 38
38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
God is not talking to scientists here, God is talking to the greatest example of faith the scripture records! Job tries to squirm out from the conversdation by Chapter 40.
40 The Lord said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the Lord:
4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:
7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
12 look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
And when God is finally finished with Job, Job is where we all must be with questions of scripture, with questions of God, with questions of salvation, and of course with questions as to the implications of science.
It is Chapter 42.
42 Then Job replied to the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
Now, finally, is Job fully subdued in his faith and for the only time truly faithful.
42 Then Job replied to the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
And now of course the rest of the story …
Epilogue
7 After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.
10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver[a]and a gold ring.
12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
It behoves every reader of Genesis to read Job and taste God's opinion of our ability to understand His creation, particularly the creation of Leviathan, or in Genesis the Serpent I believe …
42
[a]“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
This is what matters. Reading Genesis cannot matter in any literal way. Let's all claim Job's confession. And live in peace.
42 Then Job replied to the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
And of course it won't matter who is right … what matters is who confesses Job's confession. So perhaps God will require of the faithful readers of Genesis to bring seven bulls and seven rams to the faithful scientists and sacrifice for themselves, because God will hear the prayer of Job the humble scientist and accept Job's prayer on their behalf.
Or perhaps it is the other way around.
One thing for sure, the prayer that the Lord will accept is the prayer of the one confessing Job's confession.
42 Then Job replied to the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
bill,
i would like to tweek this a bit. i believe God was in Job's quest and questions all along, not just when he confessed he knew nothing. yes, God is found in humility, but He is also in the confrontation, the complaining, (and job had much to validly complain about…after all, don't you wonder about a God of love who uses His children as pawns in some game with evil? job had mucho that was justified in his complaints). God's pavillion is silence and mystery, and it can drive us crazy. job was in the wilderness and that is torturous, but he never surrendered his trust, in spite of his senses telling him otherwise, he clung to the dirt as his faith groveled in pain and question. God was there too, the whole time, as He is when we find His ways perplexing and non-sensical. the key for me is believing when believing makes no sense. that is faith at its lowest and highest point.
Being as we all see through the darkened glass, the origins of the universe with Earth inclusive, human life the ultimate Earthly intelligence, yet we have no human witnesses to the beginning. If only Adam or Eve could give testimony to how theyrecall the event as it was on Day 6, (if the Bible rendition is truth).Just imagine the great diversity of opinions on Earth,should you extrapolate the interpretations of just we few contributing to this blog.
There seem to be no knowledge of what caused the Big Bang (if there was a BB). What were the ingredients and nucleus? What quantity of ingredients were required to propel those ingredients outward for over 14 billions of years, and seemingly for eternity? Where did the ingredients come from?
Study all my life (over 80 plus years), of the major religions on Earth, i wassatisfied that the Christian story was plausible, believable, and the best possibility of how we all have life, intelligent design by the Master Craftsman. i can't accept the other religions and their beliefs, or the lack of intelligence required for creating living forms; that it all happened in nothing from nothing. i believe, because i want to believe, some out of space Godly forces set in motion what was required for us to be here today, and i love the concept that we are here because of a God of love, personified in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus, being our God of love has given us life here, nurthured us in love, provided for our transition to everlasting life. Jesus the Christ, does not consider our souls to be expendible, but precious , and must be preserved at any cost to Him. This intelligence of man is a priceless commodity He has created, and must extend forever.Not dispached to oblivion and the trash heap.
Were our souls preexisting? God said he recognized us in the womb. We don't know? The mercy of God and His grace i have accepted. His love i am trying tofollow, sinful though i am. Jesus, my God tells me He has forgiven me my transgressions, and will remember them no longer. i stumble occassionaly, but i immed. feel my guilt and strive in Christ's righteousness. i hate the sin and look forward to the day when my soul is rescued by God, when casting off my corrupt flesh, and restored to me in a glorious spirit body, alike God's spirit being.
Praise my God, Jesus Christ.
My late father had what I have sometimes called "a Job complex."
Late in life he often went into a "dark" mood, recounting, one-by-one, all the bad things
that had happened to him in his life, through no fault of his own. Sometimes this progressed
into wondering how God could have allowed all these awful things to happen to him.
He apparently thought of himself as a faithful lifelong servant of God. In many ways he was
a very good and talented and considerate man. At the same time, he worked very hard at
always being right and never being wrong–perhaps to a fault. I think he was pretty hard on
himself and those closest and dearest to him if he saw imperfections (not unlike his own
father).
In the end, I'm afraid, he was a bitter man, passionately committed to loving God in his
way, but probably blaming God for the many disappointments he had in his life. I suppose
the lessons I took from him were "don't become bitter," and do not have unrealistic
expectations of God. But, in a way, the second part might make no sense. After all,
what is God for? I suspect that for many, God is all about protection from reality.
Imagine that!
And to what extent Joe, did your father's views of God, which you seem to be implying were warped, influenced you? Did you perhaps overract to the opposite extreme? Are you still dealing with your own 'daddy-issues' in your own faith, or lack thereof?
One could easily be "put off" by the assertion that he has "daddy-issues," but, in truth, I am
the one who brought up my father, and the suggestion that I might have "daddy issues"
probably has some merit. I probably do. I don't imagine I am alone in that. It is probably
a good point to make, even if the choice of terms has some emotional baggage.
Well, I don't know…. I do not see Dad's views of God as being unusually warped. I've
discussed concepts of God with people from many backgrounds, religious and not,
Christian, Muslim, animist, and others, and Dad's views seem to be pretty sane by
comparison with many others. In retrospect, it seems to me that he was surprisingly
sane for someone who had been raised SDA and attended SDA academy, worked
as a colporter, etc., but was also engaged in a broad spectrum of life beyond the
church wals. Confused? How could he have not been confused? How can anyone
with a brain (that they use) not sometimes be confused about God, religion, etc.?
Some succeed in believing. Some of us do not, as hard as we may have tried, we
just find some things unbelievable. We would be dishonest to claim otherwise.
Joe, if all God is, in reality, an illusion, and imaginary figure, and the alternative is accepting all the hell that earthly existence gives some people, that drives them mad with pain and torture, to institutions, hospitals, prisons, and suicide, i believe a belief system that a person develops is salvation to their soul. It provides an answer that salves the soul of man, and is his strength that will not be denied intime of trouble, his coping armour. A person who develops such protection is wise. He believes it to be true, and no one can prove him wrong, as some seem to think he should be advised his belief is just a stupid superstituous imagining. In this life one needs a contingency plan, to survive with the intelligence safeguarded. It is not weakness, it is wisdom, to be able to keep your integrity when others are losing theirs.
Depending on the level and depth of pain, nothing will help as much as necessary prescribed medications.
But if people believe that the only alternative to not believing in God is eternal hell, he will not be led by love but fear. This is the method used for most of Christian history to make converts: the fear of hell was so strong and firmly believed that it colored everything they did, encouraged by many fictional writers who were gifted with talented writing. including a renowned SdA writer:
"The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. They 'shall be stubble: and the day to cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts' (Mal. 3:1). Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punsished "according to their deeds." (EGW in Great Controversy)
Adventists taught the fear of hell as did all Christian churches.
Elaine not sure how you think the SDA view of hell is even remotely related to that of other Christians?
There is a marked difference between finalised destruction, even of 'many days' with the idea of eternal torment for million, billions or trillions of years!
And I think you ideas of the afterlife, which is to say there isn't any, is scariest of all!
elaine,
another version of: 'serve Me or die.' and you are right, fear served us…but not well, nor does it ever. fundamentalism is toxic when it comes to the love of God.
peace,
greg
True, but if the counter-suggestion is universalism, that may not be true love either. You can't have love if you don't include giving someone the choice not to love you.
so steve,
if we burn just for days is grace. God burns us a little while is better than eternity. that is a difference without significance. God burning at all is the problem…unless, you view justice as His supeme trait.
Jesus says, 'love your enemies.' and God gets to barbeque His. strange and ugly. 'come unto Me little children, but if you don't, I will burn you.' this is God?
Why do you selectively quote the Bible Greg? Doesn't the Bible talk of a second death in Rev 21:8?
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
And in Matt 13:42 Jesus said:
'They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
And in Matt 10:15 Jesus said:
'Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.'
Last time I checked this was indeed the same guy who said "love your enemies" and "come unto me little children."
When you start selectively quoting the Bible, you can get it to say anything you want. I hate to break this news to you Greg, but God isn't affected by fashion trends. Just because these texts may no longer be politically correct in the 21st-Century America doesn't mean they no longer exist in the Bible. I certainly hope God isn't an American.
I suspect the torment of burning will primarily be of a mental rather than physical nature, in much the same way Jesus' pain on the Cross seemed to be that way. However, I can't really know and I won't be able to judge God until I get to heaven myself. Until then, I can only guess what these texts wholly mean, but they do suggest a God who allows people to opt-out of His offer of grace.
After a period of being deeply committed to "loving God" for some time, during which
I spent much of my time obsessively studying scripture and praying for enlightenment,
I came to accept that I could not understand God, and that the ambiguities of scripture
were not resolved by studying manuscripts in Greek or Hebrew. If there was a message,
it seemed to me, the message had to be a very simple one that could be understood by
anyone.
I think you are correct, Steve, to point out that we can't just pick and choose which
scriptures to believe if we are trying to understand the God of the scriptures. The message
is mixed. There is the God of fire and brimstone, the God of genocide, the God of The
Great Flood, the God of everlasting hell fire and eternal torment. It is difficult to keep
this God in mind at the same time as the one revealed by Jesus as the One who loves
us more than anything. Couldn't all this be fictional?
"However, I really can't know…." Me either.
steve and joe,
your protestations against 'selecting and not selecting certain texts' is hypocrisy, caused no doubt by your literal interpretation of the bible. you no longer adhere to the cermonial law and all the texts that refer to them. why? because someone has told you that are 'no longer binding,' so you select to ignore them. i presume you no longer keep slaves in your home? why not? the bible does not condemn salvery. 'onesimus' is counseled to be loving to his slaves, but no where does it say 'let my people go.' you ignore the counsel of onesimus whose meanng is now general in terms of loving any and all. and i bet you don't demand women cover their heads in worship either. you have selected to ignore that biblical injunction too. so please, pull the plank out of your own eye before you piousoly counsel me not to 'pick and choose' scripture.
and how you can glibly accept that God can slaughter children in OT and be sensitive and loving in the NT without questioning such dichotomy, baffles me. if your spouse was/is very loving to you, gracious and kind, generous and sensitive, but is collecting neighborhood cats and killing them, you would be aghast that she could do such a vile thing. something would be seriously wrong. her inconsistent behavior would be pathological. and that is exactly why i question God, who bids me to 'bring me your arguments,' and i do.
and with regards to universalism, it was never condemned as heresy in the early centuries when finding heresies was sport. there is a tree in the new jerusalem whose fruit is for the 'healing of the nations,' why would that be? healing in the New Kingdom has problems. and you gladly accept that a creature, adam, could kill us all without our consent, but your Creator can only save the few because the many say no, seems wrong to me. so i question and wonder.
you write like you 'know' everything about God and salvation, when Jesus says to the pharsisees, in john 9:41 (sorry for the selection), '…you say , 'we see;' ( we know), your sin remains.'
i am not so sure the fundamentalist view born out othe age of enlightenement is the final word. i don't pretend to have even a few answers, after all, we're talking about God. what i do know, is when i think i have God all wrapped up and packaged as certain doctrine, i no longer have God. but what i am certain of, thanks to Jesus, is i am loved and i am to love, as He loves me, but i am free to question and complain, just lke job too.
i am sorry you feel you have to dismiss aother's journey and questions because they don't reflect yours. if i am wrong, i can accept that, eternity will be me out, but in the meantime, God's grace covers me. at least i have elected to err on what i think is mercy. my faith has to make sense to me, and it never did ensconsed in fundamentalist piety.
peace and grace,
greg
BTW, Steve, Blaise Pascal was a very young guy when he died. Very smart, very young,
and maybe a tad naive. His bet, I guess, was supposedly about whether or not God
existed. His solution was that a reasonable person should act as if God existed, whether
or not He actually did. BECAUSE the loss of heaven and condemnation to hell were
such huge issues that one could not risk them being false–especially, given that our
lives are so brief and worthless by comparison.
But the other side of this is: What if our present lives are all we have and all we will ever
have? And why should we consider these lives so worthless anyway? We can live
joyfully and well. We can experience wonderful things. Our lives can have constructive
consequences. Or we can live as if none of this is worth anything. We can live as if
all that matters is what we cannot know. I'm betting this life is all we have. You may do
as you please.
~~Very honest Joe. I think for many of us, a Christ-Centered hermeneutic is the beginning of wisdom in Biblical study.
“the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” ExeJesus instead of just exegesis !
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
For of his fullness we all received, and grace for grace.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:14-18
steve and joe,
all of us must make sense out of the bible narrative. God can appear bipolar and schizophrenic; slaughtering women and children in the OT and begging them to climb on His lap in the NT. steve, you obviously borrow a fundamentalist view of the 2nd death, i do not. i have to go with Jesus, who claims He is my representative, that my sins were cured on the cross, that He died for me, and therefore, because of Him i am saved; we all are saved. He was/is my perfect response to the Father. if He only died for those who accept Him, then Adam's deed was far more effective and everlasting than even God's, and done without any of us deciding if we wanted to be a part of it. hardly merciful.
secondly, you are claiming that my fallen, broken will is the decider where i will spend eternity. that i question. i understand the need for choice when it comes to love; in this world we earthlings all move and have our being working with imperfect, flawed wills; we share the same plane. but i question if that has eternal implications.
and regarding the 2nd death, i wonder if the meaning is all evil will be burned up, that is destroyed and prevented from entering the pearly gates, but i don't conclude it means the person will be destroyed. greek for 'punishment' has a rehabiltative meaning. clearly, no evil will enter heaven.
look, i know my position has problems and questions, as the evangelical-fundamentalist position is fraught with holes, but if i look to the Cross, my mind runs wild with the wonderful possibilities. and if i am wrong, at least i erred on the side of mercy, something even egw counseled us to do. i have been set free from the prison of my adventist dictatorial upbringing; free to wonder after God, who as joe points out, is mysterious, confusing, and often elusive. i park my life in Jesus, my YES to the Father, and bet on mercy beyond my most imaginative dreams.
thanks for the great discusssion.
greg
Greg: 'i have to go with Jesus, who claims He is my representative, that my sins were cured on the cross, that He died for me, and therefore, because of Him i am saved; we all are saved.'
Greg with respect, you don't go with Jesus. You go with your own card-board cut-out version of Jesus.
Jesus never said we'd all be saved. In fact, he said quite the opposite; in the texts I have provided you.
I am pretty sure Steve that God is happy to have us wonder after Him, betting on mercy!
If believing in an afterlife inhibits the enjoyment of simple pleasures as required for that "pie-in-the-sky
in the sweet bye-and bye" it is most unattractive place for other than ascetics, and it is the fundamentalists who become ascetics, not the self-assured and confident in enjoying life today. We know the wonderful world we live in today, but the afterlife is only a dream with no guaranteed refund.
OTOH: What to do with all the OT stories greatly detailing the horrors and massacres ordered by God?
Sweep them under the rug, or explain that it is not like the Jesus of the NT. How does this compute with the idea that Jesus was at Creation and the same as God in all the OT but Jesus, as God, suddenly changed into the meek and humble babe in a manger and came to bring peace?
Or, the most vivid description of the destruction of the wicked in Revelation an the SdA's prophet:
"The wicked receive their recompense: Some are destroyed as in a moment, "fire will come down and destroy them. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while other suffer man while other suffer many days…."
Believing that there are millions who jump through hoops, give up all pleasures to avoid that end.
Did God 'order' the first and second world wars and the thousands of other man-made wars on our planet? Answer: No.
God, by virtue of being the Almighty Creator and Sovereign Ruler over all creation, has all authority and power to judge, destroy or redeem the creatures of his hand. Those who put God on the dock deny his power and authority over all of creation. They show unbelief in his capacity to rule as Sovereign King and Lord of all Creation and question his righteous judgement and indignation which is always administered with longsuffering, love and mercy. It is his prerogative to do as he chooses at his descretion and by his full authority which is held by none other. Trying to blacken God's name by citing cherry picked incidents where he destroyed the wicked is of no consequence as he is holy, righteous and just and there is no other like him. He will also, through Christ, the Judge Himself, destroy the wicked once and for all. Yes, Jesus will destroy the wicked – which would include those who have dishonored and second-guessed his Sovereign power and authority.
Yes and no. Firstly, yes God is the Almighty, and He will do what is manifest in His Character, and man is totally unable to render judgement of God. i submit that the Bible stories of God annihilating whole nations in favor of the offspring of Adam is fantasy. Those who wrote the stories dreamed that it had to be God'sAlmighty power that led them to victory, as they were continuously being challenged as they sought the lands of milk and honey, and because they were organized for battle, and won most of them, and survived against seeminglysuperior forces, they attributed it to God's intervention in favor of them, God'schosen people they theorized. Finally they met their match and were made slaves for several hundred years. Since, they have been hounded through out the world and are an astonishment that they still survive since the terrible holocausts of Spain, Russia, and Germany. Amazing yet, despite that they have been pariahs on Earth, they have dominated the professional hierarchies of every art and scientific, and wealth aggrandizement ranks globally. The House of Rothchild has engineered this cornucopia`of the world's Royal Families wealth since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. The Rothchild's made a pact with the Royals, that they would never challenge the political arena, but they would be the loaners of last resort to all. They are responsible for the establishment of the global Central Banks, the IMF, the UN, NATO, etc. They reside in the City of London, which is in the center of London, England, but is a tax free plebisite, beholden to no one. The Queen of England is permitted to enter once a year in ceremony, but always genuflects to the Lord Mayor of the City of London. The Rothchilds and legion of employees are believed to be non-religious, and have their monies in every enterprize under the sun. They foment terror, and wars, loaners of money to both sides of the engagements. They financed Cecil Rhodes (The Rhodes Scholarship, where the brightest minds of youth are wined and dined in London, for one to two years) of Rhodesia, South Africa fame and are the financiers of the De Beers diamond families, Thy financied the European and Asian colonies, etc etc They hold the official papers of debit that proves the Royal Family of England is the owner, lock stock, and barrel of the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong (although having ceded political power temporarily to China, still owns the land), & most of the rest of the Pacific, except the Phillipines (Spain).
Why have i related all of this?? Because i believe the end days of Earth's historyare winding down. The renewal of the Holy Roman Empire is at hand. The Pope will sit on a thrones in Rome and Jerusalem. The Armies of the North (NATO and the UN) will wage war, (Armageddon) against the forces of Islam, led by the Nuclear state of Iran.
Ephesians 6:11 & 12 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil". verse 12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against prinsipalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places"
Refresh your memory of Rev chapters 17 & 18.
Imagine there's no evil, no death to dim the eye/ No HIV to scare us, With no polluted sky/ Imagine all the people, Living free from sin… Imagine no pornography, No prostitution queue/ Nothing like cruel abortion, And no secularism too/ Imagine all the people leaving Babylon… You may say I’m a believer, But I’m not the only one/ I hope someday you’ll join us, And by His Grace repentance come. Imagine there’s no slavery, Of the economic kind/ No need for nuclear warheads, No sex perverted mind. Imagine all the people, washed in Jesus blood… You may say I’m a believer, But I’m not the only one/ I hope someday you’ll join us, And the King of kings shall come.
Imagine there’s no violence, no rape of any kind/ No bombs of mass destruction, no wars to maim and blind/ Imagine all the people, Living free from sin… Imagine there’s no murderers, no cancer and no AIDS/ Nothing like evolution, and same sex marriages/ Imagine all the people loving like they should… You may say I’m a believer, But I’m not the only one/ I hope someday you’ll join us, And we’ll see salvation come. Imagine no more smoking, no dope or drug abuse/ No ills and no diseases, no hatred, lust or booze. Imagine all the sinners, surrender their all to God… You may say I’m a believer, But I’m not the only one/ I hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will say Lord Jesus come.
Trevor this is the best thing you have written ever! I had no idea you were a poet!!
trevor,
very good. put it to music.
i would add: imagine there's no exclusion, no pharisees, no religious illusions; imagine no judging, no saying, i am right/ you are wrong; imagine in every heart an invitation that excludes no one.'
Well put Greg. I agree, but you have to understand what a refreshing effort this was on Trevor's part.
mark,
my compliment was sincere. he did do a good job, i agree with you. a clever and creative way to make his point. i liked it.
greg
Elaine,
“If believing in an afterlife inhibits the enjoyment of simple pleasures as required for that "pie-in-the-sky
in the sweet bye-and bye" it is a most unattractive place . . ." I don’t doubt your experience Elaine, and I only ask because I would like to understand this perspective; it is very foreign to me—'Why would believing in The Creator and an afterlife cause one to Not Enjoy the Simple pleasures in this life?'
Is this because that a depressing view of God and the idea of an afterlife are so strongly associated?
For me, I have come to see secular philosophy and thinking Shaw did, it “seems simple, because you do not at first realize all that it involves. But when its whole significance dawns on you , your heart sinks into a heap of sand within you.
There is a hideous fatalism about it, a damnable reduction of beauty and intelligence, of strength and purpose, of honor and aspiration.”
George Bernard Shaw Back to Methuselah 1921
Instead of helping me see the beauty of the world we live in, a secular view, robs me of the world's joys.
Joe: 'I think you are correct, Steve, to point out that we can't just pick and choose which
scriptures to believe if we are trying to understand the God of the scriptures. The message
is mixed. There is the God of fire and brimstone, the God of genocide, the God of The
Great Flood, the God of everlasting hell fire and eternal torment. It is difficult to keep
this God in mind at the same time as the one revealed by Jesus as the One who loves
us more than anything. Couldn't all this be fictional?'
Joe I admire your approach. At least you are being very intellectually honest. You have seen the image of God portrayed in the Bible, and not liking what you see, determined there isn't (or probably isn't a God), especially not the one the Bile portrays. I find that a totally superior position to simply trying to re-make the God of the Bible in our own image, in selectively picking and choosing the parts we like.
U know, this constant blaming of "Christians" for people turning away from religion is getting old. People make their own choices…U can not skate into the 1st resurrection just becasue you rejected God over someone being a hypocrite.
But something dawned on me the other day reading another blog making the same worn out gripe that is on here. What dawned on me is that in the modern world, especially the west, nearly everyone is exposed to-or has been raised in Christianity. No one has an excuse other than choice at the end of the day for rejecting God.
When Paul talks of the gentiles having a conscious as a law unto themselves from God–he isn't talking about people who know about God but make excuses to reject Him (like in the modern U.S.–2014)…he was talking about those who have never heard of the true God.