|
Forums118
Topics9,223
Posts196,070
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17104
02/18/06 03:02 AM
02/18/06 03:02 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Here are the comments I find objectionable: quote:
1. The insights which Christ shared were not based on some secret metaphysical process of transcental meditation.
2. The fact that you see God as acting in a schitzophrenic fashion shows that your vision and Christ's of God's character (i.e., the God of the Old Testament) are not in harmony.
3. It's clear you are not perceiving things the same way as Christ.
4. The purpose of the enemy is to present God in a negative way, and by this deception to lead us into rebellion. It appears to me that your view of the God of the Old Testament is the same as the Pharisees was.
5. However, the idea that we live because God separates Himself from us is ill-founded.
1. In so saying you are implying that’s what my view reminds you of.
2. Not only is associating my view with schizophrenia unkind, so is saying that my vision contradicts Jesus’ vision of God’s character.
3. Again, saying my perception contradicts Jesus’ is unkind.
4. This too is offensive. Comparing my view to the Pharisee’s in the context of Satan’s lies, deception, and rebellion is unkind.
5. Implying that my view is ill-founded is unkind.
Instead of using this type of dialogue, instead of labeling my views, you might want to consider simply explaining your view of the truth as opposed to mine. Sharing your unfavorable opinion of my view is unkind, and serves to squelch my desire to study with you.
Enough said. Now, which insights would you like me to respond to?
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17105
02/18/06 06:16 AM
02/18/06 06:16 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
1. In so saying you are implying that’s what my view reminds you of.
You spoke of Christ's learning by communing with God. But the primary means by which Christ learned was by the study of the Scripture, not some nebulous (i.e. not carefully defined) communing. I apologize if you find "transcental meditation" harsh.
2. Not only is associating my view with schizophrenia unkind, so is saying that my vision contradicts Jesus’ vision of God’s character.
"Schitophrenic" seems like the right word to me. You are implying that God has two different personalities, one which He displayed in the Old Testament, one in the New. Here's is the definition of "schizophrenic" I had in minad: "contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes". This seems to me to be precisely what your position is. If you can think of a better word than "schizophrenic" for me to use, which means "contradictory or antagonistic qualities," I will be happy to use that other word.
I disagree that my saying your view disagrees with Christ's is unkind. I explained exactly why I think this is the case. You yourself said that God is acting completely differently in the Old and New Testament. Christ never said this. He said what He saw His Father doing He did, and what He heard His Father saying, He said. IOW, He was presenting the view of God which He had, which is to say, He was being identical to the God of the Old testament. So Christ's view is different than yours. This isn't something particular to you, however. Anyone who holds that the God of the Old Testament is acting differently thant the God of the New has a different view than Christ had. This covers not just you, but all of us, because we all see incorrectly when we look to the Old Testament. Only Christ had the right view. Even holy angels were confused. I'm not being unkind to them either.
3. Again, saying my perception contradicts Jesus’ is unkind.
Once again, you have said that God was acting differently in the Old and New testament. I believe Christ's view was completely opposite to this. I don't see how this is unkind. I'm simply expressing my opinion. How would you suggest I state this?
4. This too is offensive. Comparing my view to the Pharisee’s in the context of Satan’s lies, deception, and rebellion is unkind. The Pharisees' view was representative of the view of the Israelites as a whole. However, we seem to view them (the Pharisees) very negatively. So I'll rephrase to say that your view appears to be the same as the Israelites' view (the contemporaries of Jesus).
5. Implying that my view is ill-founded is unkind.
Here's what I said, "However, the idea that we live because God separates Himself from us is ill-founded." I should have written "unfounded" which means "without sound basis," I'll switch to "without sound basis" if that's preferable.
Instead of using this type of dialogue, instead of labeling my views, you might want to consider simply explaining your view of the truth as opposed to mine. Sharing your unfavorable opinion of my view is unkind, and serves to squelch my desire to study with you.
Enough said. Now, which insights would you like me to respond to?
When we first started dialoging it was I who was taking issue with your language, which was far stronger than what I've used in responding to your ideas. However, I must admit you have responded well to my requests that you change your tone, so I will try to do what you have requested as well.
The idea I'd like you to respond to is this: Christ said that He said what He heard His Father say, and did what He saw His Father do. This shows that Christ's view of God in the Old Testament was exactly what He Himself did and said.
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17106
02/19/06 04:18 AM
02/19/06 04:18 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, if you would simply refrain from labeling my views that would go a long way in my heart. Thank you.
Not only do I believe Jesus manifested different types of behaviour in the OT, I also believe He did the same while here. For example, on one occasion He drove sinners out of the temple, and one another He rebuked His disciples for wanting to punish the Samaritans.
Jesus uses whatever means it takes to reach the hearts of the people He is laboring to save. A heavy hand served Him well on many occasions in the OT, and so did using a small, still voice. Jesus is very versatile. In the end, Jesus will employ plagues to fulfill His will. He will also use love.
I believe Jesus learned much more about His Father through communing with Him than He did through reading the Bible. He was reading about Himself when He read the Bible. Of the Godhead, Jesus was the primary player in the OT.
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17107
02/19/06 04:21 AM
02/19/06 04:21 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Not only do I believe Jesus manifested different types of behaviour in the OT, I also believe He did the same while here. For example, on one occasion He drove sinners out of the temple, and one another He rebuked His disciples for wanting to punish the Samaritans.
It was the sinner's guilt which drove them out of the temple. At Christ did was reveal His glory, similarly to what He did with Moses on the mount. Recall how when Moses descended, he had to cover his face, because Christ's reflected glory was too much for them to bear. Recall that while some left (those whose conscience was bothered when Christ's glory was revealed), the immediate subsequence scene is that children were sitting on His lap.
Christ said many times He came not to destroy, nor to condemn, nor to judge, but to save. This was a case of circumstance, but of character. God's character is such that He comes not to destroy, but to save. So that we might understand this, Christ repeated this many times.
Note that in Christ's rebuke He said, "You know not of what *spirit* you are." The problem was not one of the situation, but of the spirit. They did not understand that God does not come to destroy, but to save.
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17108
02/19/06 04:58 AM
02/19/06 04:58 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
You asked what I wanted you to comment on, and I answered, but you didn't respond. So perhaps I was unclear, so I'll try to clarify. Christ said that what He saw His Father did, He did, and what He heard His Father say, He said. quote:
In Christ's day the religious leaders had so long presented human ideas before the people, that the teaching of Christ was in every way opposed to their theories and practice. His sermon on the mount virtually contradicted the doctrines of the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees. They had so misrepresented God that He was looked upon as a stern judge, incapable of compassion, mercy, and love....Though they professed to know and to worship the true and living God, they wholly misrepresented Him; and the character of God, as represented by His Son, was as an original subject, a new gift to the world. Christ made every effort so to sweep away the misrepresentations of Satan, that the confidence of man in the love of God might be restored. He taught man to address the Supreme Ruler of the universe by the new name -- "Our Father." This name signifies His true relation to us, and when spoken in sincerity by human lips, it is music in the ears of God. Christ leads us to the throne of God by a new and living way, to present Him to us in His paternal love.-- Review and Herald, Sept. 11, 1894 .
The Pharisees had the wrong idea of God's character, which they received by misunderstanding the Old Testament. Christ's revelation of God's character was to them something new. But Christ's portrayal was correct! Christ really was presenting God as He is in truth.
If we look at the Old Testament and see God as being different than Christ, we are seeing God differently than how Christ did; the same mistake the religious leaders of Christ's day made. Rather than a harsh, arbitrary judge, God is "our Father."
Since Christ did what He saw His Father do, and said what He was His Father say (a knowledge based on His study of the Old Testament), Christ's perspective of God was exactly what He lived and said. So much so He said, "when you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." So if we see a different God in the Old Testament than we see when we look at Christ, we are demonstrating that our perspective of God is different than Christ's.
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17109
02/19/06 11:56 AM
02/19/06 11:56 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
I think this is Arnold's main point, and I agree: quote:
God is a consuming fire to sin. I don't think such "violence" is a new thing. I believe it has always been that way, and always will be.
He went on to point out that whereas in the OT the 'violence' sometimes fell on God's people as in the judgment of the feiry serpants, at the cross, Christ was like the snake on the pole, the recipient of the 'violence' and was made to be sin for us.
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17110
02/19/06 05:37 PM
02/19/06 05:37 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Mike wrote: quote:
Jesus uses whatever means it takes to reach the hearts of the people He is laboring to save. A heavy hand served Him well on many occasions in the OT, and so did using a small, still voice. Jesus is very versatile. In the end, Jesus will employ plagues to fulfill His will. He will also use love.
I believe Jesus learned much more about His Father through communing with Him than He did through reading the Bible. He was reading about Himself when He read the Bible. Of the Godhead, Jesus was the primary player in the OT.
Tom wrote: quote:
You asked what I wanted you to comment on, and I answered, but you didn't respond. So perhaps I was unclear, so I'll try to clarify… If we look at the Old Testament and see God as being different than Christ, we are seeing God differently than how Christ did; the same mistake the religious leaders of Christ's day made. Rather than a harsh, arbitrary judge, God is "our Father."
Tom, I do not believe Jesus in the OT is different than Jesus in the NT. But it is clear that Jesus did not use all of the same tactics He used in the OT while He was here. He will, however, eventually use plagues tactics again to punish and destroy unsaved sinners at the end of time. Such tactics do not contradict the love of Jesus.
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17111
02/19/06 06:57 PM
02/19/06 06:57 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
He went on to point out that whereas in the OT the 'violence' sometimes fell on God's people as in the judgment of the feiry serpants, at the cross, Christ was like the snake on the pole, the recipient of the 'violence' and was made to be sin for us.
The "violence" of the fiery serpents was not instigated by God. The fiery serpents had always been there, and God, in order not to impose His presence when it was not desired, withdrew His protection, as requested. God's graciousness still comes through, however, because He provided a remedy for the fiery serpents, which had always been there.
In Christ's case you correctly point out the Christ was the recipient of violence. God did not instigate violence on the cross, but received it at the hands of His creatures, both angelic and human.
The quesiton I was getting at is if violence is something which God requires in order to set things right. If it is, this has philosophic consequences that we should think about.
If violence is simply the byproduct of sin, that's another matter. There would be no traits of God's government which would necessarily be violent in this case.
In other words, did sin merely bring out a dark corner what hadn't been seen before, a violence which was always there, but not seen? Or is violence something which began its existence with sin, and will disappear once sin is gone?
Here's the crux of the matter: Is violence the means by which God does away with sin? Or is violence something self-contained by sin, and the means of destroying sin something else (such as, for example, the revelation of truth).
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17112
02/19/06 10:38 PM
02/19/06 10:38 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Tom, Did Christ die according to scripture because of the suffering caused by his tormenters? Why did his heart break?
The Jews didn't have to reject him. What would have happened if they accepted him? What kind of death do you think He would have died in that case? A 'non-violent' one? Well sorry for interupting you and MM. I think he was asking you some questions.
|
|
|
Re: Does God require violence?
#17113
02/20/06 12:42 AM
02/20/06 12:42 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
If your talking medically about the actual thing that caused Christ's death, it was the mental anguish due to sin. Even had the Jews accepted Him, He still would have died that death.
It was not necessary for Christ to be crucified to die. He would have died in Gethsemanee by the same cause that killed Him when crucified, had not God sent an angel to strengthen Him. Christ's death, in this sense, was not due to violence, but to the effects of sin.
However, the cross does reveal the violence of our hearts, as well as those of Satan and his confederates. It was man's desire to kill Christ. The violence was entirely from man (and Satan + his angelic followers) and not at all from God.
Violence only exists because of sin. As soon as sin is done away with, violence will cease. But sin cannot be done away with by violence, but by the revelation of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
