Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:39:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
839 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Justin Pankey wrote:
| |
| |
Further, your lame attempt to equate the early Israelites to current Muslim
extremists is actually what is offensive, but I gave you the benefit of the
doubt, trying to explain to you that the Tanach is a book of faith, not a
record book, etc. Those stories are 4,000 years old; that they occured as
written is highly doubtful, but not the point anyway. The point is that
Christians have come to the full realization that God is a loving God, and
since God never changes, God must have been that way when He pursued a
covenant relationship with the early Israelites whether they realized it or
not.
|
John,
I tried to follow this debate as close as possible...forgive me if I?ve
missed something. I agree with your general position that God is
unchanging, however as far as I read, you?ve only reffered to the God of the
Bible as a God of love. I believe it is clear in both the old and new
testaments that God is a God of justice and judgement as well as a God of
love and mercy. This being the case, there is no disparity between the God
of the old testament and His coming as Jesus in the new. Would you agree?
|
God is indeed just and worthy to judge, but I think we must be very careful when
trying to ascertain God’s Will in certain situations. The tendency is to
anthropomorphize God, because God is so behind the confines of our limited
understanding. God is said to be “jealous”, or “angry” when, if God is
unchanging, is not possible. God has reconciled humanity to Himself through
Jesus, meaning God loves us all; God loves me and you the same as Saddam
Hussein. This is incontheivable but nonetheless true. It is impossible to
understand, but it is the core of the Gospel and therefore paramount in my
understanding of God as revealed by Jesus Christ.
| |
Further, the Bible is a collection of books, and as with any literature,
should be read with an eye on the type of writing, be it parable, poetry,
historical, etc.
|
Agreed.
| |
I would not discount statements in the old testament such
as those Richard pointed out. Those statements about conquest were written
in a way as to be viewed as historical fact leaving nothing up to
?interpretation.? God helped the Isrealites wipe out the previous
occupants of the Holy Land because their conduct was detestable to Him.
|
I am a big believer in discerning fruit. Actions are what it is all about, so
when I see people attributing their sketchy behavior to following God, I am
skeptical. This is how I can judge the evil actions of terrorists, even though
they claim to act in the name of God (and my God besides!).
In my final analysis, Joshua is such an ancient book, so old, so foreign, so
removed from our time and history that I have trouble reading it as anything but
metaphor for Yahweh’s Hesed (Steadfast Love)
| |
It
seems to me that if you believe the new testament is the inspired word of
God, you should embrace the old testament the same way.
|
Jesus revealed God as God had never done previously (in person). I therefore
place prominance in Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and the Gospel of John. As a
gentile, I embrace the OT as a context for the coming of Jesus, but in no way
feel bound by The Law as it is perscribed therein (I still believe, however,
that Jews are Covenant bound with God whether they accept Jesus as the Messiah
or not). When I read about the Israelites or “the people of God” in the OT,
however, I identify myself as one of them.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
