21 Dec 07
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI.
It’s not about one view being “nice” and the other not. It’s about contradictoriness. Let’s see if I can break it down a bit—
I.
In our household there is no justice. We simply do not live according to that concept. We live according to love. No one, for example, ever says something like: “You owe me, because...”, or “I’ve kept track and it’s y . One can claim that they love, but if their behavior is not loving, then that’s what counts.
Is your idea of justice is someone demanding rights or getting what is
owed them? I’d say you and I have clear disagreements on what
justice is if it is limited to that. Love and living in it is the goal, as
Jesus pointed out the two greatest laws are love God and our
neighbors and by doing that we will fulfill all the other requirements.
Doing the right thing, the just thing is done while acting in love,
putting the other first and so on; however, unlike the utopia you are
describing the world is filled with rapist, murderers, wife beaters, liars,
oath breakers, people who with hold good when it can be done, and
on and on. I agree it is easy to paint a pretty picture where everyone
is living in love as a goal where justice seems to be not needed, the
Law didn’t show up until after sin entered into the world too if you
recall, and it was given so that we could see sin for what it is as Paul
points out we wouldn’t know what lust was if it were not for the law.
II.
I understand you want to earn your way into righteousness if the Law
could do that it would have been all that was required, if sin had not
entered the picture we wouldn’t even have to worry about it, but how
good, is good enough, or what is a good deed? When looking at
righteousness how many good works is enough to make God allow
you into His kingdom? If the bar is beyond our reach would it matter if
you were as good as you believe Gandhi to be or mother Teresa if
even their self sacrifice didn’t diminish their sins to the point of
making them righteous enough? If God requires perfection all the
sins/flaws are still there, does it matter how many good works there
are if none of them really clean away a bad one, who says what is and
is not a good work? Does one get to tell God they are good enough,
you have stated above your household is loving; I’m guessing you
feel vindicated and think you have your righteousness intact that
God ‘should’ if He were to judge all mankind not have anything
against you, at least by your standards, not sure how you stand up to
God’s standards?
There is only eternal justice even the grace had to be just it was no
small thing that Jesus did and the way He did it. God didn’t just go, I
forgive these here, but those there I reject and that was that. The
crimes that those of us who come to God with are put on Jesus who
was just and the punishment that was due us was given to Him.
Kelly
21 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdIII.
It’s not about one view being “nice” and the other not. It’s about contradictoriness. Let’s see if I can break it down a bit—
I.
In our household there is no justice. We simply do not live according to that concept. We live according to love. No one, for example, ever says something like: “You owe me, because...”, or “I’ve kept track and it’s y . One can claim that they love, but if their behavior is not loving, then that’s what counts.
I’m not sure what you mean by read the scriptures putting love above
justice, or justice above love; both are important, and in their rightful
place in life require each other. What would you think of a woman who
loved her husband that was beaten by him daily for no good reason,
does that situation require a little justice or does her love for him
mean it should go on and on? What about a father who is loved by
his wife, if he is doing bad things to the kids, does her love for him
mean she doesn’t stop him or does the situation require a little
justice? What about a guy who is doing bad things to people outside
of the family, does his wife because she love him allow that to go on
due to her love or does she do something to bring a little justice into
the world?
A pardon can requires no justice if it is an act of will only that does not
address what was done only the punishment for a crime. Jesus took
our sins upon Himself, He bore our iniquities, they were not just
brushed under a rug and hidden justice was done but it was done
upon Him who knew not sin for us sinners. This grace and mercy of
God is not just a pardon! If you reject the offer Jesus has for you, you
reject it no one can force you to come to God through Jesus Christ,
you cannot be forced into that! If you do reject such a great salvation
you are simply left standing in your own righteousness, to accept it is
to stand in Jesus’ righteousness not our own for our own isn’t good
enough we admit that as we come to Christ, as we also admit we
cannot earn our way in by working for it too, we strive to stand in
God’s rest in Christ.
Kelly
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by vistesdIV.
It’s not about one view being “nice” and the other not. It’s about contradictoriness. Let’s see if I can break it down a bit—
I.
In our household there is no justice. We simply do not live according to that concept. We live according to love. No one, for example, ever says something like: “You owe me, because...”, or “I’ve kept track and it’s y ...[text shortened]... . One can claim that they love, but if their behavior is not loving, then that’s what counts.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, I sorry I'm just missing
what it is you think I'm doing or how I'm doing it. please address
this a little more if you would, I'm sure it is me not you that is missing
something right in front of me. Sorry!!
Kelly
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by Jay JoosLike I said, who cares what a god things if we simply dreamed up the
But Kelly...God cares! .... There is going to be good times and there is going to be bad times.The good Lord can use you all the time!
god meaning it isn't real we made him up. I believe God is real and
not something I have dreamed up, I do care greatly what the Lord
of Heaven and Earth thinks.
Kelly
21 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, you're not that original; some semi-savages did thousands of years ago. Still you worship a contradiction; an all-Powerful, all-Knowing, Super Nice God who gets angry if beings infinitely inferior to him don't do as His SuperDuperness commands. In fact, like a tempermental toddler, he gets soooooooooooooooo angry he wants to do the worst thing his mind can think of; but being far more powerful than Dennis the Menace he can punish them eternally! At least a sadistic child only pulls the wings of flies or puts ants under a magnifying glass; but your maniac of a deity tortures to the max.
I didn't dream up the God of Heaven and Earth.
Kelly
In short, he's just the type of God a brutal group of killers would come up with and revere.
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayGood... God bless you 🙂
Like I said, who cares what a god things if we simply dreamed up the
god meaning it isn't real we made him up. I believe God is real and
not something I have dreamed up, I do care greatly what the Lord
of Heaven and Earth thinks.
Kelly
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI care about life yes as it is very fragile and precious...God uses us to spread happiness,not anger...
Why? Do you care what the average amoeba is doing? And the average amoeba is much closer in ability to you than you would be to a 3-O God. And what can he "use us" for? S**ts and giggles?
21 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Jay JoosHow much happiness did SuperDuper God spread to the people of Jericho, or the Midianite children or any of the many other peoples butchered at his command according to your holy book?
I care about life yes as it is very fragile and precious...God uses us to spread happiness,not anger...
You do care about what an amoeba does?🙄
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIs your idea of justice is someone demanding rights or getting what is
IV.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, I sorry I'm just missing
what it is you think I'm doing or how I'm doing it. please address
this a little more if you would, I'm sure it is me not you that is missing
something right in front of me. Sorry!!
Kelly
owed them? I’d say you and I have clear disagreements on what
justice is if it is limited to that. Love and living in it is the goal, as
Jesus pointed out the two greatest laws are love God and our
neighbors and by doing that we will fulfill all the other requirements.
Doing the right thing, the just thing is done while acting in love,
putting the other first and so on; however, unlike the utopia you are
describing the world is filled with rapist, murderers, wife beaters, liars,
oath breakers, people who with hold good when it can be done, and
on and on. I agree it is easy to paint a pretty picture where everyone
is living in love as a goal where justice seems to be not needed, the
Law didn’t show up until after sin entered into the world too if you
recall, and it was given so that we could see sin for what it is as Paul
points out we wouldn’t know what lust was if it were not for the law.
. . .
A pardon can requires no justice if it is an act of will only that does not
address what was done only the punishment for a crime. Jesus took
our sins upon Himself, He bore our iniquities, they were not just
brushed under a rug and hidden justice was done but it was done
upon Him who knew not sin for us sinners. This grace and mercy of
God is not just a pardon!
_____________________________________
Sorry to cut and paste such large blocks of your response, but I wanted to put them together from the different posts.
(1) Can you define for me what the word justice means to you?
On the one hand, you seem to think it would be unjust for such evil-doers as you list to simply “get away with it.” On the other hand, your understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice seems to imply that the faithful will in fact “get away with” whatever sins they had heretofore committed; the unfaithful, however, will not. (By “faithful” I mean having whatever you define as a proper faith in Jesus as the Christ.)
(2) Your notion of justice seems to be a one-size verdict fits all: the faithful are declared “righteous” simply by being faithful, regardless of what crimes they have or have not committed, and receive eternal reward; the non-faithful all receive the same eternal punishment, regardless of what crimes they have or have not committed.
Again, I don’t know what you mean by justice.
(3) I have said before that your God’s perfect righteousness seems to entail such a perfect intolerance of sins that small sins and big sins both are subject to the same eternal punishment, torment, being cast into the lake of fire, etc. There seems to be no measure of the punishment fitting the crime for the guilty, while there is no punishment at all for the crimes of the guilty who have faith in Christ.
Again, I don’t know what you mean by justice. Human justice is certainly imperfect; should we attempt to perfect it by having only two sentences for anyone—either they go free or they get the extreme penalty?
(4) In your view (forgive me if I mis-represent it in any way) no one is deserving of eternal reward; but God nevertheless gives such reward to those who are faithful. Neither the faithful nor the faithless are deserving. How does this come under the heading of “justice”?
I see no justice at all in your schema. I see grace given to some based on them having the proper faith/belief in the proper person. They are the ones to whom God shows love in the end; the others receive God’s wrath. Ergo, this God can choose to be loving to some and not others, which means he can be loving, but is not essentially love. However, see below.)
___________________________________
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, I sorry I'm just missing
what it is you think I'm doing or how I'm doing it. please address
this a little more if you would, I'm sure it is me not you that is missing
something right in front of me. Sorry!!
Maybe I’m the one missing something. I have on several occasions given my definitions of love. Why don’t you give me yours.
Basically, if someone says, “X is love [or loving]”, I can only understand what characteristics they are ascribing to X if I understand what they mean by the word “love”.
____________________________________
I don’t pretend the world is a utopia. My marriage is pretty close, though. 🙂
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by vistesdI don’t pretend the world is a utopia. My marriage is pretty close, though. 🙂
[b]Is your idea of justice is someone demanding rights or getting what is
owed them? I’d say you and I have clear disagreements on what
justice is if it is limited to that. Love and living in it is the goal, as
Jesus pointed out the two greatest laws are love God and our
neighbors and by doing that we will fulfill all the other requirements.
Doing ...[text shortened]... _______
I don’t pretend the world is a utopia. My marriage is pretty close, though. 🙂
🙂 Glad to hear it too. I'll attempt to make myself clearer later work
calls so I've got no time.
Kelly
21 Dec 07
3 edits
==============================
On the one hand, you seem to think it would be unjust for such evil-doers as you list to simply “get away with it.” On the other hand, your understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice seems to imply that the faithful will in fact “get away with” whatever sins they had heretofore committed; the unfaithful, however, will not. (By “faithful” I mean having whatever you define as a proper faith in Jesus as the Christ.)
====================================
I can't speak for Kelly. But I would respond in my way to some of these thoughts.
Your concept of eternal life is simply that the forgiven sinner goes somewhere to live everlastingly. Actually, the New Testament teaches that the forgiven sinner must be transformed into the image of Christ to be like Him. He cannot remain the same. He must be transformed and conformed into the image of Christ.
This process can be postponed. But it cannot be put off forever. So the GIFT of eternal life is accompanied by the inevitable transformation of the soul into the likeness and image of Jesus.
Because of this I have to reject the idea of "getting AWAY with anything." You do not "get away" with remaining the same, no matter HOW forgiven you are and no matter how much God loves you. With the gift of eternal life the sinner must deny the self and gain Christ in every part of his being inevitably and eventually.
This is not transformation into Christ's image as PUNISHMENT. But it is a process which the forgiven sinner cannot put off forever, though some darn well try. God has eternity. And every forgiven sinner will eventually deny the old life and be transformed into the image of Christ. If not in this age he is transformed, then in the next age he is transformed.
Point here: You do not "get away" with remaining what you were when you did in fact commit sins.
Secondly, God has the authority to cause Christ to be like a blank check of an infinite and untold amount of funds behind it. God has the authority to say that His death is sufficient to atone for the sins of billion of people no matter what crimes they may have done. God deems that we can draw from this infinite "checking account" if we believe and obey the gospel.
Justice, in principle, has been accomplished for EVERY sin of EVERY sinner who has ever lived. That is His authority to establish such a system. My reaction is, instead of finding fault with the idea, is to take advantage of the procedure and count the death of Christ as God's dealing with the sins He did not commit but I did.
With thanksgiving I accept Him as my Substitute. To challenge it, to me, is to challenge the authority of the Ultimate Governor of life and the universe. It is an exceedingly gracious offer. And I see no profit in hunting for fault with it.
God has established a procedure in which His love and His righteousness are both at work. If He only judges man, there is no love. On the other hand if He only forgives, THERE IS NO RIGHTEOUSNESS. God will not give up either. So His plan of salvation coordinates these two eternal aspects of His being.
It is a gracious invitation. And I really don't perceive it as anyone "getting away" with anything. The unforgiven sinner who refuses the offer takes what he is to be punished forever. The forgiven sinner must become Christ like and cannot remain as he is. He must be reborn, sanctified, transformed, and glorified from the old self loving, world loving, sin loving fallen nature .
21 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]Thank you for your thoughtful comments, jaywill. You have argued cogently before for such a soteriology of transformation, as opposed to the “getting myself to heaven” kind of thinking.
[b]==============================
On the one hand, you seem to think it would be unjust for such evil-doers as you list to simply “get away with it.” On the other hand, your understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice seems to imply that the faithful will in fact “get away with” whatever sins they had heretofore committed; the unfaithful, however, will not. (By “f , and glorified from the old self loving, world loving, sin loving fallen nature .
Interestingly—and I make no attempt to conflate the two systems!—Buddhism is also about a soteriology of transformation. Buddhists, however (although in a way not too dissimilar from the Greek Orthodox) view the root problem as illusion, and “salvation” just is the transforming.
With that aside, my only real objection is with the following:
Justice, in principle, has been accomplished for EVERY sin of EVERY sinner who has ever lived. That is His authority to establish such a system. My reaction is, instead of finding fault with the idea, is to take advantage of the procedure and count the death of Christ as God's dealing with the sins He did not commit but I did.
Now, you likely know my past arguments about why death should be a bar for God’s salvific action; my view of a soteriology of healing (which is what soterias actually means), rather than a juridical model; and my only somewhat tongue-in-cheek revision of Paul’s statement to read “As all have died in Adam, so some will be made alive in Christ”. None of that is innovation on my part; there is a very ancient and longstanding stream of Orthodox Christianity—a stream of which you are very much aware, and from which you also draw: e.g., in your Christology—in which I do not find the contradictions I have been arguing against here.
The root of my objection is two-fold:
(1) If John’s emphatic statement that God is agape is a statement of God’s very essence,* then it is incompatible with the notion of eternal condemnation. Especially since death should be no bar to God’s ability to heal the infirmity of sin. (Whether or not there is a “hell” in which one’s stay may not be eternal is another question, one that I have also addressed at length before, notably in my lengthy debate with Epiphenehas.)
(2) My own experiential understanding of love is also two-fold:
(a) At the deepest, most intimate level it involves an expansion of self into other, and vice-versa, in which any discernable I-Thou separation collapses into what I, for lack of a better word, call the We.
(b) At the I-Thou level, it is a passionate concern and caring for the other.
One can iterate between these two in the same loving relationship.
I think the (b) is aptly captured by John 15:13—
“No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's soul (psuche) for one's friends.”
Now, every English translation I have come across, translates psuche here (as in some other places) as “life”, even though it is predominantly translated as “soul.” The Spanish translation accentuates the sharpness of the distinction by translating psuche as “vida”, rather than as “alma.” So far as I have found, only the Latin Vulgate renders it, appropriately, as “anima.” In any event, psuche does not mean the same thing as zoe (“life,” as in “eternal life” ). Psuche designates one’s very, whole essence.
Now, I freely admit that this understanding of love, based on my own experience, is something of a challenge to what is sometimes otherwise a somewhat stark expression of Zen Buddhism. That is part of my spiritual challenge, so to speak.
However, I could not “take advantage of the procedure,” as you put it, without attempting to lay down my soul for someone I love who will not / has not / cannot (whatever) take such advantage, especially as it is restricted to this existence in which we see through a glass darkly. How can I choose between the We-relationship with God and the We-relationship I have with a human beloved? That is not even a lovingly imposed choice. No lover would demand it.
And that is the crux: whether one sees God as the supreme Lover, or as the one who jealously insists on being the Beloved—or as the complete “embodiment” of love, being both lover and beloved in the same ground of love that is the universal We. That last is how the Sufis see it; it seems to be how St. John of the Cross sees it in his long poem that I posted in the Spiritual Quotes thread. (Though I am not asserting that San Juan se la Cruz was a non-dualist, as the Sufis are, and as I am.)
_______________________________________
* And I think it clearly is, based on grammar and context. The only other such statement of essential identification that I can recall offhand is the God is spirit.
___________________________________________
This may not be a very clearly presented post, but hopefully you get the idea.