06 Aug 06
Throughout the Old Testamenet God is portrayed as angry vengeful cruel and full of wrath, this is man not God, portrayed as if it was God, "vengeance is mine thus saith the Lord," does not mean God will help you kill a city of people, for the people of Israel. - Vengeance -is Gods so that man does not, Christ came to show us what we couldnt understand.....to turn the other cheek.
Christians don't seem to understand that God is of Goodness Love and Mercy, there is no wrath in God, one who attributes such wrath to their God, one would have to question which God they are referring to.
gil
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by gentlegilThank you. 🙂
Throughout the Old Testamenet God is portrayed as angry vengeful cruel and full of wrath, this is man not God, portrayed as if it was God, "vengeance is mine thus saith the Lord," does not mean God will help you kill a city of people, for the people of Israel. - Vengeance -is Gods so that man does not, Christ came to show us what we couldnt understand... ...[text shortened]... such wrath to their God, one would have to question which God they are referring to.
gil
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by gentlegilWhat you are refering to is the period of grace which was ushered in via Christ. It is a period in which God's wrath to judge sinfulness is somewhat suspended in the hopes of conversion through Christ and the subsequent avoidance of judgement. If you view the God of the Old Testament different than that of the New Testament, all I can tell you is that you failed to read the back of the book. In Revelation Christ will return and this period of grace will end. At that time Christ is pictured as a lion verses as a lamb the first time he came. It then says he will distribute justice and rule the nations with a rod of iron.
Throughout the Old Testamenet God is portrayed as angry vengeful cruel and full of wrath, this is man not God, portrayed as if it was God, "vengeance is mine thus saith the Lord," does not mean God will help you kill a city of people, for the people of Israel. - Vengeance -is Gods so that man does not, Christ came to show us what we couldnt understand... ...[text shortened]... such wrath to their God, one would have to question which God they are referring to.
gil
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by frogstompWhat's wrong froggy? I have already shown in Genesis where this is alluded to as well as the other Hebrew writings of that era. Perphaps the Israelites were not as familiar with their own writings and history as you appear to be.
What a crock !!!!
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by gentlegilUnfortunately your Reader's Digest condensed version of Thomas Jefferson's "Abridged and Therefore Acceptable Bible" may have missed a few minor details regarding the intent of the language used in both the Old and New Testaments. Your panoramic view of the Bible has reduced God to a needless token (and impotent) idol.
Throughout the Old Testamenet God is portrayed as angry vengeful cruel and full of wrath, this is man not God, portrayed as if it was God, "vengeance is mine thus saith the Lord," does not mean God will help you kill a city of people, for the people of Israel. - Vengeance -is Gods so that man does not, Christ came to show us what we couldnt understand... ...[text shortened]... such wrath to their God, one would have to question which God they are referring to.
gil
06 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe Greek Orthodox do not read Jefferson’s abridgement, nor are they latter-day Protestant biblical literalists. Just a couple of quotes to give a flavor—
Unfortunately your Reader's Digest condensed version of Thomas Jefferson's "Abridged and Therefore Acceptable Bible" may have missed a few minor details regarding the intent of the language used in both the Old and New Testaments. Your panoramic view of the Bible has reduced God to a needless token (and impotent) idol.
“But God is just, the moralists answer, and he must grant justice and punish transgression. But from what do they derive this ‘must’ to which they subordinate even God? Does there exist, then, some necessity which limits the love of God, limits his freedom? If there is, then God is not God or at least he is not the God that the Church knows.”
—Christos Yanneras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology
As is a grain of sand weighed against a large amount of gold, so, in God, is the demand for equitable judgment weighed against his compassion. As a handful of sand in the boundless ocean, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison to God’s providence and mercy. As a copious spring could not be stopped up with a handful of dust, so the Creator’s compassion cannot be conquered by the wickedness of creatures.
Do not say that God is just….he is before all things kind and good. He is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
—St. Isaac the Syrian (quoted in Olivier Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism)
_______________________________
With regard to idolatry:
John says: oti ho theos agape estin, “for the/this God love is/remains”—i.e., “This God is love.” Is he forming some kind of idol that needs to be exploded by using other texts to modify/diminish this essential/definitional statement? Or is this text to be used to explode other idolatrous views of God?
And, does not diminishing this statement by using texts about God’s justness or wrath reduce agape to little more than some kind of “good feeling”—as in “I really love you, but my justness requires that (instead of healing, say) I must condemn you anyway?”
And doesn’t this reduce the putative salvific actions of Christ to a mere changing of the rules of the same old religious game? I used to have to act right, now I have to think right (believe)?
“Every concept formed by the intellect in an attempt to comprehend and circumscribe the divine nature can succeed only in fashioning an idol, not in making God known.”
—St. Gregory of Nyssa
Perhaps John is not using agape as a mere intellectual concept, but as an all-embracing power that he sees as the only one that is truly salvific (however you want to use that term, religiously or not)?
EDIT: Yannaras and Clement are Orthodox theologians.
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by vistesdIsn't that just good old-fashioned Euthyphro?
“But God is just, the moralists answer, and he must grant justice and punish transgression. But from what do they derive this ‘must’ to which they subordinate even God? Does there exist, then, some necessity which limits the love of God, limits his freedom? If there is, then God is not God or at least he is not the God that the Church knows.”
06 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyShow me it in Genesis, and then show me any archeological source that puts anybody there prior to the canaanites.
What's wrong froggy? I have already shown in Genesis where this is alluded to as well as the other Hebrew writings of that era. Perphaps the Israelites were not as familiar with their own writings and history as you appear to be.
I mean give me the #'s of any genesis account of the canaanites commiting genocide on the Shemites.
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by vistesdDoes there exist, then, some necessity which limits the love of God, limits his freedom? If there is, then God is not God or at least he is not the God that the Church knows.”
The Greek Orthodox do not read Jefferson’s abridgement, nor are they latter-day Protestant biblical literalists. Just a couple of quotes to give a flavor—
“But God is just, the moralists answer, and he must grant justice and punish transgression. But from what do they derive this ‘must’ to which they subordinate even God? Does there exist, then, some nec ...[text shortened]... to use that term, religiously or not)?
EDIT: Yannaras and Clement are Orthodox theologians.
Christos is ill-informed regarding the characteristics of God, as it relates to His integrity. The obverse side of his argument would have nothing limiting God's love, rendering Him equally absurd and unstable. The fact remains that righteousness and justice guard the whole of His essence.
Issac the Syrian is closer to the issue, related to our perspective. Truly, God must be some kind of wonderful mercy-wise, in order to bless us in midst of such un-Godlikeness. Thankfully, He was able to figure out a way to do just that thing, without a smidgen of compromise to His justice and righteousness.
_______________________________
Or is this text to be used to explode other idolatrous views of God?
Surely the God-view of man at the time of the hypo-static union had become so denegrated as to allow Pharisees and Saducess to feel justified in their religiousity. The speech of Jesus was considered controversial owing to its pronounced juxtaposition to the religious leaders of His day... not because He offered something different than what had been previously offered by Moses.
And doesn’t this reduce the putative salvific actions of Christ to a mere changing of the rules of the same old religious game? I used to have to act right, now I have to think right (believe)?
Salvation was never wrought by the blood of animals; God's perfect righteousness could never be matched with an effort of a fallen man. He had to provide the solution, not depend upon the efforts and abilities of a depraved mind.
The Lord Jesus Christ made the issue excruciatingly clear, when He asked,"What think ye of the Christ?" Ths issue is acceptance or rejection of the gift.
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBTW , silly boy . gil is a real Christian.
[b]Does there exist, then, some necessity which limits the love of God, limits his freedom? If there is, then God is not God or at least he is not the God that the Church knows.”
Christos is ill-informed regarding the characteristics of God, as it relates to His integrity. The obverse side of his argument would have nothing limiting God's love, rende ...[text shortened]... n He asked,"What think ye of the Christ?" Ths issue is acceptance or rejection of the gift.[/b]
06 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe obverse side of his argument would have nothing limiting God's love, rendering Him equally absurd and unstable.
[b]Does there exist, then, some necessity which limits the love of God, limits his freedom? If there is, then God is not God or at least he is not the God that the Church knows.”
Christos is ill-informed regarding the characteristics of God, as it relates to His integrity. The obverse side of his argument would have nothing limiting God's love, rende n He asked,"What think ye of the Christ?" Ths issue is acceptance or rejection of the gift.[/b]
Why absurd? Why unstable? Especially if God were viewed as the ultimate agent of therapeo?
The fact remains that righteousness and justice guard the whole of His essence.
God’s essence needs to be “guarded”?
One could counter that God’s agapeic essence and therapeo determine and delimit—indeed, define—God’s righteousness and justice.
EDIT: Well, God's justness--the words are only different in English, not Hebrew or Greek.
06 Aug 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerPerhaps—here I would guess the dilemma is being released by releasing God’s omnipotence, in the strictest sense, anyway.
Isn't that just good old-fashioned Euthyphro?
What I am trying to explore is the possibility that God’s essence as agape, reflected in God’s desire for and driving toward therapeo (and that in a soteriological sense), might provide an alternative model to defining God’s justness in juridical terms—which always seems to pit that justness against agape. I think the statement about God’s being “faithful and just” defined in terms of aphiemi (releasing, setting free) provides support, even in the strictest Christian sense (e.g., the necessity for admission and the possibility of metanoia).
(Note I am thinking all of this from an NT viewpoint, much as I did in our wonderful exchanges about the RCC versus the Orthodox. 🙂 BTW, I see the NT writers as themselves grappling with this very dilemma.)