Goodness is not a negative or a passive thing, but a positive, active one. Goodness, I am convinced, is too often portrayed as something that stands by, helplessly wringing its hands at the evil in the world. God in the Bible is rather portrayed as One who was willing to humble Himself and suffer to conquer sin and death and hell (Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:9-18; John 1:1-18). Goodness stands up for and works to accomplish what is right. But it does not do so by simply trampling over those who it is claiming to help. It rebukes the religious establishment for its hypocrisy (Matthew 23:23-28; 6:1-18; 15:3-9). But reaches out to the social outcasts who needed God's grace and forgiveness (Luke 19:1-10; 7:36-50; John 4:7-26). This is not based on the naive idea that the world is really a nice place if we could only see it. It is rather based on the idea that this world is a nasty place that needs to be redeemed (Romans 8:19-23; John 16:33; 1 John 2:15-17). And that the people who are in it are not nice people but sinners that need to be saved (Romans 3:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 64:6). But in the midst of this, Christ and those who put their faith in Him will ultimately be victorious (Colossians 2:15; Romans 8:37; 2 Corinthians 2:14). And this will, over time, be gradually worked out in our lives (2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 2:10; Galatians 5:16,17). But it helps in this to see goodness as a positive thing, a thing that reaches out to help and rescue. A hardheaded goodness that see the world as it really is and reaches out to change it.
Good post Mike. Reminds me of our discussions on whether a "good" God could command genocide be done in his name.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to open that question up again we can, but I don't know much I can add to what I have already said.
DeleteYeah, I think you and I have different definitions of "good".
ReplyDeleteThat certainly appears to be so. The question is whether there is more to be said on the subject. Or is it simply that we have pretty well covered it and we still disagree.
DeletePerhaps we both agree on this?
ReplyDelete"God is light; in him there is no darkness at."
Genocide is a part of darkness. Even when man calls it a part of the light. I see that as an absolute even when others accept a more relative and situational view of genocide.
I agree that God is light and in Him is no darkness. But I do not see how apart from endorsing total pacifism one can avoid seeing killing as situational. The question is where you draw the lines.
DeletePerhaps Self Defense is a place to start?
ReplyDeleteBut defense of others is also involved.
DeleteNo problem with that Mike. As long as we are not speaking of preemptive strikes - personal and national.
ReplyDeleteThen my next question (which is where I suspect we will part company) is what about as recompense for demonstrable wrongdoing. And if not what is acceptable for this. Is it better to confine someone for life in a tiny cell. Or do we open the prisons and let everyone go.
DeletePutting felons in prison is a defensive action. No one is put in jail as a preemptive action.
ReplyDeleteI do not see the strike against the Canaanites as preemptive. They were already consistently killing children on a regular basis and had been given over 400 years to change their ways.
DeleteTo be a defensive act the Canaanites would have to have been attacking Israel. The example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was to peacefully coexist with their neighbors. Something happened in Egypt and the Jews no longer felt that they could leave peacefully with their neighbors. This phenomenon happened again after the holocaust of the 1940s when Zionists took Palestine by force. Living by the sword never brings peace. Not then and now now.
ReplyDeleteI do not see the main actor in this to be Israel, but God. That God in defense of the helpless and in the interests of justice commissioned Israel to punish the Canaanites. I do not believe that Israelites would have been justified purely on their own initiative to have made such a decision and it would have been wrong for them to do so.
Delete(The whole issue of the Israelis versus the Palestinians is a complicated question with debatable actions on both sides. It is tempting to go down that rabbit trail where I feel I have much less of a dog in the fight. So if you want to go there we can but it would be a major diversion.)
Perhaps it is only history that reveals to us whether a war is just or not? In reality, Israel became just as bad as those ethnic groups that you believe God ordered them to cleanse from the land. This idea does not speak well of the character of God. It paints him as tribal in nature and choosing one godless group over another.
ReplyDeleteMany today adamantly oppose ethnic cleansing but have no issue with it in the OT because they believe that God ordered it. I am opposed to such rationale because I believe that is an exercise in situational ethics and relative morality. Ethic cleansing is wrong today and it is always wrong regardless of whether humans see it as divine.
Regarding Palestine, I find it to be so sad that a group like the Jews, who suffered so much, felt a need to inflict suffering on the Palestinians in the years after the holocaust. These Zionists chose the way of Moses and Joshua over that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe God is the King of the Universe and full authority to to act to judge sin. I see the difference as that between the actions of a properly authorized policeman and a private citizen on a vendetta. I do not see that as situation ethics.
ReplyDeleteI do not see any evidence of a difference in policy between Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were clearly told they were to be given the land but the time was not yet. You can say Moses (our some later writer) slanted the story of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to fit his interests. But if he did I do not know where we can go for the real story. This as I have said before my problem questioning God's command to Moses. It uproots the entire rest of the story. We are left with the question of why Abraham left Ur in the first place and why he was in the land of Canaan if his only intention was to co-exist.
(I think your analysis of the modern Palestinian is an over-simplification of a highly complex problem. There are two people who have arguable claims to the same piece of land. The British promised that same land to both peoples. They were in a situation of coexistence but it failed because they were unable to live peaceably together. It may be reasonably argued who was most to blame, but I do not believe either side has always behaved perfectly or that there is one clear-cut villain. But frankly while I am not willing to totally endorse either side I have more sympathy for the Israelis then the Palestinians. As I said if you want to go down that rabbit trail we can.)
Frankly the whole Arab-Israeli conflict is very complicated and I am not highly dogmatic on it. But I think seeing the Israelis as the sole aggressors is an extreme simplification.
ReplyDeleteThe crux of the matter for me is whether we believe that the end justifies the means. I think that the means is as important as the end. I do not believe, as you seem to, that it is God's timeless will to use means that are bad to achieve good. I do not see such rationalization in the life of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Mideast, I pray for peace and for peacemakers like Elias Chacour. The history may be complicated but it is obvious that there are people who work for peace and those who refuse to find common ground. It is true today and even when the Jews left Egypt.
I do not think that God's acting in judgment is a bad means. Which brings us back full circle to the question of the judgment of God.
DeleteI agree in praying for peace in the Mideast. I cannot say anything about Elias Chacour having never read him. I feel that this will only be accomplished by both sides reaching to point where they care more about peace then about achieving their particular objectives. Until then no formula for the division will work,
(This is assuming neither side is successful in totally eliminating the other, which I do not see as a desirable outcome.)
I cannot agree with the idea that God uses evil means to judge. It paints an image of God that looks more like Zeus than Jesus.
DeleteRegarding peace in the Mideast, one cannot condemn the violence there today and not condemn the genocide perpetrated so many years ago. Such a view is a capitulation to relative morality and situational ethics.
I think at least part of the problem here is that you are right in seeing that we are advocating different ideas of good. My idea is that of a fighting good, The knight that slays the dragon. The kind that stands up and fights for what is right. This seems to me to be the traditional and old-fashioned type of good. There is a more modern type of good that seems more passive and anti-confrontational. I do not want to be unfair but the picture it brings to mind is the "good" Kirk in the Star Trek episode where Kirk is split in two parts. The "good" Kirk is seen as waffling and indecisive and needs his "evil" part to function. This is not my idea of good.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with fighting for good. Rebellion against tyrannical despots is not evil because it is a form of self defense. Assisting allies in their defense against aggressors like Nazi Germany is another example of this. And I can see why some saw the invasion of Iraq as a good thing because they felt it was a defense of the homeland.
ReplyDeleteYet I think that we must always guard ourselves from the idea that we are executing divine justice through the use of violence and violent means. And we must be vigilant to not enter into tribalistic or nationalistic thinking when we see other peoples as our enemies.
I see the aggression of ethnic cleansing as indefensible. The ethnic cleaning in the OT is no different than the stuff that goes on today even if people find ways to rationalize it as God authorizing the evil that is perpetrated against innocent civilians.
Regarding Star Trek, I think that Roddenberry got it right when he established the Star Fleet Prime Directive. :)
I agree that people should beware of presuming that they fight on the side of God. Certainly this is not a conclusion that should be jumped to lightly. But that does mean nobody does fight for God. In the same way I think a person should be careful in claiming they speak for God. But that does not mean that no one speaks for God. I believe there are points where we are required to take the initiative. And I sympathize with Kirk in breaking the Prime Directive occasionally. : )
DeleteWe fight for God when we fight for the poor, the disenfranchised and the victims (see Matthew 25). Yet even though humans loudly proclaim they are fighting for God, I think it unlikely they are when they use violence to secure a a few acres of dirt for the glory of God. I cannot imagine caring about this kind of "good fight".
ReplyDeleteRegarding folks who speak for God, I think that a good way to measure their words is to examine the fruit of what they say. Is the fruit in accord with the fruit of the Spirit? Do their words produce love, joy, peace, etc or do their words incite violence and war? Seems that this is a good NT way to evaluate words and actions.
Correction: I cannot imagine Jesus caring about this kind of "good fight".
DeleteThe infants the Canaanites were killing certainly seem to me to be poor and disenfranchised. If the fruit of the Spirit is contrary to all war then all war is wrong. But there comes a point where evil must be fought to allow room for them to be practiced.
DeleteBut part of the problem here is we seem to be working with different underlying assumptions. I am claiming that God saw the evil of the Canaanites and deliberately brought Abraham from a foreign land to deal with them. Before God called him, Abraham had no interest in that land and no reason to go there. You seem to be claiming that the Israelites decided they wanted that land and came up with the idea of punishing the Canaanites to excuse their taking it. I can only respond by saying if you ascribe to people the worst possible motives there is no way I can defend them.
"If the fruit of the Spirit is contrary to all war then all war is wrong."
ReplyDeleteViolent aggression is wrong. It is not wrong to defend yourself or defend a victim. And unlike you (I may be misunderstanding), I do not have a problem with saying that ethnic cleansing is an act of aggression and is wrong.
Regarding Abraham, I do not see him as an aggressor as he lived among the residents of Canaan. He honored Melchizedek and only fought the residents when his nephew was attacked. This I see as an act of defending victims. And he did not attack Sodom but allowed God to deal with it. Abraham, not Moses, is the one we should see as the example. Influence through friendship and not by brute force.
"You seem to be claiming that the Israelites decided they wanted that land and came up with the idea of punishing the Canaanites to excuse their taking it."
400 years of slavery seems to have changed the way that the Jews saw their mission. Some Jews after hearing news of the Nazi death camps (and I do not mean to generalize) saw Zionist violence as a way to capture Palestine - these used the tactics of the Nazis to subdue that area. Some oppressed Palestinians became terrorists. Life has a way of influencing us in ways that are not in accord with the ways of the Lord.
Jesus told Peter that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Violent aggression, even when it is called a Holy Crusade, is never the will of God. Though some trust in chariots and horses, I believe that it is better to trust in the name of the Lord.
Genesis very clearly says that God told Abraham the land was to be given to him and his descendents but he needed to wait for the appropriate time till the iniquity of the Canaanites was full. You can question this account, if you want to but I do not see where you get the material for any alternate account. If the account of Genesis is that fundamentally wrong about Abraham and his motivations I do not think we can claim to know much about Abraham at all. Certainly not enough to construct an alternate scenario.
DeleteI am not clear what you call aggression, but I do not regard the King of the Universe acting to stop the sacrifice of defenseless infants aggression. God never has to act in self-defense because nothing can harm Him. But that does not mean He cannot act in defense of others.
But again part of the issue here is whether this is God acting or the Israelites acting on their own motivations. But you seem to be saying the account the Bible gives of the events is false and therefore what it says God commanded was wrong. This seems to me to be somewhat circular.
I agree with the idea that Moses (the writer of Genesis) and his contemporaries believed that they were executing divine judgment when they attacked the peoples of Canaan. It seems reasonable that these felt that they themselves were fulfilling what they deemed to be prophetic words that their oral history told them were given to Abraham in a dream.
ReplyDeleteSome today interpret words in the Koran as orders to a holy Jihad of ethnic and spiritual cleansing. Somehow the sins of our neighbors always seem magnified in comparison to our own - especially when land is involved.
Humans have always warred over property and always will. Humanity really does not want peace if it means that they have to share what they believe is given to them by God. So while I do understand your point of view, I see the quest for property as human and not divine.
It does not surprise me that you do not understand the points that I have made about aggression. Why speak of God acting in defense of others when what you really mean is humans acting in defense of others. One can say, and even believe, that they are compelled by God but that is an opinion and not a fact.
All we really can observe is the way that people act and whether it is in accord with Jesus. My view is that we can learn so much about ourselves when we read the scriptures. We can see how religious and national culture is a great influence on us. If we are ruthlessly honest with ourselves we will admit that we are more about revenge than peace. If we try we can see that people like Moses and Netanyahu are both great and both flawed.
Not sure where we go from here. Cannot see a place of agreement. Hard to communicate when our definition of good is so different. I see good as a plumb-line to evaluate what people do. You take a more relative approach and have a fuzzier definition of what is the definition of good. If Samuel commands genocide or ethnic cleansing then you think that it is good. If a terrorist commands it then you do not think that it is good. My view of good is not based on the situation but your view is.
I do not see where to go from either. I do not see where we can go from here either. I do not see my idea of good as at all fuzzy. I believe there is a clear obligation for good to when necessary oppose evil. If I see someone being attacked in the street I feel it is my obligation to do everything I can to try to rescue them. I consider seemly standing by and wringing my hands to not at all fit the definition of good. I do not deny that there are those who use this a cloak to fulfill there own desires. Every good principle can be distorted to be an excuse for wrong action.
DeleteIf you are convinced that what Moses says cannot possibly be true that is up to you. I suspect that is because you feel that what Moses said God commanded cannot possibly be correct therefore everything else he says suspect. But I maintain that Moses needs to be responded to based on his story as he tells it and not on some fictitious scenario. Moses is the only source we have for the events he is recording. If he is lying we know virtually nothing about them.
I have a hard time reading your comment about the wringing of hands and think that you have heard anything that I have said. I have consistently said that we should defend the defenseless. But in your view we should not only defend victims but beat up bullies who we think might be going to do harm.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Moses, I see him as one of us. A man led by the Spirit but also flawed. You seem to venerate him the way that Catholics venerate the Pope. I do not see him as a liar but as a great leader that was imperfectly led by God within the paradigm of the times that he lived in. I honor him but I do not see his words as dictated by God. The laws calling for the execution of workers on the Sabbath, gays and disobedient children are certainly not representative of the One who changes not - unless you believe that these should be executed. Yet much of what he wrote is certainly a reflection of the heart of God and a reporting of Jewish history.
I do not the evil of the Canaanites as potential but actual. They were killing children in worship to their gods and God gave them 400 years to change their ways and they did not.
DeleteMy whole point on Moses is that I have problems with assuming his account false and then judging him because his behavior does not match some other view of what happened. The account says that God from the very beginning promised Abraham the land and there was not other reason for his being there. You can reject this whole account because you feel God would not do such a thing. But I see not basis for criticizing Moses for not following a policy of Abraham that I see no reason to believe ever existed.
I have stated that the law of Moses states what a person deserves but not what they receive due to God's grace. It is there to make an individual realize the seriousness of their sin and ask for mercy. But this is a bunny trial.
Let me try to clarify. The Biblical account as it stands is the God called Abraham out of Ur and promised him the land of Canaan. God promised Abraham that piece of land because of the behavior of the inhabitants. Abraham was told this would not happen until some future time and Moses carried out what Abraham was originally promised.
ReplyDeleteNow there are two questions here. Is it moral for God to do such a thing? Is this what actually happened?
Now if you start with the first question then you need to make that decision based on the account given. If you then conclude that God could not command such a thing, you will undoubtedly conclude the account is not true. But I am not much concerned here with what really happened if the account is already proven to be not true. That is an interesting thing to speculate on but kind of irrelevant.
Or you could start by looking at the second question and decide the account is not true. If you conclude this based on something other then the moral question then you need to present your reasons. If it is once concluded that the account has given is false I am not necessarily interested in defending the moral actions of anyone based on some alternate account.
This is not in my mind an issue of inerrancy or seeing Moses as the pope, but as simple fairness. You judge someone's account by the facts and not by something you try to read in.
Now I suspect that you would reject that God would do such I thing based on the account as it is given. But you seem to be asking me to respond to the issue based on some other account of what happened and that I refuse to do.
Another way to see it ...
ReplyDeleteAbraham's father was headed to Canaan and believed that God was leading him in that direction. Abraham followed suit and believed that God was leading him to that place as well. Many stories were orally transmitted through the patriarchs and their families. These stories communicated how they saw how God was involved in their journey and their history. These stories were influenced by their image of God as divine warrior who was interested in conquering one flawed ethnic race with another flawed ethnic race. This history of humanity is deeply influenced by the idea that God loved Jacob but hated Esau. It is a great saga.
If taken literally (as you feel is necessary) we are led to believe that:
1) God is more interested in property than people.
2) Ethnic cleansing has it's roots in God.
3) We must accept the idea that God leads people to do immoral things like killing innocent infants, children and others.
4) This image of God is not consistent with the image of Christ who challenged religious people to cast stones if they were without sin.
5) God is either not eternally the same or Jesus is not God. You cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus is the eternal image of God or God changes over time.
If read in a non-literal fashion we can discern:
1) Abraham had a relationship with God that was based on faith.
2) Like us, he was a flawed man and did not always hear God correctly.
3) He interpreted God in light of the times and culture that he lived.
4) We have much to learn about God, faith and man from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
5) One does not have to accept every interpretation of man. When a person does something immoral (even in the scriptures) we can see it in an unbiased fashion and understand how it is a natural inclination of religious people to blame God as Adam did.
6) Jesus is eternal. His message is changeless. If any message or story is not consistent with Christ's character then we must not take his name in vain by call evil good.
So the issue comes down to whether we see Jesus as simply a prophet and teacher or whether he is Lord and God. If he is a prophetic teacher then your logic is perfectly understandable. But if he is the One who changes not then we are compelled to rethink the stories that portray God in a way that is inconsistent with God the Son.
I do not believe that God judging sin is at all inconsistent with the picture of Jesus presented in the gospels. He spoke as much about hell and judgment as anyone else in Scripture. I suspect this is the crux of the matter. I am not saying the command regarding the Canaanites presents no difficulties if you believe God judges sin. But I admit that it looks irreconcilable to the idea the God does not judge sin. I simply do not hold that any part of Scripture including the teachings of Jesus teaches that message.
DeleteQuestion: What was there positive in Abraham's faith? If virtually everything he was believing God for was wrong, what was right?
ReplyDeleteI do not take issue with God judging sin but with the idea that he does so by using human aggression.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Abraham, I think that it is different to believe God "for" something than believing or knowing God.
Again what do you mean by aggression? Do you mean every forceful human action such as a policeman catching a thief? Do you mean obviously wrong human action such as stabbing a man in the back to take his wallet? Or do you draw the line somewhere in between?
DeleteI believe faith must start by believing Him for forgiveness and it is on that basis we can believe and know Him. It is my understanding that in Abraham's case this involved believing in a nation that would ultimately produce a Messiah who would forgive sin. And that this was tied up with there being a land where this nation could live and obtaining that land. But leaving that aside how can you believe and know someone, if almost everything you think you know about Him and what He has told you to do is wrong. Is there a promise anywhere that God made Abraham that was not a mistake?
Aggression: the action of attacking without provocation, especially in beginning a quarrel or war.
ReplyDeleteWe know God because His spirit comes into us when we are born again. He leads us and teaches us. Everything we know about God comes from revelation as we read/study the scriptures, pray and are helped by the gifts of the Spirit.
Regarding Abraham, God promised him that in his seed the whole earth would be blessed. I believe that God wanted Israel to be a blessing to their neighbors and a manifestation of what is was like to know God. A beautiful city on a hill, if you will. Israel rejected that idea and chose the path of aggression instead of leading/blessing their neighbors by demonstrating Godly wisdom and character.
In the end, we know that Jesus is that Abrahamic seed that continues to bless the world. We who name his name should be vessels of blessing to the world.
Of course many think that God never wanted his chosen people (OT or NT) to bless anyone but was/is more concerned with earthly things like parcels of dirt than heavenly things like human souls.
I believe that God considered the continuous offering of the lives of children to a false god a provocation. I agree that Israel should not have intervened without God's command. The question is whether God had sufficient grounds to order that intervention and I believe He did.
DeleteI agree with what you say about knowing God, but if someone is totally misunderstanding what God said in what way do they know Him.
I agree that Israel had a mandate to bless their neighbors, but I do not see there would have been an Israel if all God called Abraham to was to bless his neighbors and stayed in Ur or Haran to do it there, rather than getting the idea that God had promised him land elsewhere. The whole thing seems to be based on a mistake.
You seem to be assuming the Israelites main motivation was simply that they saw a piece of land and decided to grab it. I agree that if that was how it happened it was wrong. But I am not convinced that is how it happened.
"The question is whether God had sufficient grounds to order that intervention and I believe He did."
ReplyDeleteThe question one must always act is whether such divine orders are consistent with the image of God that we see in God the Son. I see not evidence of such violent aggression in Jesus. But then again some think that Moses and Jesus are equal in scriptural authority.
"but if someone is totally misunderstanding what God said in what way do they know Him."
Really? Knowing God is about understanding the OT and not being born again? Perhaps knowing God is more about a relationship with the HS than embracing a certain theological viewpoint about the bible?
The view that Israel is all about parcels of dirt is a view that kept them at war for all of their history with the descendants of Ishmael. I imagine that it would greatly sadden Abraham to see his descendants killing each other over parcels of dirt.
Many embrace an interpretation of OT history that justifies violent aggression in the name of Jehovah. These same people have different interpretations of violent aggression that is perpetrated in the name of Allah. Their is not consistency in this message. The morality of this message is situational and the ethical embrace pure relativism. I feel that Christians should shun such wishy washy theology.
Part of the problem here is we are starting with two totally conflicting scenarios about what actually happened and are arguing our case based on our own scenarios and are therefore not getting anywhere.
DeleteI am starting with the scenario that God the King of the universe judged the behavior of the Canaanites and chose to punish them for it. I see this not at all as a act of unprovoked aggression, but similar to the act of a policeman apprehending a felon and a judge sentencing him. As I said before I think you would say God would not do that, because you have repeatedly said God does not judge sins at least in the present day. (You say you have no problem with future judgment but I do not see the distinction.) Now I admit that someone could believe God presently judges sin and still take exception in this particular case. But unless we can agree on the principles it is meaningless to debate details.
You seem to be starting from the scenario the Israelites simply saw what looked like a valuable piece of land and decided to grab it. They then convinced themselves God had told them to do so. I would agree that if that was what happened it was wrong. I am not convinced it is what happened. If you want to convince me it is what happened you need to do one of two things. You need to show me that based on my scenario God would not have commanded what it was claimed He did and therefore your scenario is what happened by default. Or you need to prove to me on some other ground then the moral question that your scenario is what really happened. Otherwise I am simply not buying it.
I am starting my scenario with God and the belief that God changes not. I believe that he is eternally the same. Eternally loving and good. I interpret the actions of humans in the bible, in history and in life according to that belief. I do not ascribe to the idea that God is schizophrenic and sometimes orders evil things like genocide and sometimes condemns it. My belief grounds me and strengthens me.
ReplyDeleteSo when religious people act in ways that are not good and loving, I do not convolute the image of God by saying that such religious people heard God correctly. I do not venerate the humans who purport to have heard God command them to do bad things as if these were ancient popes who heard things perfectly.
So perhaps you can tell me what divine scenario you embrace. Do you think that God is a wishy-washy entity that changes with the times? Do you believe that writers of scripture were, unlike us, super saints who never erred in their understanding of who God was and that such popes always heard God correctly? Perhaps you believe that it was not necessary for Jesus to come and show us what God was really like because the OT understanding of a Zeus like entity was sufficient? Do you feel that God is always good or that God (and the definition of good) changes with the situation? Goes back to the title of your post.
do not believe that God changes. I believe that God is a God who judges sin, I believe He judges sin in the OT and He judges sin in the NT. I do not find a God simply stands by and lets people do anything they want and never judges at all good or in accord with what the Scripture teaches in any testament.
DeleteThings in history like the Nazi Holocaust disagrees with your assertion Mike. If your comment is correct then one could blame God for simply standing by and letting the Nazi's murder so many innocent victims. Of course the Nazi's believed that their genocide was God ordained because they saw the Jews as Christ killers. The Nazi's probably thought genocide was okay because God once ordered it in the OT. These deluded Nazi's knew nothing of the Golden Rule or of Jesus Christ.
DeleteThis is the reason I was reluctant to open this subject again in the first place. We have gone the long way around to come back to where we started. I believe it is good, appropriate and right for God to judge sin both in the past, present and future. I believe He is incredibly forgetting and gracious to those who trust in Him but there comes a point that He will judge. You believe He will not judge at least in an historical context.
ReplyDeleteI do not know how to resolve this because I do not know what standard to appeal to that we can both agree on. You might say the life and words of Jesus, but I disagree. It is from the words of Jesus I first learned the idea that God judges sin long before I knew or understood most of the OT. But I frankly think we are just spinning our wheels here. If we could agree on Ananias and Sapphira it would make sense to discuss the Canaanites. But I really do not see we are getting anywhere.
"You believe He will not judge at least in an historical context."
ReplyDeleteI think that life is filled with divinely designed natural consequences. We are judged when we receive those consequences. God designed life to be that way. That said, I see no reason to see God as the author of genocide just because someone believes that they are murdering for God. Why not see it as the consequence of people(s) hating people(s)? Unless one believes that the Israelis (and God) loved the people that they murdered.
Perhaps if we could agree on the woman caught in the act of adultery? Maybe we could both agree that God did not see her worthy of a biblically ordered death? Maybe we would see such things as Jesus saw them? Perhaps we could see that he has always wanted mercy to triumph over judgment? Maybe we could even see that men want to judge but God wants us to love and be merciful?
Regarding Ananias and Sapphira, maybe we can agree that they both were wrong for lying? And perhaps we can agree that they died. Yet I think that it is difficult to build a theology around the idea that God murders religious people who lie.
But alas, I perceive that you are correct in saying that we are getting nowhere if that means that our motives have been to change each other's theology. I do not feel that I try to do that but maybe I do in part. Mostly I enjoy the dialog and am stimulated by it. But I am happy to close the conversation if you are wearied by it.
I am not necessarily wearied by it as feeling we are getting nowhere. I could respond to your statements (I have no problem with God's forgiving sin, but I also have no problem with His judging sin. I leave it up to Him to decide what to do in a given circumstances). But I am only saying the same things I have said before. I am of the opinion that there are some views that are so strongly held that after a certain point you are generating more heat than light. At some point you just have to accept you do not agree and pray God will lead whoever is wrong to a better conclusion. After about three threads of over thirty comments I am not sure we have not reached that point with this particular subject.
Delete"At some point you just have to accept you do not agree and pray God will lead whoever is wrong to a better conclusion."
ReplyDeleteI accept that I am wrong on some of this as my theology is a work in progress. I wish you well in your journey and pray that God will continue to open our eyes to the truth of his Word.
I wish you the same.
DeleteI believe all theology is a work in progress or at least should be.