1 Samuel 15:3-8
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.. 7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
TotalVictory wrote:PS -- Jason: I have no idea which part of this huge topic you want to tackle, but I’m all ears!!!
May I ask where your coming from with this?
Are you a pacifist...
Do you think there is any value to the four Gospels if redemption from the crucifixion is a myth...
If Jesus was Himself God, then Christianity centers on the redemption of God's enemies through a violence required by God upon Himself.
Salvation is to begin to be free from those evil forces, and to be transformed by the reign of God and to take on a life shaped -- marked -- by the story of Jesus, whose mission was to make visible the reign of God in our history.
In carrying out that mission, Jesus was killed by the earthly structures in bondage to the power of evil. His death was not a payment owed to God’s honor, nor was it divine punishment that he suffered as a substitute for sinners. Jesus death was the rejection of the rule of God by forces opposed to that rule. In fact, this review of Jesus’ life as narrative Christus Victor exposes how incongruous it is to interpret this story as one whose ultimate purpose was to arrange a death in order to satisfy divine justice. Far from being an event organized for a divine requirement, his death reveals the nature of the forces of evil that opposed the rule of God. It poses a contrast between the attempt to coerce by violence under the rule of evil and the nonviolence of the rule of God as revealed and made visible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
TotalVictory wrote:As for the use of the term “myth” I hope that does not offend or distract. Myth is here used in the sense of collective cultural expressions of the way things are. Myth is the shared, personal, experiential representation of what is. Myth is the story which best encapsulates the perceived realities of a people.
TV wrote:That you listed the 5 items which you did suggests you wonder if these themselves are under some attack or revision.
TV wrote:Where I would part ways with you is this notion that the violence was “required” by God upon Himself
To me, this treads far too close to pagan ideas of a god who needs to be appeased; a god who can be “altered” or effected into being more favorably disposed toward us.
TV wrote:God neither orchestrated the violence against Christ, nor needed it.
TV wrote:If God’s hand was involved in this act against Christ it would follow that if the events of the cross were willed by God then the perpetrators of this horror should be honored as heroes who fulfilled the will of God and praised for helping facilitate our redemption!
J Denny Weaver in The NonViolent Atonement wrote:His death was not a payment owed to God’s honor, nor was it divine punishment that he suffered as a substitute for sinners. Jesus death was the rejection of the rule of God by forces opposed to that rule.
Was it your face that I saw in the crowd?
Was it your fist I saw raised?
Was it your voice I heard scream for his blood?
Your mouth that was twisted with rage?
Oh did you join in when they started to sing
'Crucify!, crucify him!' ?
I know it was you for I was there too
When the world said no.
I know that it's true - I was stood next to you
When the world said no.
There is an ontological necessity in this being primarily a deed of God as well: otherwise some other entity (Satan? Caiaphas the mere human!!?) was primarily responsible for something happening to God. And now we're talking about a very different theology than that which we both agree is true.
that it was God's doing for them to throw him down into the pit, to be sold as a slave of no identity into pagan Egypt
TotalVictory wrote:Specifically, for example, must I know what a “Lewisian mythopoecist” is?
or what “narrative and thematic fault on the first clause” means? to properly continue?
TV wrote:God orchestrating violence against His own Son?? This chills me to the core; you find it wondrous and inspiring. Shall we just chalk this up to another difference in interpretations? If this is how you see it, how do you avoid the charges (of certain feminist theologians) of divine child abuse? (Just wondering )
TV wrote:Jeff A brings up a very central point in that we humans, all of us, can be seen as participating in the killing of God.
TV wrote:But I can no more think of honoring the ones who actually killed Christ than I could honor one who killed a member of my own family. That seems to me wildly discordant.
TV wrote:Jason: If you accept the God of the bible in all His glorious and salvific violence, just tell me so and we shall disagree straightaway. I’m afraid of such a God; you seem not.
TV wrote: let me ask you, (for clarification) in your theology, did GOD kill His own Son?
TV wrote:(On a very related note; it seems to me that in your scheme of things sin, rebellion, the fall, was necessary for God to complete and perfect His creation. You’re not saying that -- are you??)
TV wrote:The way you speak of Gods activity in men’s affairs it sounds as if men have little choice of their own; it is all God’s will.
JRP in his previous comment wrote:They are notheroes who have fulfilled the will of God, but villains... No, they are sinners... They should not be honored as heroes (for they weren't), and not as villains (for they were)... That does not mean that we should sin so that grace will increase--may it never be! (as St. Paul emphatically says.) Our crime is the abuse of the grace of God... Judas is to blame, yes... Are [the brothers of Joseph] to blame? Yes.
TV wrote:You actually do find their acts somehow noble and admirable??
TV wrote:Another window into our differences here is your take on the Joseph story -- which I agree is a beautiful example of Gods activity in a sinful setting. But to saythat it was God's doing for them to throw him down into the pit, to be sold as a slave of no identity into pagan Egypt
seems to me monstrous and not grace at all. The Genesis 50:20 principle (for some reason, the Charismatics I’ve known love this text ) is that YOU meant it for evil but God meant it for good. God taking that evil and bringing good from it need not mean He ordained (orchestrated) the evil in the first place.
TV wrote:Please do not take my befuddlement at your conviction on violence as hostile in any way.
There is no place in Scripture where we are told that evil is a creation of either man or the devil. While it is true that men DO evil, and that evil certainly exists in the world, God always takes credit for it in the ultimate sense.
All evil is the result of Adam's sin. Evil is ultimately the divine judgment for sin. Evil is the result of sin. Therefore, evil is not a CAUSE but is derivative. For example, God told Adam and Eve that in the day they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they will surely DIE. Death is evil, and it is the consequence of sin, the effect of a prior cause.
All evil stems from this one act, the “original sin,” and is merely an extension of that first great evil called “death.” Who would question that death was the consequence of sin by the justice of God? Hence, in the great chapter setting forth the sovereignty of God, He tells us in Isaiah 45:7, “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and CREATE EVIL; I the Lord do all these things.”
Not only death, but also calamities and pestilence are evils which God may bring upon a nation for their sin. All judgment for sin is “evil” from the perspective of the ones affected by it—until they come to see that such judgments were sent by a just God to judge sin.
This is not to say that God SINS. Most people object to God creating evil on the grounds that it makes God a sinner. But such a view is taken only when one does not know the difference between evil and sin. God creates evil, but God does not sin.
The Hebrew word for “sin” is khawtaw , which means “to miss” or “to fail to hit the mark (goal).” The definition of sin is made clear in both the Old and New Testaments. First, in Judges 20:16 we read,
16 Out of all these people 700 choice men were left-handed; each one could sling a stone at a hair and not MISS [khawtaw]."
Here the meaning of the word is clear. It has to do with not missing a target. When the target, goal, or standard is the law of God, then to miss has moral implications. We call it “sin.” In this sense, Paul tells us in Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” In other words, the glory of God is the goal—the mark—and all men, in shooting toward that goal, have found their “arrows” falling short of that goal. All have missed the mark.
God creates evil, but God never fails to achieve His goals. He never misses the mark. If God were ever to fail to reach His goal, He would become a “sinner.” So if we understand the divine plan, which is His goal, and see it, not as wishful thinking but as the divine target of all history, then we will know the end from the beginning, because God will not fail to reach that goal.
There are many who think that God spends most of His time dreaming about what might have been, could have been, or would have been—if only Adam had not sinned. Such a mindset would produce many regrets, spawned from the despair of a great divine Failure. Was Adam's sin outside the overall divine plan? Was God taken by surprise? If so, then God is a failure and thus a sinner by biblical definition.
But no, God forbid! God was neither surprised nor handicapped by Adam's sin. The divine plan will succeed in the end. Neither mankind nor the devil can stop the least part of God's plan for His creation.
Evil is only sin if it misses the mark. Mankind has been given a mark to hit, a goal to achieve, a perfect standard. It is set forth in Scripture in general, and in the law in particular. The law is the expression of the moral and judicial side of God's character. When men do evil to each other, it is a sin, because they fail to achieve the perfection of the glory of God. However, when God does evil, it is according to His perfect wisdom; it has purpose, and His arrow always hits the bull's eye. Though we do not always understand what He is doing—because we do not see the end from the beginning—we ought to have faith that He is a good God who will work all things together for good (Rom. 8:28).
Job is set forth in Scripture as a primary example by which we may understand the concept of evil. First, we are told that “Satan” needed God's permission to afflict Job with “evil.” See Job 1:12 and 2:6.
Why did God allow this? The book makes it clear that God had a higher purpose, not merely to test Job, but to bring Job to a greater level of understanding in the end. Job already knew more than the average Christian about the source of evil, for he said in 2:10,
10 Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity? In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
The word translated “adversity” (NASB) is the Hebrew word ra'a, which means “evil” and is so translated in the KJV. It carries the idea of calamity and anything which men call “evil.”
Job's friends tried to tell him that surely he was harboring some secret sin in his life. This would explain why God was judging him (or allowing Satan to judge him). But in saying this, they sinned with their lips, and in the end Job was required to pray for them (42:10).
At the end of the story (42:11, 12), Job's family came and “comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought on him . . . . And the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning.”
In other words, when the Lord does or allows evil to befall us, it is ultimately for the purpose of blessing us. This is the basis of Paul's statement in Romans 8:28,
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
It is perhaps no coincidence that God worked anonymously to make men label this verse “8:28.” The number 828 is 2 x 414, which is the factor of “Cursed Time,” and it illustrates the fact that even God's so-called “curses” are ultimate blessings.
There are many other Scriptures that have direct references to God doing “evil” without sinning. Amos 3:6 says, "If a calamity [ra-a] occurs in a city, has not the Lord done it? " God always takes credit for bringing judgment upon a city or a nation—including Israel —in order that they might know the Source and purpose of their judgment, which they call “evil.”
Divine judgment is never coincidental, as historians may think. While God uses “natural causes,” He always stands behind history as the First Cause of all things. This is the story presented in Scripture, whether God was hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 10:1) or putting a hook in his jaw (Ez. 29:4) to ensure that they would do His bidding.
We are called to get to know the God of the Bible, so that we begin to comprehend Him and the way He thinks by the mind of the Spirit. This is often difficult, especially the more evil we see and the more that bad things happen to us personally. Our perspective is simply too limited, too personal, too myopic, and so it is fortunate that we ourselves are not God.
We must ultimately come to the same conclusion as Joseph did, after being sold as a slave by his own brothers, and after being imprisoned for years through false accusation. In Gen. 50:19, 20 he said,
19 Fear not; for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you [brothers], you thought evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive.
This attitude is the primary mark of spiritual maturity in Scripture. All the bitterness and anger of his youth had melted away, once he saw the greater purpose of God in all the “evil” done to him. He had ceased to think of good and evil dualistically. He now saw both good and evil with a singular mind as proceeding from God and having an ultimate good purpose .
-- All Christian authorities everywhere would agree, however (or so I suppose and have found from experience), that this death is not done primarily by us; but primarily by God Himself --
I accept the God of the Bible in having done this violence anyway.
I do not believe that God was murdering Himself; God was not sinning to sacrifice Himself in love for us, even for the people who sin in murdering God.
“For those contemplating for the first time how an assumption of Christian nonviolence impacts Christian doctrines of Christology and atonement, the idea of divinely sanctioned violence of punishment as the basis of justice may not seem like a problem. After all, Christian tradition has a long history of accommodating violence via the doctrine of supposedly justifiable war, and the idea that dong justice means punishment is the hallmark of the United States criminal justice procedures. I submit, however, that it is very much a problem of Christian faith. The classic orthodox formulation of the Trinity emphasizes that each person of the Trinity participates in all the attributes of God. According to this doctrine, it would be heretical to develop attributes in one person of the Trinity that were different from the other persons of the Trinity. That idea is already contained in the key formulation of Nicea,which said that Jesus was “one in being” [homoousis] with the Father. Thus in the orthodox formulations, and as was stated in several of the efforts to rehabilitate satisfaction, Jesus as the revelation of God reveals the very character and being of God. I suggest, however, that if Jesus rejected the sword and His actions portrayed nonviolent confrontation of evil in making the reign of God visible, then it ought not be thinkable that the God who is revealed in Jesus would orchestrate the death of Jesus in a scheme that assumed that doing justice meant the violence of punishment. If Jesus truly reveals God the Father, then it would be a contradiction for Jesus to be nonviolent and for God to bring about salvation though divinely orchestrated violence, through a scheme in which justice depended on violent retribution.”
“The God of vengeance and justice is not revealed in the crucified Messiah. Such a division of roles among persons of the Trinity, with the role of violence reserved for God the Father but not exercised in God the crucified Son, runs counter to classic trinitarian doctrine, which holds that what is true for each person of the Trinity must also be true for God as one.”
I could easily expect an Incarnation and a Passion and a Resurrection even for an unfallen Nature, simply as part of God's loving communion with us.
TotalVictory wrote:First, in the story of the Tares among the Wheat Jesus says:
“An enemy has done this”
He does not say the enemy participating with God, nor that God will bring good from this evil act. The deed is simply wrong. End of story. No sense of God’s participation here. This recognizes a whole category of things that are "not God" at all. Regardless that He brings Good from it.
TV wrote:Second would be in James where he says (1:13)
“Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God…”
Again, the clear dissociation of God from that evil. It’s as if James says that we act apart from God -- all on our own.
TV wrote:Now after the fact, when everything had all worked out, and Joseph SAW the change the brothers evil act had wrought in their lives, and Joseph considered the endless creativity of God in redeeming sin, Joseph could speak AS IF God had intended the entire series of acts. Joseph was adopting a manner of speaking in order to assuage his brothers shame and guilt.
TV wrote:So, a major problem I have with what seems to me your conflation of God’s redeeming and saving responses to evil with the evil itself is that it doesn’t know which evils come from God so can only say ALL of them do.
TV wrote:Now I am sure you mean more than just that God, because he is creator and therefore responsible for all this in that sense, hasn’t abandoned us. For me it is necessary for God to “weep” with each evil we choose -- even as He busies Himself redeeming our rebellion.)
TV wrote:My response here is, “AN ENEMY has done this ma’am!”
TV wrote:My response is NOT EVEN CLOSE to “God did this” (a la God did this to Joseph)
TV wrote:I hope you understand my stance here
TV wrote:What I do not want to do is lay evil at the feet of God that does not belong there… Nor do you I am sure.
TV wrote:Moving on, I am curious why you have not addressed my central observation about relationships; violence breeds fear -- yet God insists we are NOT to fear.
TV wrote:For, when we consider the violence in an abusive marriage, and that the temptation of the abused wife is to be “mature” and accept that her husband really does “love” her, any right thinking person recoils in horror and sees her ‘acceptance’ not as maturity, but as psychosis and pathology. For what she must do is get the hell out.
TV wrote:By your statements, it seems you are ready to excuse God of ALL charges of violence
TV wrote:That’s about as different as two could possibly get!
TV wrote:more later on my troubles with your articulations of Trinitarian orthodoxy.
TV wrote:Also on your moving description of the Last Supper.
TV wrote:I find it curious that you would make a statement like this:
-- All Christian authorities everywhere would agree etc.--
when the very premise of this site (EU) is, by those same “Christian authorities”, seen to be heresy. Just an observation…
TV wrote:I am seeing that the theology you are articulating (and with which I disagree) is itself based upon a premise with which I also disagree. Namely, that sin somehow requires a response of violence and punishment; that sin demands retributive punishment for its own sake.
TV wrote:As to avoiding the charge of “divine child abuse” I guess I have to reject your assertion that since it was God doing it to Himself (a truly bewildering expression to any non-Trinitarian listening in) He is therefore absolved.
TV wrote:For me that’s a glaring contradiction. You sound like you are excusing the God’s act (I guess if by definition God can’t sin, and if God did kill His Son, the killing of Christ couldn’t be a sin) while at the same time admitting to the act. So the act of killing Jesus is not a sin when God does it, but IS a sin when we do it? For me that’s “pretzel think”.
Total Victory wrote:So not only does UR not “trump the Myth of Redemptive Violence” for you, (nor does it need to,) UR is deeply subservient to the Myth of Redemptive Violence. How else TO interpret this statement?
Total Victory wrote:Obviously there are some details on which we disagree on now, but in time (maybe the hereafter) resolution will emerge.
Stephen Jones wrote:God's Liability Laws Based upon Ownership
To prove this liability, let us look at some of the laws of ownership:
33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
The liability here is based upon ownership. If a man digs a pit and does not take the necessary steps to cover it and an ox comes along and falls in by his own free will or by his own stupidity, guess who is liable according to God’s law? This is the law that sets the standard of liability. It is the owner of the pit who is liable, and he must then buy the dead ox for himself. The owner has to pay for it as though it were a live ox, and the dead ox is his.
Back in the Garden of Eden, God dug a “pit.” He did not cover it up, and man fell. Why did man fall? Why did he die? He died because God planted a couple of “trees” in this garden and gave man the “free will” to make the decision, fully aware what decision Adam would make. Yet God did not cover the pit to prevent Adam’s fall. He did not take the precaution in this case. He did not build a ten-foot fence around that tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man fell because God did not take the proper precautions that would have been necessary to prevent man from sinning.
Could God have prevented man from sinning? Of course He could have. He did not have to plant the tree in the first place, or if He did, He did not have to omit the fence. Even then, He did not have to create a tempter and allow him entrance into the garden. Did the tempter come in without God’s knowledge? Did God turn off the security alarms and somehow the devil entered the garden without God’s knowledge? Did God say “oops!”? Is God really that ignorant?
The fact is that God knew the end from the beginning. He was not taken by surprise. He dug that pit and left it uncovered because He had a plan, and the plan called for man to fall. And so he did. By God’s own liability laws, then, He is responsible. So what did God do about it? He sent His only begotten Son who was lifted up on the cross in order to drag all men to Himself. He paid for the sin of the whole world because all of creation became subject to death through Adam’s fall. He bought the dead ox. The ox is now His.
Do you realize what this means? He bought all who fell, and they are now His. Has anyone escaped falling? At the present time it may not look like all mankind is His, but the fact is that God created them and therefore, by His own liability laws, He purchased the world. In doing so, He fulfilled the law perfectly. This is the Good News of the New Testament. His blood was sufficient and worth enough to pay for the sin of the whole world.
1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Let us take a closer look at the law regarding the ox in the pit. It is obvious that under normal circumstances, the ox simply did not see the pit or got too close to it. At any rate, the ox fell into the pit by his own free will or by his own blindness or stupidity. In such cases, the law clearly says, the one who dug the pit (its “owner”) would be liable to pay for the ox.
But suppose I had pushed the neighbor's ox into this pit. Would that make any legal difference? Well, it does not say anything about that, because that point is legally irrelevant. If he pushed the ox into the pit, he may perhaps owe the owner five oxen (Ex. 22:1). But even if it were totally accidental, the owner of the pit is liable because he owns the pit. Either way, the owner of the pit is liable. The issue is not whether the ox fell by his own free will or if someone (like the devil) nudged him into it. The question remains the same: who owns the pit? It is not a question of the ox's free will; it is a question of ownership.
Let us look at another liability law that came from the mind of God:
8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
According to this law, all you have to do to be liable is fail to build a railing on the roof of the house. In those days the people built houses with flat roofs, because they liked to fellowship in the cool of the evenings on the top of the house. Because of this, God required them to put a railing (“battlement”) around the roof, so that people would not accidentally fall. If there were no railing, and if someone were to fall off the roof, who is liable?
If a man pushed his neighbor off the roof, of course, he would be held liable for murder. But our issue is not whether he fell by accident or if someone pushed him deliberately. There is liability either way, and the only difference would be the degree of liability. Our issue is whether or not the man could have prevented the death of his neighbor by building a railing around the roof of the house. The fact is that if you own the house, you are responsible for putting those safety precautions into place. If you do not do so, “it was an accident” does not remove all liability from your door.
God’s house is the whole heavens and the earth. His abode is in the heavens now, but He is making His home in the earth, and that is why He is coming – to make His home here. The problem is that when He built this house, man fell off the “roof.” Who is liable? We agree that God did not PUSH Adam off the “roof.” One cannot blame God for murder. Yet we cannot simply blame the devil in order to remove all liability from God. We cannot merely claim that man was careless and fell off by his own free will. To say it was totally man’s fault is not a lawful answer. Ownership of the house makes God liable by His own liability laws.
There is another liability law that should help us understand this issue.
5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
What happens if an ox tears down a fence by his own free will, plods into another field, and eats his neighbor’s grass? Who is liable to pay for the grass? The owner of the ox, of course. The law is clear.
Suppose the owner of the ox opens the fence, pushes the ox into the neighbor’s field, and pushes the ox’s nose to the ground, saying, “Now you eat this grass, or I will beat you to death.” The ox is forced to eat the grass and has no free will in the matter. Who is liable? The owner of the ox. The only difference in penalty is that if the offense is deliberate, he would have to pay at least double restitution. If the ox committed the offense by his own “free will,” the owner has reduced liability. But he is still liable either way. To insist upon putting the entire blame upon the ox does not solve the problem of ownership. Whether that ox got in there by his own free will or whether the ox was pushed to go in against his free will, does not free the owner of liability itself. Ownership itself brings liability.
The theologian’s insistence upon man having a free will may reduce the problem of God’s liability, but it can never eliminate it altogether.
JeffA wrote:It seems with the Christian God the end DOES justify the means.
For what it's worth, I do not typically see violence in the Bible as being beautiful or admirable, even when the heroes are the ones doing it.
this enemy was operating within the permission and even the grace of God
Seducing people into doing evil? No.
JasonPratt on Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:56 pm wrote:
even sin happens within the will of God, in a very real way. Otherwise, we're talking about cosmological dualism or polytheism or any of several worldviews which are not an ultimate theism.
there are corollaries to saying that something happens entirely apart from the will of God. They're much the same corollaries we bring up when a traditional damnationist wants to claim that someone continues existing in hell entirely separated and apart from God.
Tom (on Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:29 pm) said this:
Now the question is whether God can—and this is where I want to be careful--make compatibilistic use, say, of the evil intentions/plans of wicked persons? Can it ever be compatible with divine omnibenevolence to ‘direct’ or ‘channel’ (‘orchestrate’, ‘influence’) the already resolved/determined evil intentions/plans of persons/nations in a way that best fits his overall plan? I’d like to answer YES to this, but a very careful yes, not at all similar to Calvinism’s secondary causation of unconditionally decreed outcomes...
But does God ‘want’ to make compatibilistic use of the already determined evil characters and intentions of wicked persons in such cases? I think so, yeah.
I would rather just be agnostic on the topic of which evils occur because God is acting to bring those sufferings about in cooperation with the evil choices of people (though unlike them His intentions are actually good) and which ones God isn't directly and specifically cooperating with in bringing the incidents about.
there are corollaries to saying that something happens entirely apart from the will of God.
Actually, I thought I had written somewhere earlier that I am not committed to accepting every charge of violence attributed directly to God in scripture.
Thank you for the acknowledgements. I am not a rigorous thinker like Jason - I am an impulsive Jack-of- all-Trades and master of none. i am a passionate person who rises and falls like the tide and my moods and emotions very definitely colour my thinking (and how I respond to the ideas of others). I think this is why I sit on the fulcrum of the debate God/no God because I find very plausable arguments on both sides.
However, I find your debate with Jason fascinating and illuminating
justin abraham wrote:Why did God set up (or at least continue--if we don't believe its origin is God) a system of sacrifice in the first place? I don't think God needed the shedding of blood (death) of animals for the remission of sins. He created the system for some strange reason that we don't understand. Would it not have been a lot easier just to require a remorseful heart?
RanRan wrote:"We said we were sorry! So you didn't need to sacrifice your only Son." Hey, maybe all that blood letting was just a way to convince those [xxxxxx] back then.
firstborn888 wrote:And because we are still rather insensitive to suffering which doesn't hurt us directly.
Jeff wrote:If I don't get any kind of genuine conversion pre-mortem then as far as even Universalist theology is concerned it's death and a pile of punishment and then eventually some long eons into the future maybe something good will happen
TotalVictory, to Jeff wrote:We must not let this moment pass without acknowledging the very important contribution the idea articulated by SJ brings to the concept of UR; that God can properly be said to "own" His creation -- us along with it -- surely also means He must, as mature ruler/sovereign/lord/master etc take "responsibility" for the mess His own creation has spawned.
Personally, I am bewildered why you would consider the self-sacrifice of someone out of love's sake for the sake of someone else, to be the same as that person abusing himself (in the unethical sense implied by the term "divine child abuse").
John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."
Heb 12:2 "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross"
1 Cor 15:54-56 “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”
The sting of death is sin,
"For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it" link
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests