OT equivalent of militant Islam?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by Paidion » Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:42 pm

Steve, I am not avoiding answering your questions. I intend to answer your list of 10 questions. But for me, this takes time. I want to examine the passages carefully to see whether they seem to say what you affirm that they say. I really admire you for the fact that you can operate two radio programs per day, be in the process of writing books, teachings, etc. and still find the time to enter into an online debate. Actually I hadn't previously considered that we had been debating. I just wanted to express my aversion to the concept of God being pure LOVE and yet being a people killer. I wanted to give my reasons. I have done this to some extent, and appreciate your giving reasons why you believe that He does bring the penalty of death upon people. I also need to answer some of your more recent questions and discuss some of your affirmations. I will do so at the end of this post.

However, I deem it inconsiderate of you to classify my refusal to answer your question about why I would waste my time with the Greek text of Paul's letters, when I already know more than he did about Jesus, God, and the Scriptures— with my failure to answer your other questions as soon as you'd like. I must admit I didn't believe this question to be ingenuous. How did you expect me to answer? Maybe this answer would satisfy you: “I don't have much to do since my retirement, so I thought I might as well find out what Paul actually said and meant, although I know he's wrong.” No, that can't be it, since I was intensely interested in Greek ever since I took my first class in it in a Bible school which I attended for a year when I was 21. I wanted to know what the New Testament writers actually said, rather than be content with what people thought they said. I realized that translations of words and phrases from the NT were often coloured by the translators' presumptions. I don't think this was deliberate in most cases. Generally these translators did their best with the manuscripts available to them, and the knowledge of Greek which they possessed. But they couldn't help bringing their already-formed theological presuppositions into their translations. I don't blame them for this. I just wanted to know what the NT writers actually said and meant.

I don't think I indicated at any time that I “don't trust what Paul wrote” or that I “already know intuitively more than Paul did about Jesus, God, and the scriptures.” However, I do not think Paul was infallible, even though his letters have now been included in “the canon of Scripture”. I think your assessment of my mindset is grossly exaggerated, to say the least.

Yes, I intend to answer your questions, but I think the burden of proof is on you to show that God kills people in a more convincing manner other than just “The Bible tells me so.” You need to show first that at least some of the deaths of individuals and disaster to cities or other people groups are God's doing, and secondly that these deaths serve to bring about an important, beneficial, and desirable outcome.

You stated that you would not deny my assertion that all of God's judgments are remedial. Yet you affirm that God kills people in judgment. How can the death of a person be a remedy? Or the death of a whole city or people group? One might claim that such death would be a deterrent to others, and therefore a remedy for the society in which the person lives or the city was located. But how could that be? If there is no consistency... if God's “direct judgment” is “so unusual” as you wrote to Jepne, why would these rare instances deter anyone? Also in order that such judgment be a deterrent in a society, the society would have to recognize these deaths as resulting from God's judgment. But who does? In our day, many of the TV and radio evangelists and Bible teachers declared that the destruction of the towers in NY was God's judgment on the U.S.A. If it had been God's judgment, it doesn't seem to have done any good. There was no nation-wide repentance resulting from 911. There was no noticeable turning to God.

You have inferred that because I don't believe God kills people, that I therefore believe that He is Mr. Nice Guy (my term)—that He never brings pain or discomfort on anyone. I have never made such a claim. For many years, I have believed that God brings discomfort both in this life, and in the after-life in order to bring people to repentance and into fellowship with Himself.

Every Tsunami, flood, earthquake or other “natural” disaster are importunately touted by religious extremists in the media as “God's judgment”. None of this preaching leads to repentance. Instead, people who believe these extremists tend to driven farther away from God than ever. Their thinking is, “If God does those things to people, I want nothing to do with Him.”

Six times in the NT it is affirmed that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:6, Eph 6:9, and Col 3:25.)
Yet, you indicate by your belief that He does show partiality among people while they are alive in this world. You say that God kills/killed people as a judgment for their sin or wickedness, but only rarely. Isn't it partiality to punish a select few for their sin by death while allowing the vast majority of sinners to live out their lives until they die from natural causes?

Jesus brought up Pilate's killing some Galileans and mingling the Galileans' blood with their sacrifices, and also an unexpected disaster, the tower in Siloam falling and killing 18 people from Jerusalem. Jesus asks whether the people who died were worse sinners than anyone else from their area. Then He says, “No, I tell you [they were not worse sinners]".
So if these deaths were a judgment from God, it was not a judgment on sin. (Luke 13:1-5)

However, Jesus also said, “... but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish [or be destroyed].”
What did Jesus mean by those words? Much seems to rest on the meaning of the word translated as “likewise”. At least one lexicon gives “in the same way”. But that can't be it. In that case, Jesus would be saying that those who didn't repent would be killed by Pilate or by having a tower fall on them. The “likewise” must mean that unless you repent, you will also perish. For they perished. Surely He didn't simply mean that they would die a physical death as the Galileans and the 18 did. For everyone eventually dies a physical death whether they repent or not. It would seem that He meant that they would die in a different sense if they didn't repent. Was He saying that they would be annihilated? That seems consistent with Jesus' words. Or was He saying that they would die a “spiritual” death, in being separated from God in the afterlife for a period of correction? That, too, seems consistent with Jesus' words.

I don't believe as you do, that all human death is somehow caused by God—that He takes them, that the moment of their death has been fixed, or as you put it, “God determines the day of my death.” I regard this as pure speculation. The causes of peoples' deaths are disease, automobiles or other machines, stumbling and falling off a cliff, bullet wounds, attacks from animals, poison, decapitation, hanging, deprivation of the essentials of life such as air, food, or water, etc. etc. God has nothing to do with it. Man dies either from “natural processes”, from attacks by people or animals, or from “accidents.”
I wrote:How do you explain (according to the OT) that God supposedly punished minor offences, even with death, while seemingly doing nothing about major atrocities which some people wreaked upon others? And this continues to be the case right to the present day.
Then you wrote:First, you are determining, without warrant, that the offenses which God punishes are "minor." I have read my Bible, too, and I would not be prepared to say that any willful disobedience against God is minor.


Perhaps not. So what about stumbling or non-intentional disobedience? Or even ignorance? Would that be “minor”? It seems that Uzzah was killed for steadying the ark of the covenant when the oxen stumbled. Was Uzzah at all aware that Yahweh was opposed to this action or that He would get angry? I looked up every reference to “ark” and found no prohibition of such an act. The passage reads as if God had killed him out of anger for steadying the ark. Do you have any idea why God would get so angry about that? One would think it would be a deed to be applauded. Was Uzzah even aware that there was anything about his act which would displease God?

When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of god and took hold of it (“steadied it” [Septuagint]), for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Sam 6:6,7)
I wrote:to physically injure or kill someone does not describe a loving action.
Then you wrote:Your definition of "a loving action" is....what?
“A loving action”is an action which helps or benefits its recipient.

Physically injuring or killing someone is not a benefit but an injury, in the case of killing, a permanent injury (until the resurrection).
You wrote:If God only acts in love (which I believe to be the case) and yet finds it necessary to eliminate corrupting elements that threaten His people, then I am forced to conclude that such actions, on God's part, must fall within the realm of possible loving actions. On what authority do you exclude them?
So you are saying that if God acts “to eliminate corrupting elements” (I presume you mean people) that threaten His own people, it may be a loving action. In other words, it is loving to kill some people in order to protect others from threats. Isn't that exactly what the the burning or drowning of “heretics” were supposed to accomplish? Were they “loving actions” because they protected the Catholics and Protestants from the “heretics” (corrupting elements) which might result in deceived Catholics and Protestants going to hell forever, a fate much worse than mere physical death? And the Crusades. Were they “loving actions” because they protected the Catholics against “corrupting elements” (the Muslims, pagans, heretics, and excommunicated Catholics)? Whether some of these measures were to protect from heretics or people threatening war or death, the people were still perceived to need protecting.
You wrote:Also, if your affirmation that "God is fair to everyone," is supposed to reflect some reality about His distribution of earthly lots to individuals, I think Job and David, Joseph and Jesus, and many others would have to disagree with you. They were not treated fairly at all. If "fairness" means that He gives people in this present life only what is deserved, then Job's comforters were right, and Job was wrong. I agree that God is fair, but I believe that He is not limited to the present life to settle all scores and balance all the books.
No, by asserting that "God is fair to everyone," I do not mean that assertion “is supposed to reflect some reality about His distribution of earthly lots to individuals.” Rather I mean that God shows no partiality, which as I have mentioned above,is asserted 6 times in the New Testament. However if He kills some people here on earth, but leaves alive others who are just as wicked, that definitely shows partiality.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by Singalphile » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:48 am

Hello. Paidion,
I don't want to interrupt much. I'm still not sure what your position is on some of these passages (Uzzah, Deut 22:28+, etc.). If you can briefly explain or easily direct me to another thread in which you've explained, please do.

More specifically, do you regard these passages as non-inspired, false teachings/stories (interpolations, perhaps), or ... something else? Should these passages or books be removed from our Bible, in your view, or should they be retained as long as they're understood as historical and useful but inaccurate?

Thank you. :)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by steve7150 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:10 am

Was Uzzah at all aware that Yahweh was opposed to this action or that He would get angry? I looked up every reference to “ark” and found no prohibition of such an act. The passage reads as if God had killed him out of anger for steadying the ark. Do you have any idea why God would get so angry about that? One would think it would be a deed to be applauded. Was Uzzah even aware that there was anything about his act which would displease God?








Paidion the Ark was only supposed to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites using the poles prescribed. (Num 4.15 Num 7.9 & Ex 25.12 - 14) It was not supposed to be touched by Levites and God had warned that violating this law would result in death.
This may be an example of how God's relationship with us did change as now under the New Covenant the intention of the heart is critical but back under the Old Covenant it was much more of physically obeying the commands type of relationship.
Perhaps you might be interested in Paul Copan's book "Is God a moral monster?"

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by Paidion » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 pm

Thanks for your question, Singalphile. You need not be concerned. Your questions are no interuption.

I don't so much hold a position concerning any particular OT passages. Nor do I have any desire to "explain them away". Rather I hold the view that God is absolutely good, and that His great plan of the ages is to reconcile all things (both people and nature itself) to Himself. This reconciliation may require His causing discomfort to many people, but it has the purpose of helping them by His grace to become good, loving, righteous people who submit to His gracious will. But it will not include that which will permanently hurt people either on this earth in the eternal realm. Killing people doesn't result in their correction on this earth since they will no longer exist on this earth to correct. Nor does it help to correct others.

Many people, including many Jewish people, saw Hitler's holocaust as God's judgment on the Jews. Yet, if true, how did it further God's cause? Many Jewish people blamed God for those atrocities by which the Nazis killed over 6 million Jews. As a result of this false belief, more Jewish people became atheists than in any time in Israel's history.

In general, I hold that any passages in the OT which depict God as killing people are more likely to have been the views of the authors than a record of God's acts.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by steve » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:14 pm

Hi Paidion,
I don't think I indicated at any time that I “don't trust what Paul wrote” or that I “already know intuitively more than Paul did about Jesus, God, and the scriptures.” However, I do not think Paul was infallible, even though his letters have now been included in “the canon of Scripture”. I think your assessment of my mindset is grossly exaggerated, to say the least.
If you will recall, the discussion of Paul began when I pointed out that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets. I said I wish to go Paul’s way. You responded that you would “rather” go Jesus’ way. This statement (properly parsed in English) cannot mean anything but that you see Jesus’ way to be different from Paul’s way, and that you prefer the former over the latter. This means that you do not agree with Paul’s way. The irony in this is that Paul’s way (that is, in believing in all that the Law and Prophets affirm) is not different from Christ’s, since there is no evidence that Christ distrusted anything in the Old Testament. In fact, He seemed to have little tolerance for those who believed and obeyed it selectively (Matt.15:4-5; 23:23).

Your statement would be understood by any English-speaking person to mean that you did not agree with Paul in his believing everything in the Old Testament—meaning that you believe you understand these matters better than he did. And why? Because you believe (which he did not) that there are things in the Law and the Prophets that are contrary to God’s character. Thus you have as much as claimed that you know God’s character better than Paul does. Is there a faulty link in my reasoning here?
Yes, I intend to answer your questions, but I think the burden of proof is on you to show that God kills people in a more convincing manner other than just “The Bible tells me so.” You need to show first that at least some of the deaths of individuals and disaster to cities or other people groups are God's doing, and secondly that these deaths serve to bring about an important, beneficial, and desirable outcome.
It seems to me that the burden of proof lies upon anyone who says, “Some of the scriptures are true, and some are false,” to demonstrate that this is the case—especially since neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any evidence whatever that they would agree with this statement.

When God Himself (affirmed by Jesus) says that He is going to kill someone, or has done so, or that someone else should do so, the responsibility does not lie upon me to explain why this was the best course of action for Him to do. I may be able to guess, but it is not my problem to explain. It is your responsibility to convince God that His actions (or His statements about them) are unjustifiable or inconsistent with His character.

You stated that you would not deny my assertion that all of God's judgments are remedial. Yet you affirm that God kills people in judgment. How can the death of a person be a remedy? Or the death of a whole city or people group?
Really? You don’t get this? I thought you believed that postmortem repentance and salvation are a possibility. If this is so, then how can a man’s death be the end of opportunity for him to benefit? Death is not the end of God’s dealings is it?

If I were going to go to hell, and be severely dealt with by God for my earthly crimes there, I would count it a grace that God ended my life before I had amassed a larger heap of crimes to face. This would be especially true, if my extended life on earth would have resulted in doing physical or spiritual harm to others. What could be more loving than for God to take me out early, and thus save the lives of others and diminish my tenure in hell? Who wouldn’t think this way, if they believed in hell in the way you do?

Even if hell is annihilation, it is still more loving to send an Adolph Hitler to that place earlier, rather than later. What benefit would it have been to Hitler to have lived to be eighty, and then to be annihilated? Does not God’s love for innocent victims of a tyrant count into the definition of what a loving act may be on God’s part?
One might claim that such death would be a deterrent to others, and therefore a remedy for the society in which the person lives or the city was located. But how could that be? If there is no consistency... if God's “direct judgment” is “so unusual” as you wrote to Jepne, why would these rare instances deter anyone? Also in order that such judgment be a deterrent in a society, the society would have to recognize these deaths as resulting from God's judgment. But who does? In our day, many of the TV and radio evangelists and Bible teachers declared that the destruction of the towers in NY was God's judgment on the U.S.A. If it had been God's judgment, it doesn't seem to have done any good. There was no nation-wide repentance resulting from 911. There was no noticeable turning to God.
I did not say that the death of the wicked serves as a deterrent (though it probably does, in many cases). This is your own speculation. I can think of more than one positive purpose that could be served by the early death of a wicked man—both to himself and to society. I do not believe that God would have any trouble giving His loving reasons for any act of His judgment, though His reasons might vary case-by-case. I am not prepared to put Him on the hot seat about this, however.
You have inferred that because I don't believe God kills people, that I therefore believe that He is Mr. Nice Guy (my term)—that He never brings pain or discomfort on anyone. I have never made such a claim. For many years, I have believed that God brings discomfort both in this life, and in the after-life in order to bring people to repentance and into fellowship with Himself.
And since you believe that the pain and suffering continue—potentially redemptively—even in the next life, then physical death can hardly be categorized in a class by itself apart from any other suffering event. If killing a man is analogous to expelling an incorrigible child from regular school, and consigning him to reform school, as seems entirely plausible, why would this be necessarily more inconsistent with love than would be, say, sitting him in the corner with a "Dunce" cap, and depriving him of recess?
Every Tsunami, flood, earthquake or other “natural” disaster are importunately touted by religious extremists in the media as “God's judgment”. None of this preaching leads to repentance. Instead, people who believe these extremists tend to driven farther away from God than ever. Their thinking is, “If God does those things to people, I want nothing to do with Him.”
This, of course, is irrelevant to the exegesis of the biblical passages with which we are concerned.
Six times in the NT it is affirmed that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:6, Eph 6:9, and Col 3:25.) Yet, you indicate by your belief that He does show partiality among people while they are alive in this world. You say that God kills/killed people as a judgment for their sin or wickedness, but only rarely. Isn't it partiality to punish a select few for their sin by death while allowing the vast majority of sinners to live out their lives until they die from natural causes?
So you think it is a given that those who live out their lives and die of natural causes have a better lot than those whom God strikes dead? If I were going to hell anyway, I had rather drop dead like Ananias and Sapphira than to live a few years longer and die in excruciating pain over a period of months or years, "of natural causes." By what standard are you measuring here?

"Partiality," in the Greek means "accepting the face" or "respecting the person." It refers to a judge's showing partiality toward one man over another man based solely on exterior considerations—e.g., his race (Acts 10:34/ Rom.2:11), his social standing (Eph.6:9/ Col.3:25), or his church office (Gal.2:6, which uses a different set of words than the other passages). God doesn't judge this way, we are assured. There is nothing in this term relevant to our discussion of God's judging some men now and others later. We are not talking here about judgments based upon racial or social circumstances of the sinner, but judgments based upon bahavior (as all just judgments are).

I think you will agree that a judge who metes out different, but appropriate, sentences to different criminals is not, thereby, "showing partiality." If he gives a lighter sentence to a man because he is white than he gives to a comparable criminal who is black, this would be respect of persons.

I have already pointed out that, if part of a man’s chastening comes in this life, and the rest in the next life, then a man who dies young here simply leaves more of his unfinished chastening to be done later. In judgment, God never gives men worse than they deserve. Since the wages of sin is death, God never is going beyond justice in opting to end a person’s life (assuming they have sinned, sometime previously). Death is going to happen to everyone, and the person who dies younger than another has not received a more severe punishment than the other man, since the other man will also die. Both will have more scores to settle in the resurrection.
Jesus brought up Pilate's killing some Galileans and mingling the Galileans' blood with their sacrifices, and also an unexpected disaster, the tower in Siloam falling and killing 18 people from Jerusalem. Jesus asks whether the people who died were worse sinners than anyone else from their area. Then He says, “No, I tell you [they were not worse sinners]". So if these deaths were a judgment from God, it was not a judgment on sin. (Luke 13:1-5)
First, Jesus did not identify these cases as judgments of God on these people. The stories merely were reported to Him as current events.

Second, even if He had, your point is flawed. Jesus did not deny that these people were sinners. He said that they were no worse sinners than others—which is why the others would experience similar deaths.
However, Jesus also said, “... but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish [or be destroyed].” What did Jesus mean by those words? Much seems to rest on the meaning of the word translated as “likewise”. At least one lexicon gives “in the same way”. But that can't be it. In that case, Jesus would be saying that those who didn't repent would be killed by Pilate or by having a tower fall on them. The “likewise” must mean that unless you repent, you will also perish. For they perished. Surely He didn't simply mean that they would die a physical death as the Galileans and the 18 did. For everyone eventually dies a physical death whether they repent or not. It would seem that He meant that they would die in a different sense if they didn't repent. Was He saying that they would be annihilated? That seems consistent with Jesus' words. Or was He saying that they would die a “spiritual” death, in being separated from God in the afterlife for a period of correction? That, too, seems consistent with Jesus' words.
The best way to understand “likewise” is “in the same [or similar] manner.” This is what Jesus meant: “Judgment is coming upon Israel—a massacre in which all of you will face fates similar to those of these people (i.e., being slaughtered by the Roman soldiers in the temple precincts, and being crushed from falling towers and walls). Your friends who died in these disasters did not suffer any worse fate than that which you will all be facing.”

This is the literal meaning of His statement. It confirms what I said above, that, if someone dies sooner than another, it does not necessarily place him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis others who will eventually also die.
I don't believe as you do, that all human death is somehow caused by God—that He takes them, that the moment of their death has been fixed, or as you put it, “God determines the day of my death.” I regard this as pure speculation. The causes of peoples' deaths are disease, automobiles or other machines, stumbling and falling off a cliff, bullet wounds, attacks from animals, poison, decapitation, hanging, deprivation of the essentials of life such as air, food, or water, etc. etc. God has nothing to do with it. Man dies either from “natural processes”, from attacks by people or animals, or from “accidents.”
All people die for one reason only: God banished man from the tree of life. Without such a restricted access, we would never die. Man was created only potentially immortal—dependent upon eating from the tree of life. God placed an armed guard to prevent such access—meaning God caused the death of every man.

Your list of various causes of death doesn’t add to the discussion, since there would be no causes of death at all, if not for sin and exclusion from the tree of life. Your statement “God has nothing to do with it,” simply stands against the testimony of the whole Bible. God may have very much to do with whether an arrow shot at random should hit a certain king between the joints of his armor or not. It is true that God often seems to let nature take its course in bringing about a man’s death, though He sometimes intervenes supernaturally (as when the angel of the Lord killed 185,000 Assyrians encamped against Jerusalem). We should be careful about declaring what God does or does not have to do with—especially when our declarations specifically contradict His.
It seems that Uzzah was killed for steadying the ark of the covenant when the oxen stumbled. Was Uzzah at all aware that Yahweh was opposed to this action or that He would get angry? I looked up every reference to “ark” and found no prohibition of such an act. The passage reads as if God had killed him out of anger for steadying the ark. Do you have any idea why God would get so angry about that? One would think it would be a deed to be applauded. Was Uzzah even aware that there was anything about his act which would displease God?
We are not told much backstory here. However, if “the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah” (2 Sam.6:7), we can be quite sure that it was not because of the man’s innocence or good intentions. How can anyone claim to know enough about Uzzah to affirm that he was not a man whose heart and ways were offensive to God, and that God was not justified in making an example of him?
“A loving action”is an action which helps or benefits its recipient.

Physically injuring or killing someone is not a benefit but an injury, in the case of killing, a permanent injury (until the resurrection).
Ah, but that last parenthesis changes everything, doesn’t it?
So you are saying that if God acts “to eliminate corrupting elements” (I presume you mean people) that threaten His own people, it may be a loving action. In other words, it is loving to kill some people in order to protect others from threats. Isn't that exactly what the burning or drowning of “heretics” were supposed to accomplish? Were they “loving actions” because they protected the Catholics and Protestants from the “heretics” (corrupting elements) which might result in deceived Catholics and Protestants going to hell forever, a fate much worse than mere physical death? And the Crusades. Were they “loving actions” because they protected the Catholics against “corrupting elements” (the Muslims, pagans, heretics, and excommunicated Catholics)? Whether some of these measures were to protect from heretics or people threatening war or death, the people were still perceived to need protecting.
You have committed a non sequitur here. The premise is that God has the right to remove evil people…but your suggested conclusion has to do with people killing other people. Was this an accidental shift, on your part, or are you of the opinion that people have the same prerogatives that God has? I am not.

by asserting that "God is fair to everyone," I do not mean that assertion “is supposed to reflect some reality about His distribution of earthly lots to individuals.” Rather I mean that God shows no partiality, which as I have mentioned above, is asserted 6 times in the New Testament. However if He kills some people here on earth, but leaves alive others who are just as wicked, that definitely shows partiality.
God supernaturally struck down Herod (Acts 12), but not Pilate (for all we know). However, in determining that a man’s death will come by supernatural means, rather than natural ones, God is not being more fair to one than to another. Both men died, and had to thereafter face their Judge. It probably makes no difference at all, to the man who dies suddenly, whether it was a human’s sword, or an angel’s, that struck him.

Does God determine the time and manner of a Christian’s death also? I believe He does.

God sent an angel to release Peter from prison to spare him from being beheaded by Herod. God could, with no additional effort, have done the same for James. However, God didn't choose to do so. James was beheaded by Herod without God sending any angels to help. Was this God showing partiality toward Peter or was He showing partiality toward James (After all, James was beheaded, and Peter crucified. Which would you prefer?)? Or was it simply God’s having a different plan for the death of James from the plan He had for the death of Peter? Jesus had even predicted to Peter “by what death he would glorify God” (John 21:19).

God spared Paul from the plots of the Jews, but eventually allowed him to die at the hands of the Romans. Was this partiality or was it God’s plan for Paul to die on one day, but not on an earlier day?

Paidion, I am afraid that your limiting God’s involvement in the affairs of men places you in opposition to almost the whole of scripture. I strongly urge you to reconsider.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by Paidion » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:20 pm

Steve7150 wrote:Paidion the Ark was only supposed to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites using the poles prescribed. (Num 4.15 Num 7.9 & Ex 25.12 - 14) It was not supposed to be touched by Levites and God had warned that violating this law would result in death.
Thanks Steve. That's what I was searching for and couldn't find. I had remembering hearing people saying that the ark bearers were to touch only the poles they were carrying. It doesn't make sense to me that God would kill Uzzah for reaching for the ark to steady it. This is one of the "minor offences" to which I referred in a previous post. If God really kills people for such acts and we believe that He does so, it seems to me that we would live in constant fear.

It seems to me that if we have a loving relationship with God we will obey Him because we love Him rather than because we are terrified lest we make a false step. Of course, if the new order is drastically different from the old, it may not be necessary to constantly have this abject fear. Yet, (I'm expressing my inner thoughts in an attempt to understand. I'm not arguing right now) why would God, if His character is the same, treat people under the New Covenant so much differently from the way He treated them under the Old? Were His ways and laws under the Old Covenant deficient? Is it because they didn't "work" that He had to have a totally different way of administering matters under the New? Or was it the inability of the Hebrews to do things His way? If that were the case, why didn't He introduce the New Covenant a lot sooner and save the Hebrews from all that suffering? Or at least a means of grace whereby the Hebrews could have been more successful in obedience?

Of course you can simply tell me it's a mystery. Or quote to me the following words of the apostle Paul:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Rom 11:33)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by Paidion » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:21 pm

7. Why did the psalmists and the prophets, who spoke more often of God's lovingkindness and mercy than Jesus did, fail to understand (as you do) that these things cannot be true of God if He remains the judge who settles scores with sinners?
"...judge who settles scores with sinners".

Steve, the idea that God punishes penally seems to arise a number of times in the arguments you have brought forth. I am thinking we may have differing understandings with respect to this concept, and that difference may be at the root of our disagreement concerning the character of God, and His acts toward humanity. I am not attempting to diverge from the main theme of disageement so far (whether or not God kills people); I just want to ask how you understand God's judgments on an individual. I would like to ask you whether you think God's mindset in punishing an individual is reflected in the statement, "You sinned; you must be punished", analagous to a referee of a hockey game who imposes a penalty for high sticking, or to a judge who pronounces a penalty for a traffic violation. My understanding is that God punishes only to correct. That is what I meant by the statement, "All of God's judgments are remedial."

You may have noticed my signature statement:

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

As I see it, God doesn't sentence a person to a particular degree of punishment in hell which corresponds to the number and nature of the sins he committed, but administers whatever is needed in order to correct his character. The sinner cannot PAY for past sins. He can suffer as a result of his sins, but they can never be undone. The reason he needs punishment is that he needs regeneration. He needs correction. His sinful tendencies must be destroyed, and the new person come forth as gold. Nothing can be done about his past. Penal punishment won't help a bit. Only correction. In some cases a severe correction, a painful correction.

As George MacDonald put it:
Not for any or all of his sins that are past shall a man be condemned; not for the worst of them does he need to fear remaining unforgiven. The sin in which he dwells, the sin of which he will not come out. That sin is the sole ruin of a man. His present live sins, those sins pervading his thoughts and ruling his conduct; the sins he keeps doing, and will not give up; the sins he is called to abandon, but to which he clings instead, the same sins which are the cause of his misery, though he may not know it --- these are the sins for which he is even now condemned. —— George MacDonald, The Hope of the Gospel, Ch1 Salvation from Sin
I know Paul writes in Romans 2, that all will be judged according to their works. But I don't think that refers to judging his past works, and administering penalties which fit his particular past sins. I think the idea is that his past works tend to reveal his present character, and it is the latter which will determine the type of correction the sinner needs. God will give him whatever it takes. And it may not ALL be punishment. God may show the person His magnificent love. For we read that God's kindness is meant to lead us to repentance. (Romans 2:4)

How do you see it?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by steve » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:54 pm

Hi Paidion,

I believe that all of God's judgments may very well prove to be remedial (I am not sure, since the Bible doesn't necessarily affirm this). However, remedial judgments may also take the form of penalties for wrong doing. Many a wrongdoer, in this life, has corrected his behavior after suffering the penal consequences that came upon him for his crimes. It often takes the receiving of just deserts to impress upon a man how evil his deeds have been. A child is spanked for his correction, but this does not mean that the spanking is given without there having been some specific infraction warranting it.

If there is indeed correction beyond the grave, then I would not see it as merely penal, with no other end in view. But, as in this present life," when Your judgments are in the earth, The inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness" (Isa.26:9), so also it may be postmortem. God's judgments are according to justice, which means crimes carry penalties. Hopefully, the infliction of the penalty may bring about repentance, but there is a penalty nonetheless.

By the way, it is possible that my last post was missed by you, since there was some additional interaction between you and the other steve about the time I posted it.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by Paidion » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:06 pm

Thanks for your reply, Steve. It helps me to better understand your position.
You wrote:God's judgments are according to justice, which means crimes carry penalties.
This is one view of "justice", certainly not the only one. George MacDonald defined "justice" as "fairness". It seems that the writer of Psalm 10 (Was it David?) understood it his way, too. He wanted God to do justice to the fatherless and oppressed. Surely that did not mean penalizing the fatherless and oppressed. Did it not mean ministering to the needs of the fatherless, and preventing the oppression of the oppressed?

LORD, You have heard the desire of the humble; You will prepare their heart; You will cause Your ear to hear, To do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, That the man of the earth may oppress no more. (Psalm 10:17,18 NKJV)

In the world, there are two distinct views of justice concerning criminals, "penal" or even "retributive" justice, and "restorative justice". The best book I have read on the topic is Changing Lenses, A New Focus for Crime and Justice, by Howard Zehr, Copyright 1990 by Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa. The first page of his book is a quote from Psalm 103:8-10 from the Jerusalem Bible:

Yahweh is tender and compassionate,
slow to anger, most loving;
his indignation does not last forever,
his resentment exists a short time only;
he never treats us, never punishes us,
as our guilt and our sins deserve.

I did read your last post. Thank you for the reply. My responses to your questions will be very gradual. My thinking is slow and gradual. I must think through various scriptures slowly. I'm not making excuses for my 3/4 century-old brain, but I already possess a rather short-term memory. If I have two tasks to complete, and begin the first, I frequently forget what the second one was. Notwithstanding, given time, I think I can address at least some of your questions if I take plenty of time, think about scriptures, think about how your/my suppositions fit or don't fit reality, think about the reasoning of other thinkers, etc.

Thank you for your patience.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by Homer » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:19 am

Paidion,

Your approach to the scriptures is very difficult for me to see any way to find the truth. It seems all to hinge on your imagination and reasoning. How, for example, would you find any benefit from study of the book of Joshua? And when you conclude that someone like Moses has imagined some (much?) of what he has written, how do you determine where to draw the line between falsehood (which is what it is, even though Moses might have had good intentions) and what is true? And by what criteria can it be determined that the New Testament is any more accurate than the Old?

It is easy to see how you became a universalist.

Post Reply

Return to “Islam”