• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Did Jesus contradict the OT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter guitarman
  • Start date Start date
guitarman said:
In answer to your question, I know that christians believe that jesus and god are one in the same, so I'll agree to that for the sake of discussion.

Good, we now have a firmer foundation for discussion.

Now as far as your morality questions:

guitarman said:
The same standard should apply to god.

As far as not being able to judge an event as "right" or "wrong" that happened far back in time and in a totally different cultural context, that's just moral relativism. If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in all places and in all times?

Here is why I don’t believe that morality is a basis upon which to determine whether or not God exists: If God doesn’t exist then all morality is indeed relative. If there is no God, the only determining factor of morality is going to be political/military power. Those with it will enforce their morals upon those without it.

However, if God does exist, then He determines what is moral for us and what isn’t. We can disagree with Him all day long, but it isn’t going to do us any good. God imposes morality on us, and it truly is a “do as I say, not as I do†situation. So in answer to your question: â€ÂIf you took some of the things that god does in the bible and had a person do them, we would call that person a criminal and a monster and rightly so. If god is so great to hand down moral laws to us, shouldn't he be expected to follow those same laws?†The Bible teaches that the answer is no. When Hitler committed holocaust against the Jews, it was wrong because Hitler was a man who set his face against God. When God committed a similar holocaust against the Jews by having the Babylonians wipe them out in 587bc, He did it out of righteous judgment. His righteousness, His judgment. Again, we can disagree with Him all day long but it won’t do us any good. If He exists and if His is Who He says He is, He can do this. And, if he doesn’t then all morality is relative and who are we to say that those ancient Hebrews were ‘wrong’ in their treatment of the Midianites?

guitarman said:
I was hoping you would come up with something better than the "god's ways are mysterious" argument. It seems like every time something unethical or tricky in the bible comes up, that's the argument I hear. That's not a valid argument.

Well, sorry about that. But, do you honestly expect me to claim that I do understand all the mysteries of God and fully comprehend why He has done everything that He has done? Frankly, if I ever start making claims as that, I strongly advise you to write me off as a nut case. In His Law, God did set out the moral code He expects us to live by. However, He states very plainly that vengeance is His and He will wreak His vengeance upon whom He will and will pour out His wrath as He see fits. When, where and why He does so is something that I cannot speak to in all cases. Some of these things I fully understand. Others, not so much.
So, I tend to reject morality as a basis upon which to question God. But, I felt your original question, the question as to whether or not Jesus contradicts the Old Testament, was a far more superior question. If Jesus is indeed the God of the Old Testament, and we have agreed for the basis of this discussion that He is, then He has made some claims about Himself, not the least of which is that He would be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So, if there are clearly irreconcilable differences between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New, then that becomes a far stronger, IMHO, reason to toss the whole concept of God out the window as being, as Eric so eloquently put it, “the legslation of an ancient culture of primitive, militantly jingoistic racists!â€Â
 
guitarman said:
I didn't quote Drange because most of the time you guys will attack the man instead of the argument, instead you attacked me.
Plagiarism is unethical.
 
Insofar as some of those troubling moral issues are concerned, as I say, some of them I understand the reasoning why God commanded what He did, others I simply do not.

Slavery, as it existed in the Old Testament times was a social norm. People voluntarily sold themselves as slaves. Kidnapping someone to hold as a slave was a sin punishable by death. However, prisoners of war were held as slaves by the Hebrews, just as by every other ancient society. God's law put regulations on what one could and could not do with a slave, but no, He never forbade the practice. Should He have? Well, as a matter of fact, I think it would have been great if God made it clear that the Hebrews should never have enslaved anyone. Why didn't He forbid it? I haven't a clue. This would be one of those things in which I would feel more than uncomfortable in saying that I know God's mind in the matter because I don't. I'm sitting here in the 21st century thinking, with all the clarity that 20-20 hindsight gives one, that God probably should have. But He didn't and He isn't answerable to me as to why He didn't. As I have found in my 30+ years as a Christian that God is totally trustworthy and faithful in matters that are far more pertinent to me than events that took place 3000 years ago, I'm satisfied to leave the whole question in His more than capable hands.

In regards to rape, show me an instance where God commanded anyone to be raped. Don't point to the passage in Numbers 31 though, because that passage in no way states that the virgins were to be sexually assaulted, just that they were not to be killed. Most likely, they were simply kept as household slaves. Most of them probably went on to become wives or concubines. It was a common practice. To look at that passage and state that every virgin was raped by the Hebrews at God's command is reading far more into the text that is offered.

Does God command the murder of anyone? This is a tricky philosophical question going back to what I mentioned earlier about the sort of "catch 22" that arises when talking about morality and God. If God is Who He says He is, He gives us life and He can freely take it when, where and why He chooses to do so.

You can't take my life without being a murderer, because you didn't give me life in the first place. If God doesn't exist and the whole concept of god is simply a brainwashing technique used to justify atrocities, then whose to say that you murdering me is wrong? Maybe you have really good reasons to murder me. However, going back to what I say about god not existing, then what ever political persuasion that is in power will be the one that dictates whether or not you can murder me. At this time, in America, you can't murder me without facing punishment. If we move to Afghanistan or Pakistan and become Muslims and I walk around the town in what I'm wearing on this hot summer day (t-shirt which leaves my face, neck and arms exposed and knee-length shorts that leave my calves and ankles exposed), then you can murder me with total justification.

I realize this is the old "you-can't-do-it-but-if-God-does-it-its-OK" excuse. The reason why I bring it up is that its nothing less than the truth. God either is Who He says He is, or He doesn't exist. (I can't accept some kind of weak willed god who is so lacking in control over his own creation that he is just sitting helpless up there in the sky.) The Bible presents us with a picture of a God who expects His creation to obey Him and if we don't He feels completely justified in punishing us, even destroying us. That's the nature of the God we have. Again, we can reject Him, but that doesn't do us any good. Paul describes it as being clay in a potters hands. The writer to the Hebrews reminds us that it's a pretty terrifying thing to land in the hands of the living God.

But, I don't find it at all logical to complain about how God doesn't measure up to your standards of morality. If He doesn't exist, then your standards of morality have no more power over another than the standard of morality that says it's OK to stone a woman because she talked to a man she wasn't related to.
 
guitarman said:
Rankx wrote:
However, we have to take into consideration that the nation of Israel in the wilderness was a spiritual nation and also a civil nation. Moses was president and priest. There were many laws given to govern israel as a civil nation to Moses. Laws about stonning a woman caught in adultery to death was a civil law. Laws that dealt with specific punishment for sins were civil laws. Civil laws can be changed at anytime based on circumstances. At the time of Jesus Israel was ruled by Rome and operated under the civil laws of Rome. The civil laws for Carlifornia don't apply in England. There were specific laws for the children of Israel when Moses, Joshua and others were both their priest and king. Then there were also the laws regarding special ceremonies and ordinances.

Israel was a spritual and civil nation: it's known as a theocracy. Their civil laws were given to them by god, therefore god is responsible for them. God told the Israelites to stone adulterous women and homosexuals and witches. He laid out the specific punishments for specific sins. God doesn't say anywhere in the OT that it's ok to change his laws, in fact he has some pretty stern warnings against it. It would be one thing if the laws in the OT were made up by the Israelites but they weren't. God is recognized as the ultimate authority in the bible, so he ultimately bears the responsibility for what is in it.

I find both of these quotes to be equally correct. However, if we are going to try to reconcile the way God calls upon us to interact with one another in the New Testament with how He commanded the Israelites to do so in the Old, we are going to have to look at the difference between the civil law which were for the nation of Israel and were defunct when the nation was no more and the spiritual laws which are fulfilled in Christ.
 
Handy wrote:
Here is why I don’t believe that morality is a basis upon which to determine whether or not God exists: If God doesn’t exist then all morality is indeed relative. If there is no God, the only determining factor of morality is going to be political/military power. Those with it will enforce their morals upon those without it.

No, that only means that morality is relative to you. I think that some things are right and some things are wrong because they are intrinsically right or wrong. I don't need a god to tell me. I don't rape and murder, not because I'm afraid of the consequences, but because I think those things are wrong. Frankly, if you think that morality depends upon the existence of god, that says a lot more about you than it does me. That means that you worship god and don't do wrong only because you're afraid of the consequences of disobediance.

Sorry if I get a little preachy, I can be long-winded sometimes. But let me ask you one more question: If someone imprisoned and tortured another human being for any length of time, maybe eternity, simply because that person didn't return the the first person's love, would that be wrong? I think you know what I'm getting at but I'd still like to hear your answer.

Minnesota wrote:
Plagiarism is unethical.

Thanks for the newsflash, I was unaware. If you and sparrowhawke want to side-step the main issue and not have a debate, then don't waste my time.

PS. Minnesota is a state.
 
guitarman said:
Thanks for the newsflash, I was unaware. If you and sparrowhawke want to side-step the main issue and not have a debate, then don't waste my time.
I was not addressing the main issue. I was addressing your attempts to justify your behavior.
 
guitarman said:
No, that only means that morality is relative to you. I think that some things are right and some things are wrong because they are intrinsically right or wrong. I don't need a god to tell me. I don't rape and murder, not because I'm afraid of the consequences, but because I think those things are wrong. Frankly, if you think that morality depends upon the existence of god, that says a lot more about you than it does me. That means that you worship god and don't do wrong only because you're afraid of the consequences of disobediance.

I would surmise guitarman, that as nice a guy as you are, you are nonetheless a product of your upbringing in a society in which judeo-christian ethics have been the basis of morality. Had you been born in Mongolia in the 12th century, you probably would have joined up with Ghenghis, raped and murdered at will and felt all the patriotic sense of pride the rest of Mongols did at doing so.

guitarman said:
Sorry if I get a little preachy, I can be long-winded sometimes. But let me ask you one more question: If someone imprisoned and tortured another human being for any length of time, maybe eternity, simply because that person didn't return the the first person's love, would that be wrong? I think you know what I'm getting at but I'd still like to hear your answer.

My answer to this is that I don't believe that the Bible teaches that this ever happens. I do believe in hell, but I believe and I can back up my beliefs with Scripture that those who wind up in hell are there because of their deeds and their actions. Not because they didn't "return the first person's love".

PS, don't worry about preachiness. We all are on occasion. ;)
 
Handy wrote:
I would surmise guitarman, that as nice a guy as you are, you are nonetheless a product of your upbringing in a society in which judeo-christian ethics have been the basis of morality. Had you been born in Mongolia in the 12th century, you probably would have joined up with Ghenghis, raped and murdered at will and felt all the patriotic sense of pride the rest of Mongols did at doing so.

Jeez, you're not giving me much credit. I like to think that I'd still be a nice person no matter where or when I live. I could still be a bad person without raping and pillaging. I could beat my wife and son and do drugs or rape and murder despite my upbringing. My point was that it's not god or fear of hell or even fear of earthly consequences that stops me: I believe some things are right and wrong. If if was judeo-christian ethics that stops me from doing these things, then how do you explain the fact that many cultures across space and time have taboos against murder or incest? Many of these cultures had nothing and still have nothing to do with judeo-christian values. Rousseau called it a social contract. When people live in a society, they agree to accept certain standards of right and wrong.

My answer to this is that I don't believe that the Bible teaches that this ever happens. I do believe in hell, but I believe and I can back up my beliefs with Scripture that those who wind up in hell are there because of their deeds and their actions. Not because they didn't "return the first person's love".

Not necessarily. Doesn't the bible say "none comes to the father but through me"? I thought it was understood that you have to believe that jesus was the son of god and take him into your heart to go to heaven. A person's deeds and actions can certainly make them wind up in hell, but I was under the impression that you have to believe in jesus to get to heaven. If you are saying that the people who go to hell go there because of their deeds and actions, then why does it matter if I'm a christian or not?
 
Question: Is the subject still "Did Jesus contradict the OT"?
-OR- are we now speaking on a new topic: "Is God Good?"

<if we are still following the topic see: Mt 19:17, Mk 10:18, Lk 2:14 for Jesus' words on the subject - hint: he did not contradict the OT and said, "οá½Âδεί ἀγαθÌ έἰ εἷ θεÃŒÂ" ---> none good save One: θεÌ (Theos)">


Rousseau, when speaking on "the Right of the Strongest" said, "Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated. All power comes from God..." Isn't this something that handy touched on?

~SparHawk
 
Sparrowhawke said:
Question: Is the subject still "Did Jesus contradict the OT"?
-OR- are we now speaking on a new topic: "Is God Good?"

<if we are still following the topic see: Mt 19:17, Mk 10:18, Lk 2:14 for Jesus' words on the subject - hint: he did not contradict the OT and said, "οá½Âδεί ἀγαθÌ έἰ εἷ θεÃŒÂ" ---> none good save One: θεÌ (Theos)">


Rousseau, when speaking on "the Right of the Strongest" said, "Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated. All power comes from God..." Isn't this something that handy touched on?

~SparHawk

I can see where guitarman is coming from though. Jesus did preach that we should love our enemies, turn the other cheek, be forgiving and yet the OT states that God did all kinds of (to our way of thinking) mean things. Jesus contradicting the OT and God being good are inter-related subjects.


I like the reference to Matthew 19:17 you gave SparHawk, which states:

And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

guitarman said:
Jeez, you're not giving me much credit. I like to think that I'd still be a nice person no matter where or when I live. I could still be a bad person without raping and pillaging. I could beat my wife and son and do drugs or rape and murder despite my upbringing. My point was that it's not god or fear of hell or even fear of earthly consequences that stops me: I believe some things are right and wrong.If if was judeo-christian ethics that stops me from doing these things, then how do you explain the fact that many cultures across space and time have taboos against murder or incest? Many of these cultures had nothing and still have nothing to do with judeo-christian values. Rousseau called it a social contract. When people live in a society, they agree to accept certain standards of right and wrong.

Rousseau was in many ways a man ahead of his times. Most people live within their times and are influenced by them. I think if I were to be able to sit down and have chit chat with the man, we would probably agree on interpretations of Romans 1 in which we see that God imparted to all His creation His invisible attributes that speak to all who will hear of God. Rousseau parted ways with John Calvin over the doctrine of original sin, and I have to admit after studying Calvinism for a number of years, so do I. But, then I would probably not agree with all of Rousseau's conclusions either, although the man was a fine thinker.

At any rate, Guitarman, you stated in your opening post for me to "throw some bible at me and let's see what sticks." I do want to delve a bit into the Scriptures because of your statements here:

Doesn't the bible say "none comes to the father but through me"? I thought it was understood that you have to believe that jesus was the son of god and take him into your heart to go to heaven. A person's deeds and actions can certainly make them wind up in hell, but I was under the impression that you have to believe in jesus to get to heaven. If you are saying that the people who go to hell go there because of their deeds and actions, then why does it matter if I'm a christian or not?

Yes, none do come to the Father except through Christ. What exactly is meant by that statement though?

John 5 20"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.


This is where we come into understanding that no one will come to the Father, except through Christ. It is Christ who is the final mediator, the Advocate and Judge who will determine who will go on to live eternally with the Father (and Son and Spirit for that matter) and who will not.

However, I don't like this modern teaching that we must "believe that jesus was the son of god and take him into your heart to go to heaven." Believe in the Lord Jesus, yes, but that becomes a bit superfluous as well, because we are told that eventually every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. But, the whole "ask Jesus into your heart" thing, I find to be a overly simplistic and actually rather harmful interpretation of Scriptures.

Jesus Himself revealed to us exactly how His judgments will occur. The whole scenario is found in Revelations 20.

11Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Here is another passage that is important to understand about who will live eternally and who will be damned.

Romans 1: 8For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

It's also important to look at this:

Acts 17: 22So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD ' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

30"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

and I think one of the most overlooked texts in Scripture, this:

Romans9:7 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

So the Day of Judgment comes and God brings mankind full circle, so to speak. He used to walk and talk with Adam and Eve in the garden, now He (and make no mistake, the texts show that this is indeed Jesus) sits in judgment over all. The first thing we see is that there are books and then there is another book. That "other book" is the book of life. The book of life is a record of all who will live in eternity with Christ. There are a number of references to this book, Google "Book of Life" if you want to read them. Basically, it is spoken that names can be blotted out of the book of life, but I've yet to see where anyone is actually added to the book of life. If someone finds that a person is added to the book of life at any given time, please let me know. At any rate, we know from Revelations 13 that the names in the book of life were written from the foundation of the world.

Going by what Paul stated in Romans and other passages that concern young children, I believe that it is biblically sound to say that all start out with their names written in the book of life. Original sin advocates and Calvinists will disagree but I've never found any Scripture that speaks of babies being under damnation for sin and Paul states that he was once "alive" apart from the Law, but then sin became alive and then he died. Obviously he was speaking about spiritual death and this is a solid text for the teaching of an age of accountability, that time when one is fully cognizant of God's commands and chooses to sin against Him.

What the nature of the book of life is, I don't know. I don't know if it material or spiritual or what. We find that the sacred objects that God commanded be in the Temple were copies of objects in heaven, so perhaps the book is a real book as well. Doesn't matter, I believe that the Scriptures teach us that this book holds the names of all who will live and one is in there unless one's name is blotted out.

What of those who names are blotted out then? Well, this is where the "books" come in. Remember our senairo is Judgment Day and books were opened and another book was opened. The "other book" is the book of life containing the names of all those who will live in eternity and the "books" are books in which the deeds of all who are being judged are written. I believe that all the deeds of every one will be written in the books. And what will come to light at that time is that there are none that are righteous, not even one. However, if one is not blotted out of the Book of Life, one goes onward to eternal life.

For those that are cast into hell though, it's important to remember that one is judged exactly according to those deeds that have been written down. This is why I said that I believe that any one who winds up in hell will be there exactly because of their deeds and their actions, not because of beliefs. So, what is the advantage of being a Christian then? Because there aren't any deeds and actions that can be done that is without the taint of sin. Man is horribly adept at doing wrong deeds and doing the right deeds for all the wrong reasons. All of us (except those who are still "alive apart from the Law") have done deeds that are totally worthy of getting our names blotted out of the book of life, and if the name is blotted out, then one is cast down. However, if one seeks out God's forgiveness and seeks out Christ's redemption that He offers because He took the penalty of sin upon Himself, then one is not blotted out of the book of life.

I threw in the texts in Romans 1 and in Acts 17 because invariably in discussions like this, the issue of those who lived in places and times that never heard of the God of the Bible and His Law and how they will be judged arises. This is a part of Scripture where many Christians "shout" and shouldn't. I don't believe that we can automatically assume that one of my however-many-great's-grandfathers who lived in the wilds of Ireland in 1500 bc will automatically be blotted out of the book. What Rousseau referred to as the "social contract" was based in what Paul taught about God writing His invisible attributes into all creation. And, Paul specifically stated to the Athenians that God was willing to overlook the times of ignorance, for those who worshiped gods out of a sense of religious piety born of observing those "invisible attributes".

However, at least for those of us here in American or on the Internet visiting this forum, the "time of ignorance" is long past and what may or may not have been worshiped or not worshiped in the past is no longer relevent. Guitarman, you, I, Sparrowhawke, Minnesota, even Eric, all are fully aware of God's laws and the Gospel of Christ (that gospel being that all of one's deeds may be fully forgiven in Christ). The question then will be what are we going to do about it. We might decide to be like Adam Savage and "reject your reality and substitute my own". Or we might agree with God about the sinfulness of our deeds and embrace the forgiveness that He freely offers. That is a question that those of us who believe in free will figures is a personal one that one works out with God.

Guitarman, I challenge you to accept for a moment here that Jesus is all Who He has claimed to be, that the Bible is correct and that you will someday stand before Him with all your deeds laid bare and coming up woefully short. Up until that point, all you have done regarding Christ is doubt, throw doubt and kvetch about what a rotten God He is. He made sure that you knew that forgiveness was freely offered for all sin, He paid the price for the sin Himself, He offers to impute to you His own righteousness and holiness and you flat out reject it because you in your armchair quarterbacking didn't like some of the things He did to the people of Noah's day or to the Midianites or the fact that He's some kind of homophobe who condoned slavery. Then your deeds prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are in no way holy or righteous to stand before the Father. So what are you going to do then, tell Him that He needs to forgive you and if He doesn't then it just proves how rotten a God He really is?

If you are fully ignorant of God's mercies, His forgiveness, His sacrificial love for you, I could understand there being a justice in His overlooking your ignorance and leaving your name in the book of life. But if all you are going to do is doubt, complain and cast accusations in God's teeth that He can't be real because He isn't running the world the way you see fit, do you really think that it's just to forgive you anyway?

Just giving you something to think about here, and I freely admit that I'm over-exaggerating the case here, just to make a point. And, the point is, there will be no one in hell who is not there for a good and just reason in God's eyes. As much as I love Adam Savage (and I truly do enjoy him) there are some realities that won't be substituted.

Jesus didn't contradict the God of the OT. The God of the OT was indeed an exacting, jealous, vengeful and wrathful God. So is Jesus, and the wrath that He oversees being poured out on the world in the last days will be nothing like what we've seen before. But, just as the God of the OT was also forgiving, loving, filled with blessings, even upon those who turned their backs against Him time and time and time again, so Jesus also sacrificed Himself to pay the price for all sins and freely offers forgiveness to whosoever.
 
Oh, and I do want to clarify one thing:

guitarman wrote: No, that only means that morality is relative to you. I think that some things are right and some things are wrong because they are intrinsically right or wrong. I don't need a god to tell me. I don't rape and murder, not because I'm afraid of the consequences, but because I think those things are wrong. Frankly, if you think that morality depends upon the existence of god, that says a lot more about you than it does me. That means that you worship god and don't do wrong only because you're afraid of the consequences of disobedience.

Just to set the record straight, I truly don't fear any consequences. I do fully admit my need for God to tell me right from wrong and I fully admit the fact that I'm wrong far more often than I'm right, and I fully agree with God that I need His lovingkindnesses and forgiveness. However, that's not why I worship Him.

If He were to tell me that He was going to scrap everything written about the consequences of sin and simply gather up all of us who love Him, create a new world for us somewhere else, and just let this one continue on for all eternity without Him, I'd still say "count me in!" The first of the commandments is to love your God with all your heart, mind and soul. Love tends to cast out fear.
 
handy said:
Oh, and I do want to clarify one thing:

If He were to tell me that He was going to scrap everything written about the consequences of sin and simply gather up all of us who love Him, create a new world for us somewhere else, and just let this one continue on for all eternity without Him, I'd still say "count me in!" The first of the commandments is to love your God with all your heart, mind and soul. Love tends to cast out fear.
Would you not mention his 'New Commandment' Jn 13:34; 15:12, to love one another... "as I have loved < agapaÃ…Â > you, you should also love one another"? Would you not whisper the names of guitarman and Sparrowhawke and Minnesota and even Eric (and maybe others ;) ) into the ear of the One you love? :praying

I suspect you have. Thanks!

~Sparrow
 
guitarman, I need to do something here that I thought I would not do.

I read about Phineas (son of Aaron) and how he was zealous for God. You may be familiar with the story but the children of Israel had taken women for themselves from other nations and those women worshiped foreign gods and also taught God's people to do the same. God was dealing with them in a dramatic way and a plague had broken out. Phineas saw an Israelite "with" a woman from the nations. He grabbed up a speak (translated "spear" when my fingers are properly placed on the keyboard) and thrust it through both of them.

Now here I am, on this forum and I saw a 'brother' (one who confesses Jesus) copypasta from a "christian creation" site. My eye is drawn to these things, you know? I had just found myself "preaching" to an Admin of the forum about how the "Presumption of Innocence" was governed by the Constitution which was a higher authority than Copyright Infringement law. So I had judged myself with my own mouth <but I didn't realize that yet>.

What I did (to you compared to the above) demonstrates an abomination within me. I clicked the "REPORT" button and cited the copyrighted source that my 'brother' copypasta'd. The admin came into the thread and asked, "Did you write this?" and was replied to with the answer, "About 50/50." Then I thought about it. I tried to rationalize my actions.

The Lord has said that having an uneven scale is an abomination. Please understand that He is dealing with me over this matter and forgive my injustice toward you. Believe me, I don't like humbling myself to you and I don't like being the 'internet police' that much either. Am thinking that I may retire that weapon from my little toolbag. "Love covers a thing" and I am not to be a "respecter of persons". I'll understand perfectly if you still feel the sting of my post and don't trust me but I hope this public apology is like Bactine® or in Christian vernacular, a soothing ointment.

~Sparrow

:shame
Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? (Mic 6:11)
 
Is an action morally right because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is morally right.

I am a disciple of Christ, but I agree with Guitarman that actions are intrinsically right or wrong, independently of God's commands. I think they are related to whether they harm oneself and/or others, or whether they are good for oneself and/or others.

As Guitarman intimated, there are basic moral principles followed by virtually all societies in all parts of the world. Virtually everyone agrees that it is wrong to kill another person for no other reason that one's personal "benefit", that it is wrong to steal other people's goods. Virtually everyone agrees that it is right to help out a person in need.

Another basic moral principle is the principle of reciprocity. If you have helped me in my need, then I should help you when you have a need.

People disagree about morality, but not about basic moral principles. They disagree about moral imperatives which are derived from these principles.
 
I can't disagree with you there, but...

What is the origin of this so-called universal morality?
Why did God judge the whole earth with the flood?
What was the Covenant that God made with man (Noah and his family) after the flood?
We are not told the exact details of the Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach but Jewish tradition acknowledges the "Noahic Covenant" or the Noahide laws. I suspect that there is something to learn there.
Noahide251px-Rainbow123.jpg


Quoting Wiki: "The Noahic Covenant, found in Genesis 8-9, applies to the whole of humankind. In this covenant, God:
  1. blesses Noah and his sons, and tells them to populate the earth (9:1)
    [/*:m:3fa9sf0r]
  2. places all plants and animals under human command (9:2-3)
    [/*:m:3fa9sf0r]
  3. forbids eating meat with the blood still in it (9:4)
    [/*:m:3fa9sf0r]
  4. forbids murder (9:5)
    [/*:m:3fa9sf0r]
  5. commands humankind to shed the blood of those who shed blood (9:6)
    [/*:m:3fa9sf0r]
  6. promises that he will never again destroy all life on earth by flood (9:11)
    [/*:m:3fa9sf0r]
  7. creates the rainbow as the sign of this covenant for all ages to come (9:12-17)"[/*:m:3fa9sf0r]

I doubt that there can ever be any true agreement between the unwilling and the believer. How can we walk together if we cannot agree?

~Sparrow

[EDIT] -- I doubt, but then I challenge myself to doubt my own doubt. How about that? A circle within a circle. How can any be drawn <here> to those who honestly believe, except they are being delivered to us by God? It is possible and I take my lead now from handy in this; it is possible that strangers to us may come to ponder these funny (peculiar) people. As such, how shall I receive them? With kindness or with sharpness of tongue? It is to my shame in this thread that I have broken the command of the Lord to be kind to strangers. But it is with gladness that I witness the pure "milk of the word" being spoken here by others.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
What is the origin of this so-called universal morality?

It's not universal morality. It's universal knowledge of morality. This knowledge had its origin in our first ancestors:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Genesis 2:16,17 RSV

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?"

And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’"

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:1-5

Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and the result was that they knew good and evil. They were able to distinguish good from evil. They passed on this ability to their descendants. So all of us can intuitively distinguish good from evil. It's called "conscience". We agree about the basic moral principles. We distinguish good from evil as positively as we distinguish red from green. But we do not necessarily abide by the principles which we know are morally right.
 
Which brings us kind of full circle that it is God that sets what is moral and what isn't.
 
Back
Top