From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)
In-Reply-To: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca's message of Sat, 24 Apr 1993 18:09:51 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Lines: 155



mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm.Lee) writes:

>dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
>|> 
>|> mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> >These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
>|> >expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
>|> >direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God is
>|> >real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
>|> >Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
>|> >God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
>|> >age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
>|> >repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
>|> >for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
>|> >alike.
>|> 
>|> Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...
>|> 
>|> I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do
>|> you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?
>|>

>God never changes.  

Sorry, but yes he does, by your own description.

>He still loves us.  Sending Jesus was one of His attempts to
>reconcile with mankind.

Humorous, this notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful god who must
"attempt" to "reconcile" with his lowly creations.  I realize that it
is not possible to penetrate such logic, but is there any chance that
you might consider that an omnipotent god need not "attempt" anything,
and further that an attempt to "reconcile" implies a lack of
omniscience?

What you are doing here is projecting human weaknesses onto your god.

>|> 
>|> Also, while we're at it:
>|> 
>|> 1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
>|> Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
>|> by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
>|> KINDness and LOVE?
>|>

>Sinning in the face of God was punishable by immediate death.  There are
>several OT passages to back this up.  God is God.  

But all humans are sinners, thus all pre-Jesus humans should have been
punished with death.  We aren't punished with sin now, of course,
because God has changed.  He required a brutal, sadistic sacrifice of
his own blood in order to allow us to sin without immediate death.  

>He cannot tolerate the prescence of sin in His midst.  

Yet he does so now.  He has changed.  The sadistic murder of his own
son has made him more tolerant of our sins.

Besides, his "midst" is everywhere, so your statement is meaningless.
He tolerates sin in Hell, which surely is in his midst as well.  Also,
given that he is all-knowing, he must have eternal knowledge of who
will commit which sins, as well as when and where, so what does
tolerance have to do with anything.  All of this is absolute nonsense,
unless your god is not indeed all-knowing and all-powerful, or unless
he doesn't take the personal interest in everyday affairs that you
claim.

>And the Israelites knew this!  And
>still, some of them chose to disobey and were destroyed.  Were these
>people KIND and LOVing themselves?  

Not relevant.  The claim of kindness and lovingness was made by you in
reference to your god.  The nature of his creations/victims is not at
issue.

>God gave them every break He could but in the end, He really had no
>choice in the matter.  

I see: an all-knowing god who did not know what the ultimate outcome
would be, and an all-powerful god who had no choice in the matter.
Mindmush.

>Seeing as how we were failing to achieve salvation on our own, He sent
>His Son to die for us - to be the ultimate sin offering.  

Did I miss something?  Did you give some indication at to why a KIND
and LOVING god should require sadistic human sacrifice to allow his
own botched creations to "achieve salvation"?

>|> 
>|> 2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
>|> having made a mistake?
>|>

>He sent His Son as a consolation to us, out of love.
 
I note that your answer physically follows my question, but I fail to
discern a connection between the two.

By the way, for what am I being consoled?

>|> 3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
>|> for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
>|> than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an
>|> example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?
>|>

>Hey, let's be fair for a moment here.  KIND and LOVING does not mean
>a free ride. 

Why not?  By the way, I note for the record that you didn't answer the
questions. 

>There is an amount of give and take as in any relationship.
>Parents are supposed to be kind and loving but does that mean that 
>children can do whatever they want?  NOT!  Part of being a parent means
>administering punishment when the child is at fault.  

Death and/or eternal damnation is your idea of correctional
punishment?  I hope you aren't a parent.

>Part of being a parent means giving instruction.  God tests us through
>the trial of life such that we may grow stronger.  He teaches what is
>right and what is wrong.  

This is quite an elaborate fantasy that you've constructed, but sadly
it lacks a basis in reality.  It also does not address the questions
that I raised.

>The consequences of our actions are made clear to us, be it Heaven or
>be it Hell.  If God did not follow through with what He has warned us
>about, He would not be a very good parent.

The god that you describe is not a good parent, but a tyrant.

>In parenting, if a parent issues a warning but does not follow through
>with it, the children will not take that parent's words very seriously.
>God does the same by telling us who have ears to hear what to do and
>what not to do.  By life's trials, we see the folly of doing our own
>will rather than His.  He warns us about the consequences of rejecting
>Him when it comes time for Judgement.  

Sorry, was that the god of the Bible whose rules I am to follow, or
the god of the Koran?  The Vedas?  The Book of Koresh?  Oh, yes, it's
all so clear.

>Do we follow Him?
>
>I will.

Bully for you.
