OT equivalent of militant Islam?

User avatar
jeremiah
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Mount Carroll, IL
Contact:

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by jeremiah » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:02 pm

Hello Homer,
It seems all to hinge on your imagination and reasoning.
Is that really much different from how any of us operate in our pursuing the truth?
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

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

Re: OT equivalent of militant Islam?

Post by steve7150 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:52 pm

It is easy to see how you became a universalist.

User avatar
Homer








Of course Homer you couldn't resist.

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 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:11 pm

Yeh. You guys had better commit to verbal inspiration and inerrancy or you might end up being a Universalist as I did. :twisted:
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 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:44 pm

I don't see how a commitment to verbal inspiration would preclude the reaching of universalist conclusions. All of the universalist arguments that I have found in evangelical universalist books seem to presuppose and depend upon the verbal inspiration of scripture. I would warn, however, against turning this thread into a debate about universalism. We have plenty of other threads for that.

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 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:49 pm

I don't see how a commitment to verbal inspiration would preclude the reaching of universalist conclusions.
It doesn't, of course. But a particular individual seems to think that a rejection of verbal inspiration has a tendency to lead to universalism.
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 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:18 pm

I was listening to Following Christ - Steve Gregg, and it might have some bearing here. These thoughts stemmed from it in relation to this thread:

We are to obey God and be like God in some respects, but not all (Rom 12). God, the Creator, has prerogatives that we not. But we have Christ as our perfect human example. That means being meek, merciful, loving God, and loving our friends and personal enemies. These other religious systems (e.g., Islam) don't have such a man. Their model is, I suppose, the acts of (their) god/God and their religious systems' sinful human progenitors.

This puts us on a bit of a different level, I think. Everyone can understand doing what God commands. He is God, after all. But no one should try to be like God in all ways. I don't know enough about Islam to know if they have this kind of distinction.

I'm not sure that I'm being relevant here. I'll leave this just in case someone can pick that up and score with it.

... but what was already said (by Steve G. primarily, I think) is sufficient for me.

Thanks for the earlier response, Paidion.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

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 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:32 pm

QUESTION #1 FROM STEVE GREGG, ANSWERED
Why did Jesus say that "God commanded" the killing of a rebellious son, but you say God did not command this?
The fact is that Jesus did not say that God commanded the killing of a rebellious son. It will be helpful first of all to examine exactly what Jesus said, and also the verse in Exodus to which He referred. Indeed it will be helpful to examine the context of Jesus' words.

THEN some of the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came and asked Jesus, "Why do your disciples break our ancient tradition and eat their food without washing their hands properly first?"

"Tell me," replied Jesus, "Why do you break God’s commandment through your tradition? For God said, ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’, and ‘He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death.’ But you say that if a man tells his father or his mother, ‘Whatever duty I might have owed you is now given to God,’ then he will never honour his father again. And so your tradition makes the commandment of God ineffectual.

“You hypocrites! Isaiah described you beautifully when he said: This people honoureth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men."

Then he called the crowd to him and said, "Listen, and understand this thoroughly! It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes him common or unclean. It is what comes out of a man’s mouth that makes him unclean." (Matthew 15:1-11 Philips New Testament)


The scribes and Pharisees were concerned that Jesus' disciples were breaking the ancient tradition by eating food without properly washing their hands. Jesus basic response was that they were breaking the very commandment of God to honour father and mother monetarily by telling them that what they would have given to them, they had given to God. He then rebuked them for honouring God only verbally, as Isaiah said, but their heart was far from Him. He then explained to the whole crowd that it's not what a person eats that defiles him, but what he speaks.

The NKJV is in error by translating θανατω τελετατω (thanatō teletatō) as “Let him be put to death.” So are other versions which translate the words in some phrase such as “is to be put to death”. The words literally mean “Let him end in death.” The Philips quoted above translate these words as “Let him die the death” which is much the same. Other translations which render the two words as “Let him die the death” are the AV, ASV, Darby, ERV, KJ21, Webster, Rwebster, YLT, and AVRLE.

The passage to which Jesus refers is Leviticus 20:9. It is quoted either from the Septuagint or from the Hebrew text type from which the Septuagint is translated. The present form of the Septuagint translated into English reads:

Every man who shall speak evil of his father or of his mother, let him die the death.

You may be thinking, “So what's the big deal? It's saying the same thing, isn't it?” No, it is much different. The verb τελετατω is a 3rd person imperative. It is not a 2nd person imperative (Put him to death).
Consider this commandment from Exodus:

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you. (Exodus 20:12)

We also find a reference to this commandment in Ephesians 6:2

“Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise).

Now why would honouring parents result in a longer life? Steve would probably say that God would decides to “take” (in death) people who honour their parents at a later time in their lives, since he believes that God has set a fixed day for each person's death. My belief is that God is making a prediction based on the natural consequence of honouring parents. Children who honour their parents are in a much healthier state of mind, and a healthy state of mind results in a healthier body. But children who defy their parents and dishonour them are unhappier. Furthermore they tend to carry their disgruntled attitude to other authorities in their lives and even friends. Some people won't tolerate such an attitude. Some will punch them out or even kill them. Their lives will be shortened as a natural consequence of their rebellion and dissatisfaction.

So God is saying, “He who speaks evil of his father and mother, let him die the death!” In other words, “Let him go ahead and practise those bad attitudes which will result in an early death!” He is not telling the Israelites to go out and kill the child who speaks evil of his parents.

Now you may say, “Ah. But in Deuteronomy, the people are commanded to stone to death a rebellious son.” Exactly. God predicts such a person will die. Moses understands God's command as an instruction to kill him.
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 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:41 pm

Who can argue with one who understands Moses better than even Moses does?

Nice try, Paidion.

I seriously doubt if any statistical studies would show that people who disregard their parents generally die younger than those who honor them...except in societies where children are put to death for insubordination. Therefore, the suggestion that this "let him die the death" means "let nature take its course so that he will die prematurely" seems like a stretch.

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 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:27 pm

Steve wrote:I seriously doubt if any statistical studies would show that people who disregard their parents generally die younger than those who honor them...except in societies where children are put to death for insubordination. Therefore, the suggestion that this "let him die the death" means "let nature take its course so that he will die prematurely" seems like a stretch.
How about God's promise that those who honour their parents will live long? Is that a stretch, too? Would statistical studies indicate that such people do live longer? I don't see why they wouldn't, whether their longevity is natural or whether God determines the day of everyone's death. If God determines that parent-honouring children die later than they normally would, wouldn't this show up in statistics?

Since you dismiss my answer to question #1 so easily, I don't have much motivation to continue with the other questions. I will, however, attempt to summarize my main position concerning the totally loving character of God and my justification for it.

Do you, or do you not, believe that Jesus has revealed the Father in a way which was unknown to the ancient Hebrews?

“In the beginning was the logos. (John 1:1)”. I am sure you know that the prime meaning of “logos” is “expression”. “Logos” is often translated as “word”, but that makes no difference. It does not mean “word” in the sense of “any sequence of letters or characters considered as a discrete entity.” If someone in church says, “Brother Joe is now going to bring us a word,” he means that Joe is going to express himself, give a speech or discourse. So Jesus is the expression of God, not only the mouthpiece of God, but His very character reflects the character or the Father. He is the exact image of the Father's essence. (Heb. 1:3) He is the One whom God sent to reveal Himself to the world.

Since Jesus is another One exactly like His Father, we should be able to determine the Father's character by observing the character of His Son. The Son healed the sick, cast out demons, set the prisoners free, ministered to the poor, etc. So that is also the heart of the Father. The son ministered life and not death. So that is the character also of the Father. Jesus never killed anyone. Neither did His Father. Do we want to know the character of the Father? Study the character of the Son; it's identical.

Under the old order, you didn't love your enemies; you hated them—and you killed them if you got the chance. But Jesus revealed that that is not the will of God. He said:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I tell you, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45)

Though in ancient Israel the practice was to love your neighbour and hate your enemy, the Saviour taught people to love both. Then they would truly be God's children, for He loves both, and shows it by making the sun rise and the rain fall on both the righteous and the unrighteous. He doesn't do these things only for the righteous, but for both the righteous and the unrighteous.

According to Jesus, this is the way God works. But according to you, this is “one-dimensional”. For you believe that God not only brings good things to people, but also kills them.

I have also brought forth the following teaching of Jesus concerning His father.

Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. (Luke 6:35)

Jesus said that those who do good to one's enemies will be greatly rewarded and will be God's children because that's the way GOD is. He is kind to evil people as well as ungrateful people.

But you seem to believe that God's kindness may be expressed in his killing of people.
You wrote:Actually taking a life may be very loving—if not to the criminal, then at least to his victims.

A judge who sentences a criminal to just penalties for his crimes is doing a loving thing to society (and even to the criminal, if he can’t otherwise control his criminal tendencies). How can he be said not to be kind?
If that is true, then we, too, by being “two-dimensional” could do good to our enemies, at least sometimes, by killing them. However, I never read that Jesus ever indicated this with words such as:

Love your enemies, and do good to them. If the occasion demands it, kill them. By so doing you will be sons of the most High, for His kindness is two-dimensional. It includes both ministering to the needs of evil people, and killing them. (Ballyhoo 3:16)
You wrote:God is no more uncharitable when He removes someone through war, through disaster, through direct supernatural intervention, or through a quiet death in their beds. Death is common to all. The God that sent Jesus to us takes no pleasure in men's deaths, but this has not caused Him to change His universal policy. If He decides that some must die earlier than they otherwise would have, because their judgment is due and necessary to the proper ordering of the world, how is He less loving in that than if He had let them live twenty more years, and then taken them by other means?
If He did that, it would be less loving in that he would have deprived them of 20 years of precious life.

Life is precious. Life ought not to be minimized. It seems to me that there is a reason God has given us life on this earth. He expects us to live it to the full, both in service to others, and in enjoying the wonderful natural phenomena which He has created including beautiful scenic views, loving relationships, food, and many others. I cannot see that cutting short a person's life as being kind to that person. Even if he is an evil person, cutting short his life gives him no chance to repent in this life and express his remorse, and demonstrate his repentance to those whom he has harmed. You indicate that a judge's sentence for a criminal may be a loving act “if he cannot control his criminal tendencies”. It is true that even a death sentence will prevent him from carrying out any further crimes. But it will also prevent any possibility of his repentance in this life and thus the possibility of his offering any kind of restitution to his victim or the victim's family.

I think life is God's most precious gift to us on this earth, and that taking someone's life is the most serious sin/crime. To suggest that God has done this throughout the centuries is to assign a nature to him which we would disparage in any human being. And to suggest that it's okay, and not only okay, but loving if God does it, is turn many away from God. One the chief reasons God and Christianity are rejected by countless people is that they have picked up from Christian people that God is sitting up there ready to zap anyone who steps out of line. For that reason, they say, they want nothing to do with Him.

I close by repeating Mill's statement I made earlier on this thread:
To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good? ~John Stuart Mill
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 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 pm

I still believe what Moses, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles said. I am committed to believing God's revelation of Himself. And no, Jesus did not reveal a different character than was revealed in the Old Testament.

The difference in the two revelations was that the earlier revelation was verbal ("Declare His glory among the nations..." Ps.96:3), while the revelation given in Christ was visual ("We beheld His glory..." John 1:14). One was inspired, the other incarnate. Whether the mode of revelation is verbal or visual, the character being revealed is the same.

The Old Testament, while authorizing the deaths of some persons (as the New Testament also does—John 8:7 / Acts 25:11 / Rom.1:32; 13:4), nonetheless teaches:

1) love for enemies—in as many places as does Jesus (e.g., Ex.23:4-5 / Prov.25:21-22 / 2 Kings 6:21-23).

2) the lovingkindness of God—more frequently than does Jesus (e.g., Ex.34:6-7 / Ps.103:3, 8-14 / Ps.118:1-4 / Jonah 4:2 / Mic.7:18).

3) the character of Jesus—the same way as does the New Testament (e.g., Ps.22:6-18 / Isa.50:5-6; 53:3-9 / Zech.9:9 / Mal.3:1-3)

4) every ethical teaching (and behavior) of Jesus has its first appearance in the Law, the Prophets or the Psalms.

Where is this great difference in revelation of the character of God that you count upon so heavily for your rejection of so much of the scriptures?

You ask (again) why Jesus never killed anyone, if God killed people in the Old Testament. I should not have to answer this again, since I answered the same objection on the first page of this thread, where I wrote:
Are you not aware that there were many centuries, in the Old Testament, during which God did not supernaturally judge sinners? Nor did He do so during the brief ministry of Jesus. However, there were many times in the Old Testament when God did judge sinners, and Jesus predicted that one such period was coming upon His own generation. Revelation likewise sees Jesus very much involved in judging sinners. If you really would like to know Jesus acciurately, it will be necessary to take everything the scripture says about Him, not just the easy things.
I don't blame you for not wishing to answer the remainder of my 10 questions. From your position they are clearly unanswerable. I am sorry, however, that this is not more obvious to you, since misrepresentation of God is not a safe practice.

Post Reply

Return to “Islam”