Please explain how Deuteronomy 28 yields "[the fear of G-d] means avoiding curses from God and striving for blessings."
Also, would you normally consider a single passage to establish "the [J]ewish perspective" on a topic?
Explain how "the fear of God" applies to avoiding curses? Would'nt this qualify as one of those "truths we regard as self evident"?
According to Moses the curses come from God thus they are something to be feared since they were clearly warnings, correct?
As for the jewish perspective i assume Moses is qualified to speak for Judaism since Torah believing jews believe he communicated with God, correct? Duet 28 is not critical based on the length of the passage but because it summarizes an important aspect of the relationship between God and his chosen people.
Re Jesus and references to rewards in heaven , it appears to be an important aspect of how God motivates believers to act during their life on earth. Whatever we may think about using this method, the fact is that God uses it and apparently considers it important because it was repeated many times. I'm in no position to judge whether we should or should not be motivated by heavenly rewards or to what degree but God is since he knows the end from the beginning.
Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
Well, you engaged the "easy" half of the equation, though it would be nice to see some effort on your part to provide specific reference to elements within Deuteronomy 28. But your claim was twofold. How do you get "[the fear of G-d] means ... striving for blessings" from Deuteronomy 28?kaufmannphillips wrote:
Please explain how Deuteronomy 28 yields "[the fear of G-d] means avoiding curses from God and striving for blessings."
steve7150 wrote:
Explain how "the fear of God" applies to avoiding curses? Would'nt this qualify as one of those "truths we regard as self evident"?
According to Moses the curses come from God thus they are something to be feared since they were clearly warnings, correct?
(a) Would one passage from Paul suffice to establish "the Christian perspective" on an issue? Since bible-beliieving Christians believe he communicated with G-d?kaufmannphillips wrote:
Also, would you normally consider a single passage to establish "the [J]ewish perspective" on a topic?
steve7150 wrote:
As for the jewish perspective i assume Moses is qualified to speak for Judaism since Torah believing jews believe he communicated with God, correct? Duet 28 is not critical based on the length of the passage but because it summarizes an important aspect of the relationship between God and his chosen people.
(b) Deuteronomy 28 may carry some additional weight due to its role in the book's construct, but in order to understand the significance of a commonly-used epithet like "the fear of G-d" in a religious tradition, it is appropriate to survey a broad number of sources in which that sort of language is used. Even a consideration of how the term is used across the whole "Old Testament" would be liable to fault-finding, because "the [J]ewish perspective" must fairly take into account the threads of Jewish views across millennia, up to the present.
G-d uses many means to engage us in our various miserable conditions. This does not validate the ongoing propriety of these means as our conditions improve. Should a physician continue to prescribe Valium to a patient who is no longer subject to anxiety? Should the military need to offer a thirty-year decorated veteran with much-needed skills a GI Bill for re-enlistment? Should a parent give their adult child a fruit-flavored Skittle when they use the potty?steve7150 wrote:
Re Jesus and references to rewards in heaven , it appears to be an important aspect of how God motivates believers to act during their life on earth. Whatever we may think about using this method, the fact is that God uses it and apparently considers it important because it was repeated many times.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Also, would you normally consider a single passage to establish "the [J]ewish perspective" on a topic?
steve7150 wrote:
As for the jewish perspective i assume Moses is qualified to speak for Judaism since Torah believing jews believe he communicated with God, correct? Duet 28 is not critical based on the length of the passage but because it summarizes an important aspect of the relationship between God and his chosen people.
(a) Would one passage from Paul suffice to establish "the Christian perspective" on an issue? Since bible-beliieving Christians believe he communicated with G-d?
(b) Deuteronomy 28 may carry some additional weight due to its role in the book's construct, but in order to understand the significance of a commonly-used epithet like "the fear of G-d" in a religious tradition, it is appropriate to survey a broad number of sources in which that sort of language is used. Even a consideration of how the term is used across the whole "Old Testament" would be liable to fault-finding, because "the [J]ewish perspective" must fairly take into account the threads of Jewish views across millennia, up to the present
Emmet, I think a single passage could summarize the Jewish or Christian perspective on something if it is definitive enough and if it is not contradicted elsewhere in scripture. For example 1st Cor 13 is a good summary from the Christian perspective on love even though it is a single passage because it isn't contradicted elsewhere and i see Duet 28 in the same way. Therefore since IMO Duet 28 is self evident and comprehensive and authoritative concerning the fear and blessings of God re God's relationship with his chosen people i don't see a reason to go elsewhere in scripture unless you have examples where these principals were contradicted, my friend.
Also, would you normally consider a single passage to establish "the [J]ewish perspective" on a topic?
steve7150 wrote:
As for the jewish perspective i assume Moses is qualified to speak for Judaism since Torah believing jews believe he communicated with God, correct? Duet 28 is not critical based on the length of the passage but because it summarizes an important aspect of the relationship between God and his chosen people.
(a) Would one passage from Paul suffice to establish "the Christian perspective" on an issue? Since bible-beliieving Christians believe he communicated with G-d?
(b) Deuteronomy 28 may carry some additional weight due to its role in the book's construct, but in order to understand the significance of a commonly-used epithet like "the fear of G-d" in a religious tradition, it is appropriate to survey a broad number of sources in which that sort of language is used. Even a consideration of how the term is used across the whole "Old Testament" would be liable to fault-finding, because "the [J]ewish perspective" must fairly take into account the threads of Jewish views across millennia, up to the present
Emmet, I think a single passage could summarize the Jewish or Christian perspective on something if it is definitive enough and if it is not contradicted elsewhere in scripture. For example 1st Cor 13 is a good summary from the Christian perspective on love even though it is a single passage because it isn't contradicted elsewhere and i see Duet 28 in the same way. Therefore since IMO Duet 28 is self evident and comprehensive and authoritative concerning the fear and blessings of God re God's relationship with his chosen people i don't see a reason to go elsewhere in scripture unless you have examples where these principals were contradicted, my friend.
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
Please pardon my late response here.steve7150 wrote:
I think a single passage could summarize the Jewish or Christian perspective on something if it is definitive enough and if it is not contradicted elsewhere in scripture. For example 1st Cor 13 is a good summary from the Christian perspective on love even though it is a single passage because it isn't contradicted elsewhere and i see Duet 28 in the same way. Therefore since IMO Duet 28 is self evident and comprehensive and authoritative concerning the fear and blessings of God re God's relationship with his chosen people i don't see a reason to go elsewhere in scripture unless you have examples where these principals were contradicted, my friend.
(a) It begs the question to state that a passage summarizes the Jewish (or Christian) perspective without being able to demonstrate this from a reasonable breadth of sources. "IMO" is inadequate to such a purpose.
(b) I Corinthians 13 is not a good summary simply because it is not contradicted elsewhere. It is a good summary because subsequent Christian tradition has engaged it as a classic expression of how to understand love. Indeed, the tradition has made the passage a good summary of its perspective by treating it as such. This can be demonstrated easily with a Google search.
I am not aware of the Jewish tradition treating Deuteronomy 28 as a classic summary of the fear of G-d. If you are aware of such a pattern, then I welcome your examples to demonstrate it. But your individual identification of a passage as "self-evident and comprehensive and authoritative" does not suffice to determine the Jewish perspective. Furthermore, you should be aware that identifying the Jewish perspective will involve more than merely "go[ing] elsewhere in scripture". Jewish tradition is not exclusively scripturalist, and the broader corpus of standard rabbinic literature will be basic to this sort of endeavor.
(c) I should not be surprised to find a Christian making a cavalier and unsubstantiated claim, and after some experience in dialogue with Christians, I should not be surprised to find an attempt to foist the heavy lifting in argumentation onto me. But you are the one who has made the claim here, and it is your job to prove it adequately. It is not my responsibility to sweat over disproving a point that you have hardly expended effort to substantiate. So my challenge to you, old friend, is to step up your game or step off your claim!
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
Emmet wrote:
Pursuing a rap career now, are we? Vos machstu, fools!So my challenge to you, old friend, is to step up your game or step off your claim!
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
Stop.kaufmannphillips wrote:
So my challenge to you, old friend, is to step up your game or step off your claim!
Jason wrote:
Pursuing a rap career now, are we? Vos machstu, fools!
Maccabeetime!
P.S.: The pedantic lyrical assassin sez: "Vos macht ir" for the plural
.========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
I am not aware of the Jewish tradition treating Deuteronomy 28 as a classic summary of the fear of G-d. If you are aware of such a pattern, then I welcome your examples to demonstrate it. But your individual identification of a passage as "self-evident and comprehensive and authoritative" does not suffice to determine the Jewish perspective. Furthermore, you should be aware that identifying the Jewish perspective will involve more than merely "go[ing] elsewhere in scripture". Jewish tradition is not exclusively scripturalist, and the broader corpus of standard rabbinic literature will be basic to this sort of endeavor.
(c) I should not be surprised to find a Christian making a cavalier and unsubstantiated claim,
Emmet, I'm not familiar with Rabbinic writings to refer to them for a source of jewish traditions but i do speak to many Chasidem in my travels and we do discuss religion up to a point. My understand of their beliefs about their relationship with Hashem seems to parallel the theme of Duet 28. You may claim it's only hearsay and that i can't document it but i had not planned on being required to prove it to anyone. If by "jewish tradition" you are including non religious jews then these traditions would vary from person to person or from group to group.
(c) I should not be surprised to find a Christian making a cavalier and unsubstantiated claim,
Emmet, I'm not familiar with Rabbinic writings to refer to them for a source of jewish traditions but i do speak to many Chasidem in my travels and we do discuss religion up to a point. My understand of their beliefs about their relationship with Hashem seems to parallel the theme of Duet 28. You may claim it's only hearsay and that i can't document it but i had not planned on being required to prove it to anyone. If by "jewish tradition" you are including non religious jews then these traditions would vary from person to person or from group to group.
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
Thank you, Steve, for your response.steve7150 wrote:
Emmet, I'm not familiar with Rabbinic writings to refer to them for a source of jewish traditions but i do speak to many Chasidem in my travels and we do discuss religion up to a point. My understand of their beliefs about their relationship with Hashem seems to parallel the theme of Duet 28. You may claim it's only hearsay and that i can't document it but i had not planned on being required to prove it to anyone. If by "jewish tradition" you are including non religious jews then these traditions would vary from person to person or from group to group.
(a) Hasidic Judaism is only some 300 years old, and Hasidic Jews make up perhaps 4% of Jews worldwide. This would not comprise a majority even of religious Jews.
(b) A major problem with hearsay is that it has passed through a mediating party and cannot be examined directly. What you heard or gleaned from conversation may not correspond precisely to what was said or what was intended - which is not to cast unique doubt upon your abilities as a listener, because this is a common issue in human communication.
But even if your impression of their beliefs paralleling Deuteronomy 28 were generally reliable, such would not necessarily correspond exactly to their specific ideas about the fear of G-d. Pointedly: though they might readily make a connection between the curses and fear of G-d, they might not so readily make a connection between striving for blessings and fear of G-d.
(c) For what it's worth, Steve, I think there is room for a homiletician to make a striking maneuver along the line you have drawn - engaging striving for blessings as a dimension of one's fear of G-d. But without solid evidence, I am not ready to accept that line of thought as "the [J]ewish perspective."
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
The question about whether you'd still love God if He didn't have Heaven waiting for you isn't reasonable.
Heaven isn't just an afterthought or something tacked on at the end, after all the other more important stuff.
God is ultimately a relational being. I believe that while He created us and the universe ultimately for the single purpose of His own glory, I think it is equally true to say that it perfectly pleases Him to bring people into relationship with Him. Given that He is eternal, what sense is there in a relationship that begins and then ends? (I know there are difficult mysteries here, as some people will go to Hell and may or may not extinguish after that, but those people have NOT entered intimate relationship with Him, which may be in some way the identical meaning to "going to Hell".) I think that Heaven is as much a necessary extension of God's character as His perfect justice or perfect love. God did not prepare us, His pinnacle work of creation (keep in mind here that don't have a high opinion of humans but of the glory of God's finished workmanship) just to toss us all away.
Let me turn aside for a moment to a seemingly unrelated philosophical question: Is God good 1) because goodness existed first and so He may act only in a way in accord with goodness; or 2) because He is God and by that right, by fiat, any arbitrary thing that He says or does is then made into goodness, by no other definition but that God said so?
I reject both of these. There is a third option. First, consider the idea that God is a certain way—He has form, and distinct characteristics, and there are also ways He is not and in fact cannot be. He isn't just any old thing—he is THIS thing and THAT thing. Some of these we can describe, others we undoubtedly can't imagine. He can't be deceived. He can't make a mistake. And so on and so forth. Now, God cannot go against His own nature, and this is no lack, just like the fastest race car in the world not being able to lose is an expression of capacity, not deficit. For Him to do go against His own nature would mean He had ceased to be God or was not much of a God in the first place.
The third option is: The particular way that God is, is good. Get this, it's important: He doesn't subscribe to good, or create what is good, He IS good. Goodness is His very nature! God is not bound to goodness, but is bound to His own nature (which doesn't precede Him but is the very essence of Him). Still, good is known by us and determined by God by Him saying so. But that's not JUST because he says so, but because He—in the ways that He is and is not—is actually good.
The point here is that, similar to good being inextricable from God, I believe Heaven and God's plan for us is also package deal. Heaven is an extension of His own nature, or we wouldn't be looking forward to it! It is meaningless to say "if there was no reward of Heaven." That is like wondering what would happen "if the fastest race car in the world lost a race." How could it do that and continue to be the fastest race car in the world?
It isn't for nothing that we are urged in the Bible to press on for the prize, to finish the race. We love God because we ought to love Him (and are convicted of this and led to this and know this in our spirits), but we equally love Him because He is lovable, deserving of love, and loving Himself! He is not abstractly loving but loves you (and me) individually—perfectly, personally, knowing us inside and out and being in intimate relationship with us. And for this reason it is NOT His pleasure to forget us when our Earthly bodies fail. He is eternal, and He loves us: what more do you need to know?
Just for perspective, I concluded many years ago that Pascal's wager fails. One cannot be a Christian on a bet. Fire insurance doesn't work. You can't love God if you're only trying to follow Him so you won't get punished or so you selfishly will get a reward. No, there is an abandonment of self to God's purposes, a release and a wish for him to ravish us as He will, that is a key element for any true follower of Christ.
Drawing out another aspect, I have my skepticism about the idea that "a thing is only good if it is done wholly without any thought of reward." In the book Desiring God by John Piper, he proposed an amendment to the short Westminster Catechism, replacing "and" with "by," to say: "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." I think this is amazing and true. I don't believe that obeying God is only good because He has power and He gave orders, so we as dependent, subject creatures must simply obey and respond out of duty. No! God is so good and amazing that His highest glory somehow involves our own pleasure in Him! Pleasure—the ultimate kind found in God—IS our duty. Did God make us able to experience pleasure just to get us to do things that we would otherwise not do? No way. If that was true, Heaven wouldn't need to be wonderful. We'd be perfect then, and shed of all that claptrap, responding solely to God out of duty... except that would hardly be loving, intimate relationship with Him, now would it? Is everything He tells us to do pleasurable in the moment? No—but the ultimate good of it will result in ultimate pleasure in God Himself. This is the only answer to the problem of evil, pain, and suffering that makes any sense to me.
I strive to do good both because it is right and because it is pleasurable. God designed it that way. It is also good in and of itself to seek good pleasure, and all good pleasure is founded in Him and finds its ultimate end in Him. I think I have to conclude that not liking pleasure is actually twisted and wrong. In a real sense, we were created for pleasure, and pleasure is good: we get the ultimate pleasure from God, how could pleasure not be good? (Like any good thing it can be twisted, but in its proper form it is all good.)
I cannot *truly* say what I would do for this hypothetical situation about there being no Heaven, but from where I sit right now, I suspect that I wouldn't have any interest in God or respond to Him. His love would be a feeble, paltry thing, unable to "real-ize" the object of His love (like C.S. Lewis on how our love for our dog makes the dog more real and more lovable). Yeah, I know the folks in the Old Testament had little concept of resurrection and Heaven, but they loved a God who in fact had Heaven in store for them, nonetheless. The kind of God who wouldn't have Heaven for us—beknownst to us or not—wouldn't be the God we actually love and serve. It would be somebody else. And speculation on what if God wasn't like how He is, or what if God had chosen to do something else besides what he did... that's foolishness.
If after all that, anyone can honestly say that he thinks I'm not a Christian because I'm not sure I'd love God if He didn't have Heaven in store for us, then, well, he doesn't know me at all.
Erik
Heaven isn't just an afterthought or something tacked on at the end, after all the other more important stuff.
God is ultimately a relational being. I believe that while He created us and the universe ultimately for the single purpose of His own glory, I think it is equally true to say that it perfectly pleases Him to bring people into relationship with Him. Given that He is eternal, what sense is there in a relationship that begins and then ends? (I know there are difficult mysteries here, as some people will go to Hell and may or may not extinguish after that, but those people have NOT entered intimate relationship with Him, which may be in some way the identical meaning to "going to Hell".) I think that Heaven is as much a necessary extension of God's character as His perfect justice or perfect love. God did not prepare us, His pinnacle work of creation (keep in mind here that don't have a high opinion of humans but of the glory of God's finished workmanship) just to toss us all away.
Let me turn aside for a moment to a seemingly unrelated philosophical question: Is God good 1) because goodness existed first and so He may act only in a way in accord with goodness; or 2) because He is God and by that right, by fiat, any arbitrary thing that He says or does is then made into goodness, by no other definition but that God said so?
I reject both of these. There is a third option. First, consider the idea that God is a certain way—He has form, and distinct characteristics, and there are also ways He is not and in fact cannot be. He isn't just any old thing—he is THIS thing and THAT thing. Some of these we can describe, others we undoubtedly can't imagine. He can't be deceived. He can't make a mistake. And so on and so forth. Now, God cannot go against His own nature, and this is no lack, just like the fastest race car in the world not being able to lose is an expression of capacity, not deficit. For Him to do go against His own nature would mean He had ceased to be God or was not much of a God in the first place.
The third option is: The particular way that God is, is good. Get this, it's important: He doesn't subscribe to good, or create what is good, He IS good. Goodness is His very nature! God is not bound to goodness, but is bound to His own nature (which doesn't precede Him but is the very essence of Him). Still, good is known by us and determined by God by Him saying so. But that's not JUST because he says so, but because He—in the ways that He is and is not—is actually good.
The point here is that, similar to good being inextricable from God, I believe Heaven and God's plan for us is also package deal. Heaven is an extension of His own nature, or we wouldn't be looking forward to it! It is meaningless to say "if there was no reward of Heaven." That is like wondering what would happen "if the fastest race car in the world lost a race." How could it do that and continue to be the fastest race car in the world?
It isn't for nothing that we are urged in the Bible to press on for the prize, to finish the race. We love God because we ought to love Him (and are convicted of this and led to this and know this in our spirits), but we equally love Him because He is lovable, deserving of love, and loving Himself! He is not abstractly loving but loves you (and me) individually—perfectly, personally, knowing us inside and out and being in intimate relationship with us. And for this reason it is NOT His pleasure to forget us when our Earthly bodies fail. He is eternal, and He loves us: what more do you need to know?
Just for perspective, I concluded many years ago that Pascal's wager fails. One cannot be a Christian on a bet. Fire insurance doesn't work. You can't love God if you're only trying to follow Him so you won't get punished or so you selfishly will get a reward. No, there is an abandonment of self to God's purposes, a release and a wish for him to ravish us as He will, that is a key element for any true follower of Christ.
Drawing out another aspect, I have my skepticism about the idea that "a thing is only good if it is done wholly without any thought of reward." In the book Desiring God by John Piper, he proposed an amendment to the short Westminster Catechism, replacing "and" with "by," to say: "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." I think this is amazing and true. I don't believe that obeying God is only good because He has power and He gave orders, so we as dependent, subject creatures must simply obey and respond out of duty. No! God is so good and amazing that His highest glory somehow involves our own pleasure in Him! Pleasure—the ultimate kind found in God—IS our duty. Did God make us able to experience pleasure just to get us to do things that we would otherwise not do? No way. If that was true, Heaven wouldn't need to be wonderful. We'd be perfect then, and shed of all that claptrap, responding solely to God out of duty... except that would hardly be loving, intimate relationship with Him, now would it? Is everything He tells us to do pleasurable in the moment? No—but the ultimate good of it will result in ultimate pleasure in God Himself. This is the only answer to the problem of evil, pain, and suffering that makes any sense to me.
I strive to do good both because it is right and because it is pleasurable. God designed it that way. It is also good in and of itself to seek good pleasure, and all good pleasure is founded in Him and finds its ultimate end in Him. I think I have to conclude that not liking pleasure is actually twisted and wrong. In a real sense, we were created for pleasure, and pleasure is good: we get the ultimate pleasure from God, how could pleasure not be good? (Like any good thing it can be twisted, but in its proper form it is all good.)
I cannot *truly* say what I would do for this hypothetical situation about there being no Heaven, but from where I sit right now, I suspect that I wouldn't have any interest in God or respond to Him. His love would be a feeble, paltry thing, unable to "real-ize" the object of His love (like C.S. Lewis on how our love for our dog makes the dog more real and more lovable). Yeah, I know the folks in the Old Testament had little concept of resurrection and Heaven, but they loved a God who in fact had Heaven in store for them, nonetheless. The kind of God who wouldn't have Heaven for us—beknownst to us or not—wouldn't be the God we actually love and serve. It would be somebody else. And speculation on what if God wasn't like how He is, or what if God had chosen to do something else besides what he did... that's foolishness.
If after all that, anyone can honestly say that he thinks I'm not a Christian because I'm not sure I'd love God if He didn't have Heaven in store for us, then, well, he doesn't know me at all.
Erik
- In the service of the Emperor of the Universe -
Re: Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)
Hi Erik,
Welcome to the forum. Are you familiar with Bernard de Clairvaux's "Ladder of love"? Would be interested in any comments you might have on it:
Bernard believed we come to God at step two and advance up the ladder as we grow as a Christian. He was a hero and inspiration to Luther.
Blessings, Homer
Welcome to the forum. Are you familiar with Bernard de Clairvaux's "Ladder of love"? Would be interested in any comments you might have on it:
Today we commemorate St Bernard of Clairvaux, who led a reform movement amongst the Benedictines in the early twelfth century which led to many new monasteries – such as Fountains – often away from the towns and built in a simple if grand style.
He was a remarkable and powerful man, judging between rival Popes, writing the Rule of the Templars, annoying the hierarchy,
It is not fitting that noisy and troublesome frogs should come out of their marshes to trouble the Holy See and the cardinals.
preaching the Second Crusade, developing Marian doctrine, meditating on the Song of Songs, defeating Abelard in debate.
One passage of his that stays with me is from his On Loving God where he sees a ladder of four steps
Love of self for self’s sake
Love of God for self’s sake
Love of God for God’s sake
Love of self for God’s sake
Bernard believed we come to God at step two and advance up the ladder as we grow as a Christian. He was a hero and inspiration to Luther.
Blessings, Homer