Posted on 01/03/2002 11:19:13 AM PST by ArGee
I simply want to understand what I see as clear rational inconsistencies and irreconcilable paradoxes in the God described by the Old Testament.
I know it causes some people discomfort. And I know that the response to discomfort is all too often a "lashing out" at the source of the discomfort. But the inconsistencies and the paradoxes remain despite the lashing out.
God specifies and defines morality. And yet the actions attributed to God in the Old Testament are often in diametric opposition to the moral code specified. So either God is immoral (a paradoxical impossibility)... Or those who scribed the Bible attributed actions to God, which were not God's.
To be honest, I favor the latter explanation. If God exists, I can scarcely imagine that such a benevolent, wondrous, and loving omnipotent being, would be at all concerned with humans groveling in fear at his almighty feet. And under no circumstances would such a God be prone to insane fits of destructive jealous rage.
These are human qualities (and not exactly admirable ones at that).
What does than mean?
(Of course, if they are following me, they are dreadfully mistaken. Prayerfully and hopefully we are all following Christ. It is also important to note that there is a genuine revival taking place in Southern Baptist circles today. The bitter fights with the "moderates" and "liberals" are almost won, and many SBC churches and pastors are rediscovering our theological roots.
To be honest, if I had to choose between eternal torture, and eternity in the company of a being sadistic enough to eternally torture those unlucky enough not to have heard of him.... I'd take door number one.
How silly indeed.... but the difference between you and I, is that you look at this paradox, and say God must be subject to a different set of rules, which are beyond our understanding....
I on the other hand, look at this paradox, and say that God could not possibly exist as described in the Bible.
If it only included the New Testament, I'd agree.
A Baptist church is an autonomous entity. It does not answer to any denominational or ecclesiastical organization. As such, membership is granted by a vote of the members. In many cases, this consists of someone presenting themself for membership at the end of a service, and a quick voice vote taken immediately (Pastor: Susan X comes on promise of a letter from the XYZ Baptist church, what is your pleasure? Member1: I move that she be accepted for membership. Pastor: Is there a second? Member2: Second. Pastor: All in favor, say "aye". Any opposed?) Hopefully, this is someone who have been visiting awhile, has spoken with the pastor, and has demonstrated the marks of a Christian. However, in the past (the situation I was describing earlier), the emphasis was on racking up those decisions, regardless of the regenerative nature of the candidate.
Now, since the church is autonomous, it has regular business meetings, attended by the membership at large. During these meetings the church can conduct any and all business. Remember "Susan X" from the above paragraph? She came into membership on promise of a "letter" from the XYZ Baptist church. The XYZ Baptist church, meeting in business session, would decide whether to grant this "letter of recommendation" to the requesting church. I was simply speaking in my earlier post of how it is ludicrous to grant a "recommendation" for a person you don't even know (for all you know they are an axe murderer!).
Does this clear things up some? Recognize that in many non-Baptist churches, the process can be even more "exclusive" with comprehensive grilling of the candidate, including, sometimes, the obtaining of a promise from the candidate that they are going to contribute a specific amount to the upkeep of the church.
Excuse me...but is there such a thing?
Becky
Which gives those of us on the outside of all religions nothing to base a decision on. All religions (well almost all, scientology doesn't count) look equally valid and invalid from here. All true believers look equally happy and filled with joy at their relationship with their god. I think it's just something people have to answer for themselves. Me, I grew up Catholic, my family left the Church and later I was born again, but I never liked it. I was never filled with joy in the faith, it was never a comfortable fit. So I walked away, spent a long time studying and seeking. Finally it dawned on me that I was happiest in a world defined without God, that's when I feel whole and understand my place in the world, that's when it all clicks into place and I get the extra bounce in my step.
Plainly speaking, God's judgement of the wicked is performed by self-judgement. We have the Word before us which is primarily: 1. To love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and 2. To love others as we love ourselves.
We are only given the capacity to judge ourselves relative to that word...
Az
Is that really true? I presume you are Jewish and do not accept that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Tanak?
If you are Jewish, know that it is one banquet. I may not be able to convince you in your lifetime that Yeshua is Messiach-el, but the table to which I refer is the one where Abraham will be seated at the head.
Shalom.
I believe G-d has shown that to all. Do you believe otherwise?
Believing as I do, I still don't understand why anyone chooses to stay out.
Shalom.
I do not know you, and I will probably never understand your story well enough to explain what happened from posts on Free Republic. I know for a fact that G-d showed. I can't know why you couldn't see Him.
If you actually desire to see Him when you knock, then I suggest you find a Christian and ask him about what happened to you.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.