Posted on 05/12/2015 12:17:08 PM PDT by Gamecock
Pope Francis warned the rich and powerful on Tuesday that God will judge them on whether they fed the poor and cared for the Earth
"We must do what we can so that everyone has something to eat. But we must also remind the powerful of the Earth that God will call them to judgment one day," he said. "And there it will be revealed if they really tried to provide for him in every person, and if they did what they could to preserve the environment so that it could produce this food."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Please notice Acts 2 where Peter makes it clear that the plan to have the Messiah, the Son of God, turned over and crucified was done by the foreknowledge and predetermination of God.”
Quote the verses you think make that clear, please.
“Of course He manages disobedience!”
“13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
James 1:13-15
God doesn’t cause men to sin, men are tempted to sin by our own lusts.
“Do you actually believe the there are a whole group of beings just running around doing anything they want? Read the Book, my FRiend...He is in control.”
“16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.”
1 John 2:16
“I do know that deliberate (not just collateral) damage for the sake of harm (for instance deliberate destruction of cropland so as to cause directly-intended starvation to populations in time of war) would be a sin, because it would be targeting things that noncombatant populations need for their survival.”
Hmm, what does the Bible say about that?:
“3 Samson then said to them, “This time I shall be blameless in regard to the Philistines when I do them harm.” 4 Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, and turned the foxes tail to tail and put one torch in the middle between two tails. 5 When he had set fire to the torches, he released the foxes into the standing grain of the Philistines, thus burning up both the shocks and the standing grain, along with the vineyards and groves.” (Judges 15:3-5)
God apparently approved of this action by Samson, since when the Judahites went to deliver him to the Philistines for justice, God miraculously intervened to free him:
“13 So they said to him, “No, but we will bind you fast and give you into their hands; yet surely we will not kill you.” Then they bound him with two new ropes and brought him up from the rock.
14 When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands.”
(Judges 15:13-14)
Check Acts 2:22ff
I am at work and unable to write more...but I’ll answer your objections tomorrow.
A lot of savage went on in those days, including episodes like Jephthah's Oath, where he sacrifices his innocent daughter ---which is not recounted with explicit condemnation at the time --- and Psalm 139 which speaks of the merriment experienced while smashing your enemies' babies against a rock.
The fact that it is recounted does not mean it was God's positive will for us.
This view is substantiated, I think, both in the OT and in the NT. In the OT, God says a couple of dozen times that He abhors the shedding of innocent blood. In the NT, Jesus clearly teaches, by both His precept and His practice, goodness toward enemies, as well as the positive obligation to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and be merciful. It is made a condition for our receiving mercy, and therefore, I would say, a condition for salvation.
Revelation 21:8 says that murderers "will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." The same extends throughout the whole NT in the teachings of Paul and the other Apostles.
Consequently, episodes of targeting non-combatants for destruction can be seen as violations of both Divine and Natural Law.
If they were permitted --- tolerated --- before the time of Christ, it was for the same reason that Moses permitted divorce: as Jesus said, it was because their hearts were hard. But "in the beginning" it was not the case. Innocent (in this context, non-combatant) lives are to be shielded. This conclusion is strongly upheld in Jesus' "Six Antitheses" (Matthew 5:21-48).
Intentionally, by plan, killing innocent persons, i.e. persons who have not personally aggressed; or killing in a deliberately indiscriminate way, failing to discriminate between those guilty of capital crime, and those innocent of it, is unjust killing. And that is the definition of murder. I don't know of any other. And the prohibition against murder is an exceptionless norm.
.
Sure, I don’t disagree there is a lot of reprehensible stuff that is recorded in the OT but not approved by God. However, in this incident, God intervenes to deliver Samson out of the hands of those who want to punish him for his crime. To me, that is an implicit endorsement of Samson’s actions. If God agreed with the Philistines that what Samson did was evil, then why would God choose to intervene and save Samson from a just punishment?
This does not imply God's endorsement of Samson's actions.
When Jonah, who had incurred a curse by refusing his prophetic mission to the Ninevites, was thrown overboard from the ship floundering in stormy seas, God saved his life. What, was he approving Jonah's disobedience? No --- He just had a job for him to do.
Yes, I suspected you might be referring to that, but I don’t think the verses support what you contend.
“22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:”
What is attributed to God in these verses is only Christ doing miracles and “being delivered”. Everything else, the crucifixion and slaying is attributed to “ye” (Israel), and God calls them “wicked” for doing it, reinforcing that they could not have been acting on the will of God (for to do the will of God is righteous, not wicked).
Now, there’s a fair argument to interpret the words “being delivered” to mean that God chose to deliver Jesus into the hands of his enemies, even if the verse does not clearly specify it. However, that still falls far short of laying the blame for the actions of those enemies at the feet of God, especially since God labels those actions “wicked” in the same breath.
“When Jonah, who had incurred a curse by refusing his prophetic mission to the Ninevites, was thrown overboard from the ship floundering in stormy seas, God saved his life. What, was he approving Jonah’s disobedience?”
Ah, but there is the difference, Jonah’s life was at stake, so the argument that God may have intervened just so that Jonah could do some other work makes sense. In the story of Samson, that isn’t an issue, because the Philistines only seek to take him prisoner, and a promise is specifically extracted that he won’t be killed. Indeed, when the Philistines do eventually take him prisoner, they don’t kill him.
That sounds like something Stalin would do (Ukraine). What would Jesus do?
LOL!
“It doesn’t follow that God specifically approves of intentionally causing starvation to whole villages or tribes or regions, by deliberately destroying their food stocks.”
Well, I would say it depends on the situation. God certainly approves of Samson’s one-man war on the Philistines, because in Judges 14, when Samson’s parents balk at him taking a Philistine woman as a wife, we are told:
“4 But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.”
So God not only approved, in a general sense, of Samson attacking the Philistines, He was working “behind the scenes” to arrange things so that Samson would have the opportunity to strike at them. We are given the God’s reasoning too: that the Philistines possessed Israel, the land God had set aside for His people.
So, all in all, it seems to me that God sets the stage for Samson, then with his favor and miraculous interventions, kept Samson from harm, despite him committing what we might deem “atrocities”. Even when God withdrew his favor from Samson, and Samson lost his strength, it turned out to set up God’s ultimate plan for vengeance as Samson was able, because he was held prisoner in their palace, to kill all the Philistine nobles in one fell swoop.
That’s why I have to say that speaking of these “atrocities” as inherently sinful is treacherous ground, because the Bible shows that God seems to judge such things situationally. Even if you don’t accept the argument about Samson, there is no room to argue that “atrocities” were not approved of by God and commanded in the case of the Canaanites. Burning some crops is a petty misdemeanor compared to slaughtering every man, woman, and child, and even the livestock!
“What would Jesus do?”
Well, Jesus does some pretty violent stuff in the Book of Revelation, so I don’t accept the strictly meek, “hippie” Jesus that the “WWJD” crowd often seems to think of.
And I am so grateful to Him. I think I would rather die than take the Book of Judges as my model for living.
Most of this divinely-inspired book is best understood, I think, as "a valuable history of bad examples." Judges 17:6 "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself" --- and this "disclaimer" is repeated three more times (18:1; 19:1; 21:25) --- as much as to say: no king, no law, these people were barbarous, even the best of them, and what can you expect?
Jesus' Sermon on the Mount -- which deserves a re-read --- especially His "Six Antitheses" --- comprises a series of blunt judgments against the former standard of morality. "You have heard it said.... but I say...."
What do you think God meant when He said, over and over, that the shedding of innocent blood is an "abomination"? Doesn't that very word indicate that the prohibition of intentional indiscriminate killing is an exceptionless norm?
Just as the prohibition of sodomy --- another "abomination" --- is, in all cases, an exceptionless norm?
Or should we relativize the concept of "abominaton"?
“I don’t think you can get past Jesus’ precepts and his example when He walked with us on this earth. He is OUR model, Master, and Judge, and He stands in stark contrast with the ethos found in the Book of Judges.”
Did God not command the slaughter of the Canaanites, directly and explicitly? That is quite different than other events, such as Sodom & Gomorrah, or the Great Flood, because God did not do the killing Himself. If God does it, who can judge Him? Yet in this case, He commanded the Israelites to do the killing.
Now, you cannot say they did this of their own will, as they didn’t want to do, and even flat out refused to do it in fact. God had to chastise them into doing it. This is the same God as the God of the New Testament. The same God of whom Jesus said He was of one mind with, agreeing on all things. So while yes, I do accept Jesus as a model of behavior for us while He lived on earth, I still don’t see Him as you seem to see Him. If the situation arose where God judged an “atrocity” to be called for and justified, then Jesus would have been in 100% agreement with the Father’s judgement.
“What do you think God meant when He said, over and over, that the shedding of innocent blood is an “abomination”? Doesn’t that very word indicate that the prohibition of intentional indiscriminate killing is an exceptionless norm?”
No, it can’t mean that, because God also commanded such acts, as in the example I gave above. So there must be at least one exception, and therefore, it stands to reason there may be other exceptions as well.
“Just as the prohibition of sodomy -— another “abomination” -— is, in all cases, an exceptionless norm?”
Well, God never commanded anyone to commit sodomy so you are on much firmer ground there, as there is no counterexample that can be claimed.
It can be found, strikingly, in the six great “contradictions”: “You have heard it said… but I say unto you…” Jesus Himself rejects a specimen-preserved-in-amber view of Scripture and gives us instead, living Truth: not just that he “gives us” the interpretation of Scripture, but that He “is” the interpretation of Scripture. I'll go one step further: he does not just "interpret" the Word, He IS the Word.
What can one say about the estermination of the Amalekites --- man, woman and child --- vs the 20+ Old Testament verses in which God says He “hates” and “forbids” the shedding of innocent blood? What can one say about that pathetic scene in Judges when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to fulfill a vow to the Lord, vs the many verses in which the Lord says that He detests child sacrifice and calls it an abomination?
You say what anyone says who has the spirit of truth in him: if anyone thinks baby-killing and child-sacrifice are the positive will of God, they are wrong.
I think we have to adopt a hermeneutic of Scriptural continuity. We have to look at BC genocidein the wider context of the whole Torah; in the still wider context of the Prophets and the Wisdom literature; in the absolutely determinative context of the practice and precepts of Jesus Christ.
The shedding of innocent blood can't be both Divinely forbidden as an abomination, and Divinely commanded as obligatory. This conflict can be resolved by reading extermination of the seven nations of Canaan, the Amalekite genocide and so forth, morally --- I mean as moral allegory instead of moral legislation.
By allegory I don't mean that it didn't happen: it did (it's history: stuff that happened) but its interpretation for us (in the light of Christ) is that it is an allegory of a spiritual struggle against evil; reliance of God and His law; no compromise with Baal, Mammon, Molech. That was the view of ancient Christian exegetes (e.g. Clement of Alexandria). Some would protest that this puts Christ before all else, as excluding some interpretations, and forcing other interpretations of Scriptures. I say "Yes, and a good idea, too."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2951639/posts?page=45#45
And furthermore, what these popes have done to the Roman Catholic Church is a sin that cries out for vengeance. All since Pius XII get a one way ticket on the River Styx ferry.
“The shedding of innocent blood can’t be both Divinely forbidden as an abomination, and Divinely commanded as obligatory.”
This is where I have to disagree. God can forbid a thing generally, but still command it in specific instances. A good example of that is the law against idolatry. God forbade the making of any graven images generally, but he also commanded the Israels to make several graven images specifically, like the cover for the ark, the bronze serpent, and the adornments for the temple. I would liken this to a parent who has a general rule “No television after 10 PM”, but who still reserves the ability to make an exception to that rule for special circumstances.
If we admit that God, in His sovereignty, can command such exceptions, then the difficulties with these cases vanish. Men are still bound by the commandments, for we cannot make an exception to a rule that we didn’t institute. Only God has that ability, and He seems to use it very rarely from what we see in the Bible.
Okay, it seems as though we have covered more ground than we have adequately discussed. So that I understand what it is you are contending for, let us go back to the point at which you contacted me. Please tell me if you believe God knows everything that will happen in the next 10 minutes?
Or, do you hold that the future is made up of many “free will” decisions (by “free agents”), and since they have no constraint upon them, no guidance, no pre-determination, then there are something approaching an infinite number of futures about to occur?
Or, do you hold to a what has been called a “contingent” future? That is, God knows approximately how people will behave, and in His great wisdom He guesses very well at those outcomes. His responses are based upon learning the actual outcomes and adjusting His response thusly.
Or, do you have yet another paradigm that you believe the Bible has described?
Assuming that when ordered to commit what God calls an "abomination," you can distinguish between the Voice of God, schizophrenic psychosis, and the voice of a Fiend from Hell.
“Assuming that when ordered to commit what God calls an “abomination,” you can distinguish between the Voice of God, schizophrenic psychosis, and the voice of a Fiend from Hell.”
Yeah, that would be something you really want to be certain of!
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.