God's mercy and compassion.

[Elijah John]

Psalm 103:13-14

As a father has compassion on his children, so YHVH has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.

1) How does this verse square with the Evangelical notion that one must be perfect or believe that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins in order to experience God's mercy and compassion?

2) How does this verse square with the notion that the "God of the Old Testament" is a God of wrath, and not a God of Fatherly compassion?

3) Is the model of God as Father compatible with the doctrine that He needs blood in order to forgive? How so?

Please address any combination of the above.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

That is not what I was claiming. I never said the Creeds were contrary to Christ's message of love and mercy, but that they did not emphasize them.

I’m afraid that is a matte of opinion. You seem to see/hear what you want.

You're right about the Apostles Creed. No mention of Christ's Divinity in that one.

Right. You just assumed there was.

But neither Creed mention Jesus teaching about the love and mercy of the Father.

What do you think forgiveness of sins means? I’d call that love and mercy.


_________________

My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

What have we here? Dare I say a creed? Where is your mention of Jesus’ teaching about love and mercy? Oops! You must not believe those things or surely your tag line would have included it.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 50 by RightReason]

No, my signnature statements are not a Creed, nor did I ever say they were. Merely my theological positions, not meant to be recited as part of any religous gathering, ritual or liturgy.

The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, by contrast, were.

[shnarkle]

Yeshua's message was one was to enter into "life" (Matthew 7:14 & 19:17) by "keeping the commandments".

Nope, only those who love will keep the commandments. Anyone can keep the commandments, and they will in no wise enter into life. This is explicitly what Jesus points out in his rebuke of the Pharisees for their meticulous adherance to the commandments is only externally for others to see. They are keeping them for all the wrong reasons.

To "become perfect", one must sell what they own, give it to the poor, and "follow me" (Matthew 19:21).

If one looks at the greater context it should become evident that it isn't a mean of becoming perfect at all, but a consequence of discovering the kingdom.

One not need to become "perfect" to enter into the kingdom,

Then why did he point it out as a prerequisite?

but it is difficult (Matthew 19:23).

When camels can pass through the eye of a needle, we can all entertain the idea that a rich man will ever see the kingdom. For those who believe Christ is referring to the pedestrian door beside the main gate to a city, the root of the word means "to poke, pierce, etc." as in sewing. It isn't difficult, it is impossible

Yeshua then goes onto answer Peter's question, of what is in it for us/me, Yeshua then answers that when one leaves houses, farms, mother, children, father, they shall inherit "many times as much" (Matthew 19:29)

And yet where do we see anyone doing this?

[ElCodeMonkey]

You seem to see/hear what you want.

Moderator Comment
Do not accuse members of seeing/hearing "what they want." It is an insult to their intellectual honesty and seen as a personal attack.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ttruscott]

Apparently you have eaten from the tree of knowledge, and can declare what is good and evil/wicked,

I've eaten from no such tree - I am employing common sense. I have a rough idea that when people are advised to leave their wives and kids then there's something amiss. The danger is that if one lets other people say what is good and bad, and one abandons one's own judgment, one becomes a slave, and as such might fall into the trap of mistaking evil for good. Centuries ago that is precisely what happened when innocent people were burned as heretics or witches.

In the 21st century we don't import our fruit from the Garden of Eden.

Perhaps fiction is a subconscious working of the our knowledge that there indeed are two types of people on earth, those of GOD and those alien to GOD but rather than like The Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the Pod People, a slightly more apropos analogy might be: how do you deal with your family when the alien is born into it, like in The Midwich Cuckoos, especially if there was no external obvious difference as is presented in We Need to Talk About Kevin.

It is a shame that only in fiction can such things have come to our consciousness which automatically makes them suspect when spoken of by anyone not a Doctor of some kind...

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

No, my signnature statements are not a Creed, nor did I ever say they were. Merely my theological positions, not meant to be recited as part of any religous gathering, ritual or liturgy.

Definition of a creed can be a simple as a confession or statement of faith/belief.

And you did not respond to any of my other points.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

No, my signnature statements are not a Creed, nor did I ever say they were. Merely my theological positions, not meant to be recited as part of any religous gathering, ritual or liturgy.

Definition of a creed can be a simple as a confession or statement of faith/belief.

And you did not respond to any of my other points.

You said a lot in this thread and elsewhere. Would you be so kind as to bring into focus the most important points you made that you want me to respond to and summarize and/or repeat them?

Also, be advised, that my signature area, (or anyone else's for that matter) are not material for debate.

Unless the person in question chooses to draw upon their signature and make a debate topic from it.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 24 by RightReason]

Why is it that in the bulk of Jesus teachings, The Lord's prayer, The Beattitudes, and the Parables, Jesus teaches the Father's forgiveness, without tying that forgiveness to "the blood"? Why speak of forgiveness so often with no mention of "the blood"? Unless or course, the author of Hebrews is wrong when he says "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins". Jesus himself contradicts this notion by his teachings.

I'll continue to ask until you give me a good answer. You say that you "don't have a problem" with those teachings, but please demonstrate how those passages harmonize with the notion of blood-atonement. I don't see how you've done so, yet. If they harmonize, why no mention of "the blood" along with the Father's mercy?

My position, is that after Jesus unexpected martyrdom, his followers shifted the focus from Jesus' teachings about the Father's love and mercy, to the meaning of his death and resurrection. From Jesus teachings of love of God and neighbor, (which is worth more than all the burnt offerings) to how his death on the cross supposedly appeases the Father, who does not drink blood, nor does He eat flesh. (Psalm 50.13, just one of many anti-sacrifice verse that orthodoxy ignores, because those verses do not fit it's blood-atonement narrative and theology.)

Also, where do you get the idea that I don't believe in God's rewards and punishments in the afterlife?

Also, just because I indicated that I agree with much of what theologically* liberal forms of Christianity teach, does not mean I do not embrace ethics, or believe in Divine retribution, etc., or that I favor an "anything goes" type of Christianity. THAT is a straw man you've constructed, intentionally or not. And for the record, I differ with many liberal Protestants on political matters, I find myself more aligned with Catholics and Evangelicals on such matters as traditional marraige and pro-life issues.

(*key phrase, THEOLOGICALLY liberal, as opposed to politically liberal. One does not necessitate the other)

And you say we must take the Bible as a whole. OK, let's do that. How do you harmonize Exodus 21.20-21 to God's love and compassion? You can look it up if you'd like, but the passage basically indicates that it's OK to keep and beat slaves half-to-death as long as they don't die right away. Why? Because Moses regarded these human beings, (human beings who are also made in God's image)as "property". Ironic, considering the Hebrew people were just liberated from slavery by God Himself. But don't it beat all, Moses goes and gives permission (presumably from God) to go ahead and enslave others and mistreat them, horribly.

If you claim that you believe in the Bible as a whole, that includes verses like this. Do you believe that passage came from God?

Or from the fallible "Moses".

Some translations adhere to the oral tradition which points to a recovery after a day or two. In other words, if the slave has recovered from his injuries, but to recover would mean a full recovery in which case anything more than a bruise would be grounds for being set free.

Slaves were released from masters who caused physical injury (Ex. 21:26-27) which isn't really different than that of a free man (vs. 24-25)

While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life, the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34).

When one Hebrew owned another Hebrew as a slave, the law commanded lenient treatment:
Slaves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves (Lev 25:39-43)
All slaves were to be freed after six years (Ex 21:2, Dt 15:12)
Freed slaves were to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Dt 15:12-15)
Every fiftieth year (the year of jubilee), all Hebrew slaves were to be freed, even those owned by foreigners (Lev 25:10, 47-54)

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 57 by shnarkle]

So slaves are okay as long as you don't do more than bruise them? Let's see what our black counterparts think about that sentiment. I suppose taking women as sex slaves from the spoils of war is okay too as long as they don't get more than a bruise? God kills people immediately with a jolt of lightning for touching his ark of the covenant, and he'll open the ground to swallow you alive because you hid a chalice, but feel free to rape women. Not a huge deal. Or here's a fun and loving game to play, let's tie swords to our sides and run around and murder each other to thin the herd since people "accidentally" worshiped a golden cow. All very loving. It's not worth trying to rectify it when we know what love is and we know from multitudes of other examples that humans create false stories to control people. It's plain as day corruption from humans and not worth trying to make it seem like love somehow. This is not love. It is either not all God or else God is not all love.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 57 by shnarkle]

So slaves are okay as long as you don't do more than bruise them?

Perfectly okay.

Let's see what our black counterparts think about that sentiment.

What difference does it make if a slave owner is black?

I suppose taking women as sex slaves from the spoils of war is okay too as long as they don't get more than a bruise?

What other option is there other than leaving them to fend for themselves? Chances are they're going to gladly go along with whoever will take care of them, and when those who are going to take care of them are sworn to not leave so much as a bruise on them, that's about as good a deal as their going to get.

God kills people immediately with a jolt of lightning for touching his ark of the covenant,

Nope. Read it again. They all knew that getting too close to God's holiness was fatal. Anyone who presumed to be holier than they really were had no business being anywhere near God's holiness. Coming up with your own standard of holiness is nothing more than creating your own god.

and he'll open the ground to swallow you alive because you hid a chalice, but feel free to rape women. Not a huge deal. Or here's a fun and loving game to play, let's tie swords to our sides and run around and murder each other to thin the herd since people "accidentally" worshiped a golden cow

Where do the texsts indicate that idolatry is unintentional?

All very loving.

Not just loving, but just and merciful. Idolaters are fools and miserable due to the fact that their false gods can never satisfy their needs.

It's not worth trying to rectify it when we know what love is

Now that we've heard the claim to know what love is, perhaps we might also be given the privilege of knowing this secret as well. Care to share this secret kowledge?

and we know from multitudes of other examples that humans create false stories to control people.

Sure, so what? Care to link those stories with these with some proof or evidence?

Given that a slave who converts to the cult of Israel is then set free six years later with provisions to start a new life, it doesn't seem like your claims are valid. They could simply walk off and return to their old pagan ways of living if they want to. The fact that slaves had the option to remain a slave spotlights that it was prefereable in many cases to fending for oneself.

It's plain as day corruption from humans and not worth trying to make it seem like love somehow.

The argument from silence

This is not love.

And yet, you've provided nothing to edify anyone as to what love is.

It is either not all God or else God is not all love.

Non sequitur. You haven't provided a proof for love so how do you conclude to show God (who you haven't proven either) is or isn't love?