What interesting and fascinating thoughts. Thank you.
The following are my responses, but that does not mean I am totally correct – just my thoughts.
If God is “love” why does he … allow pain and suffering, kill innocent pregnant women with a flood, sacrifice his monogenes son, etc.?
1. God is not accountable to us. Rather, it is we who are accountable to him. His ways are not our ways.
2. The Greeks NT has several words that we translate with “love”. The divine love is “agape”, which is concerned with principle. It is not to be confused with words such as “eros” or “storge”. I recommend the book “New Testament Words” by William Barclay as a good reference, although others probably exist. We will chastise our child because they transgress a boundary, because that is the right thing to do, but that has nothing to do with erotic or emotive love.
3. One has to assume that the story of a flood being universal is literally true. It is likely the writers were taking a known (local but massive) event, even a myth, and were using it for their own purposes.
Doug’s theory says that when the stories were being collated (and edited), probably about the time of Josiah and later, the priests used that story as a means to address the contemporary evil condition of the people of Judah. They were worshiping false gods, even in the Temple, they were sacrificing their own children to these false gods, and so on. So here was a tool to warn the people of the consequences of their actions. The political fight for supremacy by the priests of YHWH (at the settlement of Jerusalem) against the followers of Elohim in the northern regions could have also been an influence.
I fully agree that religion, particularly religious intolerance, has been the cause of most wars and deadly conflicts. Leaders often use religion to further their plans to control their own people and others.
God set the standard and then provided the means.
I believe in a completely theocentric soteriology that says God sets the highest standard and then set about to complete his requirement. I am comfortable with the idea that even our faith comes from God.
If you go to
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Salvation_I_believe_in.pdf
you will find a piece that I wrote while I was still a member of the SDA Church (hence the reference to “time”). It provides an overview of my theocentric soteriology.
We are saved solely by the completed work of God through Jesus Christ, motivated as we are by the Holy Spirit. All we need “do” is believe and our faith is sufficient. The Spirit is then able to work on each of us, and we then manifest “fruits” of that work. It is an individual personal relationship, not a corporate one.
How can God justify a person who has not heard of Jesus’ sacrifice? That is God’s matter, not mine, and we should leave that to him. He is the Judge, not I.
I do not believe that doctrinal correctness provides salvation. What does matter is that I do know. Little is expected of he who knows little. More is expected from you and I, since we know more. It is up to each person to respond to the pleadings of the holy spirit, for to resist those pleadings is to commit the sin that cannot be forgiven.
My study?
I will appreciate any constructive comments and criticisms of the piece I made available. I am working at making my initial writing available, of which the pages I provided are a distillation.
Doug