Posts by myelaine

45

What is this primitive notion of SELF-SACRIFICE?

by Terry in

among jehovah's witnesses self-sacrifice is a price everybody is expected to pay.. members of this religious group are told they are being watched by the world as a public spectacle in an ancient roman coliseum.. all sorts of sacrifices must be transacted to convince jehovah of their sincerety and to titillate the worldly people with spectacular acts of faith.. .

jw's give up the best secular education and the highest-paying careers.

it is a sacrifice.. jw's have been urged to give up marriage and child-rearing to devote time to door to door evangelizing work.

myelaine

obedience, submission, self-sacrifice...in a healthy relationship these acts are an indication of mutual respect and compromise.

love michelle

36

Rescuing a God who is blind to Evil

by Terry in

have you ever gone shopping in a department store for shoes or clothes?.

do you just walk over to the rack or shelf and select what you want without trying anything on to see if it fits?.

no.. what good would that do?

myelaine

dear GLADIATOR...

you said: "A supreme being would not be subject to negative emotions or disappointments."...

Would you think it more supreme if God just set the operation in motion and split? Like the father who is always away on business?...I think the fact that God DOES have interaction with and even shares in mans joy and sorrow as well as showing wrath towards the evil that eventually destroys his creatures is a more profound example of a "supreme being." He shows understanding, He CAN pity us in His supremacy. The continuity of the life of man IS His business.

The attribute of love comes with many emotions...two are bitter and sweet.

love michelle

36

Rescuing a God who is blind to Evil

by Terry in

have you ever gone shopping in a department store for shoes or clothes?.

do you just walk over to the rack or shelf and select what you want without trying anything on to see if it fits?.

no.. what good would that do?

myelaine

dear King Solomon...

I think Terry is suggesting that God doesn't know evil, in line with his "God is blind to evil" OP.

love michelle

36

Rescuing a God who is blind to Evil

by Terry in

have you ever gone shopping in a department store for shoes or clothes?.

do you just walk over to the rack or shelf and select what you want without trying anything on to see if it fits?.

no.. what good would that do?

myelaine

dear Terry...

you said: "If God were Evil-Blind it would explain why Satan was tolerated in the Holy of Holy heaven."...

satan came with the other angels and God specifically picked him out of the crowd .

the scriptures point to the fact that every time that God did personally deal with evil on the earth it was a powerful blow to its existence. the flood and sodom and gomorrah are our examples. When Jesus came it is stated that He humbled Himself being found in the form of a man. part of His incarnation was a self imposed restraint but again when He returns He will come in the glory of His Father...it is said that mountains will crumble and the kings of the earth will want them to fall on them to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. mountains and islands will be moved from their places. as before, the presence of God on earth will be a powerful blow to its existence. it is because the direct intervention of God to deal with evil is so extensive, it is His mercy which causes Him to forgo directly dealing with every instance of evil. imo.

love michelle

44

How Christian thinking was corrupted by Paul's clever explanations

by Terry in

when modern writers, thinkers, believers in christianity talk about their religion they are almost always depending on saul of tarsus (paul) rather than.

jesus.. there is a good reason for this.

paul wrote letters.

myelaine

dear Terry...

you quoted: "The High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect." ...in galatians 1:14 paul states that he advanced in JUDAISM because he was exceeding zealous for the traditions of his fathers. the fact that he was zealous for the pharisee teaching and not the sadducee teachings doesn't mean that he couldn't or wouldn't join forces with the high priest to rout out the new christians. the saying is, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

paul had disagreements with the apostles about the need for the gentile christians to be "put under" the law as some of those laws seemed to be practiced in jerusalem but the JEWISH converts. it was these traditions that paul was against because he had spent his apostleship preaching grace or acceptance with God through JESUS (without conforming to the law)...his description of these other apostles as superfine was in regard to the fact that they had letters of recommendation and the congregation was impressed by that when, "He who glories, let him glory in the LORD."...and they had lost sight of the fact that it was paul who had taught them about their God and Lord and about the grace that is from Him...he thought of himself as their "father" in the faith. He was justifiably hurt AND concerned because these others could come in and sway the congregation to their way of "thinking" and the congregation could be so easily swayed...if they could be swayed in this way after all he had taught them, then what or who else might they be swayed by?...there is marked concern for the congregation .

you said: " his threat in 4:21, "Shall I come to you with a stick?""...actually he was asking the congregation if they wanted him to come in the same way as the superfine apostles...the "law" is considered the rod or "stick" by which a jewish person is judged see:ezekiel 20:37, isaiah 11:1-5 (being "under" the law, which the jewish apostles were trying to do to the gentile believers). paul continued in galatians 6:12-13 about how these ones were not preaching this for the good of the congregation. They were causing division in the "church"...whether they meant to or not, though it is unlikely because they did strive to be of the same Spirit. It is stated that paul continued to go to jerusalem and one would expect someone who taught about forgiving a brother would be the first to confront them and straighten things out. There is nothing to suggest that the church was irreparably divided over this issue as paul was ever willing to confront rather that cover up or gloss over.

love michelle

44

How Christian thinking was corrupted by Paul's clever explanations

by Terry in

when modern writers, thinkers, believers in christianity talk about their religion they are almost always depending on saul of tarsus (paul) rather than.

jesus.. there is a good reason for this.

paul wrote letters.

myelaine

dear Terry...

you said:

"Paul explains, explains, explains. He is the Professor, scientist, theologian and hard-nosed scold. He leaves no room for arguments. On the other hand, Jesus is vague and mysterious."...

Paul was a pharisee so he would have studied judaism and could have rightly been called a "professor" of judaism but when Jesus came he became a theologian...he progressed to the study of God.

If all you get from his explaination is this:

"Paul doesn't base his arguments and persuasions on Jesus. Paul uses Jewish theology!

Paul uses a Greek way of thinking, too.

Paul uses eisogesis (reading INTO the text) to make his doctrinal points. Quoting Jesus? Not necessary!

Paul was sent by the High Priest to end the sect of Jesus followers and he does this by co-opting their message and meaning. How? He convinces the Jesus splinter group that Jesus is the End Point of Judaism itself. By bringing both groups together there is no longer an "enemy". The pagan goyim steeped in Greek mythology (Thanks to Roman patronage) can accept Judaism with its demi-god, Jesus! Everybody can get along! Right? Wrong.

Then--history stepped in and destroyed MAINSTREAM JUDAISM...leaving only the "blended" messianic Jesus group!"...you've missed his whole point.

Paul was sent to the gentiles first of all so it shouldn't be a surprise that he would use the available "mindset" in his explainations. Paul, far from co-opting the greek mythology of demi-gods, was drawing on the OT theme of a Son and using that in relation to a Father...both notions present in the OT. But his protrait was not that of a supreme god and a demi-god. He sought to bring the real God to the people. He carried on and expanded the teaching of the OT prophets(where the pharisees didn't)...unlike the greeks and their gods of monologue...paul was teaching that the God of israel was in dialogue with man..."at various times and places God spoke to us through the prophets but at this time He has spoken to us through His Son" The irony is when paul went to mars hill and said he could see that they were very religious by all thier alters...and he noticed the alter to the unknown god...he COULDN'T preach an unknown god because God has made Himself known...most of the gods that were represented there were pretty much un-known (you never knew where you stood with them) as far as expecting any kind of reciprocity ie. blessing in return for worship. They were a fickle self-centered lot...weren't they? In contrast to the God of israel Who "drew up" His expectations, underlined the blessings toward those who followed, signed a covenant and never backed out.

Which brings us to Jesus (figuratively)...He is the fulfilment of that covenant when the jewish people couldn't keep up their end. God continued to reach out for dialogue even if they were always turning from Him. Jesus wasn't mysterious and vague...He said, "if you knew the Father you would know Me also"..."if you have seen Me you have seen the Father". He was the Word, a continuation of that dialogue between God and man that was started long ago when God chose a special people TO speak to and through. I think that because of the priestly "class" in Jesus time the dialogue that was desired had become a monologue. the priests instilled fear into the people as a means to control their power structure. Interestingly the last word from the OT prophets in the book of malachi 4:4-6 there is a warning stating that God would come and strike the earth with a curse(which I believe to be a withdrawing of His protection) if the hearts of the fathers aren't turned to the sons and the hearts of the sons to the fathers...a reinstitution of dialogue between the generations, so to speak. As a consequence of this NOT happening within the majority jewish population (because of the priests, mark 7:9-13) It came about that God did withdraw His protection just a He said and Jesus predicted in matthew 24:15-20 which did see a partial fulfillment in 70 AD specifically to those jewish people who hadn't responded to Jesus.(ie. entered into dialogue with God by His means)

anyway...you have suggested previously that your take on the worship of God is God demanding, "what have you done for me lately?"...which isn't the case. It is more like God replying..."what can I do for My beloved?"

love michelle

47

The Story of a Modern Famine - 1984 Ethiopia

by jgnat in

an athiest argument for an uncaring or non-existent god is suffering, say, as in starving children.

i consider this a strawman argument but there you go.. the apologists defence is that humankind has been given all the tools for health and prosperity, and has failed in their duty.

the resultant victims will receive their reward in the afterlife.

myelaine

dear Janet...

you said: "Paul at least had the courtesy to speak the language of his hearers."...

ummm...you DID say that the Holy Spirit was working in you too 1 corinthians 2:10-13

love michelle

47

The Story of a Modern Famine - 1984 Ethiopia

by jgnat in

an athiest argument for an uncaring or non-existent god is suffering, say, as in starving children.

i consider this a strawman argument but there you go.. the apologists defence is that humankind has been given all the tools for health and prosperity, and has failed in their duty.

the resultant victims will receive their reward in the afterlife.

myelaine

dear Janet...

I don't pick and choose willy nilly so much as lay precept upon precept.

you don't feel the need to warn anybody about something you don't choose to see, even though Jesus said it WAS so...I do feel the need to warn people about something I see AND Jesus said it WAS so...maybe this where you can comprehend that I do unto others as I would have them do unto me and you don't?

It is sincere concern and compassion coming from God poured out in me towards you. If it was no big deal why would I bother to act?...why did the prophets bother acting if it was no big deal?...why did Jesus bother telling us anything or even proclaiming His salvation and then following through with the action if it was no big deal? we all acted on what resonated with us as commands from God...it is known that the "things" concerning Him have a conclusion...it could be tonight. How can you "reason" through that and decide that I'm not using reason?...it's PERFECTLY reasonable to believe what Jesus says to be the truth...that is the foundation of my trust in Him!!...but maybe for you, not so much?!?!?

AND yeah, I do get my worldview from the bible...God does know the end from the beginning...and He saw to it that He didn't leave those who shared HIS worldview in the dark as to what is happening in that world regarding both celestial and terrestrial beings. ...He prepared a table before me, so to speak...I'm sure I don't have to apologise even if you regard it as "less than" your worldview in some way.

love michelle

47

The Story of a Modern Famine - 1984 Ethiopia

by jgnat in

an athiest argument for an uncaring or non-existent god is suffering, say, as in starving children.

i consider this a strawman argument but there you go.. the apologists defence is that humankind has been given all the tools for health and prosperity, and has failed in their duty.

the resultant victims will receive their reward in the afterlife.

myelaine

dear Janet...

what do you find unreasonable in what I've said?

love michelle

47

The Story of a Modern Famine - 1984 Ethiopia

by jgnat in

an athiest argument for an uncaring or non-existent god is suffering, say, as in starving children.

i consider this a strawman argument but there you go.. the apologists defence is that humankind has been given all the tools for health and prosperity, and has failed in their duty.

the resultant victims will receive their reward in the afterlife.

myelaine

dear dgp...

this scripture suggests that God is intensely involved in the destiny of mankind and He wants mankind to be equally involved in the conclusion of that destiny. We all, together and individually, play a part in being accountable to God and each other in order to see benefit.

love michelle