Wrath of God pt 2 (What's your god like?)

S

Silas

Guest
Question: Is it so hard to image that God promises wrath? I mean, I read some of you liberal "christian's" responces, and it seems to me that you've made God into some sort of snuggly teddy bear. You make Him seem as if he's some santa clause figure that only wants to make you smile and give you nice things. Why is that? That's my question. I'd really like to know your views on God. Liberal people, can you please describe to me your god?
 
God is no teddy bear, Silas.

He might be to some little child whose hopes you never hesitate to dash.

InPeace,
InLove
 
I'll agree with InLove that he's no teddy bear. That spirit inflicts more wounds than a thousand arrows when it convicts one of their sins. It's certainly no picnic in the beginning, lol! But, once you're a child in God, those wounds heal, and yes he becomes quite snuggly. :)


James
 
Here is something I wrote a while ago, but I think it applies.

I don't see how God's grace can be anything but unconditional, including not depending upon the condition of 'belief.' I think of grace in this life as healing the brokenness we experience when we feel separated from God and each other, and from ourselves. The healing grace is pouring freely down on all of us at all times in this life but unless we open the cups of our hearts to it, we can't drink.

O Son of Being! Love Me that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant. (Baha'i Hidden Word)

Come near to God and he will come near to you. (James 4:8)

Opening up to that love is like channeling water into an irrigation system, rather than letting it pour out on the ground.

That's this life, and salvation is for now. In this life we rebel, we blame, we shame, we consistently fall short of the goodness we were created for. Grace is not an excuse for this, but the remedy. Grace is not static: it must flow to do its work. We receive God's grace and in turn give it to others, and to ourselves. Forgiveness, love, healing. These are the qualities of grace. And still we fall short.

In this life we can step into the river of God's grace, or we can stand on the bank saying who needs that silly old river anyway. The river is unconditionally there, it's our choice to step in or not.

But I think this question is about something else as well: unconditional grace with respect to what happens in the next life. Our human ideas of good and evil, of justice, are offended by the idea that everyone 'gets in free.' But God made us all and like Origen I can't reconcile a loving Creator with a god who would send any of his creatures to eternal torment, fully knowing how fragile we are in mind, body, and spirit. I have my own ideas and metaphors about what might happen in the next life, perhaps the closest idea being that we are drops that merge with God's Ocean yet somehow in a way that allows the love we've cultivated here to persist eternally. I believe in a final judgement, one in which the fire of the Holy Spirit burns away any part of us that is not love, like refining gold in a crucible. I believe in (trust in) God's justice, but I can't fathom it because my hope lies in the idea that it is a justice with no trace of revenge, and a justice that takes all of our fragility and complexity and brokenness into consideration. It is a justice beyond human imagination, so I don't even try.

The language of the Bible is metaphore and parable; we know very little about the next life beyond our assurance that it exists. Every mention of heaven and hell in the Bible can be understood as Jesus telling us about how to conduct ourselves in this life, for creating heaven or hell here and now on earth, rather than about separating sheep and goats in the next life. I'd sooner believe in reincarnation than I would in an eternal torment, but instead I believe the Bible that everything will end up in God, all in all (1 Cor 15:28).
 
Here's a thought. Can the people who dont adhere to historic and orthodox Christanty please call themselves something other than Christian? How about "nice people." That's nice, right? When a person asks you what religion do you adhere to, just say, "I am a nice person who loves people." Dont say that you're a Christian - the world is already confused about Christanity as it is.
 
Silas said:
Here's a thought. Can the people who dont adhere to historic and orthodox Christanty please call themselves something other than Christian? How about "nice people." That's nice, right? When a person asks you what religion do you adhere to, just say, "I am a nice person who loves people." Dont say that you're a Christian - the world is already confused about Christanity as it is.
Click to expand...
Nah, I think we ought to call them "loving Christians." That is, afterall, what "they" believe Jesus taught concerning G-d, including me.

How about, instead, we call the people who think G-d hates everybody except a minor fraction of His total creation "hateful Christians?" Yeah, I think that would do nicely. :rolleyes:
 
Jesus taught repentence and faith. He taught that a man must be born again before He could have any place with God. You guys have taken away the crux of Jesus' teaching and replaced with an almost cultish santa clause type figure. Why not just go with "I'm Spiritual" and leave the Christian name to those who God has given it to?
 
We most certainly embrace repentance and faith, Silas. We just experience it on a personal level instead of just talk about it. Our God (Your God) IS a personal God, and he knows our needs, and gives them when/if we ask with a sincere and honest heart.

Also, don't you think it to be a bit selfish to try to deny us the title Christian when we follow Christ? Seems to me that you're a little bitter, resentful and maybe even a little selfrighteous in your stance. (I'm a Christian and you're not type thing)

James
 
Here's a great picture...

"...for i the lord thy god am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keeep my commandments." Exodus 20: 5,6
 
Silas said:
Jesus taught repentence and faith. He taught that a man must be born again before He could have any place with God. You guys have taken away the crux of Jesus' teaching and replaced with an almost cultish santa clause type figure. Why not just go with "I'm Spiritual" and leave the Christian name to those who God has given it to?
Click to expand...

God did not give the name "Christian" to Christians. Man did (originally as a Roman insult).

Santa Clause is an amalgamation of real people in history who did kindly and godly things for people.

Jesus said to come as you are, not change your ways first.

v/r

Joshua

p.s. Prober, very astute observation. To those that hate God, trouble awaits. To those that do not hate God, blessings await.
 
When I said "the name who God has given it to," speaking of the name Christian, I meant those who have been born of God through repentence and faith in Christ. This name shouldnt be adhered to if you havent been born of God, it wouldnt be apporiate.
 
Silas said:
When I said "the name who God has given it to," speaking of the name Christian, I meant those who have been born of God through repentence and faith in Christ. This name shouldnt be adhered to if you havent been born of God, it wouldnt be apporiate.
Click to expand...


John 3:5-11

5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10. Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.


That's what we are saying, Silas. We have been, but you don't want to believe it because we don't follow the preconcieved notions set in place by the church fathers. Just because we are liberal doesn't mean God Loves us any less, or that he makes his spirit unavailable. Being born again is a wonderful thing, and it happens on a very personal and real level. I'm not saying you're not, I'm saying we have experinced in spirit and soul and mind, where you might not understand yet.
 
Not exactly, James (though that is part of it). I dont believe you have been born of God because you said that people of other religions can be saved without Jesus. No one who has been taught of God would say that. I do admit that you're a nice guy and you may have had some sort of religious experience though.
 
No, I never said w/o jesus, Silas. I said w/o an intellectual knowledge of the man. I suggested that his "Spirit" is available to all. That's was/is my stance, man. I could be wrong, but so could you. We simply can't know these things with all certainty. No point in making issue of it, is there?


James
 
juantoo3 said:
Nah, I think we ought to call them "loving Christians." That is, afterall, what "they" believe Jesus taught concerning G-d, including me.

How about, instead, we call the people who think G-d hates everybody except a minor fraction of His total creation "hateful Christians?" Yeah, I think that would do nicely. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How about calling the people who follow the Bible and Christ Christians and the ones who dont Apostate. Dont think youd like that any more than Luna liked ne calling people heretics.
 
Dor said:
How about calling the people who follow the Bible and Christ Christians and the ones who dont Apostate. Dont think youd like that any more than Luna liked ne calling people heretics.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen you call anyone a heretic.
 
-James- said:
No, I never said w/o jesus, Silas. I said w/o an intellectual knowledge of the man. I suggested that his "Spirit" is available to all. That's was/is my stance, man. I could be wrong, but so could you. We simply can't know these things with all certainty. No point in making issue of it, is there?


James
Click to expand...

I agree with you that Christ is available to all people as well. I also agree that it isnt an interllectual knowledge of Jesus that saves. The demons and Satan himself fully knows that Jesus is God and Sovereign ruler of the universe, yet they arent saved. What saves is repentence and faith (in Christ alone and not in yourself). All that said, didnt you say that Muslims and Buddist can go to Heaven without forsaking their religion and turning to Christ?
 
You turn to Christ when you allow him in your heart, allow him to change you through his Spirit, and be made new. To lose your old life is to gain a new one in Christ's love. Our difference in opinion is that you tend to think that he only comes to those who know his name, but he came for the lost sheep, and it is by his Spirit that they can follow him. It would be ideal for all to embrace the Christian gospel, but not all will. Even so, whatever religion, be it Islam, or Buddhism all can know him by his Spirit, even w/o a knowledge of the man, Imo. He isn't just in a book, and he wasn't only present during his natural time on earth, he is ever present and unchanging, and all can come to know him through his Spirit, Imo.

You don't have to agree, Silas. I'm not asking you to, I'm only giving my personal view on the subject. Unless you can convince me that a person must know his name as "Jesus" and not know him in the "Spirit" which he came in, then I won't change my position.


James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top