I've forgotten what I was reading or thinking about that started me thinking about Christ and his short life-span. If he had somehow kept out of his enemies' way, could he have lived another decade or two or three? Did he really have to die at 33 or could he have died later?
The haunting question is what if Christ had lived out his life and died of old age but then would have been resurrected? He could still have felt the awful separation that sin causes between him, our substitute, and God. Is there something about a 33 year old younger man that an 85 or 90 year old Christ could not have contributed to our salvation?
One problem would be his post-resurrection body. It would presumably be a younger Christ that rises from the grave. Or it could very well be a very healthy and glorified octogenarian Christ, so his disciples could visibly recognize that it was the same Christ that was raised from the dead.
I meditate on this alternate history of Christ because of a suggestion by John Wood (Atlantic Union College) that Christ did not necessarily have to die on the cross. He could very well have been sacrificed by the high priest on the altar as Isaac almost was sacrificed by Abraham.
Thinking about the aging of Christ started me thinking about what it must have been like for Christ to get a cold, or a fractured leg, or other human ailments that come to human beings from time to time. Christ did, in fact, age, since he didn't stay forever 21 or whatever age is the standard before visible signs of aging begin. Some say we start aging when we are born.
How odd to think of the God-man, Christ, aging and perhaps acquiring one or two wrinkles around the eyes before he reached the ripe old age of 33. Christ, I love you, wrinkles and all.
Imagine if you will though, a 21 year old Christ dying for humanity. Even better yet, imagine the horror if, by some stroke of madness, the teachers in the temple had offered up a living, 12 year old Christ as the sacrifice that would also have saved all of humanity.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
7-minute Sabbath
Only when you don't have something, a constant weekly Sabbath guaranteed, do you take it for granted. Not that I didn't enjoy the Sabbath years ago when I had every Sabbath off from work. But it goes beyond that. Sometimes it's Monday night or Thursday evening and as I walk my dog and look up at the southern skies I celebrate a 7-minute sabbath. I also refer to this concept as the eternal Sabbath. I like to think that the Sabbath can be a state of mind that you can dip into any time during the week, as well as the regular 24 hour Sabbath that also arrives on its regular schedule.
I also think of Christ as being my Sabbath rest. The words of Matthew 11 come to me often during the busy work week: "Come to me [Christ] you who have heavy burdens and you will find rest for your souls." Right then & there I claim that promise for Christ's instant rest. It's a rest that you can tap into, must tap into to stay on course, any time you need it and not just once a week. So I thank God for allowing me to enjoy the 7-minute Sabbath dozens of times a week, or at times, 2 or 3 times a day. Thank God for the Sabbath in all its forms, real and conceptual.
I pray that the Lord help you to live in the Spirit more and more and bless you in every possible way.
What impressed me about the chapter [Acts of the Apostles chapter two by E.G. White] I mentioned before was it's obsession with things dealing with the Holy Spirit. I got the impression that one could live and breathe the Spirit constantly. What bliss that must be!
I wish you the best of Sabbaths beginning tomorrow. But I also wish for you a dozen 7-minute Sabbath's during your working week.
God bless, Yours in Christ
[adapted from an email I sent off to a distant friend]
I also think of Christ as being my Sabbath rest. The words of Matthew 11 come to me often during the busy work week: "Come to me [Christ] you who have heavy burdens and you will find rest for your souls." Right then & there I claim that promise for Christ's instant rest. It's a rest that you can tap into, must tap into to stay on course, any time you need it and not just once a week. So I thank God for allowing me to enjoy the 7-minute Sabbath dozens of times a week, or at times, 2 or 3 times a day. Thank God for the Sabbath in all its forms, real and conceptual.
I pray that the Lord help you to live in the Spirit more and more and bless you in every possible way.
What impressed me about the chapter [Acts of the Apostles chapter two by E.G. White] I mentioned before was it's obsession with things dealing with the Holy Spirit. I got the impression that one could live and breathe the Spirit constantly. What bliss that must be!
I wish you the best of Sabbaths beginning tomorrow. But I also wish for you a dozen 7-minute Sabbath's during your working week.
God bless, Yours in Christ
[adapted from an email I sent off to a distant friend]
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The End of Time
This is a phrase that comes to mind without any thought on my part. It doesn't help that often when I open the bible it opens to Ezekiel 7. The New International Version editor has titled this chapter "The End Has Come." I can't tell you how often my bible has opened as if automatically to this very page. I've often thought that perhaps it is the very center of the binding and therefore the page finds me instead of me finding it. That can't be quite right as it took me several tries just now to find this chapter. I had not remembered that it was the seventh chapter. There are, however, 48 chapters to skim through, yet it took about a minute or three to find this End Page.
I've read this chapter several times, especially every time it just happens to find me. I've thought that God guides me to this page and yet it's historical specifics don't resonate with me. My end of time obsession is far in the future. When I don't automatically think of these words, "the end of time" I often think of the following phrase: "a million years from now."
I meditate on what life or the universe will be like within a million years. Sometimes I associate both of these automatic mind phrases and imagine that life as we know it, or the universe, will end a million years from now.
It is nothing but a suspicion. It is not a wish I want to come true.
Today I stopped to think what meaning the cessation of time, as one of the four dimensions of existence, would possibly have. It sounds nonsensical that the other three dimension, height, depth, width could possibly go on and yet, the most important one, time, come to an end.
I once read in a scientific article that it is thought by some that time was the first dimension to come into being before the others could possibly exist. It makes sense since whether you believe in God or not, the universe started out as nothing, or close to nothing, an imperceptible original point of matter-energy. Since time was the first to come into existence, why couldn't it be the first to cease existing, after which the other dimensions would follow its lead.
The good news is that our universe might very well be a cyclical one. If time ends a million years from now, it can begin again a million years later. Or perhaps after time ends, it automatically begins again, racing faster and faster to its next End Game.
I've read this chapter several times, especially every time it just happens to find me. I've thought that God guides me to this page and yet it's historical specifics don't resonate with me. My end of time obsession is far in the future. When I don't automatically think of these words, "the end of time" I often think of the following phrase: "a million years from now."
I meditate on what life or the universe will be like within a million years. Sometimes I associate both of these automatic mind phrases and imagine that life as we know it, or the universe, will end a million years from now.
It is nothing but a suspicion. It is not a wish I want to come true.
Today I stopped to think what meaning the cessation of time, as one of the four dimensions of existence, would possibly have. It sounds nonsensical that the other three dimension, height, depth, width could possibly go on and yet, the most important one, time, come to an end.
I once read in a scientific article that it is thought by some that time was the first dimension to come into being before the others could possibly exist. It makes sense since whether you believe in God or not, the universe started out as nothing, or close to nothing, an imperceptible original point of matter-energy. Since time was the first to come into existence, why couldn't it be the first to cease existing, after which the other dimensions would follow its lead.
The good news is that our universe might very well be a cyclical one. If time ends a million years from now, it can begin again a million years later. Or perhaps after time ends, it automatically begins again, racing faster and faster to its next End Game.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Post-Laodicean Church of Revelation 3:15
The imperfect Laodicean church, because of its lukewarm state, has already received its sentence when the Amen says "I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Rev. 3:16 (NIV) You might say that this sad spitting out has not taken effect since it speaks of "about to spit" instead of "have spit you out." Even though there is hope that the lukewarm church could potentially abandon its lukewarm condition through the spiritual gifts it is counseled to buy from the Amen, the sad reality of the Laodicean church is that it does not recognize its lukewarm state.
Note these important words, "I wish you were either one or the other [hot or cold.] Rev. 3:15 (NIV) Only in moving toward one of these two options can the Laodicean church leave its lukewarm state. Once it's fully conscious of its cold state, then perhaps the possibility of future heat can transform it, or it might also be that when once it crosses over into a cold state, it has effectively sealed its fate because it no longer makes any pretense of being even spiritually warm or, as it says of itself, "I am rich . . . and do not need a thing. Rev. 3:17 (NIV) This almost sounds like a pre-condition to becoming spiritually cold.
Since the first church, the Apostolic church, was a hot church, and since hot is the desired and positive outcome that the Amen wishes for the Laodiceans, then clearly the Laodicean church because of its steady-state lukewarm condition cannot be the last church because it would then cease to be identifiably lukewarm and would have evolved into a post-Laodicean church.
Without mentioning it by name, the words "I wish you were either one or the other [hot or cold] Rev. 3:15 (NIV,) infer the theoretical existence of a post-Laodicean church, in effect an Eighth church. Yes the number seven in the bible symbolizes completeness and you might argue that the seventh church is therefore the last one, however, the identifying characteristic of the Laodicean church is lukewarmness which does not sound like an ideal state. The wishing that this supposedly last church were either hot [desirable] or cold [undesirable but complete in its total rejection of grace] infers the return to the spiritual heat of the first church, the apostolic one. The last and ideal church would have to be like the first and ideal church. The cycle has to come full circle.
It would have been unwise to explicitly mention the Eighth church by name. Anyone identifying with it would be guilty of self-pride that he or she were part of the Eighth and ideal neo-apostolic church. By not mentioning it, it leaves the door open for its virtual existence when it finally comes into being. However, the difference being that no one who is part of the Eighth church will ever realize that he or she is, in fact, part of such an ideal and final church. Members of that church will continue thinking that they have the imperfections of the Laodicean church with its need to buy gold, white clothes and salve to put on their eyes. The silence of the name not being spelled out, or of a corresponding city being designated for this Eighth church allows it to be applied to all believers who are honest enough to realize that they are lukewarm and are in need of the Amen's saving gifts.
Identifying oneself with the lukewarm and vain Laodicean church has never seemed like much of an inspiration to me. On the other hand, wishing to be part of an unspoken and hot church, a Post-Laodicean church, sounds very attractive and worth seeking out with all the intensity that such a goal deserves.
May this Eighth church, which will remain nameless and virtual in its actual manifestation, be part of your life and mine. Or, rather, may we have the faith to seek the gold, white clothes [righteousness by faith] and eye salve that will allow us to become part of this nameless and hidden church. It is a church that hides conveniently in the description of the supposedly Seventh and final church.
Note these important words, "I wish you were either one or the other [hot or cold.] Rev. 3:15 (NIV) Only in moving toward one of these two options can the Laodicean church leave its lukewarm state. Once it's fully conscious of its cold state, then perhaps the possibility of future heat can transform it, or it might also be that when once it crosses over into a cold state, it has effectively sealed its fate because it no longer makes any pretense of being even spiritually warm or, as it says of itself, "I am rich . . . and do not need a thing. Rev. 3:17 (NIV) This almost sounds like a pre-condition to becoming spiritually cold.
Since the first church, the Apostolic church, was a hot church, and since hot is the desired and positive outcome that the Amen wishes for the Laodiceans, then clearly the Laodicean church because of its steady-state lukewarm condition cannot be the last church because it would then cease to be identifiably lukewarm and would have evolved into a post-Laodicean church.
Without mentioning it by name, the words "I wish you were either one or the other [hot or cold] Rev. 3:15 (NIV,) infer the theoretical existence of a post-Laodicean church, in effect an Eighth church. Yes the number seven in the bible symbolizes completeness and you might argue that the seventh church is therefore the last one, however, the identifying characteristic of the Laodicean church is lukewarmness which does not sound like an ideal state. The wishing that this supposedly last church were either hot [desirable] or cold [undesirable but complete in its total rejection of grace] infers the return to the spiritual heat of the first church, the apostolic one. The last and ideal church would have to be like the first and ideal church. The cycle has to come full circle.
It would have been unwise to explicitly mention the Eighth church by name. Anyone identifying with it would be guilty of self-pride that he or she were part of the Eighth and ideal neo-apostolic church. By not mentioning it, it leaves the door open for its virtual existence when it finally comes into being. However, the difference being that no one who is part of the Eighth church will ever realize that he or she is, in fact, part of such an ideal and final church. Members of that church will continue thinking that they have the imperfections of the Laodicean church with its need to buy gold, white clothes and salve to put on their eyes. The silence of the name not being spelled out, or of a corresponding city being designated for this Eighth church allows it to be applied to all believers who are honest enough to realize that they are lukewarm and are in need of the Amen's saving gifts.
Identifying oneself with the lukewarm and vain Laodicean church has never seemed like much of an inspiration to me. On the other hand, wishing to be part of an unspoken and hot church, a Post-Laodicean church, sounds very attractive and worth seeking out with all the intensity that such a goal deserves.
May this Eighth church, which will remain nameless and virtual in its actual manifestation, be part of your life and mine. Or, rather, may we have the faith to seek the gold, white clothes [righteousness by faith] and eye salve that will allow us to become part of this nameless and hidden church. It is a church that hides conveniently in the description of the supposedly Seventh and final church.
Monday, December 24, 2007
God and free will, part 2
Since God is truly a free being is it possible that in the same way that he was free to give the moral law, the 10 commandments and other laws associated with them, he could also take them away, or at least some of them? Yes the bible says that God does not change. The bible also says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
But if it is impossible for God to undo a law that he gave on Mt. Sinai, i.e., the 10 commandments or any part of them, is he then not free? Is he forever bound by his own inherent goodness and resoluteness of purpose in having given those 10 commandments?
Of course, most if not all, of those commandments are an expression of himself. It is said that God is love. I, personally, wouldn't want "thou shalt not kill" or honor thy father and thy mother . . ." to ever be done away with. But could not God, if he wasn't feeling so "jealous" as the bible says he was in giving the commandment about not having "other gods before [him]", decide well, he would prefer that the creatures he created only worshipped him, but if they wanted to worship other gods, for whatever reason, then they have been given free will, and could possibly worship other gods as long as they did not harm each other or themselves? Of course, this is only hypothetical. In ancient Israel, and in modern applications of the command against idolatry, there is more to worshipping idols than bowing down and focusing your fondest thoughts on graven images, etc. There were the orgies and such that probably was the main, though not the only, alluring aspect of idolatry, then and now.
The commandment about the day of rest is another one that, theoretically, he could decide, well, six thousand years ago that one day was set aside to commemorate either creation or freedom from slavery, but if those he had created wanted to worship him on another day, or--not worship him on any given day, then what would be so universe-shattering about that? Does not a mother have at some point to let go of her child, and the child let go of his/her mother as they both get on with the essence of living their lives?
I've always thought that to be required to obey God in order to not be destroyed doesn't sound like freedom of choice. If there were a third option, as long as it did not harm either God or others he created, then one could say that one truly had freedom of choice. If one could truly choose or not choose to obey God, but would still be free to live out your life as freely as one chose to do so, wouldn't that be true freedom of choice?
Or imagine the ultimate freedom of choice of being able to decide to follow God or not follow God and still live forever? Such an option would have to have some fail safe mechanism in place to provide free beings who live outside of God's system the impossibility of interfering with those who did choose to live within God's way. But then, that wouldn't be true free will, would it?
Of course, since God is God, he could very well state that in order to live forever you had to do it his way. God has to be in control somehow. After all, he created the cosmos to begin with. He could also choose at any moment to uncreate it. But if he did that, he wouldn't be a loving God, would he?
Is God free to change his mind regarding some things? Or is he forever bound to go along with statutes or commands or decisions that he outlined thousands or millions of years ago?
But if it is impossible for God to undo a law that he gave on Mt. Sinai, i.e., the 10 commandments or any part of them, is he then not free? Is he forever bound by his own inherent goodness and resoluteness of purpose in having given those 10 commandments?
Of course, most if not all, of those commandments are an expression of himself. It is said that God is love. I, personally, wouldn't want "thou shalt not kill" or honor thy father and thy mother . . ." to ever be done away with. But could not God, if he wasn't feeling so "jealous" as the bible says he was in giving the commandment about not having "other gods before [him]", decide well, he would prefer that the creatures he created only worshipped him, but if they wanted to worship other gods, for whatever reason, then they have been given free will, and could possibly worship other gods as long as they did not harm each other or themselves? Of course, this is only hypothetical. In ancient Israel, and in modern applications of the command against idolatry, there is more to worshipping idols than bowing down and focusing your fondest thoughts on graven images, etc. There were the orgies and such that probably was the main, though not the only, alluring aspect of idolatry, then and now.
The commandment about the day of rest is another one that, theoretically, he could decide, well, six thousand years ago that one day was set aside to commemorate either creation or freedom from slavery, but if those he had created wanted to worship him on another day, or--not worship him on any given day, then what would be so universe-shattering about that? Does not a mother have at some point to let go of her child, and the child let go of his/her mother as they both get on with the essence of living their lives?
I've always thought that to be required to obey God in order to not be destroyed doesn't sound like freedom of choice. If there were a third option, as long as it did not harm either God or others he created, then one could say that one truly had freedom of choice. If one could truly choose or not choose to obey God, but would still be free to live out your life as freely as one chose to do so, wouldn't that be true freedom of choice?
Or imagine the ultimate freedom of choice of being able to decide to follow God or not follow God and still live forever? Such an option would have to have some fail safe mechanism in place to provide free beings who live outside of God's system the impossibility of interfering with those who did choose to live within God's way. But then, that wouldn't be true free will, would it?
Of course, since God is God, he could very well state that in order to live forever you had to do it his way. God has to be in control somehow. After all, he created the cosmos to begin with. He could also choose at any moment to uncreate it. But if he did that, he wouldn't be a loving God, would he?
Is God free to change his mind regarding some things? Or is he forever bound to go along with statutes or commands or decisions that he outlined thousands or millions of years ago?
Does God have Free Will?
God gave us humans free will. For that we are grateful. We'd never have known that we didn't have it had we been created to do only what he wanted us to do.
As I sat in Sabbath School this past Sabbath the thought just popped into my mind. Does God have free will like we have free will? The thought startled me. I was even more concerned when the following text came to mind: "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. . . Genesis 3:22. Now this probably means that God learned about evil, not from first hand experience, like Adam and Eve learned about it, but by being acquainted with Lucifer and his originating of the concept of evil.
Now, of course, I wouldn't want to suggest that God is capable of evil if he wanted to, being a free moral being that he is. But then I thought that since he is good because he is God and can only be good and never evil, then we are more free than he is by being able to choose good or evil. Of course, having chosen the latter, as it turns out, is not so pleasant, after all.
If you don't use the bible as your yardstick for matters of good and evil--bear with me for a bit---then an objective observer might think that God in wanting to destroy all he had made because humanity had turned to evil--except for Noah and his family--was less than good. Also, a very clinical observer might think these humans, although evil, were the work of God's hand. How could he be good if he wanted to destroy them all because he had regrets for having created them in the first place?
Now a subjective reaction to this might be that since God created humanity in the first place, he had every right to destroy it just as a potter has a right to reshape a pound of clay into something more perfect. Of course, the potter could also decide after he had finished the jar or glass vase, or whatever other work of non-living art, that it was imperfect and though he loved it a bit, it was better to destroy it and start again. After all does not the artist or the potter have every right to do what he wants with something he creates?
I read a while ago, that the Jews at one time attributed all of the vicissitudes of life to God. The good with the bad. The verse from Job, "the lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord" addresses this issue somewhat. Later on, Jewish thought attributed the bad things in life to Satan (the accuser) and the good things in life to God only.
Do we attribute only good qualities to God because that's what we would prefer him to have? Of course, there's the matter of violation of his law and the need to punish the guilty which most religious people feel that God is justified in doing.
These issues suggest, to me at least, that matters involving free choice and good and evil are more complex than many people facilely state they are.
As I sat in Sabbath School this past Sabbath the thought just popped into my mind. Does God have free will like we have free will? The thought startled me. I was even more concerned when the following text came to mind: "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. . . Genesis 3:22. Now this probably means that God learned about evil, not from first hand experience, like Adam and Eve learned about it, but by being acquainted with Lucifer and his originating of the concept of evil.
Now, of course, I wouldn't want to suggest that God is capable of evil if he wanted to, being a free moral being that he is. But then I thought that since he is good because he is God and can only be good and never evil, then we are more free than he is by being able to choose good or evil. Of course, having chosen the latter, as it turns out, is not so pleasant, after all.
If you don't use the bible as your yardstick for matters of good and evil--bear with me for a bit---then an objective observer might think that God in wanting to destroy all he had made because humanity had turned to evil--except for Noah and his family--was less than good. Also, a very clinical observer might think these humans, although evil, were the work of God's hand. How could he be good if he wanted to destroy them all because he had regrets for having created them in the first place?
Now a subjective reaction to this might be that since God created humanity in the first place, he had every right to destroy it just as a potter has a right to reshape a pound of clay into something more perfect. Of course, the potter could also decide after he had finished the jar or glass vase, or whatever other work of non-living art, that it was imperfect and though he loved it a bit, it was better to destroy it and start again. After all does not the artist or the potter have every right to do what he wants with something he creates?
I read a while ago, that the Jews at one time attributed all of the vicissitudes of life to God. The good with the bad. The verse from Job, "the lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord" addresses this issue somewhat. Later on, Jewish thought attributed the bad things in life to Satan (the accuser) and the good things in life to God only.
Do we attribute only good qualities to God because that's what we would prefer him to have? Of course, there's the matter of violation of his law and the need to punish the guilty which most religious people feel that God is justified in doing.
These issues suggest, to me at least, that matters involving free choice and good and evil are more complex than many people facilely state they are.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Minimizing Evil
One really must have been given the gift of love for God and faith in God in a world that's full of evil. Without that prior gift, it is well nigh impossible or unlikely that anyone would have those attitudes. Not everyone receives that gift or can live with it successfully once it's given.
Of course, you can also focus on the beauty and goodness in the world and it will partially negate the evil that is also present. Not all of life is evil unless we only focus on that side of it. Those of us who believe in God, in spite of the imperfections of living in an evil world, must really want to or need to continue believing in God regardless of the things we see and hear.
Some people would say either there is no God and all this evil is a mystery which humanity is partially responsible for. Or they would say that there is a God and he allows the evil to continue when he could very well stop it tomorrow. Or they would say that he might want to stop the evil, but is not able to do so.
Perhaps that's why some churches are full of people who want to reassure each other that in spite of the evil in life, past and present, it's still okay to believe in God and to believe that he wants the best for us at all times.
Regarding the Bible, I'm finding that I have to focus more and more on the positive parts of the Bible, the promises of hope and love while at the same time not dwelling on the negative and, sometimes unpleasant passages one sometimes comes across.
Of course, you can also focus on the beauty and goodness in the world and it will partially negate the evil that is also present. Not all of life is evil unless we only focus on that side of it. Those of us who believe in God, in spite of the imperfections of living in an evil world, must really want to or need to continue believing in God regardless of the things we see and hear.
Some people would say either there is no God and all this evil is a mystery which humanity is partially responsible for. Or they would say that there is a God and he allows the evil to continue when he could very well stop it tomorrow. Or they would say that he might want to stop the evil, but is not able to do so.
Perhaps that's why some churches are full of people who want to reassure each other that in spite of the evil in life, past and present, it's still okay to believe in God and to believe that he wants the best for us at all times.
Regarding the Bible, I'm finding that I have to focus more and more on the positive parts of the Bible, the promises of hope and love while at the same time not dwelling on the negative and, sometimes unpleasant passages one sometimes comes across.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Foreknowledge of God
The Open View of God might partially explain the mystery of sin and Satan. God is an optimist by nature, otherwise why create something to begin with if he didn't think it would turn out perfect and stay perfect. A perfect being, by definition, is only capable of optimism.
Can you imagine a being who knows everything that will ever occur? There are no surprises. He knows everything he will ever do and create and what will happen to his creation. God created the universe with the best of optimistic intentions. God had no idea when he created Lucifer that a ghastly creature like Satan would eventually emerge from Lucifer's free will and cause so much anti-perfection for millions (or thousands) of years. Otherwise why be partially responsible for such horror and evil?
If father or mother Hitler had received convincing proof from a time traveler that their little Adolf would murder so many innocent people, would they go ahead and play a role in allowing him to be born? They went ahead because they had no idea, of course. They hoped for the best and waited to see what would become of their little boy.
God, likewise, created Lucifer and his confederates, as well as humanity, with the best of intentions, hoping against hope that we'd all turn out as perfect as he would have liked for us all to have turned out.
Perhaps that's why he sent himself in the form of Christ, because in being partially responsible for allowing us to get into this mess as he was, he got himself into this mess as well, as one of us, to bare the brunt for having created us in the first place and to help us get out of it and return us to that hoped-for perfection he wished we all had chosen for ourselves all along. Think of the pain he's in to see how we all have suffered and continue to suffer. God wants this all to end as much as we do, otherwise he'd already have ended it for all concerned.
That, my friends, sounds like a responsible and sacrificing God and parent.
Can you imagine a being who knows everything that will ever occur? There are no surprises. He knows everything he will ever do and create and what will happen to his creation. God created the universe with the best of optimistic intentions. God had no idea when he created Lucifer that a ghastly creature like Satan would eventually emerge from Lucifer's free will and cause so much anti-perfection for millions (or thousands) of years. Otherwise why be partially responsible for such horror and evil?
If father or mother Hitler had received convincing proof from a time traveler that their little Adolf would murder so many innocent people, would they go ahead and play a role in allowing him to be born? They went ahead because they had no idea, of course. They hoped for the best and waited to see what would become of their little boy.
God, likewise, created Lucifer and his confederates, as well as humanity, with the best of intentions, hoping against hope that we'd all turn out as perfect as he would have liked for us all to have turned out.
Perhaps that's why he sent himself in the form of Christ, because in being partially responsible for allowing us to get into this mess as he was, he got himself into this mess as well, as one of us, to bare the brunt for having created us in the first place and to help us get out of it and return us to that hoped-for perfection he wished we all had chosen for ourselves all along. Think of the pain he's in to see how we all have suffered and continue to suffer. God wants this all to end as much as we do, otherwise he'd already have ended it for all concerned.
That, my friends, sounds like a responsible and sacrificing God and parent.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Reverse Promises of the Bible
The Bible is full of promises. Some of them have a negative component while others are partially positive and partially negative, like the following promise:
". . . no good thing does he [the Lord God] withhold from those whose walk is blameless." Psalms 84:11 (NIV)
Currently there is much talk and many books written about focusing only on the positive. One of the main tenets of this positive thinking system is that if you focus on not committing some unwanted behavior, by focusing on what you don't want, you eventually get just that, what you don't want.
The above text promises blessings and encourages moral living, but it does so by dealing in negatives. Note especially the double negative of "no good thing" and "withhold," as well as appeal to a state that is free from blame, which in itself is a negative concept.
The purely positive version of this excellent promise might be something like "the Lord will bless you beyond your wildest imagination if you live a moral life." The important thing to keep in mind is that without the forgiving love (grace) of God, no one can live a moral life.
The full prayer might be "Lord, enable me to live a moral life by your transforming grace and continue to bless me greatly in my life."
". . . no good thing does he [the Lord God] withhold from those whose walk is blameless." Psalms 84:11 (NIV)
Currently there is much talk and many books written about focusing only on the positive. One of the main tenets of this positive thinking system is that if you focus on not committing some unwanted behavior, by focusing on what you don't want, you eventually get just that, what you don't want.
The above text promises blessings and encourages moral living, but it does so by dealing in negatives. Note especially the double negative of "no good thing" and "withhold," as well as appeal to a state that is free from blame, which in itself is a negative concept.
The purely positive version of this excellent promise might be something like "the Lord will bless you beyond your wildest imagination if you live a moral life." The important thing to keep in mind is that without the forgiving love (grace) of God, no one can live a moral life.
The full prayer might be "Lord, enable me to live a moral life by your transforming grace and continue to bless me greatly in my life."
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Mysteries of Perfect Fire
River of Fire, Lake of Fire, Sea of Glass Mingled with Fire
“… The ancient of Days took his seat. … His throne was flaming with fire. … A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him.” – Daniel 7:9,10 (NIV)
After I read these texts my mind suddenly started visualizing this scene. I had not planned to do this. It almost started automatically. In a way, I was lost in a trance, though a somewhat conscious one. It’s intriguing when moments like this happen.
Lest I forget, let me mention that I had in mind concurrently the other bodies of fire that apocalyptic literature mentions, i.e., the Sea of glass mingled with fire, the Lake of fire in which death and Hades are destroyed. I’ve thought more and more that all of these fiery bodies of water or energy, whether river, sea or lake, are different manifestations of the same reality: God’s presence or his very essence and nature. The text comes to mind, “Our God is a consuming fire.”
As I envisioned the river of fire I thought of the large rivers I’ve seen during my life whether in the United States or in Europe. I saw this river of fire that comes out from before him [the Ancient of Days] as wide and as long as the rivers I had seen. For some reason I didn’t think that this river ever ended.
Since God’s throne will one day be on the new earth as it is now in heaven, I thought that the river of fire encircled the entire globe and ended where it had begun, God’s throne and God, himself.
The book of Revelation says that the new earth will have no need of the sun because God’s presence will provide light enough for its inhabitants. Since the river of fire encircled the globe from east to west, I thought of an extension or continuation of the same river flowing out from God’s presence but going north to south to compliment the river of f
ire that flows east to west.
I thought of the dwellers of the new earth living in homes along both east-west or north-south axes along the river of fire, to stay close to the light and thus to God’s presence.
I also thought of the light and of the awe-inspiring scene of God’s flaming and glorious throne at the nexus of both the east-west and the north-south rivers of fire.
The Bible speaks of God dwelling in unapproachable light. These wide and globe-encircling rivers of fire would certainly prevent anyone or anything from getting too close to the light of God’s presence.
I thought of the fate of the unrepentant. It is possible that they will, in fact, be near these rivers of fire. As moths would do when delighted with an incandescent light bulb, the unrepentant will run into the fire, or light, and will destroy themselves. In this way it will be said that the unrepentant ran to their own destruction by running headlong into the lake or river of fire.
Perhaps the tranquil sea of glass mingled with fire will be what comes into being after the unrepentant have run, of their own choice, into the Lake of fire.
The source of their being was God and in their final moments it was to that same source of life that they returned of their own free will. However, not having accepted Christ’s robes of righteousness, they were not able to stand in the presence of God and live.
God didn’t cause them to run into the Lake or River of fire. He merely allowed them to finalize their own self-destruction. Perhaps their own stubbornness resulted in what common sense would tell them was an unwise course of action—running into a lake or river of fire.
In spite of their physical bodies being destroyed by their own conscious action, might not their minds be preserved at least in God’s memories? An earthly parent who’s
watched the execution of their child because of crimes against the state does not stop loving and does not forget the memory of their evil and perhaps unrepentant child. How could they? That child was the fruit of their bodies and dreams, however frustrated those dreams turned out.
Throughout eternity God will always remember each life or soul (mind) that he created, even the ones that ran to their own self-destruction in the Lake or River of fire. Such is the price, or nature, of perfect love. It does not end, even in the face of the death of those it loves.
“… The ancient of Days took his seat. … His throne was flaming with fire. … A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him.” – Daniel 7:9,10 (NIV)
After I read these texts my mind suddenly started visualizing this scene. I had not planned to do this. It almost started automatically. In a way, I was lost in a trance, though a somewhat conscious one. It’s intriguing when moments like this happen.
Lest I forget, let me mention that I had in mind concurrently the other bodies of fire that apocalyptic literature mentions, i.e., the Sea of glass mingled with fire, the Lake of fire in which death and Hades are destroyed. I’ve thought more and more that all of these fiery bodies of water or energy, whether river, sea or lake, are different manifestations of the same reality: God’s presence or his very essence and nature. The text comes to mind, “Our God is a consuming fire.”
As I envisioned the river of fire I thought of the large rivers I’ve seen during my life whether in the United States or in Europe. I saw this river of fire that comes out from before him [the Ancient of Days] as wide and as long as the rivers I had seen. For some reason I didn’t think that this river ever ended.
Since God’s throne will one day be on the new earth as it is now in heaven, I thought that the river of fire encircled the entire globe and ended where it had begun, God’s throne and God, himself.
The book of Revelation says that the new earth will have no need of the sun because God’s presence will provide light enough for its inhabitants. Since the river of fire encircled the globe from east to west, I thought of an extension or continuation of the same river flowing out from God’s presence but going north to south to compliment the river of f
ire that flows east to west.I thought of the dwellers of the new earth living in homes along both east-west or north-south axes along the river of fire, to stay close to the light and thus to God’s presence.
I also thought of the light and of the awe-inspiring scene of God’s flaming and glorious throne at the nexus of both the east-west and the north-south rivers of fire.
The Bible speaks of God dwelling in unapproachable light. These wide and globe-encircling rivers of fire would certainly prevent anyone or anything from getting too close to the light of God’s presence.
I thought of the fate of the unrepentant. It is possible that they will, in fact, be near these rivers of fire. As moths would do when delighted with an incandescent light bulb, the unrepentant will run into the fire, or light, and will destroy themselves. In this way it will be said that the unrepentant ran to their own destruction by running headlong into the lake or river of fire.
Perhaps the tranquil sea of glass mingled with fire will be what comes into being after the unrepentant have run, of their own choice, into the Lake of fire.
The source of their being was God and in their final moments it was to that same source of life that they returned of their own free will. However, not having accepted Christ’s robes of righteousness, they were not able to stand in the presence of God and live.
God didn’t cause them to run into the Lake or River of fire. He merely allowed them to finalize their own self-destruction. Perhaps their own stubbornness resulted in what common sense would tell them was an unwise course of action—running into a lake or river of fire.
In spite of their physical bodies being destroyed by their own conscious action, might not their minds be preserved at least in God’s memories? An earthly parent who’s
watched the execution of their child because of crimes against the state does not stop loving and does not forget the memory of their evil and perhaps unrepentant child. How could they? That child was the fruit of their bodies and dreams, however frustrated those dreams turned out.Throughout eternity God will always remember each life or soul (mind) that he created, even the ones that ran to their own self-destruction in the Lake or River of fire. Such is the price, or nature, of perfect love. It does not end, even in the face of the death of those it loves.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Beyond Christianity
... Seek and you will find. ... For ... he who seeks finds; Matthew 7:7,8 (NIV)
As good as Christianity and the Bible are, for years I've thought that so much depends on what you bring to both that makes a world of difference. Not only what you bring to the Christian life and the reading of the Bible from your past, but also what you keep on bringing or adding to your life as you willingly continue adding to your perception of them.
For example, if you never experienced a lot or any affection from either o
ne of your parents, you might have a hard time relating to how God the Father is like a loving father or parent. Luckily the marriage relationship, it is said, can also substitute, when one lacks a parent of either sex, to give one a close proximity of the fullness and richness of a relationship with God. For those who lack all the above, the concept of God, no matter how wonderful it is portrayed in the Bible, must either be pretty meaningless, since it has no human model to compare it to, or one has to take it on faith, that such great, perfect love exits some where by a perfect being who also directs all of that love towards you, the penitent believer. Of course, a really good friend might substitute for a lack of a parent of either sex, or a life partner, as someone to help you undertand God, your ultimate Friend.
Getting back to the previous matter of what one continues adding to Christi
anity, I was delighted to come across an article in the New York Times this week about positive pscychology. Of course, the approach or asides in describing one's journey toward experiencing "flow" may potentially conflict with the Christian life (sex, drugs and chocolate as ways of tapping into this marvelous "flow", the writer keeps alluding to.) I myself would substitute music, poetry and film as safer alternatives to lead one to this "flow" that's so essential. Nevertheless, there is so much positivity and hopeful solutions to the problems that confront us, whether Christian or non-Christian, that I was grateful to find yet another field of study to use in order to enhance my life and make it all that it can be.
It's a shame that Christianity, the Bible, and the Spirit of Prophecy are not all you need in order to enjoy life to the fullest. One was always told that if you had access to these fountains of blessings, everything else didn't matter. Things would take care of themselves. You need not look further. You had found all the answers you ever would be in need of. U
nfortunately for some if not all, there are obstacles sometimes and one needs approaches to life that ensure that one can avail oneself effectively of these three enriching and "spiritual" means to a meaningful, happy and eternal life.
One often needs something else. One needs to be reminded over and over again that one needs this "something else." One needs other positive agents or influences that enable one to renew one's inner vision. But of course, the Bible properly experienced, is a source of infinite blessing for it points beyond anything a finite or ephemeral solution such as art or learning of any kind can provide.
As good as Christianity and the Bible are, for years I've thought that so much depends on what you bring to both that makes a world of difference. Not only what you bring to the Christian life and the reading of the Bible from your past, but also what you keep on bringing or adding to your life as you willingly continue adding to your perception of them.
For example, if you never experienced a lot or any affection from either o
ne of your parents, you might have a hard time relating to how God the Father is like a loving father or parent. Luckily the marriage relationship, it is said, can also substitute, when one lacks a parent of either sex, to give one a close proximity of the fullness and richness of a relationship with God. For those who lack all the above, the concept of God, no matter how wonderful it is portrayed in the Bible, must either be pretty meaningless, since it has no human model to compare it to, or one has to take it on faith, that such great, perfect love exits some where by a perfect being who also directs all of that love towards you, the penitent believer. Of course, a really good friend might substitute for a lack of a parent of either sex, or a life partner, as someone to help you undertand God, your ultimate Friend.Getting back to the previous matter of what one continues adding to Christi
anity, I was delighted to come across an article in the New York Times this week about positive pscychology. Of course, the approach or asides in describing one's journey toward experiencing "flow" may potentially conflict with the Christian life (sex, drugs and chocolate as ways of tapping into this marvelous "flow", the writer keeps alluding to.) I myself would substitute music, poetry and film as safer alternatives to lead one to this "flow" that's so essential. Nevertheless, there is so much positivity and hopeful solutions to the problems that confront us, whether Christian or non-Christian, that I was grateful to find yet another field of study to use in order to enhance my life and make it all that it can be.It's a shame that Christianity, the Bible, and the Spirit of Prophecy are not all you need in order to enjoy life to the fullest. One was always told that if you had access to these fountains of blessings, everything else didn't matter. Things would take care of themselves. You need not look further. You had found all the answers you ever would be in need of. U
nfortunately for some if not all, there are obstacles sometimes and one needs approaches to life that ensure that one can avail oneself effectively of these three enriching and "spiritual" means to a meaningful, happy and eternal life.One often needs something else. One needs to be reminded over and over again that one needs this "something else." One needs other positive agents or influences that enable one to renew one's inner vision. But of course, the Bible properly experienced, is a source of infinite blessing for it points beyond anything a finite or ephemeral solution such as art or learning of any kind can provide.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Instead of evolution: faith
“… Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful." 2 Chronicles 20:20 (New International Version)
I pray daily that God strengthen my faith in the inspiration of the Bible, especially the book of Genesis. I have to choose consciously to continue believing that God exists, that the Bible is the Word of God and not the Word of wise men. I have to want to continue believing. Sometimes the only proof that God exists is how he’s changed my life and continues to change my life from the self-centered and vain existence I’ve lived on and off for most of my post-childhood experience.
Sometimes in my moments of doubt, or low-brow intellectual posturing, I have to fight against the nagging suggestion that Moses is the only one responsible for the entire book of Genesis. What I mean is, in weaker moments I’ve wondered if this ancient genius, who was a byproduct of an advanced civilization, Egypt, didn’t himself synthesize much or all of Genesis from his great education, as well as his original mind.
If this were the case, it explains much of the supposed problems with the
two creation accounts, the beginning of sin, and why we are here. It also, of course, creates other problems: if we’re alone in the universe, then it’s up to us and no one else to solve all or some of the problems we’ve inherited and which we’ve created. If humankind fails and blows up planet earth some day, and if it turns out, we were the only intelligent life in the universe to begin with, then how pointless it all would have been. We evolved from single-celled organisms. We lived, we loved, and we died as a species. Perhaps somewhere else in the universe, the miracle of life would come into miraculous existence again. Or perhaps, after the Big Crunch, there would be a new Big Bang and the entire miracle of life just might happen again? Or perhaps we’re only one in an infinite number of universes. Perhaps somewhere in one or more of those other universes there are intelligent beings or will 
someday be intelligent beings who will ask the same questions we’re asking now.
I personally hope and pray that Moses didn’t originate the Torah all by himself and in effect --because of a need to create a new system of thought and culture-- the entire Judaeo-Christian belief system that has been handed down to us. I hope instead that God gave Moses all or the more essential elements of the Torah. Perhaps faith is really about not believing what you'd like to believe, but what you need to believe in order to live a meaningful life.
I pray daily that God strengthen my faith in the inspiration of the Bible, especially the book of Genesis. I have to choose consciously to continue believing that God exists, that the Bible is the Word of God and not the Word of wise men. I have to want to continue believing. Sometimes the only proof that God exists is how he’s changed my life and continues to change my life from the self-centered and vain existence I’ve lived on and off for most of my post-childhood experience.Sometimes in my moments of doubt, or low-brow intellectual posturing, I have to fight against the nagging suggestion that Moses is the only one responsible for the entire book of Genesis. What I mean is, in weaker moments I’ve wondered if this ancient genius, who was a byproduct of an advanced civilization, Egypt, didn’t himself synthesize much or all of Genesis from his great education, as well as his original mind.
If this were the case, it explains much of the supposed problems with the
two creation accounts, the beginning of sin, and why we are here. It also, of course, creates other problems: if we’re alone in the universe, then it’s up to us and no one else to solve all or some of the problems we’ve inherited and which we’ve created. If humankind fails and blows up planet earth some day, and if it turns out, we were the only intelligent life in the universe to begin with, then how pointless it all would have been. We evolved from single-celled organisms. We lived, we loved, and we died as a species. Perhaps somewhere else in the universe, the miracle of life would come into miraculous existence again. Or perhaps, after the Big Crunch, there would be a new Big Bang and the entire miracle of life just might happen again? Or perhaps we’re only one in an infinite number of universes. Perhaps somewhere in one or more of those other universes there are intelligent beings or will 
someday be intelligent beings who will ask the same questions we’re asking now.I personally hope and pray that Moses didn’t originate the Torah all by himself and in effect --because of a need to create a new system of thought and culture-- the entire Judaeo-Christian belief system that has been handed down to us. I hope instead that God gave Moses all or the more essential elements of the Torah. Perhaps faith is really about not believing what you'd like to believe, but what you need to believe in order to live a meaningful life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
