Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (33872)	11/4/2002 1:08:29 PM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 39621

Hello E It's not really a matter of "picking and choosing among the many, and not always consistent, characterizations of God to be found in the Old and New Testaments." Surely someone like yourself, who holds justice in such high esteem, (as evidenced by your involvement in A.I.) would grant that if God existed, then that existent God must be a just God? If you grant that, then what is the problem with executing that justice? Additionally even Lowell"s poem harks back to the time before the "fall" of man, clearly implying innocence. Of course the question that immediately arises is, innocent of what? God's essential character is Holiness. That includes not just the connotation of moral perfection, but also the idea of otherness. When we put Humanity beside God, and that tune from Sesame Street "One of these things is not like the other" starts playing, it would be a mistake to think that God must conform to our ideas of morality. It is we who are out of line with the standard not God. We are but creatures, He is the Creator. In fact, rather than being "arbitrary" God's holiness is simply a refection of His character, His essential nature. It is not imposed on Him from some outside source, it is simply who He is. So asking the question in another way; guilty of what? The answer is, guilty of transgressing God's Law which is regulated by the fixed standard of His character, and by definition, is not arbitrary. Adam chose to sin, knowing before hand what the consequence of that choice would entail, and he, not God, brought death and decay into the world and passed that world on to us. God "owes" this world squat, but then another part of His character, that of His mercy, allowed Him provide a remedy for our transgression, He became a man, lived a sinless life, and then laid that life down as a propitiation, or satisfaction for the requirement of His own justice. If God had simply waved a wand and said we were forgiven, He would have violated His own character, and God would not be God. Once His justice is satisfied He is free to give Grace to whomever He wants without violating or contradicting His nature. More to the point of your original post, "Children" can be used in differing senses and I believe if you examine the context of that passage you will see that children is used in the sense of disciples or followers. In other words those who do the same types of things as their metaphorical mother. On the other hand the bible teaches that all of us are the children of Adam and have inherited the consequence of his actions. Like children who's mother took thalidomide while pregnant, we suffer from the sin of Adam. While children have not yet ratified that sin, they would if they could, and they do as soon as they can. This of course is the idea of "original sin" and is perhaps at the same time, the most strongly objectionable, yet most easily demonstrable doctrine in the Bible. We all stand guilty before a holy and just God, but we can also avail ourselves of His mercy and grace if we will but confess our estate and turn from it to the only one who paid the debt that we could never pay. I'll leave it at that for now, and I look forward to hearing from you again. Greg