Endless Pet Doctrines

[VictoryinJesus]

ignoring can be love i guess, ya. Although it is artfully written, and i guess artfully done, Jesus quite often contradicted and ignored ppl who had bad info or whatever, just like happens here every day. Now imo "he's not dead, he's just asleep" has other meanings, but regardless, we get an illustration there. I'd like to tie in @VictoryinJesus' wonder about...how one knows, um, stuff, say which path to take, which decision to make, but i have no idea why that came up here yet, so lemme marinate on that one. How can you reliably ignore someone, might be what i'm trying for there

The question may be: why did Jesus ignore some? This is just my understanding but, it appears, He always ignored for the other person. Jesus never needed to be right or fight to be right before men, so often He held His peace... Which is love. Something to consider: We get irritated when someone speaks what we believe to be wrong and then we want to stand and defend; fight our position. We say ignoring them is for the other person, but maybe it is sometimes for us...like pouting or rolling around in our pity that the other person doesn't see eye to eye with us. This isn't the model: When Jesus ignored, it undoubtedly caused conviction in others. You can see it in the rage of those ignored that rushed forward at Him. Jesus struck deep in them what needed to be struck and brought out. Even then, He remained silent and held His peace. If it hurts us to shut our mouth toward a person, then most likely it is right; meaning we are not getting our way but denying an urge of the flesh, considering the other person in silence before God.

 

[brakelite]

"Eternal cost?"

When the Son of God took on human flesh, He didn't do so with any intent of rescinding the humiliation. He will always be a man. What that cost in power, and other divine attributes we may never know, but when He became a man Jesus had to rely on His Father to do the works and miracles that revealed the love of God to mankind and when all His enemies are made subject to Him, then the kingdom is given back to the Father and the Son will be eternally subject to the Father...as we are. That is a cost we will never understand, that come-down was inestimable.

 

[brakelite]

A Gardener is not really fitting that characterization for me.

Are we not all plants in His vineyard, and are we not encouraged to welcome His pruning? Perhaps Psalm 1 could better describe us as trees, and if the church being many trees thus a forest, instead of head Gardener how about Head Ranger?
But in the context of Genesis we are told that God planted a garden eastward in Eden. I tend to take scripture literally unless there is a compelling reason not to.

 

[bbyrd009]

When the Son of God took on human flesh, He didn't do so with any intent of rescinding the humiliation. He will always be a man. What that cost in power, and other divine attributes we may never know, but when He became a man Jesus had to rely on His Father to do the works and miracles that revealed the love of God to mankind and when all His enemies are made subject to Him, then the kingdom is given back to the Father and the Son will be eternally subject to the Father...as we are. That is a cost we will never understand, that come-down was inestimable.

imo it seems to me that the fact that They are "One" is not being taken into acct here wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

Are we not all plants in His vineyard, and are we not encouraged to welcome His pruning?

ezackly; and when is the last time you saw a gardener crying or in any anguish over a pruning?

 

[bbyrd009]

The question may be: why did Jesus ignore some? This is just my understanding but, it appears, He always ignored for the other person. Jesus never needed to be right or fight to be right before men, so often He held His peace... Which is love. Something to consider: We get irritated when someone speaks what we believe to be wrong and then we want to stand and defend; fight our position. We say ignoring them is for the other person, but maybe it is sometimes for us...like pouting or rolling around in our pity that the other person doesn't see eye to eye with us. This isn't the model: When Jesus ignored, it undoubtedly caused conviction in others. You can see it in the rage of those ignored that rushed forward at Him. Jesus struck deep in them what needed to be struck and brought out. Even then, He remained silent and held His peace. If it hurts us to shut our mouth toward a person, then most likely it is right; meaning we are not getting our way but denying an urge of the flesh, considering the other person in silence before God.

ha ya, i knew you din't need any help there anyway lol
good stuff :)

 

[VictoryinJesus]

ha ya, i knew you din't need any help there anyway lol
good stuff :)

It is easier to write then to live. Yes, I need help. This love and trust is difficult all around. Where I see struggle the most in my own life is when my husband walks off and goes upstairs to sleep. For him the conversation is over. I’m left up stewing in a pit of boiling anger, hurt and rejection. For most of our marriage I end up racing upstairs after him, determined to force another to see eye to eye with me. It hurts not to have that last word of proving a point. It hurts to just let it be. The light goes on and I start demanding and sometimes cussing until I provoke a response. I hate it. It’s ugly. It does nothing. It produces nothing. The urge is incredible but, by the grace of God, I've witnessed you can’t force someone to agree. At home. In life. Or on here. If it is important to me, I’ve learned to (try) to sit in the silence and ask God to change the area where there is conflict. Maybe the conflict is in me. Maybe in the other person. But yeah, I struggle with love.

 

[bbyrd009]

It hurts to just let it be.

ya, i guess at first, but then no one is ever going to believe just like you do anyway, and in truth whatever way you skin the cat there will be advantages and disadvantages both i guess, so it becomes a matter of priorities, what is more important than what in a given scenario, something like that. In the case of a husband/wife with different priorities i would suggest role reversal, but i'm pretty sure your hubby is not going to like that prolly, as imo it was invented by a girl to make a very good point, and i'm biased here :)

but i'm thinking of like how some chore or project should be done, so i might not even be in the right ballfield here lol

 

[bbyrd009]

I've witnessed you can’t force someone to agree.

Prohibition is great! for producing more consumption lol

actually guiding them to disagree with the opposite is often the better path there tho i guess, ya
Scripture does this a lot, this thing that we are talking about that doesn't quite have a name...reverse psychology, maybe
i'll have to think of a passage tho

 

[bbyrd009]

He will always be a man.

but when He became a man

can you resolve this one pls, still pondering this post, ty

 

[bbyrd009]

If it hurts us to shut our mouth toward a person, then most likely it is right; meaning we are not getting our way but denying an urge of the flesh, considering the other person in silence before God.

i'm not sure the effects that serving others often has on our...enemies will manifest a much diff feeling tbh; i would seek more witnesses in any dispute there, and be prepared to give an accounting.
But we isolate ourselves from witnesses now...so proxies could be sought i guess.
plus i am not addressing husband/wife stuff, imo they are 1.
members of his own family, hmm
ok maybe them too, sans proxies tho i guess. those 2 are s'posed to take it to God i think right
but i'd still be seeking crowd wisdom from old ladies @ teas or whatever lol
if it hurts us to say something it is most likely right too i guess
once we have abandoned having a way to get anyway

 

[Naomi25]

bc human nature, just like with your kids? which if that is too cryptic we could go into it more if you like, for example Prohibition is the best way to get ppl drinking, etc

Yes, but this would also mean that God, in his nature, is perverse, or capricious. For him to tell us one thing, but then actually mean, or want another...how could we trust a God like that? Don't you see? If his nature was like that, nothing he has told us in scripture, nothing he has promised us means anything. He could just be saying it to lead us in this particular direction, so he can yank the rug out from under us. Do you want a God like that? I don't.

also i'm not sure if "He wanted them to" is the best characterization, might be more like "He knew it was inevitable" or something; meaning "in that case this is the best path for that choice" maybe, something along those lines?

I know we've had this conversation, to an extent, before, and I'm not keen to revisit it. But I think part of the problem here is you are still trying to put human reasons and expectations and rules, on God. As smart as humans can be, they will never be able to comprehend how God can be both fully in control of history, and also, allow humankind the choice to sin. And yet, that is what he did. He did not 'want' us to rebel against him, nor did he make us.
But likewise, we cannot make out that this is just a "choose you own adventure" story to God, where he chooses the 'best choice' from the muddle humans have just tossed him.
Nor can we paint all of human history as his goal. His goal, as it always was, is to have humans glorifying him in eternity. The fact we sinned and rebelled meant he had to push off that ultimate goal, showing us grace after grace as he rescues us from ourselves.
Did he know it was coming? Of course. It did not surprise him. But if Adam and Eve hadn't of sinned, then after their time in the garden, they would have moved into eternity with God. For this dark time in human history to BE the goal of God, then he would have had to work, specifically, to make it come to be. And thus, we would be able to say that sin and evil were his fault. It is not...it is ours.

as you reflect below this i guess; down to here anyway,
God didn't seem too grieved to me wadr; "Here, have a skin in that case."

Mmm. Always flippant? Are you truly saying you know what the creator God felt at that moment? All we need to do is look at the rest of scripture to find God's heart on the matter. How can you say he does not grieve at the sins and pains his people have?

Pick up your cross and follow Me does not sound like "all on Him" to me, Naomi

Sanctification comes after justification. Justification is all God. Sanctification is largely the Spirits work that we must actively participate in.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The 'love' that we all sung about in the 60's and 70's was just that...a song. We walked around with our arms around each other singing about love..
...fun and happy years...but without lasting fruit.

with the most lasting fruit ever. Mine only started 1969. It's going for half a century next year.

Ich trage meine Minne vor Wonne stumm
im Herzen und im Sinne mit mir herum.
Ja, daß ich dich gefunden hat, du liebes Kind,
das freut mich alle Tage, die mir beschieden sind.

Und ob auch der Himmel trübe, kohlschwarz die Nacht,
hell leuchtet meiner Liebe goldsonnige Pracht.
Und lügt auch die Welt in Sünden, so tut mir's weh,
die arge muß erblinden vor deiner Unschuld Schnee
Karl Henckell

She doesn't like the language, but I love the lines, so I translated them for her in die soetste taal...

Stil verwonderd dra ek my beminde
In hart en wete met my mee,
Ja, dat ek jou gevind het, liefste kind,
Verbly my elke dag my vry gegee.

Hoe grou ookal die hemel, die nag soos kool so swart,
Helder skyn, my geliefde, jou goudsonnige prag;
Al lê die wêreld in sonde, weens jou onskuld
Verdof die toorn, en verdwyn voor jou sneeuwit krag.

 

[aspen]

The question may be: why did Jesus ignore some? This is just my understanding but, it appears, He always ignored for the other person. Jesus never needed to be right or fight to be right before men, so often He held His peace... Which is love. Something to consider: We get irritated when someone speaks what we believe to be wrong and then we want to stand and defend; fight our position. We say ignoring them is for the other person, but maybe it is sometimes for us...like pouting or rolling around in our pity that the other person doesn't see eye to eye with us. This isn't the model: When Jesus ignored, it undoubtedly caused conviction in others. You can see it in the rage of those ignored that rushed forward at Him. Jesus struck deep in them what needed to be struck and brought out. Even then, He remained silent and held His peace. If it hurts us to shut our mouth toward a person, then most likely it is right; meaning we are not getting our way but denying an urge of the flesh, considering the other person in silence before God.

I agree with your point, but there are exceptions. Racism cannot be ignored or it festers.

 

[aspen]

Naomi: Yes, but this would also mean that God, in his nature, is perverse, or capricious. For him to tell us one thing, but then actually mean, or want another...how could we trust a God like that? Don't you see? If his nature was like that, nothing he has told us in scripture, nothing he has promised us means anything. He could just be saying it to lead us in this particular direction, so he can yank the rug out from under us. Do you want a God like that? I don't.

I tend to think humans have a practice of projecting their views of themselves onto their neighbors and God. Our neighbors remind us who thet are whenever we interact with them, but our projection is tougher to address when it comes to our view of God. I think Christian mystics have it right when they talk about God in terms of negative theology - any description of God is idolatry. We cannot understand or even describe God only experience God.

Naomi: I know we've had this conversation, to an extent, before, and I'm not keen to revisit it. But I think part of the problem here is you are still trying to put human reasons and expectations and rules, on God. As smart as humans can be, they will never be able to comprehend how God can be both fully in control of history, and also, allow humankind the choice to sin. And yet, that is what he did. He did not 'want' us to rebel against him, nor did he make us.

Totally agree

Naomi: But likewise, we cannot make out that this is just a "choose you own adventure" story to God, where he chooses the 'best choice' from the muddle humans have just tossed him. Nor can we paint all of human history as his goal. His goal, as it always was, is to have humans glorifying him in eternity. The fact we sinned and rebelled meant he had to push off that ultimate goal, showing us grace after grace as he rescues us from ourselves.

Glorifying God is definitely the goal and will of God for us; how we carry out practicing loving God and neighbor more perfectly is sort of a choose your own adventure IMO.

Naomi: Did he know it was coming? Of course. It did not surprise him. But if Adam and Eve hadn’t of sinned, then after their time in the garden, they would have moved into eternity with God. For this dark time in Human history to BE the goal of God, then he would have had to work, specifically, to make it come to be. And thus, we would be able to say that sin and evil were his fault. It is not....it is ours.

Yes, i think the Tree of Life was Christ - instead of receiving its fruit, we took the fruit of our own will. Now we are cursed with running around like little Napoleons labelling God’s Good creation ‘good’ or ‘evil’ according to how it affects us. Thankfully, Christ (a true and complete personage of God) God’s word become flesh, has brought us back into fellowship with God; the Holy Spirit (a true and complete personage of God), in concert with our will is rehabillitating us as perfect lovers.

 

[brakelite]

It is easier to write then to live. Yes, I need help. This love and trust is difficult all around. Where I see struggle the most in my own life is when my husband walks off and goes upstairs to sleep. For him the conversation is over. I’m left up stewing in a pit of boiling anger, hurt and rejection. For most of our marriage I end up racing upstairs after him, determined to force another to see eye to eye with me. It hurts not to have that last word of proving a point. It hurts to just let it be. The light goes on and I start demanding and sometimes cussing until I provoke a response. I hate it. It’s ugly. It does nothing. It produces nothing. The urge is incredible but, by the grace of God, I've witnessed you can’t force someone to agree. At home. In life. Or on here. If it is important to me, I’ve learned to (try) to sit in the silence and ask God to change the area where there is conflict. Maybe the conflict is in me. Maybe in the other person. But yeah, I struggle with love.

Been there, done that. Yes, it is hard to walk away when you know you are just so right. Right? But I realised that I was trying to recreate my wife in my own image. Not only was I trying to do His job, I even had the audacity to think I knew what He wanted her to be.

 

[brakelite]

imo it seems to me that the fact that They are "One" is not being taken into acct here wadr

If they were 'one', to the extent that one could not separate from the other, as per the traditional orthodox understanding of the trinity, then I would tend to agree that becoming a man was not such a big step and the part of the Son eternally connected to the trinity would merely revert back to normal at some stage. By the same reasoning however, if they were one without separateness how could one truly die? That Jesus fully man I am not disputing, and that in personality He was stull fully God, but in substance, He was entirely separate because if He were in any way indivisibly of one substance as many teach, then there was a part of Him which did not die...presumably the divine part therefore what remains is an inadequate human sacrifice.
So yes, the Son of God becoming a man was a huge step down, and permanent. (Post #70 resolved also I hope.)

ezackly; and when is the last time you saw a gardener crying or in any anguish over a pruning?

It isn't the pruning which cost God anything. Scripture describes the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Thus way back then, the Father and Son decided that if/when man would fall, such an action of the incarnation and the shedding of blood in order to redeem man and make atonement was necessary.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, but this would also mean that God, in his nature, is perverse, or capricious. For him to tell us one thing, but then actually mean, or want another...how could we trust a God like that? Don't you see? If his nature was like that, nothing he has told us in scripture, nothing he has promised us means anything. He could just be saying it to lead us in this particular direction, so he can yank the rug out from under us. Do you want a God like that? I don't.

again it seems that God is getting blamed for...our natures here, when imo a little Reverse Psychology may be the only way to make some points with us. Same as with the Law, and even money, maybe. i do not mean to imply that God wanted Adam to eat from the tree, but that God knew it was inevitable. Also God told the complete truth, right, and a guileless nature would have trusted God at His Word i guess?

Prohibition is not bad because regularly getting drunk is a good thing; it is bad bad bc we are capricious imo
plus i guess the analogy fails at a certain pt bc one is about alcohol consumption and the other is about an unwavering truth?
if you (one) presume knowledge, determine, and judge you will die
imo

 

[brakelite]

Prohibition is not bad because regularly getting drunk is a good thing; it is bad bad bc we are capricious imo

a close friend of mine was for many years world president for one of the principal organisations that lobbied constantly against the liquor industry. She showed me some statistics one day that the public are not informed of.
First, the bad stuff like Capone etc only happened in a few major centre like Chicago and Atlanta and New York. Second, while prohibition was on, everywhere else jail's were empty, hospitals had 50% less patients, and churches were attended by all members of families and not just the women, as well as families much better off financially with the menfolk at work more often and the money not going to gambling our liquor. So depending on what you see as the end goal, prohibition worked, or didn't.

 

[bbyrd009]

But I think part of the problem here is you are still trying to put human reasons and expectations and rules, on God.

you might be right here, but i notice in past attempts by others that contrasting explanations are subject to the same criticism. Fwiw imo the Tree was something that comes with the existence of beings with wills, that cannot be just like "not planted" or whatever, so i don't really entertain "why did God even plant the ToK?" as we seem to be doing here, if that is what we are doing?

As smart as humans can be, they will never be able to comprehend how God can be both fully in control of history, and also, allow humankind the choice to sin.

a black lady with about 8 kids who could unerringly call the correct one to some infraction she had noticed persuaded me differently there, and also even the Book says that you will comprehend in full at some point i think, although that might be after passing some certain milestones. so i dunno.

imo we take "God knows the end from the beginning" to mean that He knows every single choice that we will make, and imo this cannot be true if we can change our minds, which God wants all of us to do, right. Predestination notwithstanding, as no one knows whether or what they specifically or anyone else specifically is predestined for; that knowledge is reserved for God. We might say "that boy will never amount to anything," but that is sin imo