Comments on: The Good Thief’s God (or: OT vs. NT) http://blog.onefreegarden.com/2010/02/the-good-thiefs-god-or-ot-vs-nt/ Mathom Musings Mon, 17 May 2010 15:59:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Coheleth http://blog.onefreegarden.com/2010/02/the-good-thiefs-god-or-ot-vs-nt/comment-page-1/#comment-133 Coheleth Sat, 08 May 2010 04:38:38 +0000 http://blog.onefreegarden.com/?p=205#comment-133 Wow. I was about to say the same thing. But you beat me to it! However, I also have some disagreements concerning your post. I think the dichotomy in which many perceive the Old and New Testaments is merely a construct of habit. In truth, there are just as many portions in the Hebrew Scriptures where God is merciful (clothing Adam and Eve, bargaining with Abraham and Moses, healing Naaman's leprosy, restoring King Jeroboam's arm, etc...) as there are in the Christian Scriptures; and there are just as many portions in the Christian Scriptures where God is wrathful (Jesus' declaration of bringing a sword of division, his uncompromising condemnation of divorce as adultery and mere lust as fornication, his laying an unforgivable sin at the feet of the Pharisees, his many discussions of hell, indeed, more than any other prophet before him, and the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira at the words of Peter) as there are in the Hebrew Scriptures. God is unchanging. You can think of our spiritual state as a spatial dimension, if it helps, and God as an object anchored in one place which we move relative to. Depending on where we're at, he'll look different to us, giving us the illusion that he is in fact moving and we are the ones who are stationary. This relative movement is the cause of many of the person-like attributes we ascribe to God. For that reason, I have always been hesitant to describe God as personal in his being, which is surely beyond any labeling we can manufacture. True, God consists of three Divine Persons (or Hypostases), but these are highly technical theological terms and...anyway... The Lord has sides to him we don't care to see. They've always been there, and always will be. Of course, it only makes sense that the objective Good should challenge our subjective notions of what is good, Good taken here as synonymous with being. Our only duty is to make sure we remain, well, on the good side of the Good. Wow. I was about to say the same thing. But you beat me to it!

However, I also have some disagreements concerning your post. I think the dichotomy in which many perceive the Old and New Testaments is merely a construct of habit. In truth, there are just as many portions in the Hebrew Scriptures where God is merciful (clothing Adam and Eve, bargaining with Abraham and Moses, healing Naaman’s leprosy, restoring King Jeroboam’s arm, etc…) as there are in the Christian Scriptures; and there are just as many portions in the Christian Scriptures where God is wrathful (Jesus’ declaration of bringing a sword of division, his uncompromising condemnation of divorce as adultery and mere lust as fornication, his laying an unforgivable sin at the feet of the Pharisees, his many discussions of hell, indeed, more than any other prophet before him, and the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira at the words of Peter) as there are in the Hebrew Scriptures.

God is unchanging. You can think of our spiritual state as a spatial dimension, if it helps, and God as an object anchored in one place which we move relative to. Depending on where we’re at, he’ll look different to us, giving us the illusion that he is in fact moving and we are the ones who are stationary. This relative movement is the cause of many of the person-like attributes we ascribe to God. For that reason, I have always been hesitant to describe God as personal in his being, which is surely beyond any labeling we can manufacture. True, God consists of three Divine Persons (or Hypostases), but these are highly technical theological terms and…anyway…

The Lord has sides to him we don’t care to see. They’ve always been there, and always will be. Of course, it only makes sense that the objective Good should challenge our subjective notions of what is good, Good taken here as synonymous with being. Our only duty is to make sure we remain, well, on the good side of the Good.

]]> By: the Rosy Gardener http://blog.onefreegarden.com/2010/02/the-good-thiefs-god-or-ot-vs-nt/comment-page-1/#comment-130 the Rosy Gardener Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:53:04 +0000 http://blog.onefreegarden.com/?p=205#comment-130 I've heard that one, too, but I can't fully buy into it because we're not the same people- generations upon generations have passed, and yet we are still sinning the same sins. It's too reliant on the idea that we progress as a species, which is a misguided enlightenment ideal in my opinion. I don't think I've expressed myself as well as I'd hoped in the post- perhaps a more clear comparison would be a presidential pardon or a moratorium on the death penalty-- the penalty's the same, but we, who are still as guilty as ever, are spared from it because of the execution of an innocent. I’ve heard that one, too, but I can’t fully buy into it because we’re not the same people- generations upon generations have passed, and yet we are still sinning the same sins. It’s too reliant on the idea that we progress as a species, which is a misguided enlightenment ideal in my opinion.

I don’t think I’ve expressed myself as well as I’d hoped in the post- perhaps a more clear comparison would be a presidential pardon or a moratorium on the death penalty– the penalty’s the same, but we, who are still as guilty as ever, are spared from it because of the execution of an innocent.

]]> By: Eva David http://blog.onefreegarden.com/2010/02/the-good-thiefs-god-or-ot-vs-nt/comment-page-1/#comment-129 Eva David Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:58:18 +0000 http://blog.onefreegarden.com/?p=205#comment-129 The best explanation I've heard for the OT/NT difference in approach is a comparison to child rearing. Salvation history began with the dawn of creation, and the creation of man. Man was young, first and infant, then a toddler, then a child, then and adolescent, etc. When we are children, we can't understand the logic of love, the need for discipline and self restraint, and the connection between the two. In order to save a child from destruction by fire or semi, we may have to resort to paddling, physical restraint, or other heavy-handed methods. As children get older, the communication turns increasingly away from infliction of dire consequences toward communication of what love means. So too was the Father's approach with mankind. For me, this analogy is both logical and beautiful. Peace, Eva The best explanation I’ve heard for the OT/NT difference in approach is a comparison to child rearing. Salvation history began with the dawn of creation, and the creation of man. Man was young, first and infant, then a toddler, then a child, then and adolescent, etc. When we are children, we can’t understand the logic of love, the need for discipline and self restraint, and the connection between the two. In order to save a child from destruction by fire or semi, we may have to resort to paddling, physical restraint, or other heavy-handed methods. As children get older, the communication turns increasingly away from infliction of dire consequences toward communication of what love means. So too was the Father’s approach with mankind.

For me, this analogy is both logical and beautiful.

Peace,

Eva

]]>