Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts

Thursday, April 8, 2010

God’s Perfect Solution

I don’t mean to be a one note song, but I get on the net and these guys just seem to be popping up everywhere. I was listening to this advocate of ‘The Law” He was preaching about how the people in the world hate God so much that there will only be a handful who will come to God without going through a horrific experience of horror, and of course this is because God is only calling a few, leaving the majority destined for the meat grinder; “They hate God’s laws particularly the Sabbath” he says, and goes on to talk about how the law keepers that are part of his group alone shall be saved. Sound familiar.

It’s interesting how much agreement some of these people have with the Muslims, and many of their arguments are similar. Some of them are in denial of the pre-existence of Jesus; both find it impossible to accept anything but a believer submitted in prostration to a fearsome God of wrath which conflicts sharply with a self sacrificing God who is love 1Jn 4:8, Jn3:16.

Neither can conceive of anything other than a law bound world of beaten to submission populations finally worn down by war and terror where only a handful find the full grace of God by their law keeping. Neither can grasp the concept that God creates even the nature of man, and he promises to change that nature so that man no longer requires intimidating threats and weighty sanctions to keep compressed and bottled up a capability for self seeking avarice.

I have an analogy from everyday life, so it’s a little crude, so I ask your pardon, but it’s one I see every day. I have dogs, and I can testify that no law will make my dogs stop barking at the neighbors. They know I don’t like them doing that and sometimes they’re trying to bark yet I’m staring at them so they try not to. It’s funny to see them convulsing with the bark that’s trying to escape while they struggle to keep their mouths shut. Dogs have some revolting predispositions, they sniff each other’s behinds and worse yet, I picked one up when it was younger and the stink had me gagging in seconds. The dog had excrement smeared all over her face; she had been having an evening snack. Now days I occasionally have to dispose of a dried artifact or two that they’ve carried into the house to chew on. God gave dogs their nature, as revolting as it sometimes is. Maybe there’s something to be learned from that.

The graphic example I provided, I felt necessary to include to create an image in our minds about how human nature must appear to God; and to point to the fact that dogs follow the nature of dogs, cats follow the nature of cats etc. It’s a very basic and simple reality.

Now the perfect solution to my dog problem would be to change their nature, but I can’t do this; but if I could, it would be the logical thing to do. It would save me a whole lot of problems. All my exasperated expressions of frustration and condemnation of their behavior is a pointless exercise in futility.

The same thing goes for human beings. The preacher can roll his eyes, condemning humanity with sighs of exasperation, rattling on about the shamefulness of human behavior, but it will change nothing, just as the Law of Commandments never really changed anything. Changing the nature of man is the logical solution. The history of Israel and the law demonstrate that man can’t change his own nature; so if it is to be change, God must do it. It would be illogical for God to expect something beyond human capability. To believe God expects such a thing would imply that God is unjust for expecting man to change his own nature, illogical for thinking he can or too weak to do it himself, none of which are true.

God gave man their nature in the first place, Rom 8:20 (YLT)”for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope.”

The word translated ‘vanity’ has broader meaning then the word vanity alone (G3153 mataiotes mat-ah-yot'-ace from G3152; inutility; figuratively, transientness; morally, depravity:--vanity.)

I think that might describe human nature, but God subjected man to the nature of the flesh. God did it for a purpose, and I’d say that it is a case of aversion therapy. Those who repent and come to Jesus are those who are sick of the nature we possess, and reach out for a solution; one which he promises to provide. God will provide a new nature.

When we fully receive his promise, because of our experience, we will forever be thankful for God’s gift of a holy nature i.e. the divine nature. 2Pe1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

So as to end on where I started; when I listen to advocates of the law preach; I’m hearing a lot of what distills down to: “those evil rotten disgusting human beings in this depraved, horrible, evil world of sin, selfishness, greed and debauchery; God is going to do something about it; he’s going to destroy them; and the few that remain will be terrified into obedience.” I think God has a better solution. It’s the logical solution. He’s going to simply create a new nature.

 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.

Acts 17:11

************

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

OUT OF HAND

Thank you Bill. Thank you Russell.

Much better... because this is NOT what ABD is about.

We are here to present our understanding of truth and to reach out to others in LOVE.

Armstrongism DOES NOT REPRESENT GOD.

We have come from there and we all still carry some of that with us (Christians and atheists alike). It's difficult to shed it all when it has been hammered into our heads for a lifetime. 
But we need to recognize it when it shows it's ugly head.

We are ALL a team fighting armstrongism. We are Christian. We are atheist. Now lets get back to the business at hand and share some quality friendly debates.

 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.

************

Monday, March 16, 2009

Love: Emotion? Or Not? ~from a contributing writer~

What follows was submitted to me from a contributor to this blog:



One old Armstrong view hallowed within the old WCG was the definition of love as: an outgoing concern, not an emotion. According to this definition, it is not those mushy, sweet feelings and sentimental appreciation of attributes.
Again: Love is outgoing concern, it is not an emotion, say the Armstrong protagonists, parroting their esteemed paragon of all wisdom and virtue.
 
The word concern means something that is of interest, or something or someone that we may worry for the welfare of. Trying to avoid the idea that love involves emotion is really difficult, as worry is emotional, and to simply like someone is emotional. If love is concern, then for what shall we be concerned for about God? 

Love of country evokes the emotion of pride in consideration of the qualities that we appreciate. To hold the qualities that we love in high esteem is intricately woven of memories that give us pleasure with the certainty of conviction that the object of our affection is true and not an illusion, which is to say, we believe in the nation, person, people or idea.

We can love evil because we appreciate evil, and there is no room for concern in evil. Those who love the Lord Jesus feel their hearts swell with pride and gratitude, being convinced of His goodness and His belief in our eventual completion, as also good and beautiful, in His likeness.

 
The idea that we love God because He first loved us is exactly like the love of a child for a parent who first loves the child, seeing what the child will become; seeing past the stinking diapers and temper tantrums of the moment; appreciating and esteeming what will be.

Jesus asked the question; who will love his lord more? One who is forgiven little, or one who is forgiven much? The answer, of course, being: One who is forgiven much.

This draws a direct correlation between gratitude and love. Gratitude is a very emotional sentiment. Actually, it is an emotion.
How then is love not an emotion?

Love is not an act, it precipitates the act. In the same way, faith is not an act, it preciptates the act.



=========================

Much thanks to the author. This is something, I believe, that has needed to be addressed for some time.

We hear Ron Weinland repeatedly state that love is not an emotion, but an act. We've heard him mock the things that make love what it actually is, anything beyond their dry, clinical definition.

Can you bear the thought of a child being raised in a home devoid of sweet, syrupy, mushy love? I would hate to see the damaged, dry person they would likely grow into. How is that child supposed to feel loved, to feel a bond with his/her parents? How are they to learn how to show love to others, to their future spouse and children?

How can love not be an emotion? The idea is absurd. OWCG worked to kill emotion and thus kill love. Too kill love is to kill relationships, and relationships are the most important thing, particularly our relationship with God.

I grew up in OWCG & it was the coldest church I ever walked into, unlike the churches of my chilhood friends, (yes, I actually attended some). Talk about feeling accepted, and being warmly welcomed! Wow! Didn't experience that at my church. Growing up, OWCG for me was more like school; full of clicks and people who acted like you didn't exist if they didn't esteem you as an equal.
 
I believe the reason Armstronists hold to this definition is simply to discredit the "worldly churches" because they are so loving!  Anything the "worldy churches" do, must be discredited. In their minds, there must be nothing about them that can appear as good, and the Armsrongist churches must resemble them in no way.


So I ask:
If love is not an emotion, then why did the Father turn away at the time of Jesus' death on the cross, if not for the emotions that the death of a child evokes in a parent?

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on my current understanding. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.