From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is Christianity the only way?
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:44:44 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us (Mike J. Sangrey) writes:

>michael@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Michael George Williams) writes:

>  Dear group, please consider:

>  "Just as it is written:  `Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'  What
>  then shall we say?  Is God unjust?  Not at all!  For he says to
>  Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have
>  compassion on whom I have compassion.'  It does not, therefore,
>  depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.  ...
>  Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he
>  hardens whom he wants to harden.  One of you will say to me:
>  `Then why does God still blame us?  For who resists his will?'"

>  Continuing:

>  "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?  `Shall what is formed
>  say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"'  Does
>  not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay
>  some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  What if
>  God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with
>  great patience the objects of his wrath -- prepared for destruction?


>  mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us

julian replies:

Have you thought that perhaps when we read the OT, especially the earlier
parts that the words used are those appropriate TO THE PEOPLE AT THAT TIME.
And hence when we come to read them, even though they are (miraculously)
preserved we DO NOT UNDERSTAND what their original meaning was. There is an
interesting book called: Poetic Diction by Owen Barfield, a friend of 
C S Lewis back in the 20s. It deals with the problem of understanding how
meanings change with time. So, to take you r example when God speaks of
loving Jacob and not Esau that is how it appears to us from a human perspective.
But if you want to then conclude that God arbitrarily chooses to bestow
his favour on some of his creatures and not others you are making an
ethical claim that rips the biblical picture of a just God apart.

Think about what you are saying: God creates beings with a will and feelings
just so that he can condemn them to an eternity of pain? Is this the God
revealed in the life of Jesus? I do not think so. And if this is the God
we are telling others about, I would rather join the damned in hell than
spend eternity with him. And, no, I am not saying this in a spirit of
rebellion. I have known God in my life, listened to him tell me things that
I did not like, but have accepted because his way is better than mine.
And everything I have ever learned about my God is somehow contained in
the life of Jesus as revealed in the NT.

It is possible (even, in my opinion, necessary) to question God. He made us
with minds to think, did he do it simply so that we should give up thinking
when it comes to our relationship with him? Some people think so. Read the book
of Job and Ecclesiastes. If you think the above post is a resolution of the
way God deals with us and /or unbelievers you have not understood the message
of those books. We question God because all we have is our image of God.
What comes to your mind when you think of God??? Whatever it is it is not
God himself. We have our understanding of God that is all. By faith we trust
that what he reveals about himself in the Bible is sufficient for us to
get to know him. But it takes a long time usually, and we continually
have to be open to learning. How can so many christians think that once they
"make a commitment" they are saved? That is only the beginning. Unless,
like the thief on the cross you die instantly, at the time you become
aware of your own sinfulness and need for God's mercy, you also become
aware of how far away from God you are. We will never know enough about
God in our lives while we are alive. He calls us to follow Jesus always
dying to ourselves daily. What does this mean? it does not mean pretending
we know God's plan even for our own lives, let alone other peoples. It means
sacrificing our ideas, and sometimes our lives, so that God can work through
us.

The potter analogy is a very weak one, even Paul seems ashamed of using it,
he is not very clear about how to conclude. But a potter does not
endow pots with a consciousness, God made us. Unless you want to believe
that he made most of us solely so that we could have a miserable life and then
be damned for eternity you have to think again about what you said above.
And saying that we are sinful and deserve hell is not sufficient reason for
lketting God off the charge of being unjust. (And please do not take offense
at my language I an not being disrespectful to God. See how Job speaks I am
borrowing his attitude). Because God made us with a mind he knew we would
question the way the world is. Saying we should not question God is like
saying we should not walk: why do we have the capability then? But we have
to do it in the right frame of mind. Yes, God will not hear rebellious
people, but even for them he died on the cross: will he not listen when
we cry out in pain? Not every question is based on pride and anger, and
God will hear us when we cry out.

If I look at Jesus life I can find no justification for the message contained
in the post above. I can only see a love that went to hell itself to redeem
THE WORLD (not the christians, or the Jews or the "chosen few"). You might
want to ponder why Jesus used that phrase. The world is full of people who
claim to have knowledge of God and His way: there are far fewer people
like Mother Teresa who actually live their knowledge of God.

julian