Implications of the Biblical Interventionist God

[Mystic]

This thread will challenge each of these 3 assumptions about the biblical interventionist God:
(1) The biblical God is exclusivistic. God's sovereign grace applies to OT era Jews and Christians, but not to others. God intervened to terminate Hebrew slavery in Egypt, but has not intervened to guide or remedy the plight of pagans with other religions in other cultures.
(2) God is a Person, an omnipotent loving divine Person. So God's decision on whether or not to intervene in world affairs should be consistent with how a loving Parent would intervene.
(3) An omnipotent God micro-manages the laws of Nature. So all creation chaos (natural disasters, fatal disease, etc.) is a manifestation of His will because there is no true victimization due to chance and accidents. So if a young child dies of a fatal congenital condition or is killed in an accident, that must be God's will.

 

[Mendalla]

(2) God is a Person, an omnipotent loving divine Person. So God's decision on whether or not to intervene in world affairs should be consistent with how a loving Parent would intervene.
(3) An omnipotent God micro-manages the laws of Nature. So all creation chaos (natural disasters, fatal disease, etc.) is a manifestation of His will because there is no true victimization due to chance and accidents. So if a young child dies of a fatal congenital condition or is killed in an accident, that must be God's will.

I am interested in how these 2 intersect. Because a loving parent who was capable of micro-managing creation would be unlikely to be causing children to die of diseases, congenital conditions, etc. I have long rejected the idea of a micro-managing God (after all, there's things like basic physical, chemical and biological processes that handle the day-to-day functioning of reality) but that does not eliminate the possibility of God breaking through on a macro level in some form (e.g. sending a saviour as in Christianity, sending an important revelation to a prophet as in some of the Jewish scriptures or in Islam).

 

[Luce NDs]

This thread will challenge each of these 3 assumptions about the biblical interventionist God:
(1) The biblical God is exclusivistic. God's sovereign grace applies to OT era Jews and Christians, but not to others. God intervened to terminate Hebrew slavery in Egypt, but has not intervened to guide or remedy the plight of pagans with other religions in other cultures.
(2) God is a Person, an omnipotent loving divine Person. So God's decision on whether or not to intervene in world affairs should be consistent with how a loving Parent would intervene.
(3) An omnipotent God micro-manages the laws of Nature. So all creation chaos (natural disasters, fatal disease, etc.) is a manifestation of His will because there is no true victimization due to chance and accidents. So if a young child dies of a fatal congenital condition or is killed in an accident, that must be God's will.

It all happens by chance in quantum space ... erratic to say lest as is emotional exuberance ... few understand such variants as sophisticated divinity ...

Schists ...

 

[Mystic]

(1) The biblical God is exclusivistic. God's sovereign grace applies to OT era Jews and Christians, but not to others. God intervened to terminate Hebrew slavery in Egypt, but has not intervened to guide or remedy the plight of pagans with other religions in other cultures.

MY REFUTATION:

At the Burning Bush God promises to intervene and help Moses liberate the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. But God is evasive when Moses asks Him His name, instead giving the phrase "I am who I am" or more clearly, "I will be whatever I will be (Exodus 3:14)."
The phrase "I will be whatever I will be" seeks to avoid crude anthropomorphism that the symbolic meaning of a name might imply. God is instead saying,"I will be whatever I will be" to you, but I reserve the right to be something different for pagans of other cultures. So twice more, when God is asked for His name. He again evasively responds with a counter-question, "Why do you want to know my name (Genesis 32:19; Judges 13:18)?"

God makes it clear that He has intervened to lead not just Israel but also pagan peoples out of their homeland to their current territories:
"Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel? says the Lord. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt but also the Philistines from Caphtor (Crete) and the Arameans from Kir (in what is modern Iraq--Amos 9:7)?"

And God has anointed the Persian King Cyrus to guide his conquests to put him in a position to return Jews out of Babylonian exile back to Israel:
'"Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations,... to open doors before him (Isaiah 45:1)."

God can be experienced genuinely but in a manner warped by personal and cultural bias:
''To the loyal You show Yourself loyal; to the blameless you show yourself blameless;... to the crooked You show Yourself perverse (Psalm 18;25-26)."

 

[paradox3]

My ideas about exclusivity in the Bible don't come from the OT. They come primarily from John's Gospel

 

[Luce NDs]

The bible is a quandary, a paradox about how to resolve the avarice without placing the alternate ego in an exclusive domain that would be beyond the reach of avarice ... and thus these absolute thoughts are contained in the abstract soul of the great mystery ... sometimes known as the dark knight of sol ... when the heated thing called Ra descends for a dig, or bath ... sometimes immaculate submersion ... the underworld statement on the where about of the bottom line or ground of faith ...

It is not here just now ---Alice! As departed the woke and conscious ... it forms a sector of the unconscious unlabelled item of concern as defunct psyche.
It is a thing religiously disposed by those not wishing to know of the complicated circumstances caused by greed. That's mortal economics, or business as usual in the institutions ... anything wiser is out there ... disposed exceptions in mind are difficult to recover! There too are exceptions ... as sometimes projected as they can't be here just now!

It may resemble a secret garden that will grow in a pile of rubble and Gehenna ... wasteful dancing and singing that raises phobias in those of heavy hands in attempts to control what was set off as Lucy ... reconsider the consequences of Zephaniah 3:17 with the concerns of the heavy handed in mind ... then the movements seize; established economy in one vector? Rendered wealth to the powerful ...

Really an odd, un balanced function ... causes the supporting side to falter ... a downer ... depressing? Best not though about thus the creation of an unconscious domain where thoughts can be trashed and wasted ... grand myth eh?

 

[Mendalla]

My ideas about exclusivity in the Bible don't come from the OT. They come primarily from John's Gospel

In fact, the early Hebrews appear to been what we call in modern terms, henotheists. They accepted the existence of many gods but raised Yahweh above all the others ("thou shalt have no other gods before me", not "though shalt have no other gods"). IIRC, the shift to true monotheism that then made its way into Christianity doesn't come until the Exilic period or even post-Exilic but someone else might remember better.

 

[Luce NDs]

Frank Sinatra was into doing things Yah Way as long as it was his show! Then followed the dough Tar 'n with Boots ...

Extensive variation of a spectre bi tiems ... formally Thomas in a tug as stress ...

One can speak endlessly and senselessly about psyche by emotes that believe thinking is odorous if not onerous (toil ET is)! Thus what boils up???

 

[Mystic]

My ideas about exclusivity in the Bible don't come from the OT. They come primarily from John's Gospel

Consider John 12:32: "And I, when I am lifted up, will draw ALL people to myself."

Mendalla: "In fact, the early Hebrews appear to been what we call in modern terms, henotheists. They accepted the existence of many gods but raised Yahweh above all the others ("thou shalt have no other gods before me", not "though shalt have no other gods")."

Might not early Israelite henotheism and the view that Yahweh reveals Himself in other imagery to other peoples (as per post #4) in effect be 2 versions of the same theology?

 

[Mendalla]

Might not early Israelite henotheism and the view that Yahweh reveals Himself in other imagery to other peoples (as per post #4) in effect be 2 versions of the same theology?

That's certainly a way to look at it. The idea that we all see and interact with God in our own way is kind of a longstanding idea in some circles. Even UU theologian Forrest Church's "Cathedral of the World" systematic theology kind of ends up there (Huge cathedral with light shining through different stained glass windows so that the light appears different depending on what window you are standing in front of. The light, of course, is God/The Divine.)

 

[Mystic]

That's certainly a way to look at it. The idea that we all see and interact with God in our own way is kind of a longstanding idea in some circles. Even UU theologian Forrest Church's "Cathedral of the World" systematic theology kind of ends up there (Huge cathedral with light shining through different stained glass windows so that the light appears different depending on what window you are standing in front of. The light, of course, is God/The Divine.)

As a side note, Forrest Church was a fellow doctoral student at Harvard when I was there. A very bright guy!

 

[paradox3]

Consider John 12:32: "And I, when I am lifted up, will draw ALL people to myself."

John's Gospel has often been used to support both exclusivity and antisemitism.

The verse you quote here suggests just the opposite which is interesting.

 

[BetteTheRed]

And in fact, even John 14, discussed elsewhere, has a mixture of exclusive and inclusive statements (I am The Way versus in my house there are many rooms).

 

[Luce NDs]

And in fact, even John 14, discussed elsewhere, has a mixture of exclusive and inclusive statements (I am The Way versus in my house there are many rooms).

Intimates the ins and outs and ups and downs of a shaken life ... innate and extant! Extant? We haven't got out of the charge yet ... Brig Adieus ... the opposing vessel?

 

[Mystic]

(2) God is a Person, an omnipotent loving divine Person. So God's decision on whether or not to intervene in world affairs should be consistent with how a loving Parent would intervene.

MY REFUTATION:

God's reluctance to give Moses His name and His evasive answer to Moses' request for His name at the Burning Bush ("I will be whatever I will be"--Exodus 3L14) already call the personification of God into question. And God's rejection of anthropomorphism reinforces this point:

"I am God and am not a male (Hebrew: "ish). The Holy One in your midst (Hosea 11:9)."

God's declaration here is striking, given the biblical patriarchal imagery of God. A separate post will document some of the feminine imagery of God in both the OT and Jesus' teaching (despite "Abba Father"). But Hosea's real point here is to deny the legitimacy of personifying God:

"God is not human (Hebrew: "adam"), that He should lie or should change His mind (Numbers 23:19).."

God makes it clear that His ways and thoughts cannot be accurately predicted on the basis of what a loving parent would do:

"My thoughts are not your thoughts nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).''

"Do you think you can discover the depths of God's Being, or know the limits of the Almighty? It is higher than the heavens--what can you do? It is deeper than the underworld--what can you know (Job 11:7-8)?"

All this has profound implications for how literally we should understand Jesus' teaching about God as Abba Father. More on this in a future post.

 

[Redbaron]

You apparently assume that God randomly heals one person and not another, regardless of the conditions established by Jesus for such healings.
Did your "sweet friend Beth" receive the laying on of hands by a proven gifted healer like Mark?

Lifting this from another thread, because I think I it belongs here instead. Point of information, I don't recall that the centurion's servant in Matthew ch. 8 ever had hands of an officially certified individual like Mark laid on him, yet the servant was healed. What gives? Is healing really that capricious?

 

[Mystic]

I don't recall that the centurion's servant in Matthew ch. 8 ever had hands of an officially certified individual like Mark laid on him, yet the servant was healed. What gives? Is healing really that capricious?

Actually, the healing testimony was relevant to Bette's thread because of its focus on petitionary prayer in John 14:14 and the disparagement of this promise by Jesus which often recurs in the Synoptic Gospels. Laying on hands is just one tool used by Jesus to heal the sick. The right kind of faith also heals the sick. Thus, the centurion's servant was healed because of his uniquely powerful faith: "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith (Luke 7:9)!"

 

[Redbaron]

But wouldn't the centurion approaching Jesus with the request for the health of a servant be a form of petitionary prayer?

You apparently assume that God randomly heals one person and not another, regardless of the conditions established by Jesus for such healings.
Did your "sweet friend Beth" receive the laying on of hands by a proven gifted healer like Mark?

It still sounds rather arbitrary and haphazard.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is an intermediary god within the structure of folks determined to be isolated (autonomous) need such god to be contained for interference purposes?

Thus these possessed by emotions have no space for thought ... and the emanant nature of those powers breaking out like in a rage like an unnamed mon Kae? With mental processes removed ... one could say they lost it and thus de mended ... thus stress syndrome increases as distance from a medium increases ... to excess and pole formation, an injury toby healed with rest ... all that remains for them ... thus the put down at the end of Dais ... with a story of course! You cannot enter the mystery domain without a story to stir things in that alien space ...

 

[Mystic]

But wouldn't the centurion approaching Jesus with the request for the health of a servant be a form of petitionary prayer?



It still sounds rather arbitrary and haphazard.

Nothing "arbitrary and haphazard" there. Jesus praises healing faith where he finds it and rebukes unbelief and doubt where he finds it. Jesus makes it clear that the Centurion's unprecedented powerful faith got his servant healed. No laying on hands was necessary.