The first act in the Old Testament is that God commands the sacrifice of an animal; this manipulation and slaughter of everything around us to our own benefit. Huh?
I must confess that I am a skeptic of certain OT writings, especially based on what I learned in seminary. But I still need the historical Jesus of the NT. His teachings and life examples give my life purpose and meaning. Whatever the label used, religion is not helpful for me. It is my being in a loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ that enables me to navigate life on Planet Earth and to look forward to living eternally with Him.
What if the loud, over-shouting majority of religious ostensibly talking about Jesus don't themselves get the picture? What if there are poxes on both those houses and skeptics' houses, just different poxes?
A spiritually educated view of bible history can tell a lot. Original Christianity displayed very well that it was a distinct step past the Old Testament. When the church, centuries later, agreed to do a deal with a convenient state, it needed something to adapt to state rules, and it picked the Old Testament without a good theological reason to do it. The resulting ongoing spiritual train wreck can't be blamed on Jesus, who never asked his church to do it.
Whatever was allowed and permitted in the Old Testament days should be surpassed by Christians. There are expectations that God has which weren't as clear in the older days, even though we do have a proverb that a righteous man is "kind to his beast."
TECHNICALLY it's for God's benefit, illustrating by object lesson or metaphor what was going to happen with the cross of Christ. Suffering is to God's benefit? Well, yes it is, for suffering is how God invests in a sinful world to save it from sin and to reflect his loving glory.
Taking this illustration in an utterly selfish way is, I say, just plain wrong as directions for a Christian, even though distressingly common in much theology. We never get an explicit testimony to an animal heaven in the bible account; even C. S. Lewis dared not approach this idea except in his metaphorical stories, but the New Testament has hints. If there does exist the fullness of an animal heaven, then the suffering ultimately does have a materialized fruition point, like a loyal dog might give itself for its master except that the soul of the dog shows up again, with the master, in a different world to enjoy the result that was worked. It would be clear that in such a case that even what looks like arbitrary suffering, arbitrary sacrifice, even arbitrary waste would transmogrify into what is not, the details depending on whom it is for and why.
Survival of the friendliest. Yes! Those hominids who could cooperate and form tribes survived over the individuals who suspected all others as a threat. May we all embrace this concept and its implications.
I must confess that I am a skeptic of certain OT writings, especially based on what I learned in seminary. But I still need the historical Jesus of the NT. His teachings and life examples give my life purpose and meaning. Whatever the label used, religion is not helpful for me. It is my being in a loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ that enables me to navigate life on Planet Earth and to look forward to living eternally with Him.
Mr. Schaeffer,
What if you’re wrong? Could you address this question in another episode?
What if the loud, over-shouting majority of religious ostensibly talking about Jesus don't themselves get the picture? What if there are poxes on both those houses and skeptics' houses, just different poxes?
A spiritually educated view of bible history can tell a lot. Original Christianity displayed very well that it was a distinct step past the Old Testament. When the church, centuries later, agreed to do a deal with a convenient state, it needed something to adapt to state rules, and it picked the Old Testament without a good theological reason to do it. The resulting ongoing spiritual train wreck can't be blamed on Jesus, who never asked his church to do it.
Whatever was allowed and permitted in the Old Testament days should be surpassed by Christians. There are expectations that God has which weren't as clear in the older days, even though we do have a proverb that a righteous man is "kind to his beast."
TECHNICALLY it's for God's benefit, illustrating by object lesson or metaphor what was going to happen with the cross of Christ. Suffering is to God's benefit? Well, yes it is, for suffering is how God invests in a sinful world to save it from sin and to reflect his loving glory.
Taking this illustration in an utterly selfish way is, I say, just plain wrong as directions for a Christian, even though distressingly common in much theology. We never get an explicit testimony to an animal heaven in the bible account; even C. S. Lewis dared not approach this idea except in his metaphorical stories, but the New Testament has hints. If there does exist the fullness of an animal heaven, then the suffering ultimately does have a materialized fruition point, like a loyal dog might give itself for its master except that the soul of the dog shows up again, with the master, in a different world to enjoy the result that was worked. It would be clear that in such a case that even what looks like arbitrary suffering, arbitrary sacrifice, even arbitrary waste would transmogrify into what is not, the details depending on whom it is for and why.
Survival of the friendliest. Yes! Those hominids who could cooperate and form tribes survived over the individuals who suspected all others as a threat. May we all embrace this concept and its implications.
Exactly how I feel and in what I believe!
I love your work, Frank. Our nation needs you!