"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
      and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
      he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
      and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:10

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 29^th, 2008 at 12:03am:

"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,       and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10

Yes, why?  Why the contradiction and why the will of the Lord to cause him to suffer?  Isn't He a benign God?

"Vengence is mine. I will repay." (That's God's take on it anyways DT)

My old spearing club used to meat in a church hall. One day the kids had made posters, each declaring one of God's many qualities, which was nice. I suggested that one of them should have done vengeful, but no-one seemed to agree. I bet that made God angry.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 29^th, 2008 at 12:03am:

"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,       and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10

i dont understand the contradiction here. the passage is saying that people will have suffering but they will also have success....

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 29^th, 2008 at 1:28pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 12:03am: "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,       and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10 i dont understand the contradiction here. the passage is saying that people will have suffering but they will also have success....

It's about a single person and it doesn't suggest any success other than to see his offspring and to endure for a long time (though apparently through a fog of suffering).  It is the will of the LORD which prospers.

I find this contradictory given that He is a loving and benign God.

Why is it necessary to suffer in order to see one's offspring, live for a long time, and to have the LORD's will prosper?

Couldn't it all be done peacefully, free of guilt and in glorious bliss?

deepthought wrote on Mar 29^th, 2008 at 1:44pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 1:28pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 12:03am: "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,       and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10 i dont understand the contradiction here. the passage is saying that people will have suffering but they will also have success.... It's about a single person and it doesn't suggest any success other than to see his offspring and to endure for a long time (though apparently through a fog of suffering).  It is the will of the LORD which prospers. I find this contradictory given that He is a loving and benign God. Why is it necessary to suffer in order to see one's offspring, live for a long time, and to have the LORD's will prosper? Couldn't it all be done peacefully, free of guilt and in glorious bliss?

dunno why its necessary, but its a reality, everyone suffers.

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 29^th, 2008 at 11:50pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 1:44pm: Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 1:28pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 12:03am: "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,       and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10 i dont understand the contradiction here. the passage is saying that people will have suffering but they will also have success.... It's about a single person and it doesn't suggest any success other than to see his offspring and to endure for a long time (though apparently through a fog of suffering).  It is the will of the LORD which prospers. I find this contradictory given that He is a loving and benign God. Why is it necessary to suffer in order to see one's offspring, live for a long time, and to have the LORD's will prosper? Couldn't it all be done peacefully, free of guilt and in glorious bliss? dunno why its necessary, but its a reality, everyone suffers.

Ahhhh, but is the will of the LORD prospering as a consequence?

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 11:49am:

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 11:50pm: deepthought wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 1:44pm: Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 1:28pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 29th, 2008 at 12:03am: "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,       and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10 i dont understand the contradiction here. the passage is saying that people will have suffering but they will also have success.... It's about a single person and it doesn't suggest any success other than to see his offspring and to endure for a long time (though apparently through a fog of suffering).  It is the will of the LORD which prospers. I find this contradictory given that He is a loving and benign God. Why is it necessary to suffer in order to see one's offspring, live for a long time, and to have the LORD's will prosper? Couldn't it all be done peacefully, free of guilt and in glorious bliss? dunno why its necessary, but its a reality, everyone suffers. Ahhhh, but is the will of the LORD prospering as a consequence?

i just read the whole chapter.   in context the text is referring to the Messiah, that is the messiah will suffer and thus the will of the lord will be served. as a Christian this reflects well on jesus' life, jesus being the Christian messiah.

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 12:02pm:

i just read the whole chapter.   in context the text is referring to the Messiah, that is the messiah will suffer and thus the will of the lord will be served. as a Christian this reflects well on jesus' life, jesus being the Christian messiah.

Ahhh, now it makes sense.

That bloody sprint!!!!   ;)

I must have lost it, because this messiah stuff doesn't make much sense to me anymore. Someone said that God was a vengeful, merciless SOB in the Old Testament, but changed in the New Testament because like every parent he softened when he had a child. John Dominic Crossan called the crucifixion "child abuse". I would call it a very strange idea.

You commit a crime, Jesus pays the penalty. Condition: Serve and worship me for life. "You'll be very happy, trust me." (Start by getting rid of all your porn, and helping little old ladies cross the road.)  

Ray_A wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 2:14pm:

I must have lost it, because this messiah stuff doesn't make much sense to me anymore. Someone said that God was a vengeful, merciless SOB in the Old Testament, but changed in the New Testament because like every parent he softened when he had a child. John Dominic Crossan called the crucifixion "child abuse". I would call it a very strange idea. You commit a crime, Jesus pays the penalty. Condition: Serve and worship me for life. "You'll be very happy, trust me." (Start by getting rid of all your porn, and helping little old ladies cross the road.)

Or getting rid of the little old ladies and help your porn across the road.

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 3:43pm:

Or getting rid of the little old ladies and help your porn across the road.

Porn is better than little old ladies.

Ray_A wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 3:47pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 3:43pm: Or getting rid of the little old ladies and help your porn across the road. Porn is better than little old ladies.

I know which I would prefer to have by my side in bed . . .


(blasphemy in the spirituality thread)

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 3:55pm:

I know which I would prefer to have by my side in bed . . . (blasphemy in the spirituality thread)

I don't mind helping them across the road. As long as they don't mind me looking at "objectionable material".

Each to his/her own?

Ray_A wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 3:59pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 3:55pm: I know which I would prefer to have by my side in bed . . . (blasphemy in the spirituality thread) I don't mind helping them across the road. As long as they don't mind me looking at "objectionable material". Each to his/her own?

:D

Hey Ray, thanks for the laughs.   Footy's on mate.  Back later.

Ray_A wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 2:14pm:

I must have lost it, because this messiah stuff doesn't make much sense to me anymore. Someone said that God was a vengeful, merciless SOB in the Old Testament, but changed in the New Testament because like every parent he softened when he had a child. John Dominic Crossan called the crucifixion "child abuse". I would call it a very strange idea. You commit a crime, Jesus pays the penalty. Condition: Serve and worship me for life. "You'll be very happy, trust me." (Start by getting rid of all your porn, and helping little old ladies cross the road.)

It is a total misconception that god was more angry in the old testament and caring in the new. If you actually read the entire thing rememering the perspectives that each testament was written in you discvover how kind god was on the old. And how angry and vengful he could be in the new.

the chief difference is the writers, the old testament written for jews, while the new was written for everyone in greek etc with a more placid tone. Exactly teh same tone runs through both. infact one could argue with the prospect of eternal damnation protrayed in paul, and the evils portraye din revelation, that the new is far more vengful.

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 7:24pm:

It is a total misconception that god was more angry in the old testament and caring in the new. If you actually read the entire thing rememering the perspectives that each testament was written in you discvover how kind god was on the old. And how angry and vengful he could be in the new. the chief difference is the writers, the old testament written for jews, while the new was written for everyone in greek etc with a more placid tone. Exactly teh same tone runs through both. infact one could argue with the prospect of eternal darnation protrayed in paul, and the evils portraye din revelation, that the new is far more vengful.

I have to disagree here.  As rigid as Paul was, he didn't, and God didn't command him, to wipe out whole tribes (Samuel 1 chapter 15), and kill women and children. People weren't stoned to death for adultery, Sabbath-breaking, or being a witch (although they were in more modern events like the Salem witch trials). When Jesus arrived, according to the New Testament, he brought a higher law. It was said in old time to kill your enemies, or to love your neighbour but hate your enemy, but he said to love your enemies as well. Whatever was said in old times, he refined it further. The woman taken in adultery (it had to be a woman, of course, because they had lesser status than men, and a woman couldn't be a witness) was not stoned, but had she lived in Moses' time she would have been.  The most Paul did was cry damnation, but he didn't hurl stones at adulterers. That's quite a relief. So we can thank Christ for that.  ;D

What is the church's position on withces? Do they believe they are capable of supernatural acts?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 1:37pm:

What is the church's position on withces? Do they believe they are capable of supernatural acts?

FD, I suppose it depends on which church you belong to. I'm a former Mormon (ex-Mormon), and they will excomunicate or disfellowship anyone who dabbles in withcraft and is unrepentant about it. It's "dealing with the devil", and inviting "Satanic influences". At one time Mormons would excommunicate anyone who joined another church or organisation contrary to its own beliefs, but this policy has been considerably relaxed for many years, and someone having dual religious affiliation, such as being a Mason and Mormon, is tolerated now. I know one Mormon who wants to be both Catholic and Mormon.

I also understand that there's "white witchcraft", which is fairly benign (they even have a monthly magazine), and they don't practice
"black magic", or seek to "cast spells" on people, etc. So I imagine most churches might turn a blind eye to this.

In case you're interested, I'm developing a new blogspot, which has a lot more commentary to come:

http://spotlightonmormonism.blogspot.com/

I'll consider any recommendations for subjects to cover.

I once met an ex mormon who attended her excommunication, in case she ever changed her mind and wanted to get back in. She was a lesbian.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 1:57pm:

I once met an ex mormon who attended her excommunication, in case she ever changed her mind and wanted to get back in. She was a lesbian.

There's a classic quote often used by active Mormons: "They (ex-Mormons) can leave the Church, but they can't leave it alone." Fortunately this lesbian sounds like one of the less antagonistic "exmos" (ex-Mormons). The Mormon policy on gays is that while they may be "inclined" to homosexuality, they can remain members of the Church if they don't act out those inclinations. If they indulge, or take another gay partner, they will be excommunicated.  It's pretty much a lose-lose situation for gay Mormons, and the only option is lifelong celibacy.

I don't think she criticised the mormon church at all. She seemed a bit conflicted about the whole issue.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 4:40pm:

I don't think she criticised the mormon church at all. She seemed a bit conflicted about the whole issue.

Probably because being Gay or lesbian is not reconcilable with Mormonism, or most Judaeo-Christian religions. Of course they respect those religions, because they can see the virtue behind the dogma. They just don't understand why they are so attracted to the same-sex. It might be some kind of built-in mechanism.  

Built into what, or who?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 5:48pm:

Built into what, or who?

Biology. If the findings on the hypothalamus are correct, being gay is not just environmental, but biological - "in-bulit". They can't be straight any more than you can be gay (presuming you are). Asking them to become heterosexual is like asking a heterosexual to become gay.  

Ray_A wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 2:33am:

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 7:24pm: It is a total misconception that god was more angry in the old testament and caring in the new. If you actually read the entire thing rememering the perspectives that each testament was written in you discvover how kind god was on the old. And how angry and vengful he could be in the new. the chief difference is the writers, the old testament written for jews, while the new was written for everyone in greek etc with a more placid tone. Exactly teh same tone runs through both. infact one could argue with the prospect of eternal darnation protrayed in paul, and the evils portraye din revelation, that the new is far more vengful. I have to disagree here.  As rigid as Paul was, he didn't, and God didn't command him, to wipe out whole tribes (Samuel 1 chapter 15), and kill women and children. People weren't stoned to death for adultery, Sabbath-breaking, or being a witch (although they were in more modern events like the Salem witch trials). When Jesus arrived, according to the New Testament, he brought a higher law. It was said in old time to kill your enemies, or to love your neighbour but hate your enemy, but he said to love your enemies as well. Whatever was said in old times, he refined it further. The woman taken in adultery (it had to be a woman, of course, because they had lesser status than men, and a woman couldn't be a witness) was not stoned, but had she lived in Moses' time she would have been.  The most Paul did was cry darnation, but he didn't hurl stones at adulterers. That's quite a relief. So we can thank Christ for that.  ;D

in the old testament god showd mercy by allowing people to be judged in life, in the new people suffer for eternety.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 1:37pm:

What is the church's position on witches? Do they believe they are capable of supernatural acts?

I think the Bible says somewhere that other Gods exist - just that Jehovah is the greatest and most powerful.

Here we go:

Exodus 12:12
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.

Exodus 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?

Exodus 18:11
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.

Right now, Allah seems to have more of a grip than Jehovah, in that his flock seems to be more enthused with his greatness. Allah has also killed a lot more people recently than Jehovah. He really needs to get a grip and grow up.

It's quite a useful Biblical perspective in a way. It illustrate that 'Gods' work through their followers. I also believe in all 'Gods' as a concept and mass psychological phenomema, but even in that respect they have real power. The ancients seemed to take it for granted that the Gods of other civilisations had real power.

It's like Harry Potter. He's definitely a concept - but he's so strong a concept that he actually speaks to J K Rowlings.  Harry exists to the extent that if somebody said "Harry Potter is Chinese", we'd be able to reply "No, he's English". We can say tangible things about him, and he also exists as a mass psychological phenomenon that has unique properties.