Sorry Patrick, I missed the texts.
Ironically, the tradition in bible times was that life begins at the first breath, likely pointing back to the creation story where God breathed life into Adam. So logically they’d have no problem at all with abortion.
A few…Isa. 45:4-25 ; Ps. 136 ; Ex.34:6,7. In the NT we can see that His wrath is delayed. Rom.5:9; Rev. 14:9-12.
What are your texts showing God is “passive” in His “not delightful” but certain acts as a righteous King?
That is strange, because it was my study of scripture that led me to that concept - going back to the Hebrew and Greek and comparing scripture with scripture.
How different between the first century and the Davenport years.
Under this view of God, then, we have a God who in essence says: “you are completely free to choose for me or against me. But if you choose against me, I will destroy you”. If we cut to the chase, we can shorten this to “choose me or I will destroy you”.
I believe that every person who studies the Bible by her/himself will have a particular and personal view of God. I believe that the view of God is never duplicated, meaning that there are not two people who have the same picture of God in their mind.
I personally would never dare to tell others that their God is not in Scripture, because that would make me sound superior to them, spiritually arrogant, and pretending that my God is better than and superior to their God. And there is also the risk that such an attitude would even make me feel good (massaging my own EGO…).But, well…, that’s just me…, and may certainly not apply to others…
Just imagine for a moment that God was creating Adam and half way through He came up with a different, better idea and decided to change what He was doing. So He just remixed the mud and crafted a different being, Adam 2.0. Was that an example of abortion?
I personally do not condone abortion, unless 1) in a pregnancy caused by rape, 2) a pregnancy that would create a monster (very defective creature, 3) a pregnancy that was a danger to the woman’s life, or 4) a pregnancy that would produce an ill, sick baby. Otherwise, if some teenagers just had fun and someone ended up pregnant, well… they have to take responsibility and take charge of the new human being they just created.
It’s interesting that so many so called “pro-life” people are so against any abortion but we didn’t hear from them opposing to the US illegitimate war with Iraq that ended up killing hundred of thousands of innocent people, real human beings. Where were the “pro-life” advocates? This why I think they are actually “pro-death” people, with just a façade…
Just finished a few days ago reading “Pirates of Privilege,” the unpublished book by Walter Rea. Fascinating reading. Every Adventist should read the book that was prohibited by the Denomination to be published. But it can be downloaded available in .pdf for free, on Google.
I believe that the option is not choosing God or rejecting Him. It’s actually a choice between the desire to live for ever, or not to live at all. Those who choose to live for ever have to accept God’s invitation and grace - which will certainly work fine.
Or worse, as I think is often the case, they are simply pro-birth…after which who cares…
My God is like a wall
My God is like a spear
My God is like a snake
My God is like a tree
My God is like a fan
My God is like a rope
My God is like a beard
Good morning George. Thanks for properly quoting what I said, as Phil chose to leave some key words, such as, have you created?
I have read Tonstad’s book and he does much the same thing. That is, simply make God passive in punishment and destruction. I viewed what I deemed a lot of poor exegesis and forced ideas not coming from the texts.
One of the Solas of the Protestant Reformation is Sola Scriptura. So, I suggest we all attempt to follow that principle and not create our own God.
That’s why legitimate churches split at times in an effort to remain consistent with that principle over what they view as an essential. I view some come up with to many “essentials” that hide Christ.
To get to the chase, that’s true!
That’s essentially what the “blessings and curses” of the covenant was about. Deut. 28 onward. God ask why will you die? But He brings plagues to the rebellious.
We are given Jn.3:16 that says "outos gar/ “in this way God loved the world” :but, the warning of condemnation in rejecting truth is given vs.18 onwards.
To reject Him is to reject life and choose death. But ultimately God “destroys the wicked.” Not a joyful thought but what is written. It is His righteous ways to extinguish evil to the rebellious.
One faulty concept usually is linked to many more.
Well said Patrick, God has indeed done everything to save us, why would one choose to pay for your sins yourself…
I add incest to your rape. A women’s endangered life and a severely deformed/defective child.
Admittedly, these are “grey” areas not specifically found in scripture. The extreme pro-lifers make no allowances.
Women are not incubators simply made to carry another’s child whom they did not choose or love. Neither are we void of common sense to bring a creature not designed by God into the world that God never designed that would never have any quality of life.
Likewise, I agree with the inconsistency of that position as relates to even the “unintended consequences” of the death of children in war.
I understand. I used to have about this same list.
I understand the idea of personal responsibility. However, we must note that our norms are not eveyone’s.
A pregnancy (an accident or a wanted pregnancy) doesn’t just impact more the pregnant woman. Many more people are impacted, and in some sub-cultures an unwed pregnancy might be a scandal of epic proportions (this is of course not good) that could cause a lot of harm to the extended family.
Consider a woman who is in an unhappy marriage, locked into it, who eventually cheats. If her husband, who knows he is not the father, finds out about the pregnancy he will beat her or worse. So, in a way this falls into your #3 category, but not for medical reasons. What should she do?
Consider an homeless addict. She is sick and cannot pull her life together even to get clean.
Or a person caught up in war, who thinks it is immoral to bring a life into the world in such a situation.
I could come up with some more cases…
I guess my overall point is that there are a lot of possible situations, difficult to imagine in my posh middle-class life, where the least terrible choice is to end the pregnancy.
My concern is how God is portrayed as responding to those who exercise the option you have said: “not choosing God or rejecting Him”.
There are 2 portrayals of God’s response to such: (a) punish people and destroy them, or (b) give them up/give them over to the inherent natural consequences of that decision which is death/annihilation.
The first portrayal has God actively destroying people. The second portrayal has the phenomenon of sin annihilating people while God was all the while offering them the opportunity to be saved.
In John 3:16,17 and 2 Pet 3:9, God is said to be trying to save people from perishing. The question I am trying to raise is: what is the cause of the perishing described in these verses? Is it God, or is it sin?
My apologies Patrick that you thought I deliberately chose to misquote you by leaving out key words. That was not my intent.
It appeared to me that you were suggesting that I was creating my own concept of God that was not given in scripture. If I have misunderstood what you said, could you please restate it for me.
With respect to “the warning of condemnation in rejecting the truth that is given in vs. 18 onwards”, could you please elaborate as to (a) what that specific condemnation is and (b) what is the specific source of that condemnation?
Could you also provide references to where it is written that God destroys the wicked. I can’t tell if you meant that was in vs 18 onward, or whether you were referring to elsewhere.