Hi Dicky,
I can see how it does paint a horrible image of God but I've always seen it as a picture of an awesome God; it doesn't say God will exercise his prerogative to pour out his wrath.
Thinking about sin, we all have different ideas about what constitutes sin. We know the BIG ones but the endless small ones?
It's quite wonderful, for Christians, to have a Heavenly Father who is so powerful that he could metaphorically snap his fingers to do anything but will not harm us.
God or no God, we all know our life on earth is precarious, and that it might end in an instant for any one of us. We
are harmed - day after day, sometimes through completely avoidable negligent actions, sometimes just through the quirks of fate. It is very difficult to see the hand of God in anyones' lives, and the arguments for an interventionist God have often been aired on here, with little success. Yes, maybe he could 'snap his fingers metaphorically' - and sometimes one wishes he would - to prevent harm, not to cause it. However Alan B assures us that it we pray hard enough, we may be rewarded with finding a lost contact lens.
Yes, it is evident that believers have different ideas about what constitutes sin, and it is clear that there are many ideas about what the Biblical writers thought sin was. The earlier OT prophets thought that following the Law of the Covenant would mean automatic reward in
this life. The Hebrews eventually came to think that even if they did not keep the law they might buy off God with the appropriate sacrifices. However, it is hinted in Jeremiah, and explicit in Isaiah and Micah that all this animal sacrificing is completely futile, and all that is required is "to do justly and to love mercy". And of course, poor old Job, "a righteous man" really got it in the neck.
The peculiar slant that St Paul gave to "sin" - alluded to in the quote I was commenting on - has given rise to most bizarre doctrine that most Christians seem to think is central to their faith. St Paul, of course, made particular reference to the life of Abraham (he seemed happy to dismiss just about everything else about Judaism), and was drawn to that gruesome episode known as the "Binding of Isaac" which so gets up Floo's nose
. However, the real point of the story is that
Isaac did not die, and apart from one instance (Jephtha), this seems to have been the end of child sacrifice for the Jews - whereas the peoples around them went on sacrificing children for hundreds of years. Good old St Paul, though - the Jews having rejected child sacrifice for expiation of "sin" - he brings back the concept of human sacrifice in the form of Jesus. Except that Jesus is supposed to be both human and divine. And he adds to his bizarre atonement scenario the idea that you have to accept Jesus' sacrifice to "have your sins forgiven".
We'll have many occasions in this life to squirm, be reprimanded, to try and make up, and feel rotten about our mistakes, which is punishment enough. As a result, there are times when we make a positive effort to be stronger in some areas which can't be bad.
Yup, and it's up to us to make reparation, if we realise that we've really behaved in a vile manner, not to put it all on Jesus. That of course may be difficult for murderers who come to realise the full measure of their crimes. Still, I don't see Jesus as a patent remedy for guilty consciences.
