A little impatient, Cupid? Then stop slowing the process.
More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?
I don't see how that's relevant. Sorry to be so blunt.
Oh, or is it that God was referring to a specific set of guilty? Is that part of the point we're missing? If so, would it not have been easier to post that portion of the text and make that point clear? We could have resolved this topic in one post, then.
Not quite. For example, as I mentioned a few posts ago "... it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness."
Right, and by the will of God. On this point we have no disagreement.
It does imply fallibility and the need for discovery on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. It implies imperfection and limitation on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. What a curious twist, indeed.
Ah, so it is
man that rewrites the terms of his covenant with God? I hadn't realized that Biblical man had the authority in the God-man relationship. In case you hadn't noticed, the change is God's unless we're to discredit the prophet. That is, God says one thing at one time, and another at another. These two things contradict. Now, I have
no problem with the progressive relationship 'twixt God and man, but what does this say of God's method? Quite simply, that God needs to continually redefine the relationship 'twixt Himself and His creations because each state of that relationship becomes inadequate. Now
my theology doesn't have a problem with this, but most people's hit a brick wall when considering the inadequacy of God. But it was God's will that the relationship should be inadequate and redefined; if God was not prepared for the experimental result, He should not have been in the lab. I hadn't meant to spend this much on this digression until it came up for a topic, but the only problem with the redefined relationship are the ideas of
why that relationship needs redefining and what that means in practical application. That, indeed, makes for a curious twist.
This sounds like another twist on which came first, the chicken or the egg? God's* choices concerning man were made first. They were made first and then they were made known to the people. Once presented, it is up to the person to decide their own fate.
Of course, this is only
after Ezekiel. See, that's the whole point of noting the contradiction. By Exodus, those who decide their own fate when presented with the law will be subject to the iniquities of the father because
God will visit those iniquities upon them. Aside from your mischaracterization of the issue (was that intentional?) I'm not sure you addressed the point. Part of the contradiction at hand is the idea of why the sons who stand with God would be subject to the iniquities of the fathers. What the fathers teach and the sons decide is irrelevant if
God wants the sons to bear the burdens.
What is important about the resolution is that it does not shake the broader paradigm of the faith. The resolution you've offered, while anthropologically sound insofar as any religious idea is anthropologically sound, and while easily conceivable, presents a condition whereby much of the perceived evil that God will regard and judge will result solely from His inadequacy in the relationship--why would God waste the time to fix what wasn't broken?
Now,
does God make mistakes?
Obviously not; thus, we can only conclude that the need to redefine the relationship--the sense of growing inadequacy--is specifically by design; in that sense, what was the point of those sons bearing the burdens?
In Exodus, the sons did not know enough to reject sin. It was incumbent upon their fathers to teach them. By the time of Ezekiel, the sons knew enough to make their own choices and were held accountable for their own actions.
I see nothing in the Exodus citation in question to speak of what the sons would choose; I see nothing of what the sons did or did not know. Specifically, what I see is that the
Lord will visit those iniquities upon them, regardless. And why? Jealousy. Because the fathers rejected God, the Lord will take it out on the sons. There's a mafia/golf joke about getting back at or blackballing you, your children, your children's children ... and so forth. It's a cheap line that fills predictable moments in gangster comedies. But it has precedent. The Lord will take it out on you, your children, your children's children, and so forth. And for something
your father did.
We recently had an episode in the Seattle area where a five year-old brought a gun to school and killed a little girl. The investigation turned up a frightening story. The boy lived, essentially, in a crack-house. Let your most squalid nightmares run wild on that; the gun was easy enough to obtain, and we need not look farther than the occupants of the house to answer the question of where he learned that guns are a solution. Now
this idea I understand. But I don't think that's the sole point of the Exodus part. God wasn't nearly so specific as the refutations of contradiction have been.
If, by Exodus, the Lord guarantees--by His will--this transferrence of method and perspective, then we have no free will, and the whole human endeavor becomes nothing more than a show of grandeur by a cruel and hidden puppeteer.
At this point, other than possibly posting God's* promise of mercy down to the thousandth generation on the children of those who love God* and keep the commandments, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how the larger text of Exodus 20 changes much with respect to the alleged contradiction between Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. But, since you do, I'd suggest that you be the one to demonstrate it.
That you should deliberately choose that path tells me what it's worth. You have to understand, on this point, since I ride
Tony1 about his bowdlerized citations and off-topic responses, and the importance of context as relates such diversions, I feel obliged to invite you over and over again to simply tell us that
Teg has the wrong idea about those two citations and show why. If the larger text changes nothing for you, then I'm perfectly happy to sit here and await a proper explanation of the contradiction. You're on your way to one, and please don't think I don't appreciate it. But I want to make sure you know exactly how big a theological can of worms you're opening with this notion of revising the relationship according to the growing body of human knowledge. The result of it becomes vital: we've mentioned things like tattoos, dietary law, and sexuality. It isn't that we necessarily need to undertake these issues presently--sexuality, especially, has a way of coming up--but that we see in the offered resolution a device of flexibility not present in a more relevant (to my life) form of the Christian faith, the activist faith. To use a specific point of illustration: in my political career people have
died for being homosexual while the Bible was on the ballot. We can fairly say that we see among the activist-fundamentalist Christianity that lobbies for laws and demands suspension of civil rights a
lack of this device of flexibility you've employed. Understand, I'm thrilled to even see it. It's all in what people do with it, then, to be just and not arbitrary; but as a practical application, I can't tell you how foreign an idea this flexibility is to my Christian experience. To steer back to direct relevance, there's a reason I'm hounding on this revising of the human relationship with God. Understanding its dimensions within the Christian endeavor is difficult since it is generally denied. I don't yet understand how it functions for you, so yeah ... there's a reason I press on that issue.
It has been reasonably refuted and you've already recognized its validity, or at least hinted at it, at least once... "It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid..."
And here's the reason I keep asking about the larger text. I'm sure you'll find the example you're providing is irrelevant, since the validity
wasn't relevant as I had pointed out. If you're referring to another time, please point me to it, but I'm pretty damn sure that's what you're citing.
Such a perspective has already been offered with respect to Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. You've seen it, you've acknowledged its validity, and now you deny it?
Like I said, a can of worms. Big. Huge.
Get over yourself, will you please? If you've got something better to offer, just do it.
Ah, the last time I pointed out that you have no point, you got upset. What, are you admitting it this time? What is it about your faith that you won't put any effort into it? What, you say it is so and we believe? I know life would be easier that way,
Cupid, but you've got to give a little more to justify your position. Like I noted, there's nothing in Exodus about the choices, and if God is willing to guarantee the passing of those sins--to eliminate the free choice to transcend--merely because the inadequacy of the relationship He has designed leads him to doubt the possibility of transcension ... well? It's a pretty stupid drill, then, isn't it?
I mean, Exodus makes it pretty clear that God is willing to make sure that burden of iniquity gets passed along. Now, your offered explanation is fine, except that it cracks the rest of the faith as I mentioned. It's not
just the people that are confused about their relationship with God, and it's pretty fair to say that all bets are off if this constant revision of the terms of the relationship is the real and proper way of things. I mean, like I said, it's not that your refutation of the contradiction isn't valid. It just does a whole lot of collateral damage in the meantime.
Yeah. I'd like to see at least one debate in this forum get resolved in a straightforward manner. Why don't you take a crack at it?
Sure: I agree that the conditions of contradiction exist, and I cannot accept the refutation which, while proper within the condition it attempts to resolve, invites greater and more fundamental questions pertaining to the validity of the very faith. To accept your resolution,
Cupid requires a step deeper into the forest of doubt. You raise more difficulties than you resolve.
Straightforward enough?
--Tiassa
