Of course, in the Bible, God "shows up" in a number of circumstances and situations.
God appears to Adam and Noah and Moses and others to give instructions/directions.
God appears to Jonah and Elijah and others in order to convict or to persuade.
God appears in the form of Jesus to bring good news to the poor and to proclaim the day of God's good favor.
God appears in Jesus to comfort the least of these.
God appears in the early church to be family for those without family.
And on and on....
Still, I suppose all these instances could be summed down to just a few things, but I'd probably expand it to say that God appears to...
1. Bring salvation/good news/joy 2. Bring conviction/judgment 3. To comfort/to ease 4. Just to enjoy God's creation/our worship/our company 5. To instruct/lead
Actually all of your distinctions pretty much fall in one or the other. If you want to make things more complicated that's fine. But, at the heart of Gods story it all boils down to those two options. Actually you could make the argument that it all boils down to judgment.
And, if you actually read the quote, you might have noticed that is is in present tense.
I actually read the quote. Yes, it is present tense.
What's your point?
And you would suggest that God bringing instruction = God bringing salvation? What if God brings instruction and the person ignores the instruction? Then God is bringing judgment?
I find it helpful to separate it out. God brings instruction and we can follow the instruction, leading to salvation or we can ignore the instruction, bringing judgment, but the instruction itself is not salvation itself, nor is it judgment itself.
But that's a minor point, really. If you prefer to think of it as all one of two things, that is fine with me. You just offered the option of discussing and I was.
I would say God coming just to enjoy being worshiped or to comfort is not really one or the other, but again, relatively minor point.
If you would think a little bit about your position here you would realize that God the fact that God gives "instructions or directions" is by itself meaningless. The important factor is the content of the "instructions". If you were to look at that you would realize that the content of these instructions is salvation or judgment. If you do A then you will be saved, if you do not do A then you will be judged. Again with Jesus the good news is not "you won't be poor on earth", it is follow me and you will have riches beyond imagination (and this world), which would be salvation, or the converse and you will be cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth which would be judgment.
So feel free to continue to make such distinctions if it helps you, it just seems like more effort than it's worth.
BTW, any chance of getting answers from the questions over at your place, I know that thread got going at a busy time, but I was curious.
That's from this post, but I haven't gone back to review which questions went unanswered. Sorry. If I have time to revisit it, I shall, but time being what it is, I tend not to go backwards unless someone revisits a specific question.
Whatever, I just know how important it is that people answer your questions, and I have made every effort to do so. If you choose to leave questions on the table that is fine, but please don't get bent out of shape when you don't get answers from others.
I just know how important it is that people answer your questions
To clarify, I think it's important that people have actual conversations, with give and take. Many times, I feel like I'm doing all the answering and getting few responses to my questions. So sometimes, you will see that I have asked people to respond to questions, because I'm trying to encourage conversations instead of inquisitions, which is how I think it sometimes comes across.
It is not uncommon for you to threaten to not respond to others until they have answered your questions. If you sincerely want responses, then the courteous thing would be to set an example by promptly and straightforwardly answering the questions put to you. I realize that is a little stretch, but it's good to go out of your comfort zone on occasion. Of course, you could always stop insisting on answers from others, which would leave you free to ignore whatever you wanted without being called on it.
I can only assume that this is a long convoluted way of saying that you are not going to answer my questions raised in the earlier post. If this is correct, then why not say "I'm not going to do you the courtesy of answering your questions" and be done with it.
It is not uncommon for you to threaten to not respond to others until they have answered your questions. If you sincerely want responses, then the courteous thing would be to set an example by promptly and straightforwardly answering the questions put to you.
Oh, please. There is NO ONE amongst our little group of liberal and conservative friends, who goes as far out of their way to answer questions as I have. Is that really your impression? That I don't answer questions?
I must say that I find that amazing.
You go on to reference my NOT answering some questions back at Christmas time. At the time, I said (truthfully) that I was too busy to get to them. Now, at this point, I am unsure of what answers remain unanswered or unaddressed. IF you want answers, by all means, ask the questions again.
I'm busy dancing around a bunch of questions now over at Marshall's - as you know - and awaiting answers from some of you all on some of MY questions.
Just look at that post and see who has and hasn't answered questions, I guess that would be my response.
I am striving to tackle some monstrously large questions - theories of atonement, biblical hermeneutics, etc - and that takes time. All the while, new questions keep coming in and new comments that misrepresent my position come in that I feel I have to clarify so you all can rightly understand my position and not misrepresent it.
If you have a specific question from back in December that you would like answered, ask it again and I shall strive to do so. But I simply don't have time to go back and revisit every post and make sure no questions went unaddressed.
The fact that you don't see how inconsistent you are about answering questions surprises me. I'm further surprised that you could misinterpret my position after I clarified it. So here it is.
I wouldn't ask questions if I didn't want an answer.
While I would like an answer, you are under no compulsion to provide one.
You have been very worked up in the past when your questions aren't answered. In some cases when your questions are not answered immediately.
You have missed, dodged, or ignored questions that I have asked you. (I'm sure that I have missed some of yours, but I try not to dodge or ignore them). In most cased you put the onus on my to re ask the question (or do the research to find it again).
I would suggest that a reasonable course for you to take would be to follow one of two options.
1) Answer questions promptly and completely in a timely manner.
2) Stop getting upset when people don't answer yo, and miss, dodge, and ignore to your hearts content.
It's not the answers, or lack thereof, that really bother me. It's the double standard.
So If you are interested in a dialogue, then you can choose to answer the questions in their original context. If not, then say so and move on, eventually they will come around or I'll get bored and do a post with the unanswered questions out of context. But, please don't expect me to dig up past questions and chase you down for an answer. A dialogue works best if it goes both ways q then a. That's not how a respectful (reasonably) conversation goes.
It's not the answers, or lack thereof, that really bother me. It's the double standard.
The problem, Craig, is you are presuming a double standard where none exists.
It appears you are saying that when you miss a question/don't answer a question, it is simply an oversight. But when I do it, it is possibly a dodge or an ignoring of the question.
In fact, in the real world, it is neither. I do sometimes miss questions, but generally I always try to answer them - even the ones I have answered multiple times.
There is NO dodging or evading of the questions. Now, sometimes, when I am busy or when I have multiple questions coming from multiple people on top of multiple misunderstandings to correct/clarify, then sometimes I simply can't get to them all, at least at a given time.
This happened in December, as you have mentioned. Now that I have more time, I am glad to answer the questions as I have time, but I don't have a good bit of time or energy to go back and try to find questions I did not get to.
You and/or your friends have missed multiple questions that I eventually let go. If a blog topic is much more than a week or two old, then generally, I have moved on and I presume others have moved on. I don't go back to Marshall's posts back in December and keep demanding that he answer questions he missed.
In short, there is no double standard. I'm not asking for questions to be answered from back in December for Marshall or you, and I'm not spending much time going back to answer them myself. However, if the topic or question arises again, I would be glad to address it.
No double standard, no dodging, no refusal to answer questions. Just the simple fact that I am a finite man with finite time resources and energy to go back and dig through old posts. I hope you can understand that my obligations to my family and work and church and other commitments comes before answering questions on old posts.
Stop getting upset when people don't answer yo, and miss, dodge, and ignore to your hearts content.
To further clarify: I don't "get upset" when people don't answer my questions. AS I HAVE STATED, what my concern is is when it is a one way street, with me answering question after question and clarifying misunderstanding after misunderstanding and your side ignoring many questions.
Again, I am interested in dialog, not interrogation. Any reasonable look at any of posts of our little gang in the last year or two will show that I have answered more questions than I have missed and that you all miss answering more often than I do. I don't know that, it's just my guess at this point. If you have a different hunch, you're welcome to it.
I am not worried enough about it to go back and research it. You can if you wish, or not.
You are of course right, you have never threatened to leave a conversation when answers aren't immediately forthcoming, you have never dodged a question. We all should always continue to answer all of your questions and expect nothing in return. We should go back and dig up the questions that you miss for you. How foolish and inconsiderate of me, I will start doing this research as soon as I can.
Seriously, if you are interested in dialogue as you claim, then it would seem that answering questions and responding to things is part and parcel of said dialogue.
All I am saying is that if you extend the same grace to others that you expect it might make things work more smoothly.
For my part I will continue to try to answer (or at least respond to questions as they come up), you can do as you wish. I've said my piece about this, so I'll stop wasting my time on this digression.
I shall continue to strive to answer all questions, as I have time. As I have been doing.
I shall continue to strive to be graceful towards others, recognizing that we all have time limitations. I apologize if it sounds as if I have been impatient, that was not my intent and I am sorry if it came across that way.
Hi, new here and found Craig through Dan's blog, I think...I liked Craig's comment so much I had to dig into his blog....Craig said "Actually you could make the argument that it all boils down to judgment." I think that's true, the more I think about it... We have salvation as we have been judged to love Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Great "little sermon"...thanks
18 comments:
That's one way of summing it up, I suppose.
Of course, in the Bible, God "shows up" in a number of circumstances and situations.
God appears to Adam and Noah and Moses and others to give instructions/directions.
God appears to Jonah and Elijah and others in order to convict or to persuade.
God appears in the form of Jesus to bring good news to the poor and to proclaim the day of God's good favor.
God appears in Jesus to comfort the least of these.
God appears in the early church to be family for those without family.
And on and on....
Still, I suppose all these instances could be summed down to just a few things, but I'd probably expand it to say that God appears to...
1. Bring salvation/good news/joy
2. Bring conviction/judgment
3. To comfort/to ease
4. Just to enjoy God's creation/our worship/our company
5. To instruct/lead
At least a few more options, seems to me.
Actually all of your distinctions pretty much fall in one or the other. If you want to make things more complicated that's fine. But, at the heart of Gods story it all boils down to those two options. Actually you could make the argument that it all boils down to judgment.
And, if you actually read the quote, you might have noticed that is is in present tense.
I actually read the quote. Yes, it is present tense.
What's your point?
And you would suggest that God bringing instruction = God bringing salvation? What if God brings instruction and the person ignores the instruction? Then God is bringing judgment?
I find it helpful to separate it out. God brings instruction and we can follow the instruction, leading to salvation or we can ignore the instruction, bringing judgment, but the instruction itself is not salvation itself, nor is it judgment itself.
But that's a minor point, really. If you prefer to think of it as all one of two things, that is fine with me. You just offered the option of discussing and I was.
I would say God coming just to enjoy being worshiped or to comfort is not really one or the other, but again, relatively minor point.
Dan,
If you would think a little bit about your position here you would realize that God the fact that God gives "instructions or directions" is by itself meaningless. The important factor is the content of the "instructions". If you were to look at that you would realize that the content of these instructions is salvation or judgment. If you do A then you will be saved, if you do not do A then you will be judged. Again with Jesus the good news is not "you won't be poor on earth", it is follow me and you will have riches beyond imagination (and this world), which would be salvation, or the converse and you will be cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth which would be judgment.
So feel free to continue to make such distinctions if it helps you, it just seems like more effort than it's worth.
BTW, any chance of getting answers from the questions over at your place, I know that thread got going at a busy time, but I was curious.
Which questions? Which post?
Too many to repeat, the post at your place that went so long (I think 120 plus comments).
That's from this post, but I haven't gone back to review which questions went unanswered. Sorry. If I have time to revisit it, I shall, but time being what it is, I tend not to go backwards unless someone revisits a specific question.
Dan,
Whatever, I just know how important it is that people answer your questions, and I have made every effort to do so. If you choose to leave questions on the table that is fine, but please don't get bent out of shape when you don't get answers from others.
I just know how important it is that people answer your questions
To clarify, I think it's important that people have actual conversations, with give and take. Many times, I feel like I'm doing all the answering and getting few responses to my questions. So sometimes, you will see that I have asked people to respond to questions, because I'm trying to encourage conversations instead of inquisitions, which is how I think it sometimes comes across.
Fair enough?
Dan,
It is not uncommon for you to threaten to not respond to others until they have answered your questions. If you sincerely want responses, then the courteous thing would be to set an example by promptly and straightforwardly answering the questions put to you. I realize that is a little stretch, but it's good to go out of your comfort zone on occasion. Of course, you could always stop insisting on answers from others, which would leave you free to ignore whatever you wanted without being called on it.
I can only assume that this is a long convoluted way of saying that you are not going to answer my questions raised in the earlier post. If this is correct, then why not say "I'm not going to do you the courtesy of answering your questions" and be done with it.
Just a thought.
It is not uncommon for you to threaten to not respond to others until they have answered your questions. If you sincerely want responses, then the courteous thing would be to set an example by promptly and straightforwardly answering the questions put to you.
Oh, please. There is NO ONE amongst our little group of liberal and conservative friends, who goes as far out of their way to answer questions as I have. Is that really your impression? That I don't answer questions?
I must say that I find that amazing.
You go on to reference my NOT answering some questions back at Christmas time. At the time, I said (truthfully) that I was too busy to get to them. Now, at this point, I am unsure of what answers remain unanswered or unaddressed. IF you want answers, by all means, ask the questions again.
I'm busy dancing around a bunch of questions now over at Marshall's - as you know - and awaiting answers from some of you all on some of MY questions.
Just look at that post and see who has and hasn't answered questions, I guess that would be my response.
I am striving to tackle some monstrously large questions - theories of atonement, biblical hermeneutics, etc - and that takes time. All the while, new questions keep coming in and new comments that misrepresent my position come in that I feel I have to clarify so you all can rightly understand my position and not misrepresent it.
If you have a specific question from back in December that you would like answered, ask it again and I shall strive to do so. But I simply don't have time to go back and revisit every post and make sure no questions went unaddressed.
I only have so much time in the day, friend.
If this is correct, then why not say "I'm not going to do you the courtesy of answering your questions" and be done with it.
Just a thought.j
If you'd like it answered, then why not do the courtesy of asking the question again and be done with it?
Just a thought.
Dan,
The fact that you don't see how inconsistent you are about answering questions surprises me. I'm further surprised that you could misinterpret my position after I clarified it. So here it is.
I wouldn't ask questions if I didn't want an answer.
While I would like an answer, you are under no compulsion to provide one.
You have been very worked up in the past when your questions aren't answered. In some cases when your questions are not answered immediately.
You have missed, dodged, or ignored questions that I have asked you. (I'm sure that I have missed some of yours, but I try not to dodge or ignore them). In most cased you put the onus on my to re ask the question (or do the research to find it again).
I would suggest that a reasonable course for you to take would be to follow one of two options.
1) Answer questions promptly and completely in a timely manner.
2) Stop getting upset when people don't answer yo, and miss, dodge, and ignore to your hearts content.
It's not the answers, or lack thereof, that really bother me. It's the double standard.
So If you are interested in a dialogue, then you can choose to answer the questions in their original context. If not, then say so and move on, eventually they will come around or I'll get bored and do a post with the unanswered questions out of context. But, please don't expect me to dig up past questions and chase you down for an answer. A dialogue works best if it goes both ways q then a. That's not how a respectful (reasonably) conversation goes.
It's not the answers, or lack thereof, that really bother me. It's the double standard.
The problem, Craig, is you are presuming a double standard where none exists.
It appears you are saying that when you miss a question/don't answer a question, it is simply an oversight. But when I do it, it is possibly a dodge or an ignoring of the question.
In fact, in the real world, it is neither. I do sometimes miss questions, but generally I always try to answer them - even the ones I have answered multiple times.
There is NO dodging or evading of the questions. Now, sometimes, when I am busy or when I have multiple questions coming from multiple people on top of multiple misunderstandings to correct/clarify, then sometimes I simply can't get to them all, at least at a given time.
This happened in December, as you have mentioned. Now that I have more time, I am glad to answer the questions as I have time, but I don't have a good bit of time or energy to go back and try to find questions I did not get to.
You and/or your friends have missed multiple questions that I eventually let go. If a blog topic is much more than a week or two old, then generally, I have moved on and I presume others have moved on. I don't go back to Marshall's posts back in December and keep demanding that he answer questions he missed.
In short, there is no double standard. I'm not asking for questions to be answered from back in December for Marshall or you, and I'm not spending much time going back to answer them myself. However, if the topic or question arises again, I would be glad to address it.
No double standard, no dodging, no refusal to answer questions. Just the simple fact that I am a finite man with finite time resources and energy to go back and dig through old posts. I hope you can understand that my obligations to my family and work and church and other commitments comes before answering questions on old posts.
Stop getting upset when people don't answer yo, and miss, dodge, and ignore to your hearts content.
To further clarify: I don't "get upset" when people don't answer my questions. AS I HAVE STATED, what my concern is is when it is a one way street, with me answering question after question and clarifying misunderstanding after misunderstanding and your side ignoring many questions.
Again, I am interested in dialog, not interrogation. Any reasonable look at any of posts of our little gang in the last year or two will show that I have answered more questions than I have missed and that you all miss answering more often than I do. I don't know that, it's just my guess at this point. If you have a different hunch, you're welcome to it.
I am not worried enough about it to go back and research it. You can if you wish, or not.
Dan,
You are of course right, you have never threatened to leave a conversation when answers aren't immediately forthcoming, you have never dodged a question. We all should always continue to answer all of your questions and expect nothing in return. We should go back and dig up the questions that you miss for you. How foolish and inconsiderate of me, I will start doing this research as soon as I can.
Seriously, if you are interested in dialogue as you claim, then it would seem that answering questions and responding to things is part and parcel of said dialogue.
All I am saying is that if you extend the same grace to others that you expect it might make things work more smoothly.
For my part I will continue to try to answer (or at least respond to questions as they come up), you can do as you wish. I've said my piece about this, so I'll stop wasting my time on this digression.
I shall continue to strive to answer all questions, as I have time. As I have been doing.
I shall continue to strive to be graceful towards others, recognizing that we all have time limitations. I apologize if it sounds as if I have been impatient, that was not my intent and I am sorry if it came across that way.
Hi, new here and found Craig through Dan's blog, I think...I liked Craig's comment so much I had to dig into his blog....Craig said "Actually you could make the argument that it all boils down to judgment."
I think that's true, the more I think about it... We have salvation as we have been judged to love Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
Great "little sermon"...thanks
Post a Comment