Unquiet Voice - Latest Comments

Re: Is God a Totalitarian Tyrant?

Mario Rodgers — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 01:37:36 -0000

Ah people and their fairy tales.

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

Kimberly Furnell — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:45:37 -0000

Wow, thank you. I am so impressed by the clarity and truth of what you are saying here!

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

Kimberly Furnell — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:42:26 -0000

"But if "hell" and "unquenchable fire" have no meaning, literally or metaphorically, then why should we avoid sin?"

For me the answer to this question is to say it's the wrong question to ask. In my life, I don't seek to avoid sin...ever. What I DO do is seek Christ. I seek Christ because he is my heart's desire, because I love him, because he is everything good and everything I TRULY want. Jesus is the way. When we seek him we avoid sin simply by not coming across it (ideally, obviously!).

And of course I DO sin...don't we all? But I don't really need any motivation NOT to sin other than wanting Christ more than anything else. And yes, sometimes I get distracted/confused/selfish and want other things more than him. But in the end it always comes back to me finding that nothing satisfies like Christ.

I figure: it's like this, the life God is offering us is a five star hotel. A life of sin, of rejecting God is a Holiday Inn at best (sorry Holiday Inn). The only reason anyone ever choices the Holiday Inn is because they don't really GET that God is offering them something MUCH BETTER.

And sometimes, yes, we have lived our lives in such a way that sin seems appealing. But avoiding sin purely to avoid punishment is totally missing the point, the good news, and Christ himself.

"Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart."

Personally, I have found, that Christ IS the desire of my heart. And in seeking him first (because I WANT to) he has given me "all these (AWESOME) things as well".

Re: Is God a Totalitarian Tyrant?

Zeldamaster17 — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:08:30 -0000

FYI, we are mortal...that's the whole point of your religion isn't it? I own what I own, period, anyone tries to take it away, they get hurt. Nothing more, nothing less. It's my five thousand dollar car? You think it's gods? So I have to give it to you? *pulls out gun, guy runs away* that's what I thought....

Re: Is God a Totalitarian Tyrant?

conscious — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:10:37 -0000

In the hierarchy of tyrants he sure have the highest seat .
Remember he kills read the bible and find out as well his hatered to specially women .
He have no love at all and satan it is just his tool to torture people.
Katerina , tsunamis and pakistan earthquakes was all his doing he is nothing but a murdered
Hitler was made to his image a murdeiously for those who r of people and just like him he torture handicaped people
The bible is full of lies about him obviously for those who know that that book was written by man and in the years they changed a lot of words.
The deleted the un in front of mercifull .(conscious) the bible is full of lies about god

Re: Is God a Totalitarian Tyrant?

Dorretta — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:31:25 -0000

I think Hitler had more mercy then this "Jesus God "

Re: Is God a Totalitarian Tyrant?

Jesus wasn't god — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:58:23 -0000

Er, Jesus wasn't God.

Re: Book Review: Radical by David Platt

disqusaccount1981 — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:02:48 -0000

I loved that book as well. I read it a couple months ago and it was quite refreshing. If I wrote a review, it would be basically identical to what you said!

For those wondering how to pray for the countries of the world in a year, I would suggest signing up for Operation World email alerts (found here http://www.operationworld.o... ). You get an email once a day listing a country to pray for.

We are currently using the emails to teach our three year old to pray for others. Every day, we look up the country and then have her pray that the people would learn to follow Jesus.

Re: Yes, Let’s Replace It

Troy Camplin — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:25:00 -0000

Yes, let's replace it with a spontaneous order catallaxy.Crony capitalism needs to go the way of the dodo.

Re: Yes, Let’s Replace It

D. Stuart — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:08:20 -0000

There's definitely truth to your competitive advantage of big businesses, but keep in mind that there are limitations to what big companies can do. To borrow from a very inadequate analogy, short basketball players can still maintain a certain advantage over the tall ones. Larger isn't always better. For instance, today I stopped by the locally-owned hardware store. He was locking his doors as I had my turn signal on. He noticed. He waited for me to pull in (long line of traffic coming the other way). I rolled down my window, asked if he had what I was seeking, and he opened his doors and spent five more minutes doing business with me, also offering advice on what I was looking for. He had an extra $10 in revenue because of his customer service. I hadn't really thought of his hardware store that strongly in the past, even though he's closer than Lowe's and Wal-Mart. Yet I'll NEVER get that kind of customer service from either of those two places except in rare occasions.

Anecdotal evidence only goes so far, though. I suppose I've done enough economic investigation to know that the fears most people have in regards to Big Business are unfounded except in some instances. Studies have shown that when Big Box Retailers come in and "steal" the local Mom-n-Pop shops' business, the local economy isn't worse off over time, it is better off. Because retailer shops can be used for more than one form of commerce, other businesses come in and provide goods and services that the Big Box place cannot, even though a decade prior to that the "local" stores might have been doing what Big Box is now.

Economies of scale serve an important stewardship factor. Is it really right that a bag of corn should be sold at $4 when economies of scale let it be sold at $2.50? Is it not a waste of scarce resources that have alternative uses? The folks now saving $1.50 (not to mention the costs of driving around to other littler stores to find things that aren't sold at the corn store) can spend that money on other goods and services that also help an economy prosper.

Another very important factor in this is protection of property rights. Exxon and BP get away with reckless oil drilling because there's a cap (from the government) on their expense in case of a risk. I guarantee you the CEOs have had analysts in their board rooms calculating the public relations "costs" in comparison to the expenses they'd pay in reality if the government didn't cap their liabilities. You are right, not every single bit of Big Business advantage is granted by government. But a lot of it is. That's why Big Business isn't very pro-free markets. They like having their government lobbying power. But with a protection of property rights, those damaged from environmental disasters would be paid by the offenders, which would be part of their risk assessment. Trust me, Big Oil has a sweet deal going.

As for intellectual property, I'm glad you recognize the leveling effects of such laws. But keep in mind, for centuries people have invented and thrived without such protections. I understand the initial urge to believe that no innovation would take place. But copyrights and patents actually squelch innovation. Check out Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom and the book Against Intellectual Monopoly and Stephan Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property (both available free online). I took a class from Kinsella last fall on Intellectual Property. It's pretty much a sham.

Re: Yes, Let’s Replace It

brad — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:08:05 -0000

Okay, if I could, from my comment I would swap out "pure" for "absolutely run amok". I can see what you're lifting up is a different kind of pure, so let me shy away from that. What I want to say first, is that armed corporations are just as scary as armed governments. In this hypothetical exercise, it would be easy to claim that they'd be beneficent, but I know people too well to believe that.

Corporations do experience a benefit from their size, and I'm prepared to sound naive here, but I don't believe that the power in that comes only or even primarily from lobbying the government. (I see how it is certainly a contributing factor, but not the driving one.) Economies of scale apply, and the bigger they are, the more corporations can advertise, and in other ways dominate mindshare. Not only that, but they can use their size to bully or buy competitors. They can leverage competitive advantages that other smaller outfits can't.

I'll go along with free enterprise meaning exchange. I'm not jumping off the deep-end and saying everything is driven by greed. But even with government controls, there are companies like Exxon and Enron (note to self: never name a company E--on!) Without them, I don't see how that would be improved. I can't see how this paradigm shift itself would counteract human nature's proclivity to short-term thinking -- in fact, I think it would tend to make our society even more stimulus-response.

What's really interesting about your proposed system is that intellectual property would go away. Now that's novel. That would do far more to keep the playing field level than any government restriction could. But if everyone benefits from an invention or a discovery, wouldn't that reduce the initiative to risk the expensive investment of such things? If a technological advance wasn't going to directly give a company a competitive advantage, why would it invest in it? How sweeping would that become? Could you have any industry that survived on imagination, investigation or creativity? I've been twisting that over in my mind for the past couple of days. If that's the way things went, can you imagine what it would do to industrial espionage? (And how could I buy stocks in that!? :-) )

Re: Yes, Let’s Replace It

D. Stuart — Mon, 30 May 2011 13:45:49 -0000

Brad,
Mike's point and my point are essentially the same: Something's drastically wrong. We both point to the societal problem of institutionalized injustice. We both despise the current economic system. Yet we both understand the economic system differently. While Mike seems to point to an unjust economic system defined as "capitalism," I would point to a hijacked form of capitalism—call it consumerism, call it Keynesianism, call it corporatism, or call it fascism. But it is not at all "pure" capitalism.

Which brings me to your point about "pure" capitalism or "pure" communism. It's interesting you point out the worst example of both: totalitarian state vs totalitarian corporations. While it needs to be said that the word "pure" isn't intended to imply "without fault," if there's any form of "pure" capitalism, it most certainly does not mean corporations stand in absolute authority. The phenomenon of "Big Business" is not a result of laisse-faire markets, but of government collusion with the businesses who have political connections. As corporations become larger, they do not have a comparative advantage in flexibility and adaptability. Competition enters the market to offer a better good or service. If competition is prohibited, that is, by definition, not a free market. It is not "pure" capitalism. Yet Big Business has spent oodles of money lobbying the government for protection against competitors. This comes in the form of patents, copyrights, licensing laws, and other various arbitrary laws such as zoning, capital structure, etc. In other words, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and Big Whatever have competitive advantages not because they are big per se, but because they have the money to lobby government to protect them from competitors. On a smaller scale we've seen small businesses like florists and hairdressers lobby the state governments to require education and licensing in order to keep away competitors. They don't see it this way, but this is a monopoly, not permissible in a free market (else they wouldn't have sought the government to keep them monopolistic!).

Besides, even if you were right about the opposing bad choices of pure capitalism or pure communism, which would you rather have: an all-encompassing state with a military to back its demands that require you to adhere by its dictates, laws, and purchase its services, or various Big Corporations that can't require anything of you and don't have any weapons to confront your noncompliance?

As for the reforms, I do believe the structure of society matters. As economist Art Carden has said, “The important question in social science is not really evaluating the moral quality of the outcome, but evaluating the institutions that produce the outcome.” In evaluating the institutions, we find that many of them are built on force, aggression, or coercion. At its best, free markets and a free society is coupled with the rule of law, and by definition that means harm done to another is punishable by law. While many say that capitalism is driven by greed, I believe capitalism is built on production and exchange, made by free people pursuing their own interests. Lest that last bit scare you, I don't mean the selfish pursuit that diminishes the humanity and dignity of others, but a pursuit that cooperates with others. Remember, if people are truly free, the only way to "get" is by exchange, that is, to "give." Cooperation.

You may be right that the government has placed controls over the markets due to its perception that those markets are operating ineffectively or have "failed" in some way. That's always the justification. But consider the origins of money compared to the money system we have today. As I mentioned in the blog post, the Federal Reserve Bank is the origin of the monetary injustice we have today, which creates all sorts of moral hazards that create stock bubbles and permits companies to make risky business decisions at somebody else's expense (society's).

Given the imperfections of the economy we live in, I'm content with a few regulations that make a really horrible situation from becoming even worse. But that's only treating the symptom. The disease is an unjust money system. If you really want to fight injustice, fight the money system, not the corporations that operate within the absurd reality of an unjust system.

Re: Yes, Let’s Replace It

brad — Sun, 29 May 2011 02:23:26 -0000

Doug,
Because this perspective is so novel to me, it's like brain candy. From where I'm sitting, it seems like your point and Mike's are actually the same, they just loop around and get there from the opposite sides.

In what we've seen that's closest to pure Communism, the government stands in absolute authority. In what we've seen that's closest to pure Capitalism, corporations stand in absolute authority. The end result is pretty similar -- people end up oppressed in some way.

So I come back to my initial point on his blog: the perfect redemption of either system would require the dissolution of "system" the way we understand it. It seems that it would be fully both and fully neither.

The global reforms that you're posting here bear that out. To make this work, every geopolitical system we can conceive would have to be torn down and rebuilt. What you're getting at is a society that is voluntarily bought into by everyone. But it is unmistakeably a society. (In the same way that chaos theory leadership, however unique its form, is still a type of leadership.) I'm not sure how we get around that, or that's even a worth goal.

I tend to think that the reason that there are so many government controls in place is through experience of what has transpired without them. For example, it didn't take too many runs on a stock for us to realise that some kind of restrictions needed to be deployed in the stock market. Imagine where the aggressive juggernaut of Microsoft would have ended up without government intervention. Restrictions are an imperfect intervention in an imperfect world. But without them, I tend to think things would get a lot more imperfect.

Feel free to chew on, challenge or fix any of my thoughts above. :-)

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

amock — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:52:52 -0000

I say thanks to Rob Bell as well, who has helped to give collective permission for Christiandom at large to re-examine what scripture really is saying about hell, judgement and eternity. Jesus never said we had to properly interpret doctrine to be accepted into heaven. If judgement and the lake of fire last for only an age and not for the eternity we've typically imagined, this doesn't take away from the gospel at all. In fact, viewing everything - even a lake of fire as having a greater purpose sounds more like the God I know anyway. The Psalmist says he longs and groans for the day God's judgements come to earth, for it is finally then that the people of the entire earth with "learn righteousness". God, who is the only perfect, loving and just being in the Universe will give the proper measure of reward and punishment to every person - In the end, perhaps God's theme throughout scripture, that "mercy triumphs over judgement" will also be his heart throughout eternity. There's just way too many scriptures that imply a total restoration of creation..that includes humanity! Why wouldn't it? It is for humanity that Jesus died, the part he cares for more than anything. Read my blog for more thoughts: www.aliciamock.blogspot.com

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

D-Dawg — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:32:49 -0000

Thank you for your reply. I guess I have difficulty defining the bad news and good news too broadly. The bad news isn't simply brokenness, which is a result that doesn't necessarily imply separation from God, but sin, a cause which results in a type of brokenness, and then ultimately death.

God, in His holiness, cannot bypass the reality of sin. Sin makes us unacceptable to Him, yet the good news is that He has provided a way for us to become acceptable: through the shed blood of Jesus. If we die in our sin, we remain separate from God, but if the blood of Jesus covers us (by faith in Him and confessing Him as Lord), we can stand before God, made righteous through Christ.

I think the distinction between "making the broken whole" versus "redeeming humankind from their sin" is important because "brokenness" alone doesn't explain humankind's problem, nor does it inherently point to lasting consequences or judgment for remaining broken. To many ears, "brokenness" evokes only images of earthly suffering, not spiritual deficiency before God. Many sinners aren't suffering in an earthly sense. Thus, to reach them requires that they become convicted that they are broken spiritually, sinners in need of a Savior.

To be saved requires that there be something to be saved from. Thus, I think it is of vital importance that the entire witness include what Jesus and the Bible say about the consequences of sin, so that sinners may see that there is a choice - the wages of their sin, or the Savior who saves and forgives their sin.

What is your view on including the idea of the sinner's choice in the proclamation of the Good News?

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

D-Dawg — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:54:20 -0000

Fair question. Even if we take it completely as metaphor, doesn't "hell" still have meaning of some kind?

Taken metaphorically, I would say that, re: the cutting off of hands, Jesus is saying, "Sin is a really big deal, so big that - even though I'm not telling you to do this - it would be better to enter into life maimed than into hell unmaimed. Therefore, avoid sin at all costs."

But if "hell" and "unquenchable fire" have no meaning, literally or metaphorically, then why should we avoid sin? They must have at least metaphorical meaning. What seems to me the most likely possibility is eternal torment of some kind, though not a literal fire.

Literal or metaphorical, Jesus is saying that sinning will result in a painful cost. Even if we call it "painful cost" instead of "hell," isn't that something we should want to avoid and to help other people avoid?

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

DJ-Jazzy — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:50:22 -0000

So D-Dawg (did your parents name you that?), is it hard to write with one hand or no hands? Is it hard to know what Doug wrote with no eyes? Wait, you have both hands? You have both eyes? But I thought you were taking these verses literally? Have you really never masturbated? You've never once looked at a girl with lust?
Oh, you have but those words don't mean what they actually say? I mean it says, "CUT IT OFF." Why is half the verse literal but the other half is not?

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

cathy — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:03:49 -0000

I've been reading quite a few articles about Rob Bell, and watching some videos. I was really glad to come upon your blog posts about this. This controversy sheds real light on what is wrong with modern day, westernized Christianity...it isn't working, hasn't worked for quite some time, and the world is suffering because of it. The greatest commandment comes from the lips of Christ, love God and love each other. If we were truly going about our business, we wouldn't have to try and scare people with fear of the wrath of God. But because Christianity has become such a facade, people don't see love...and the best we can do is promise them hell to get them to join up. Kevin DeYoung gives the perfect example in siting 8 reasons we desperately need God's wrath instead of why we need Love. I'm with Rob....Love wins....and God will take care of the rest.

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

Lonnie — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:11:26 -0000

Rob Bell: "Love Wins!" Critics: "Like Hell!"

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

Doug — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:33:57 -0000

Brian McLaren's book, A New Kind of Christianity, deals with how we read the Bible... do we read it like a constitution, or like a community library? The latter seems to be a more respectful and sacred approach.

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

Doug — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:32:32 -0000

You can go back and read some of my posts in this blog, but stated broadly: "Jesus has come to restore the world from brokenness to wholeness." It could be stated another way: "Jesus is Lord" (which implied in his own day, "...and Caesar is not!"). It could be understood another way: "The world is astray and God is seeking us to bring us closer to God."

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

D-Dawg — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:16:39 -0000

What, in your view, is the Good News?

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

Doug — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:58:33 -0000

D-Dawg, I think you need to consider that the verses you are quoting may not contribute to your theological stance in the way that you assume them to. Yes, there are more words and phrases than "hell" used to defend the doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT), but the consideration is that while there might be universal reconciliation means that there is a form of justice that will bring about reconciliation to God that will be "hellish."

I just got Love Wins, and it is sitting here on my desk. It isn't very thick and it has big print. Rob Bell isn't writing a treatise. But from the little bit that I've read, the bulk of his "evangelism" is to get people here and now and in this life to embrace Jesus and follow him.

If UR is true, you may be right that the "destiny" part of it is minimized compared to the ECT doctrine because ECT is based on avoidance/escapism. But that doesn't make it true or untrue, it just makes the good news very good for the afterlife, but even better for now and the afterlife.

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

MB — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:33:55 -0000

This is not a contest between Scripture verses. All Scripture is from God so how do we take the verses you quoted and see them in context? None of the three eschatological views say that there is no punishment for sin. Those who believe in Heaven and Hell teach that hell is eternal life being tormented. Those who believe in annihilation say that the wicked die the 2nd death and are no more. However, this does not work with the facts that the wages of sin is death and that the we are told that the last enemy is death and at some point death will be no more. So what does make them work? What Pastor Bell and others are doing is showing that the punishment for our sins is not eternal life in torment, but that there is punishment. It is just not eternal. At some point, those who have rejected Christ will see the errors of their ways and repent. Does this put them in the same status as Christians who followed Christ in this life? No. This is what is illustrated by the various parables. Those who choose to follow Him in this life will be greatly rewarded.

Re: To Hell with Rob Bell?

D-Dawg — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:58:52 -0000

Luke 13:24,28 (NASB)
Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.

Matthew 25:34, 46 (NASB)
Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

John 3:14-15 (NASB)
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

John 5:23b, 24 (NIV)
He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:35, 40 (NIV)
...I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 11:25 (NIV)
...I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;

John 12:48 (NIV)
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

John 17:3 (NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

What I glean from these passages is:

- there is a bad result
- at its best, the bad result is a lack of eternal life, not being able to enter the door, being thrown out of the kingdom of God
- at its worst, it will involve weeping and gnashing of teeth, eternal punishment, condemnation, judgment, death

- there is a good result - inheritance of the kingdom, lack of condemnation, eternal lack of hunger and thirst, being raised up, eternal life
- the result is based on whether one goes through the narrow door, is righteous, honors the Son, hears Jesus' word, believes God who sent Jesus, looks to the Son, believes in Jesus

Jesus Himself uses the term "eternal punishment." Also, He frequently references "eternal life" and what one must do to enter into eternal life. The inference is clear that there is something else that is lesser and which will be our lot if we don't do the things needed to enter into eternal life.

If we are to accept Jesus' own words, we must discard the idea that there is no eternal punishment, or, at worst, only a temporal punishment. Hard to accept? In my human limitation, I don't particularly like the idea, but to believe Jesus is to accept His words, even when they make me uncomfortable.

Re: universal reconciliation, perhaps my understanding of the nuances of universal reconciliation (UR) is incomplete, but the impression I get from its advocates is that they're mainly looking toward the very end, when they believe all will be in Heaven, even though they leave open the possibility that there may be a temporal punishment for some before entering Heaven. The thrust of what I hear from UR advocates seems to major on Godly living, but downplays the need for belief in Jesus specifically as Savior.

What I was asking is: why do UR advocates appear not to care very much about the possibility that, even from their own perspective, failing to promote belief in Jesus as Savior could result in a number of people going through temporal punishment? (I am open to writings, etc., indicating that I am misperceiving UR advocates.)

Shouldn't even the possibility of temporal punishment lead UR advocates to actively promote belief in Jesus as part of the overall equation of a person's eternal destiny?

In sum, though, Jesus Himself taught of the importance of believing in Him and His Father who sent Him. Therefore, we should actively include this teaching in our efforts to tell the world the Good News of the Savior who died for our sins.