Double Standards? Religion Vs God?

jules · Feb 26, 2009

Hi all, new member here. Been reading through forum - nice.Been thinking about the Judah/Tamar situation (Genesis 38), where it seems that Judah needed to 'satisfy' some rather urgent needs (understandable for a bloke, after a hard day's work?). Judah, quite openly, perceives there to be a prostitue, makes good use of her - and promises (instead of instant payment for instant gratification) to send payment in form of a kid-goat after his return home. He get's his 'best friend & accomplice/confidante' Hirah the Adullamite to deliver the kid-goat - however, Hirah can't find the prostitute.Sometime later (3 months) Judah is told that his daughter-in-law Tamar has gotten pregnant by playing the harlot (widowed, not re-married), and gets ready to 'apply the law'. She reveals her reasons to him, etc ..... and all ends well.This situation raises a number of questions/points: How could it be that .....- Judah had no conscience problem employing the services of a whore?- Hirah had no problem letting his best friend go and be serviced by a whore?- The men around the area had no problem with Judah seeking the service of a whore?- The men had 'HUGE' problems, after finding out Tamar got pregnant by way of whoring?- Judah had 'HUGE' problems, after finding out about his daugther-in-law's whoring?- Judah was not shy to bring down the full weight of the law onto his daughter-in-law, and asked for her to be brought to him to be 'burned'?It leads to more questions re our perception of God/OT/NT and usual 'traditional' doctrines/interpretation of men calling themselves Christians:1. Cor 10:11 .... these things (OT) are to be considered as ensamples/examples to us .... (and more Scriptures to that effect)Usually Christians are told/taught that God can turn everything towards a positive .... and Christians should expect it too - isn't that too convenient an excuse?Above OT example shows that:- Judah didn't fear God or obey the law in many instances: - didn't keep his promise to Tamar- went whoring- wanted to punish Tamar for whoringAnd in spite of all this, it was in God's plan to bless the seed of Tamar/Judah mightily (Matthew 1:1-17) - so much so that she even gets a mention in the genealogy of King David & Jesus Christ!Hasn't the situation above not demonstrated clearly that God has NO problems blessing evil/sinning deeds - if it suits His purpose.?Obviously must be a hitch somewhere? ... or:- if one was to apply the law of Love/Grace (OT); why isn't it expressly stated in OT that God dealt both of the perpetrators some 'serious' GRACE?- what was the difference between King David's lust & murder (Bathsheba & Uriah) and Judah's lust/Tamar's revenge?- why did God have to destroy the fruit of sin (Bathsheba's first baby fathered by King David)?- why could God still go ahead and bless the 2nd son (King Solomon) resulting from an adulterous/murderous relationship?- maybe God was simply cynical and only 'used' King Solomon to bless Israel - when subsequently he lost his 'salvation' (not in Judaism) through whoring with many foreign concubines- when Jesus said that "...whosoever even looks at a woman, desiring her in his heart ... has committed adultery already ..." (Matt 5:27-28), maybe Judah wasn't really lusting after THE woman, but only needed sexual relief?- if the difference is in what our heart desires? That would provide an easy excuse for most 'lusters'. (..."I lusted only for sex - not the woman" ...)- I seriously doubt anyone would try to say that 'God' led Judah to commit whoring .... some may say that the 'Law' had not yet been established ....? On what basis then, were they ready to sentence Tamar but not Judah?- does God REALLY lead everything? Some like to claim that it is so, but insert a 'disclaimer' to say that other people (sinners) 'remove themselves' from God ... (1.John 2:19; Rom 11:22)Perhaps it is an individual's matter. Whoever is concerned about God's plan for his/her life, asks-seeks-knocks to find out directly from God. Once an answer has been received (checked with Scripture .... depending on the acceptance/rejection of a 'Spiritual Authority' of Paulinean interpretations & writings, etc.) it is followed. FAITH, is an all-justifying factor (Matt 21:21; and many more similar)Personal & individual faith then, automatically creates the rejection of the 'assumed spiritual authority' of so-called church leaders/preachers/pastors. That should be a good thing - God wants independent believers, not disciples of men (followers of men's doctrines).Perhaps the revelations of God in our own lives are just as valid as God's revelations to the men who wrote all epistles after Acts? Who could argue against it - surely Jesus only?......Couldn't it be rightfully argued that Judah/Tamar's example shows more that God does what HE wants, blesses whom HE wants - and that we can't decide/judge/advise beyond Christian basics for other people at all?More to the point: No man has apiritual authority over another! God has different standards, for different people, at different times! Hence anyone trying to create a doctrine from personal belief is ultimately wrong. What's good for one person is not necessarrily profitable for another. That also includes Paul and all other apostles then & now. Any doctrine outside Jesus' words only serves to create spiritual crutches for 'wannabe-christians' who need someone elses vision/revelation to make up for the lack of input of God in their own life. Not really what Christianity is about! ......of course, there are many more questions to be raised re modern christianity & mainstream churches/preachers' abuse of their false authoritybut I think these thoughts could make a good starting pointthanksJules

Dunamite · Feb 26, 2009

First off, welcome aboard! I am a bit of a newcomer myself.Both the New and Old Testaments are instructive for Christians, but they were written for different times, different purposes, and different audiences. So we need to be careful how we apply them. The basis of the OT was the old covenant and the NT is for the new covenant. The change is significant.Jesus' ministry beginning with the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 raised the bar and turned us in a new direction. For example he says that it is no longer an eye for an eye, but turn the other cheek. He taught compassion and forgiveness as opposed to blind obedience and retribution. His way was flexible and met the needs of the people of his age.This does not mean the old ways were wrong. The people of the OT would not have responded in the way God wanted had he skipped ahead to what he really wanted us to do. We had some learning to do to make us ready.Paul has lots to say about the Law and why it existed. He says it was supposed to be a harsh schoolmaster, It was harsh medicine for harsh people in harsh times.When Christians read the OT, they need to be careful to not become legalistic and forget the way that God wants us to behave by trying to turn back the clock. Learn from the OT, but keep it in perspective.When we read the OT with 21st century minds, we are making judgements that were not meant to be made. For example, we regard stoning as a barbaric form of punishment, especially when we hear of it still being done by Muslims under Sharia law. However, in harsh times when death was a commonplace occurrence the punishment had to stand out from all of the rest. Women died in childbirth, men died from infections from simple injuries and armies came in and wiped out whole cities of people. So if you want to make a sin seem bad enough to deserve death then it has to be significant enough that people will take notice. As I said these were harsh times.Many people look at God as cruel when he kills not only the evil person, but his family, too. They forget that in those days there was nobody to go to. There was no social assistance. A woman whose husband was killed by God would be scorned and not helped. She and her children would starve anyway. Killing them was humane if you look at it through the eyes of age in which these events took place. The same thing can be said for plural marriage. You could say that God condoned it because it happened. Or, you could say that God was moving us away from the practices of the times gradually to a point where we can more easily accept his will for us.Yes, moral relativism is bad. However, legalism is worse. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being legalistic. He forgave the adulterous woman and said that he did not judge her when he had a right to do so, but instead said to go and sin no more. Does this mean that he was condoning adultery? No. It means that forgiveness is the better route in the end and it is more likely to produce the kind of change that we need to make.Things are relative for the Christian. What is bad for me may not be bad for you and vice versa. The Holy Spirit lives in us and tailors the rules for our specific needs. He convicts us of sin and moves us towards seeking forgiveness and reconciliation with God. An example of this could be drinking alcohol. One Christian may be able to handle it and drink responsibly, but it could be the downfall of another person.

Romans 14: 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Paul goes on the say that it is by faith that we live and everyone's faith is different. We can put stumbling blocks in front of others by judging them and forcing them to live by our rules.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

You could look at these passages and think that it endorses moral relativism, but it doesn't. Because we have the Holy Spirit in us, it changes everything. We don't need fixed rules. We need to be in tune with the Holy Spirit and to act out of faith. If we can do this then we can't go wrong.I have not answered about Judah and Tamar. Judah was far from a paragon of virtue. He had some good qualities. His morals should not be an example to us to follow. If he had what we have, then he might have acted differently. He did not have that advantage. As such he is flawed. He behaviour is flawed too. His example is not one to be followed. If we listen to the Holy Spirit then we will know that. If we look for black and white then we will be confused.The Holy Spirit is more than just a person who inhabits us when we become saved. He is our teacher (John 14: 26), counsellor (John 14:16), judge (John 16:8), leader (Romans 8: 14), and intercessor (Romans 8:26). As well he makes Jesus real for us (John 15:26, 16:14) and secures our salvation (Romans 8: 15, Ephesians 1: 13-14).We see in Judah and Tamar the weakness of the law. We see that it does not produce change and that rigid adherence leads to moral dilemmas than in us spark feelings that justice was not served.I am not sure if I dealt with what you wanted. You had lots of content there. I dealt with how I felt led to respond.

jules · Feb 26, 2009

Thanks Dunamite, for being gentle .... ;-)It's an agreeable answer, highlighting our personal responsibility & walk with the Holy Spirit.Unfortunately this attitude is not one which many main stream churches like to foster.I'm not sure how far 'I'm God - I change not' (Mal 3:6) can or should be applied to everything God says, or to the apostles' claim & proof by way of 'circular reasoning' (2 Tim 3:16) of their writings validity for others today. That particular scripture could be considered to be no more than 'preachers confirming each other' to make disciples obey them and their interpretations - rather than finding & obeying God. Similarly, the many preacher's of today, confirming each other's 'calling' by attending & preaching on endless conference circuits - falsly assuming authority to lead even more unsuspecting 'sheep' to sacrifice their 'individual walks with God' on the altar of uniformity (often mistaken for unity). Obviously the statutes set out for Jews to follow, were deemed unneccessary for converted gentiles - more evidence that God's not really concerned about one's ability of obeying 'outside' rules, rather about the heart attitude of a person and one's submission to the leading of the Holy Sprit.Jules

DanielKonstanz · Feb 27, 2009

QUOTE (jules @ Feb 26 2009, 05:06 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=69976
Thanks Dunamite, for being gentle .... ;-)It's an agreeable answer, highlighting our personal responsibility & walk with the Holy Spirit.Unfortunately this attitude is not one which many main stream churches like to foster.I'm not sure how far 'I'm God - I change not' (Mal 3:6) can or should be applied to everything God says, or to the apostles' claim & proof by way of 'circular reasoning' (2 Tim 3:16) of their writings validity for others today. That particular scripture could be considered to be no more than 'preachers confirming each other' to make disciples obey them and their interpretations - rather than finding & obeying God. Similarly, the many preacher's of today, confirming each other's 'calling' by attending & preaching on endless conference circuits - falsly assuming authority to lead even more unsuspecting 'sheep' to sacrifice their 'individual walks with God' on the altar of uniformity (often mistaken for unity). Obviously the statutes set out for Jews to follow, were deemed unneccessary for converted gentiles - more evidence that God's not really concerned about one's ability of obeying 'outside' rules, rather about the heart attitude of a person and one's submission to the leading of the Holy Sprit.Jules
Hi Jules,thank you for your comments which brought me to the very point of Christian Faith again - we do not believe in a "Book" or a doctrines but in a living person ! Its so hard to get this into peoples mind that we do not follow a religion, in fact "religion" is the hardest obstacle for true Faith ! (who caused the condemnation of Christ, the pagan Romans or the religious people ...)As a person, God decides on His own what is right or wrong with a person who He cares for. Surely the OT is full of descriptions of sin without any comment, just as these are historical events, it just happened. From my understanding the result is important which in many cases turned out to be ok, seeing that God is in control if we let Him.Surely God wouldnt approve to these sins but He let it happen and did not (magically) intervene - this question "why did God let it happen ?" is a big argument against Christian Faith until now. I agree with your assumption that the only one who can answer this question is He Himself if we only asked Him seriously. God Bless and hope to read more about your Bible Studies in the future,Daniel

Search

Search

Double Standards? Religion Vs God?

jules

New Member

Dunamite

New Member

jules

New Member

DanielKonstanz

New Member

Similar threads