Harold's powerless, impotent, amoral god.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

The history of "The Orthodoxy" makes me cringe. That's because it's been so hard headed in the face of facts, and has been proven wrong by science over and over again. Orthodoxy means "right belief" which by its very nature resists change.

Our dear friend Harold says he believes in G(g)od, and even desperately wants to know him, but he is looking in THE WRONG PLACE. What he has is a blind, deaf and dumb god who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally. Of course this god is blind and deaf so how he/she/it knows what he/she/it is loving is a mystery I guess. And this god is absolutely powerless and totally impotent. He/she/it is absolutely and totally subject to scientific and moral laws, just as any mere creature. He/she/it can't make a virgin conceive because science says it's not possible. He/she/it can't become flesh because no science books says that this can happen. He/she/it can't heal anyone of anything because it's scientifically impossible. He/she/it can't be resurrected from the dead because science says it just can't happen. And the most important thing this blind, deft and dumb god of Harold's can't do is forgive sins. He/she/it is absolutely and totally powerless to exercise the ONLY ACT of moral authority that can save us broken creatures and our broken world.

What a totally sad and worthless god this is of Harold's. Harold's god is just one of the countless blind, deaf and dumb gods that man has dreamed up. Some have even carved their god out of wood, iron or ivory and prayed to them. Harold's god is no different than these - Blind, deaf, dumb, powerless, impotent, motionless, inanimate and incapable of any moral action whatsoever.

My dear friend Harold is looking for God in all the wrong places! But thankfully he has chosen to hang around those who believe, worship and are coming to know the God of the heaven and earth. The God who is capable of creating, loving and most of all forgiving. He breathed his breath of life into what was a bunch of atoms made up from the dust of the ground and "man became a living soul". And more importantly, when this man rejected and rebelled against the Creator God (the story of human history), he provided a way for man to receive his breath of life again. But first things first - man needs to have faith. Yes, he does have one essential requirement for us.

[OBW]

You know something? I think that Harold often overstates things for effect. But even at his most severe overstatement, the best you can say about some of your conclusions as to what those statements mean is that they could be what he means. But not necessarily so. I really think you should stick to critiquing specific statements in specific ways rather than broad-brushing things in extremely general ways. It seems that there was a tremendous fallout here several years ago relating to just this kind of thinking and response to people.

Now I would like to simultaneously suggest to Harold that he not pigeonhole everything into one or two pet side issues. Like suggesting that orthodoxy is mostly about things standing in contrast to science. Yes there are people who are dogmatic about certain aspects of ancient history that they will cling to in the face of science. But that is not a general swipe at orthodoxy. And there is no doubt that what we call orthodox has changed over time. Surely there is a core that has remained fairly solid. But the things around the sides are often in flux. Why? Because they probably don't belong within orthodoxy in any way shape or form.

But as long as you keep forcing everything about broad topics to be all about some side issue, you will be treated by may as dust to be brushed aside. Sort of like saying that everything is about race. Or homophobia. Or even cargo cults. Some people force their pet issues into everything. Don't be that person.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

You know something? I think that Harold often overstates things for effect.

Really? No way! I had no idea. Harold, I take everything back. (not)

Mike, maybe you've missed the dozens upon dozens (hundreds?) of posts Harold and I've made back and forth on these issues over the years, but I honestly don't know how you could be so seemingly clueless about why he posts what he posts and why I post what I post. In any event I think you should have waited and given him a shot at me first. But hey, maybe that's your "alternative view" of proper forum netiquette.

Some people force their pet issues into everything. Don't be that person.

Well, the fact is that they are MY pet issues. You have yours. I have mine. Harold has his. I'm sure you remember our days in the Local Church where we weren't allowed to have pets, much less pet issues. You don't want to got back to those days, do you? Lighten up bro. Don't be that person.

[Timotheist]

No pet issues are allowed... we should be all be of one mind, one with the Lord's current move on the earth.

[UntoHim]

Thanks Tim! You're right.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

You know something? I think that Harold often overstates things for effect.

Of course ....

Methinks the over-riding issue is that Harold seems to only know "bad" Christians; by that I mean angry, argumentative, judgmental, narrow-minded, hypocritical, etc. So when he reads either historical or contemporary events, that's all he sees.

When I grew up I felt that God was just a mean ole ogre on a throne, constantly out to get me, wanting to make my life miserable, and waiting to really stick it to me when I died. Why? That's all I knew from my father. Unfortunately, I have basically no memory of any childhood fun with my Dad. I have four brothers and four sisters and we all pretty much felt the same way growing up. It was our mother who taught us unconditional love.

If not for a few beloved Christian brothers in my life, I would never have known one iota of the love of God. Before my salvation, I was a sour, bitter, miserable pessimist who saw every glass as completely empty. It was only thru God's great love and endless mercy and grace, that eventually I was able to have a decent relationship with my Dad.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Our dear friend Harold says he believes in G(g)od, and even desperately wants to know him, but he is looking in THE WRONG PLACE.

Correction. THE WRONG PLACE(S). That's because I'm looking in all kinds of places, and most of them, turns out much to my dismay, are wrong places, or places that aren't completely convincing.

Originally Posted by Unto

What he has is a blind, deaf and dumb god

I have a God? How'd I manage such a thing? That means I'm over God, as in above 'Him.' And that's not something I can reach, even with my tallest ladder. But I'll play along.

Originally Posted by Unto

. . . who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally.

Well I know, that since I gave up trying to nail everything down to book, chapter, and verse, a long time ago -- like the book we have today is the new expanded Torah -- that you have to know First John way better than I. So you and I agree on the God=love thang. You're just overstating to be bombastic. I must be rubbing off on you.

Originally Posted by Unto

Of course this god is blind and deaf so how he/she/it knows what he/she/it is loving is a mystery I guess.

God's love knows no bounds. And he loves wastefully ... "for God so loved THE WORLD."

Originally Posted by Unto

And this god is absolutely powerless and totally impotent. He/she/it is absolutely and totally subject to scientific and moral laws

As it turns out, surprise, surprise, God is the ultimate scientist, and lover of science.

Originally Posted by Unto

He/she/it

I prefer She/He/It. It sounds better.

. . . can't make a virgin conceive because science says it's not possible.

Hey, right there in the very first book ever written, God made man give birth to a woman. So virgin births is chump-change. They happen even today. Look it up. And parthenogenesis happens with some of His critters. And we are animals. It may not have been a miracle.

My whole life, since coming out of the womb -- I was not born of a virgin, darn it -- I've been involved with Christianity. And it amazes me that Christians can believe in such far fetched ideas. They don't believe that an an angel came to Mohammed and dictated the Koran, that's too far fetched for them. They don't believe that an angel came to Joseph Smith and translated golden tablets that produced the book of Mormon. That's too far fetched for them. But they do believe an angel came to Mary and impregnated her. That's not too far fetched for them. So please excuse me that I have problems deciding which far fetched claims to believe and not believe in. Apparently, I'm not as smart as my fellow Christians. I get confused. I'm simple minded, so I discount all far fetched ideas. It's easier.

Originally Posted by Unto

He/she/it can't become flesh because no science books says that this can happen.

Science has nothing to do with it. It's the idea that the God of the whole universe can squeeze into a little speck in the universe. Maybe the deists are right. God can come into human form and die and yet the universe runs like nothing ever happened. (God can die? Now that's funny ... and far fetched.)

Originally Posted by Unto

He/she/it can't heal anyone of anything because it's scientifically impossible.

Science heals every day.

Originally Posted by Unto

He/she/it can't be resurrected from the dead because science says it just can't happen.

Science resuscitates every day too.

Originally Posted by Unto

And the most important thing this blind, deft and dumb god of Harold's can't do is forgive sins. He/she/it is absolutely and totally powerless to exercise the ONLY ACT of moral authority that can save us broken creatures and our broken world.

When did we become unbroken, and the world become unbroken? Are you unbroken bro Untohim? I guess I'm the only one that's still broken.

Originally Posted by Unto

What a totally sad and worthless god this is of Harold's. Harold's god is just one of the countless blind, deft and dumb gods that man has dreamed up.

You endow me with capabilities I'm not capable of. But maybe not. I guess I can make up mythologies as grand as those far fetch mythologies humans are still believing in. It's got to be easy. People will believe anything. But a deft god might be going to far.

Originally Posted by Unto

My dear friend Harold is looking for God in all the wrong places! But thankfully he has chosen to hang around those who believe, worship and are coming to know the God of the heaven and earth. The God who is capable of creating, loving and most of all forgiving.

And don't forget that He's a fun God. How come we make Him in our own image yet He's always very serious? Is God no fun? Is heaven always serious? Maybe you don't like Harold's God because Harold's God has a sense of humor. I do prefer a fun God.

I do think perchance that the original First John also said -- "God is Fun" -- but later scribes, narcissistically thinking they were the most important thing in this very large universe (they're/we're the center of the universe), needed God to be very serious about them, and removed it.

Originally Posted by Unto

He breathed his breath of life into what was a bunch of atoms made up from the dust of the ground and "man became a living soul".

And the center of God's concern, and the center of God's universe; us little teeny specks, on a teeny-weeny ball, in a teeny galaxy, far far away. Don't tell me that's not a funny God. You seem to be omniscient bro Untohim (given your post about Harold's god) can't you hear God laughing?

Originally Posted by Unto

And more importantly, when this man rejected and rebelled against the Creator God (the story of human history), he provided a way for man to receive his breath of life again. But first things first - man needs to have faith. Yes, he does have one essential requirement for us.

Oh that faith thing again. I'm told I can't see the prophecies in the Bible because I don't have faith; that faith turns the lights on ; that faith produces evidence.

But where does faith come from? Do I work it up, pump it up? Maybe if I pump my fist hard enough, or shout loud enough, I can get it. Maybe faith has to be worked up by me, and it all depends upon my works.

But the book is your standard of truth and doesn't it say faith is imputed of God? And something about walking by faith and not sight.

At any rate, faith, or sola fide, is not a magic pill, on this side of God. It doesn't open up evidence of anything.

Bro Untohim I highly suggest that you get your omniscience checked. It seems faulty.

Just remember, Harold's God is fun ... and loving ... and forgiving more than 490 times. He realizes He made imperfect humans. Of which I'm one ... obviously ... I can't even invent God ... but I am handy at finding fault in all the other inventions of God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mike, maybe you've missed the dozens upon dozens (hundreds?) of posts Harold and I've made back and forth on these issues over the years, but I honestly don't know how you could be so seemingly clueless about why he posts what he posts and why I post what I post. In any event I think you should have waited and given him a shot at me first. But hey, maybe that's your "alternative view" of proper forum netiquette.

And this is where the response ends out disproportionate to the cause. What I am saying is that you quote from one of his posts and make broad statements about what it all means, not just that you have a problem with those particular statements.

Your response reminds me of the person who has listened to a whole lot of different things that were deemed to be going wrong, but did not comment, then finally the dam breaks and everything that was ever wrong with everything is dumped onto the present situation. While it is popular to discuss the straw that broke the camel's back, in reasoned discussion, you can't do it that way. You have to take on each issue discretely. Having done that, you can then bring a number of them together to make statements.

But this discussion starts cold with a post from another thread, followed by a statement that defines in rather absolute terms, the nature of the G(g)od that Harold believes in. I see the same things you do and I find that despite the amount of rhetoric that could support that position, I also see some that does not. Therefore the blanket declarations you made as fact are disputable.

And don't forget that when you blow-up at a coworker, spouse, friend about one somewhat small thing because of what you have kept buried inside, you are often the one that seems off kilter.

And what you did looks nothing like a discussion. More like an ambush. You want to discuss any of those items? Provide a specific quote (enough to be sure it is not out of context) and tell what that quote seems to be saying to you.

And I can assure you that a quote about the nature of orthodoxy ("right thinking") does tend to be dogmatic and unbending. As people we are too prone to fight for what we think is true without really considering any contrary ideas. If you don't actually consider other ideas then you can't really say you have right thinking. You can only clearly say that you have the thinking you want to have.

But this small quote about "right thinking" does not support a statement of "blind, deaf and dumb god who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally." That is a non sequitur. Sort of like some of the jokes going around when I was in Jr High.

Q: What's the difference between a motorcycle?
A: A telephone pole because a tree has no doors.

Disjointed gibberish.

No what you wrote was not meaningless. But it was not connected to what you went to great lengths to set up to topple.

I hate to say it, but the way you approached responding to a statement about orthodoxy and rigid thinking was more of an ad hominem or a strawman.

And that is the entire premise of the first post setting up the contents of a new thread.

I don't care how much I wish Harold would be more focused and at least rational in his responses rather than seeming to be out to be the fly in every tub of ointment. If you want to have a discussion about the nature of God/god, then do that. Don't just show up to declare that someone has said it. You need to prove it. Not just point to "all the previous posts over a lot of time."

That is the kind of thing that Lee did to get us to accept that he was right about whatever. He used it on the meaning of economy in The Economy of God. (paraphrased)"If you look through the whole of scripture you will see that . . . ." Where? Show me one example. Don't just say it is so. And don't put up a quote that really has nothing to do with it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

No pet issues are allowed... we should be all be of one mind, one with the Lord's current move on the earth.

Last time I heard that statement I was in the LC. Or do you mean the Southern Baptists? No? AOG? No? Acts 29 Yes/No? In our homes? Yes/No? Etc. Where is the current move of God on the earth or is it just the move of God in each individual heart with each individual attempting to find God's movement on the earth within themselves? Fill me in.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this is where the response ends out disproportionate to the cause. What I am saying is that you quote from one of his posts and make broad statements about what it all means, not just that you have a problem with those particular statements.

Your response reminds me of the person who has listened to a whole lot of different things that were deemed to be going wrong, but did not comment, then finally the dam breaks and everything that was ever wrong with everything is dumped onto the present situation. While it is popular to discuss the straw that broke the camel's back, in reasoned discussion, you can't do it that way. You have to take on each issue discretely. Having done that, you can then bring a number of them together to make statements.

But this discussion starts cold with a post from another thread, followed by a statement that defines in rather absolute terms, the nature of the G(g)od that Harold believes in. I see the same things you do and I find that despite the amount of rhetoric that could support that position, I also see some that does not. Therefore the blanket declarations you made as fact are disputable.

And don't forget that when you blow-up at a coworker, spouse, friend about one somewhat small thing because of what you have kept buried inside, you are often the one that seems off kilter.

And what you did looks nothing like a discussion. More like an ambush. You want to discuss any of those items? Provide a specific quote (enough to be sure it is not out of context) and tell what that quote seems to be saying to you.

And I can assure you that a quote about the nature of orthodoxy ("right thinking") does tend to be dogmatic and unbending. As people we are too prone to fight for what we think is true without really considering any contrary ideas. If you don't actually consider other ideas then you can't really say you have right thinking. You can only clearly say that you have the thinking you want to have.

But this small quote about "right thinking" does not support a statement of "blind, deaf and dumb god who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally." That is a non sequitur. Sort of like some of the jokes going around when I was in Jr High.

Q: What's the difference between a motorcycle?
A: A telephone pole because a tree has no doors.

Disjointed gibberish.

No what you wrote was not meaningless. But it was not connected to what you went to great lengths to set up to topple.

I hate to say it, but the way you approached responding to a statement about orthodoxy and rigid thinking was more of an ad hominem or a strawman.

And that is the entire premise of the first post setting up the contents of a new thread.

I don't care how much I wish Harold would be more focused and at least rational in his responses rather than seeming to be out to be the fly in every tub of ointment. If you want to have a discussion about the nature of God/god, then do that. Don't just show up to declare that someone has said it. You need to prove it. Not just point to "all the previous posts over a lot of time."

That is the kind of thing that Lee did to get us to accept that he was right about whatever. He used it on the meaning of economy in The Economy of God. (paraphrased)"If you look through the whole of scripture you will see that . . . ." Where? Show me one example. Don't just say it is so. And don't put up a quote that really has nothing to do with it.

Actually bro Mike, Untohim's post was one huge ad hominem. As MOTA (Moderator Of The Altvs) I should cite him, and ban him for 2 years. But it was sooooooo cute. And he's my boss. Plus -- you guessed it, as always -- I love him. And he knows it. So I took it in good humor.

He can say whatever about my God, and I can't defend against it. Cuz I can't describe my God. I only sense Him, and trust from there, in spite of my unknowing. Untohim knows my God better than I. He's amazing.

We are tossed and driven
on the restless sea of time;
somber skies and howling tempests
oft succeed a bright sunshine;
in that land of perfect day,
when the mists are rolled away,
we will understand it better by and by.

By and by, when the morning comes,
when the saints of God are gathered home,
we'll tell the story how we've overcome,
for we'll understand it better by and by

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I grew up I felt that God was just a mean ole ogre on a throne, constantly out to get me, wanting to make my life miserable, and waiting to really stick it to me when I died. Why? That's all I knew from my father.

It doesn't surprise me that our conception of God comes from our impression of our father as growing up.

I'm glad that you reconciled with your dad. That never happened for me. Nor with my mother. Even devoting my life to Christ in the LC was not enough for my mother. And my dad didn't get it at all. My mom was a fanatic Baptist, and my dad an unapologetic racist. It made me stoutly individualistic ... as you can see. And prolly, in the end, saved me from the local church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm glad that you reconciled

Reconciliation and forgiveness yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

Last time I heard that statement I was in the LC. Or do you mean the Southern Baptists? No? AOG? No? Acts 29 Yes/No? In our homes? Yes/No? Etc. Where is the current move of God on the earth or is it just the move of God in each individual heart with each individual attempting to find God's movement on the earth within themselves? Fill me in.

Your fellowship has to be based on LSM publications. Otherwise you or I are not one with the Lord's move.....Although it does seem rather narrow that the eternal omnipresent God is limited by a man-made Christian publishing company where He moves on the earth.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Terry

Your fellowship has to be based on LSM publications. Otherwise you or I are not one with the Lord's move.....Although it does seem rather narrow that the eternal omnipresent God is limited by a man-made Christian publishing company where He moves on the earth.

Terry, you're just stating what LC states or are you stating your position or both?

Originally Posted by awareness

He can say whatever about my God, and I can't defend against it. Cuz I can't describe my God. I only sense Him, and trust from there, in spite of my unknowing. Untohim knows my God better than I. He's amazing.

I am a little confused. Who is amazing? Your God? or UntoHim?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Our dear friend Harold says he believes in G(g)od, and even desperately wants to know him, but he is looking in THE WRONG PLACE. What he has is a blind, deaf and dumb god who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally. Of course this god is blind and deaf so how he/she/it knows what he/she/it is loving is a mystery I guess. And this god is absolutely powerless and totally impotent. He/she/it is absolutely and totally subject to scientific and moral laws, just as any mere creature. He/she/it can't make a virgin conceive because science says it's not possible. He/she/it can't become flesh because no science books says that this can happen. He/she/it can't heal anyone of anything because it's scientifically impossible. He/she/it can't be resurrected from the dead because science says it just can't happen. And the most important thing this blind, deft and dumb god of Harold's can't do is forgive sins. He/she/it is absolutely and totally powerless to exercise the ONLY ACT of moral authority that can save us broken creatures and our broken world.

If Harold finds God in nature or otherwise it doesn't necessarily indicate that he believes in a God who loves everyone or anything unconditionally. It simply means that his view of God reflect the living and dying we know. It's reality. It's not a plastic "god" who lives forever (okay, maybe plastic only lasts 10,000 years). Maybe God for you speaks only through your interpretation of the Bible but maybe for Harold God speaks through many interpretations of the Bible, Egyptian writings, other ancients, poems of Emerson, writings of Faulkner etc. If God is so unlimited why are you limiting God to 66 letters and books?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What a totally sad and worthless god this is of Harold's. Harold's god is just one of the countless blind, deaf and dumb gods that man has dreamed up. Some have even carved their god out of wood, iron or ivory and prayed to them. Harold's god is no different than these - Blind, deaf, dumb, powerless, impotent, motionless, inanimate and incapable of any moral action whatsoever.

The problem is that the God of the OT is not consistently described and the God of the OT doesn't resemble the God of the NT so it is difficult to understand the God you are referring to. Is it the God who on many occasions commands Moses and others to kill women and children or the God who says "thou shalt not kill"? In the OT God kills the first born of the Egyptians and in the NT Herod apparently kills babies but is condemned for it. It seems often that Christians are making up the God of the OT and NT as they go whether it is throughout history or currently. The question ultimately is whether or not the God you have described (or not described) is one of the same G(g)ods described by Harold but condemned by you.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My dear friend Harold is looking for God in all the wrong places! But thankfully he has chosen to hang around those who believe, worship and are coming to know the God of the heaven and earth. The God who is capable of creating, loving and most of all forgiving. He breathed his breath of life into what was a bunch of atoms made up from the dust of the ground and "man became a living soul". And more importantly, when this man rejected and rebelled against the Creator God (the story of human history), he provided a way for man to receive his breath of life again. But first things first - man needs to have faith. Yes, he does have one essential requirement for us.

I agree with you here. In order for your God to be real to you you have to have faith. It seems as though that has been Harold's argument all along. Your arguments are based on your faith and he is not discussing God from a position of faith in various doctrines but what he sees and knows to be true. Yes, Harold has ventured out to regard science as valid so he no longer believes the Sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is only 6000 years old or that the a star stopped over the place where Jesus was born because that was a common belief back in those days (and today for that matter---stars herald the birth many of the Buddhist Lamas) that stars heralded the birth of a god or the virgin birth---Zeus was born of a virgin as well--- Harold also has questioned the Bible e.g. why is there a different order as how the earth and animals etc came about between Gen. 1 and Gen 2? Oh, I know, the Bible is all about faith and therefore forget about the logic/order/truth of the Bible or God compared to science or common sense which conflicts with it because it is all about faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

If Harold finds God in nature or otherwise it doesn't necessarily indicate that he believes in a God who loves everyone or anything unconditionally. It simply means that his view of God reflect the living and dying we know. It's reality. It's not a plastic "god" who lives forever (okay, maybe plastic only lasts 10,000 years). Maybe God for you speaks only through your interpretation of the Bible but maybe for Harold God speaks through many interpretations of the Bible, Egyptian writings, other ancients, poems of Emerson, writings of Faulkner etc. If God is so unlimited why are you limiting God to 66 letters and books?

Thanks Dave. I can't blame Untohim for getting Harold's God all wrong. Even I don't know Harold's God. The androgynous whoever is a grand mystery to me.

But I do enjoy 'him' in nature, and sense a presence of something I call God ; perhaps a invisible friend for adults.

Untohim can't stand God being mysterious. He obviously need certitude. And he thinks he gets that from 66 books.

But his God still turns out to be a mystery. Just the big difference between the 39 books and the 27 books results in a confusion of what God is really like.

Methinks he needs to take a look at Meister Eckhart's God:

"Anything we say about God is a lie."---Meister Eckhart

"God is closer to me than I am to myself: my being depends on God's being
near me and present to me. So God is also in a stone or a log of wood, only
they do not know it. If the wood knew God and realized how close God is to
it...it would be blessed as the highest angel. And so I am more blessed
than a stone or a piece of wood because I am aware of God and know how
close God is to me. And I am the more blessed, the more I realize this, and
I am the less blessed the less I know this. I am not blessed because God is
in me, but because I am aware of how close God is to me, and that I know
God." - Meister Eckhart

[testallthings]

MY GOD

Originally Posted by awareness

Cuz I can't describe my God. I only sense Him, and trust from there, in spite of my unknowing.
We are tossed and driven
on the restless sea of time;
somber skies and howling tempests
oft succeed a bright sunshine;
in that land of perfect day,
when the mists are rolled away,
we will understand it better by and by.

By and by, when the morning comes,
when the saints of God are gathered home,
we'll tell the story how we've overcome,
for we'll understand it better by and by

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

MY GOD

I just love that song. We will understand it better by and by.

Bro TAT, you seem like you have a sweet heart.

Back to the by and by.

It seems everything is in the by and by. We wait for the Lord to return, in the by and by. The Jews await the Messiah in the by and by.

And even Nietzsche was awaiting the Übermensch, or the superman, in the by and by.

And even New Ager's await for the coming of the critical mass of enlightened people, that will bring utopia, in the by and by.

I guess we see it ain't right now, so it's got to be better in the by and by.

"Temptations, hidden snares
often take us unawares,
and our hearts are made to bleed
for a thoughtless word or deed;
and we wonder why the test
when we try to do our best,
but we'll understand it better by and by. "

[testallthings]

Br. Awareness,
If we have a sweet heart is from the Lord and to Him alone goes the glory.
I am sure the Lord has kept you and will keep you in Him by and by.
Thanks again for the song.

[OBW]

Awareness,

I vaguely remember that song from my AOG days (prior to my 18th birthday). I can hear the chorus, but not the verse.

When I look at the words now, while the whole thing does not enamor me, it is not what I recalled. Maybe the problem is that the words were not really paid attention to accept for the escape of the chorus bookended by the words "by and by."

It was primarily used as part of the pining-for-the-future escapism that so often happened rather than a sober reflection on life's trials being something that we have a hard time completely reconciling with the paradise that we think we have coming in the future and the God who is providing it. There was no resolve to stand in the midst of the issues of today while having hope for tomorrow. It was too much of an opportunity for mental and emotional escape today.

I know two AOG preachers that had something very difficult happen to them. And when your teaching is that enough faith will move God to heal, it was hard to accept that the son who became paralyzed from the waist down (my cousin) and the wife of another AOG preacher that fell down basement stairs and shattered her wrist (she had been a phenomenal piano player) were not healed after enough intercessory prayers. . . . It took years, but the ability to play piano returned (at least mostly), but my cousin is still in a wheel chair or on crutches with braces. And his health is continually affected by it. That took a toll on my aunt and uncle for many years.

But we will understand it better by and by. Maybe discover there was no grand "reason" for any of it. But we will understand.

[zeek]

Here's another familiar hymn with a similar message:

Tempted and tried, we’re oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all the day long;
While there are others living about us,
Never molested, though in the wrong.

Refrain:
Farther along we’ll know more about it,
Farther along we’ll understand why;
Cheer up, my brother, live in the sunshine,
We’ll understand it all by and by.

Sometimes I wonder why I must suffer,
Go in the rain, the cold, and the snow,
When there are many living in comfort,
Giving no heed to all I can do.

Tempted and tried, how often we question
Why we must suffer year after year,
Being accused by those of our loved ones,
E’en though we’ve walked in God’s holy fear.

Often when death has taken our loved ones,
Leaving our home so lone and so drear,
Then do we wonder why others prosper,
Living so wicked year after year.

“Faithful till death,” saith our loving Master;
Short is our time to labor and wait;
Then will our toiling seem to be nothing,
When we shall pass the heavenly gate.

Soon we will see our dear, loving Savior,
Hear the last trumpet sound through the sky;
Then we will meet those gone on before us,
Then we shall know and understand why.

[OBW]

Familiar? Not in my circles(before or after the LCM). What is sound and true in a song like that is mostly either in the middle verses that no one even looks at, or is gotten through to shout out the parts about heavenly gates and meeting the savior or those gone before us. Factually true, but so derisive of the present and pining for the future. Everything is either "the good old days" or "by and by."

All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. (Yoda)

[zeek]

I learned the song when I was attending a Pentecostal church.

Here's a lovely Chet Atkins version: https://youtu.be/WJ5NnxY-cEQ

Tempted and tried, we’re oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all the day long;
While there are others living about us,
Never molested, though in the wrong.

That's a complaint against God for tempting and trying the writer and those he/she is appealing to and never molesting others.

Refrain:
Farther along we’ll know more about it,
Farther along we’ll understand why;
Cheer up, my brother, live in the sunshine,
We’ll understand it all by and by.

The absolutely optimistic chorus.

Sometimes I wonder why I must suffer,
Go in the rain, the cold, and the snow,
When there are many living in comfort,
Giving no heed to all I can do.

There's a note of envy there.

Tempted and tried, how often we question
Why we must suffer year after year,
Being accused by those of our loved ones,
E’en though we’ve walked in God’s holy fear.

Feelings of persecution.

Often when death has taken our loved ones,
Leaving our home so lone and so drear,
Then do we wonder why others prosper,
Living so wicked year after year.

Again envy.

“Faithful till death,” saith our loving Master;
Short is our time to labor and wait;
Then will our toiling seem to be nothing,
When we shall pass the heavenly gate.

Hopeful.

Soon we will see our dear, loving Savior,
Hear the last trumpet sound through the sky;
Then we will meet those gone on before us,
Then we shall know and understand why.

Christ and the saints as Omega point the ultimate end of everything.

The hymn implies the utter impossibility of understanding the suffering and injustice of the world in THIS life. There's truth in that.

[Ohio]

I read this about Atkins which helped explain the background of his song ...

[QUOTE]Chet Atkins was born on June 20, 1924, in Luttrell, Tennessee, near Clinch Mountain. His parents divorced when he was six, after which he was raised by his mother. He was the youngest of three boys and a girl. He started out on the ukulele, later moving on to the fiddle, but traded his brother Lowell an old pistol and some chores for a guitar when he was nine. He stated in his 1974 autobiography, "We were so poor and everybody around us was so poor that it was the forties before anyone even knew there had been a depression." Forced to relocate to Fortson, Georgia, to live with his father because of a critical asthma condition, Atkins was a sensitive youth who made music his obsession. Because of his illness, he was forced to sleep in a straight-back chair in order to breathe comfortably. On those nights, he would play his guitar until he fell asleep holding it, a habit which lasted his whole life.[/QUOTE]

[OBW]

And the story behind the song is often its redemption. Too often I know I listen and given only the words with the tune, can see nothing but pining for glory.

It is a little like listening to Job or his "friends" pontificate without any knowledge of the events that preceded it.

And so many songs like this will get chosen by those who are pining, and panned by those who don't have the back story. But without the back story (theirs or your own) they do seem trite.

And probably are not generally good "worship" songs for general consumption.

But they are very meaningful as part of the testimony of someone who has lived the Job-like hard times.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

On those nights, he would play his guitar until he fell asleep holding it, a habit which lasted his whole life.

Guitar geeks like me can relate to that. Players like Atkins and Jerry Reed cannot be denied. But, Atkins might have just liked the tune. I first heard his version on a vinyl album of him playing gospel songs back around the time I got saved @1969. I added it to my repertoire then, only I funked it up a little.

Wiki has this to say about the origin of the song:

The lyrics to the song were written in 1911 by Rev. W. A. Fletcher, an itinerant preacher, while he was traveling to the Indian Territories by train. Fletcher was feeling depressed because his wife, Catherine Louise Emmett Fletcher of Cleburne, Texas, was expecting their first-born child in a few weeks and he wouldn't be present for the occasion. He felt that his priorities were with his ministry in the Indian Territories and wrote the lyrics to reflect his frame of mind at the time. Sitting next to him on the train was J. R. Baxter, a gospel music promoter who was quite taken with the lyrics that Fletcher was writing and offered him $2.00 for them. Mr. Baxter subsequently had them put to music and the song has been quite popular in the gospel music arena ever since

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Familiar? Not in my circles(before or after the LCM). What is sound and true in a song like that is mostly either in the middle verses that no one even looks at, or is gotten through to shout out the parts about heavenly gates and meeting the savior or those gone before us. Factually true, but so derisive of the present and pining for the future. Everything is either "the good old days" or "by and by."

All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. (Yoda)

I'm gobsmacked bro OBW. Great post and thoughts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And the story behind the song is often its redemption. Too often I know I listen and given only the words with the tune, can see nothing but pining for glory.

It is a little like listening to Job or his "friends" pontificate without any knowledge of the events that preceded it.

And so many songs like this will get chosen by those who are pining, and panned by those who don't have the back story. But without the back story (theirs or your own) they do seem trite.

And probably are not generally good "worship" songs for general consumption.

But they are very meaningful as part of the testimony of someone who has lived the Job-like hard times.

Another great post OBW. In the SBC I grew up in Farther Alone was a familiar song.

Eventually I came to wonder if it was true. or just false hope in something that will never take place. I do agree and see the value in such hopes, pinnings, and crying's out (zeek's favorite of mine) tho, and the utter unquestionable lack of knowing now.

[OBW]

"Farther Along," "We'll Understand it Better By and By," "In the Sweet By and By," and "I'll Fly Away" are somewhat similar, but not entirely so.

"Farther Along" is potentially the current condition for some and looking to what is to come is reasonable. The same could be said of "We'll Understand it Better By and By." But without the experience within it, these turn into a lot of "yada, yada" followed by looking to the future.

"In the Sweet By and By" is almost entirely about the life to come. Lots of beautiful imagery to capture the imagination. Easily escapism.

"I'll Fly Away." God is mentioned once. It is strictly about getting out of Dodge.

As worship (congregational singing) they are way too "me" oriented. But in the first two, there is easily something that could be a prayer, like those found in some of the Psalms (which aron will quickly point out that Lee panned).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

"Farther Along," "We'll Understand it Better By and By," "In the Sweet By and By," and "I'll Fly Away" are somewhat similar, but not entirely so.

"Farther Along" is potentially the current condition for some and looking to what is to come is reasonable. The same could be said of "We'll Understand it Better By and By." But without the experience within it, these turn into a lot of "yada, yada" followed by looking to the future.

"In the Sweet By and By" is almost entirely about the life to come. Lots of beautiful imagery to capture the imagination. Easily escapism.

"I'll Fly Away." God is mentioned once. It is strictly about getting out of Dodge.

As worship (congregational singing) they are way too "me" oriented. But in the first two, there is easily something that could be a prayer, like those found in some of the Psalms (which aron will quickly point out that Lee panned).

Sorry. Been having health issues.

Music can be so inspiring. It can make a crappie life better, and bring happiness. These songs inspire hope in the face of not knowing. Let's face it, there's lots that we don't and can't know. These kinds of songs inspire peace about not knowing.

And peace about not knowing is a very good thing. May we all have it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

These kinds of songs inspire peace about not knowing. And peace about not knowing is a very good thing. May we all have it.

We need to recognize when we don't know, which is in itself a kind of knowing. But, we don't have to be at peace with our ignorance. To be at peace with it is to resign ourselves to a kind of intellectual death. Better to stay with the tension between ignorance and knowledge which is our true epistemological situation. To me these two hymns express that tension because while they promise ultimate knowledge in the by and by, they don't deliver it. Only God can do that.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry. Been having health issues.

Music can be so inspiring. It can make a crappie life better, and bring happiness. These songs inspire hope in the face of not knowing. Let's face it, there's lots that we don't and can't know. These kinds of songs inspire peace about not knowing.

And peace about not knowing is a very good thing. May we all have it.

Sure hope you're ok Harold! My dad is here in Florida for about a year now. PM me and will lift you up in prayer brother. You can always call me I'll pm you my current number...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Sure hope you're ok Harold! My dad is here in Florida for about a year now. PM me and will lift you up in prayer brother. You can always call me I'll pm you my current number...

Thanks manna-man. Your number is the same one I've had to some time. It was good talking to you.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks manna-man. Your number is the same one I've had to some time. It was good talking to you.

Likewise...