I think God, defined for now as that entity, internal, external, or unknown, to which humans tend to appeal in times of need, typically need for strength or moral grounding, is definitely a respecter of persons. I think respect for others is central to most surviving belief systems that govern/facilitate societal interactions. I can imagine an "anthropic principle" for belief systems, such that ones not based on respect for others would not have survived in social environments and become know to us in the present.
I have not yet written/published the article that goes with this survey.
For years I've heard folks quote "God is not a respecter of persons!", and it's upset me. I wondered, "why are they saying such a thing?"
So I guess I'm going to give away the meat of my essay here, but... :-)
I finally did a search on a site that had multiple versions of the Bible, figuring they were taking a quote from one of them. I found that the only version of the Bible that had that quote was the old King James Version. The New King James Version, and no other versions, had that wording. So clearly, to me, some folks had latched on to just one version of archaically worded scripture.
For the Bible reading ilk, just take a look at Daniel. Gabriel, an angel who says he stands in the presence of God, calls Daniel "one highly esteemed"; being highly esteemed goes beyond respect, in my dictionary that is. I could go on with examples. Even the fact that Jesus came and underwent huge injustice for us shows that God is more than someone who shows respect for humans, God showed us the ultimate love by sending Jesus to die for us! Love blows respect away.
And this thought process was the reason for my update of my One Dimensional Number Line Theory essay. My point there being I wanted to press on to an easy-to-understand one-dimensional-number-line, various emotions from hate to love. Obviously in between would be "respect". Thus it makes no sense to say God is not a respecter of persons since God went WAY BEYOND respect by showing us the ultimate love by sending his son to die for us.
(Yes I understand this is a very difficult thing to understand, for believers/Christians, let alone for people who want to know all the details... "why did Jesus die for us?", "how are we cleansed by his blood?", etc...)
To provide some more contrast to the saying, I will agree God is not a racist. God does not help or hinder a person based on their skin color, eye color, hair color, ethnic heritage, etc... Anyone can read my short essay on my simple beliefs on God see I believe God works to try to help everyone, no matter how hateful they are or love filled they are.
this topic just recently came up in a class at school I was taking. God is definitely a respector of people. Even though bad things happen in the world, there has to be bad to be good. We would not enojoy the good things in life if it wasn't for the bad.
Thank you for joining me on the vanguard of dealing with the religious head-beaters and Bible-worshippers. I am just one who wants to see God get the respect God deserves, or you could say, the love that God deserves.
Saying that God is not a respecter of persons is an insult to God! As I pointed out above, if one graphs between hate and love, respect is somewhere past the middle, on the side of love, but no where near as powerful as love.
Jesus said God shows love to the kind and unkind, the just and unjust, he makes it rain (a blessing!) on the righteous and the wicked.
As so many Christians are so quick to point out "he gave his only son etc…" is that an act of respect? Kind of. But it's really an act of amazing love, "blowing respect away" (to use the vernacular).
It seems to me that some of the people who say God is not a respecter of persons are using it as some form of beating.
With all due respect, I completely disagree with the notion that one must have bad in order to have good. Or phrased in any of many other similar ways. That the only way to know good is if there is something bad.
C--- A------- (not verified) on Thu, Mar 4, 2010 - 12:31 pm
Even though bad things happen in the world, there has to be bad to be good. We would not enojoy the good things in life if it wasn't for the bad.
I must again state my complete rejection of this notion.
Generally, yet over-arching, the most good anyone can say about bad things that happen is that the next time it or similar things happen, people tend to be more prepared to deal with the aftermath and picking up the pieces of the tragedy. Decades ago I would not have been able to make that claim but now, to borrow a song title from Joni Mitchell, I've Seen Both Sides. In other words I've had my share of disappointments, like we all have, and tried to learn from other's mistakes and advice.
From TOP to BOTTOM I reject that one must experience bad in order to know good, or appreciate good, or know what good is, or …
One does not need an insect bite* to appreciate a hike in the forest, the mixture of cool and warm air on one's face, the dappled sunlight and earthy fragrances.
One does not need to step in dog doo in order to have an enjoyable day throwing the frisbee in the park.
One does not need to be thrown in outrageous debt or face foreclosure to enjoy surround sound or keep the rain off one's head to avoid sleeping under a bridge.
One does not need nuclear weapons in order to know that some people are war-mongers or that God's Green Earth contains the best tasting fruit and spices you can find on ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PLANETS!
One does not need to go to war, be in a war, or even read about wars, in order to have peace.
* Or tick attachment, or encounter with a roaring large hungry mammal, etc…
Jesus himself says as much in the Gospels and Revelation. Check them out. Read those 5, don't skim.
Now, if you're talking about what people call "being spoiled" or "taking their gifts for granted" or some other sayings that begin to sound more like accusations than good advice…
Comments
plantpuppy
Mon, Jun 30, 2008 - 8:29 pm
Permalink
respect
I think God, defined for now as that entity, internal, external, or unknown, to which humans tend to appeal in times of need, typically need for strength or moral grounding, is definitely a respecter of persons. I think respect for others is central to most surviving belief systems that govern/facilitate societal interactions. I can imagine an "anthropic principle" for belief systems, such that ones not based on respect for others would not have survived in social environments and become know to us in the present.
NewOldSalt
Mon, Jun 30, 2008 - 9:55 pm
Permalink
Why did you vote for "Other"
Why did you vote for "Other" then? Why not vote for the "yes" option?
NewOldSalt
Mon, Jun 30, 2008 - 10:54 pm
Permalink
My Motivation
I have not yet written/published the article that goes with this survey.
For years I've heard folks quote "God is not a respecter of persons!", and it's upset me. I wondered, "why are they saying such a thing?"
So I guess I'm going to give away the meat of my essay here, but... :-)
I finally did a search on a site that had multiple versions of the Bible, figuring they were taking a quote from one of them. I found that the only version of the Bible that had that quote was the old King James Version. The New King James Version, and no other versions, had that wording. So clearly, to me, some folks had latched on to just one version of archaically worded scripture.
For the Bible reading ilk, just take a look at Daniel. Gabriel, an angel who says he stands in the presence of God, calls Daniel "one highly esteemed"; being highly esteemed goes beyond respect, in my dictionary that is. I could go on with examples. Even the fact that Jesus came and underwent huge injustice for us shows that God is more than someone who shows respect for humans, God showed us the ultimate love by sending Jesus to die for us! Love blows respect away.
And this thought process was the reason for my update of my One Dimensional Number Line Theory essay. My point there being I wanted to press on to an easy-to-understand one-dimensional-number-line, various emotions from hate to love. Obviously in between would be "respect". Thus it makes no sense to say God is not a respecter of persons since God went WAY BEYOND respect by showing us the ultimate love by sending his son to die for us.
(Yes I understand this is a very difficult thing to understand, for believers/Christians, let alone for people who want to know all the details... "why did Jesus die for us?", "how are we cleansed by his blood?", etc...)
To provide some more contrast to the saying, I will agree God is not a racist. God does not help or hinder a person based on their skin color, eye color, hair color, ethnic heritage, etc... Anyone can read my short essay on my simple beliefs on God see I believe God works to try to help everyone, no matter how hateful they are or love filled they are.
p------- c--- l--- (not verified)
Mon, Feb 8, 2010 - 12:16 pm
Permalink
The problem is in the
The problem is in the definition. It changes from person to person. You understand that and that is the reason you state "for now..."
O----- p----- a... (not verified)
Sat, Feb 13, 2010 - 10:55 pm
Permalink
Well I would have to vote the
Well I would have to vote the same with the others which is yes.
NewOldSalt Admin
Thu, Mar 4, 2010 - 11:17 pm
Permalink
I cast a vote for you
I cast a vote for you
C--- A------- (not verified)
Thu, Mar 4, 2010 - 1:31 pm
Permalink
this topic just recently came
this topic just recently came up in a class at school I was taking. God is definitely a respector of people. Even though bad things happen in the world, there has to be bad to be good. We would not enojoy the good things in life if it wasn't for the bad.
NewOldSalt Admin
Thu, Mar 4, 2010 - 2:51 pm
Permalink
Thank you for joining me on
Thank you for joining me on the vanguard of dealing with the religious head-beaters and Bible-worshippers. I am just one who wants to see God get the respect God deserves, or you could say, the love that God deserves.
Saying that God is not a respecter of persons is an insult to God! As I pointed out above, if one graphs between hate and love, respect is somewhere past the middle, on the side of love, but no where near as powerful as love.
Jesus said God shows love to the kind and unkind, the just and unjust, he makes it rain (a blessing!) on the righteous and the wicked.
As so many Christians are so quick to point out "he gave his only son etc…" is that an act of respect? Kind of. But it's really an act of amazing love, "blowing respect away" (to use the vernacular).
It seems to me that some of the people who say God is not a respecter of persons are using it as some form of beating.
NewOldSalt Admin
Thu, Mar 4, 2010 - 11:12 pm
Permalink
You DO NOT Need to Know Frostbite to Be Burned
With all due respect, I completely disagree with the notion that one must have bad in order to have good. Or phrased in any of many other similar ways. That the only way to know good is if there is something bad.
C--- A------- (not verified) on Thu, Mar 4, 2010 - 12:31 pm
I must again state my complete rejection of this notion.
Generally, yet over-arching, the most good anyone can say about bad things that happen is that the next time it or similar things happen, people tend to be more prepared to deal with the aftermath and picking up the pieces of the tragedy. Decades ago I would not have been able to make that claim but now, to borrow a song title from Joni Mitchell, I've Seen Both Sides. In other words I've had my share of disappointments, like we all have, and tried to learn from other's mistakes and advice.
From TOP to BOTTOM I reject that one must experience bad in order to know good, or appreciate good, or know what good is, or …
Jesus himself says as much in the Gospels and Revelation. Check them out. Read those 5, don't skim.
Also, please read my short essay, Some Simple Beliefs About God 2.2 http://NewOldSalt.com/simplebeliefsaboutgod.
Now, if you're talking about what people call "being spoiled" or "taking their gifts for granted" or some other sayings that begin to sound more like accusations than good advice…
This is another issue.