God’s Concept of Justice

We are not the judge.

Readership: Christians
Author’s Note: Ed Hurst contributed to the writing of this essay.
Reader’s Note: This essay is composed of several case studies which allow the reader to envision the concept of justice in several different contexts.
Length: 5,600 words
Reading Time: 19 minutes

Case Study 1 — Some Men Get all the Girls

For the first case study, I’ll refer to a previous post, God doesn’t care if you find a wife! (2020 April 13). The title of this particular post is rather click-baitey, but it was seriously stated in a previous comment, and I felt it had some interesting nuances that needed attention.

The first impression on the reader is how he is affected by the title.

  1. Does it seem arrogantly presumptuous to speak of whether God cares about something?
  2. Or do you find something curious about this statement that opens the eyes of your heart?

The next step is in asking yourself, why should this statement affect me the way it does?  If you are (1), then is it because your mind is attempting to prove or disprove the claim in the statement as either true or false?  If you are (2) then what is the nature of your reaction?  Is it because you wish it to be true, or because your heart has perceived it to be true?

In this post, it is assumed that God does indeed care about marriage, but ultimately, it remains for the readers to contemplate and discuss the truth of the matter among a variety of contexts. This post outlined four case studies which were offered to help the reader sort out the possibilities.

Case Study 1 is about emotional maturity, and being able to experience life on your own terms.
Case Study 2 is about how people want to blame god for not giving them something in life.
Case Study 3 is about trusting God, and the discussion is tinged with a bit of Calvinism.
Case Study 4 is an example of how the heart and mind are unable to communicate on the same terms.

The Conclusions have one line of sarcasm, and a funny-because-true final statement. But overall, this post is sincere in asking the above questions.

Almost predictably, there was an argument in the comments about what is “just”.

Lastmod summed up the single man’s contention as follows.

“The crisis in the church for the single man (those who still attend) is [given in this contradiction] that “god gave you this free will, and you have to use it… bench press, lead a bible study, and become an engineer…” and then backhandedly, “god promises you nothing. Deal with it. He doesn’t fulfill your burning [desire].

“[So] a man who burns and is 34, 44, 51, or 60 [years old]… and is in the loser class of never marrying, doesn’t know his mission, didn’t bench enough… didn’t have “many options” to marry like most of you have had… is now told “god doesn’t owe you this.

But he “gave” and “blessed” [other men] with this????????”

JPF responded with the perspective of a married man.

“We have a good marriage to the extent that we obey the commands given by God. If [my wife] or I did not have the character that results from striving (imperfectly) to be obedient to God, then the marriage would suck. So, the character that we have, due to obedience to the commands God provided, is a blessing. I am most grateful for this aspect of my wife.”

But Lastmod is speaking from the perspective of a single man with little to no opportunities for matrimony, which is the majority of men these days.  He opined,

“God is gonna make all mankind suffer in these manners… and the men who do suffer are not Scott or DS. It’s 80% of the men who had no choice in their genetics, and if “she has the hots for you”.

Yet cloaking all of this under “god wants the best for you”.

Best for a few… sure. Most?  No, 80% or whatever pay for a woman’s disobedience and the high SMPV men contribute to the cock carousel and again are unscathed. Blessed. Rewarded.”

True, there are a lot of suffering men as Jason asserts, but is it due to the d!cks of Dons that deflower dozens of dizzy dames, the cockamaniacal women themselves, or is it by the hand of God?

Liberty and Justice for all!

Is God Capricious?

14 What shall we say then?  Is there unrighteousness with God?  Certainly not!  15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”  16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.  17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”  18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault?  For who has resisted His will?”  20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?  Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”  21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Romans 9:14-24 (NKJV)
Solid gold toilets for San Francisco’s homeless.

Case Study 2 — The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

This parable from Matthew 20:1-16 was cited as central to the discussion.

1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.  Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.  And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’  So they went.  Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.  And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’  They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’  He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’

“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’  And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius.  10 But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius.  11 And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’  13 But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?  Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last.  For many are called, but few chosen.”

Matthew 20:1-16 (NKJV)

Here, I need to point out that this parable is not about a man’s lot in life.  This parable concerns the reward of salvation (i.e. “the kingdom of heaven” in verse 1).  The idea is that some people have a difficult life of faith while others find the burden light.  The contention arises when someone objects that some who receive salvation work long and hard in the Lord’s service, while others merely sweep the floor at the end of the day. But this attitude is basically a “salvation by works” doctrine with a little twist, which is essentially, “better salvation by more works”.

In the parable of the workers, there were still those who felt the wages were unjust, even though everyone was paid handsomely. I believe this was the main point of bringing up this parable in the discussion – that there will always be the impression that God’s generosity is interpreted as unjust by those who didn’t get as much as someone else. The error of this approach is that it is an “appeal to equality” based on “equal wages for equal works”. God does not follow the tenets of equality as we might understand it. In fact, the parable describes reality, in that it creates discontent. I am certain that this is one of Jason’s running themes.

The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28) indicates that God is more interested in what one does with whatever one has.

Covetous and Discontented Objections to Justice turn God into a Cruel Vending Machine

In the comments, I wrote,

“Why do you see a contradiction there?  Think of it in human terms. Your father doesn’t owe you an inheritance (for example), but if he gave you an inheritance, but not your brother, it would be a blessing. Wouldn’t it?”

Derek answered,

“Because your scenario is unjust.

In the parable of the workers in the vineyard, the owner of the vineyard gives everyone the same reward for different amounts of work. To use your analogy, it would be as if the father only had to give the inheritance to the firstborn (or no one), but gave it to all his children out of love.”

That’s right. So is this unjust?

“God is generous and delights in giving good things to his people (e.g. Psalm 37:4; Matthew 7:11). Having declared that humanity should marry and have many children and extolled its benefits, it stands to reason that God actively desires that those who seek marriage accomplish their goal.”

I could agree with this statement, but then Derek added,

“To suggest that God doesn’t care about something he told people to do is callous and wrong.”

Two things: (1) “God doesn’t care” is a reaction of subjective perception, not a fact about God’s character. (2) God obviously doesn’t expect all men to pursue marriage, because some men don’t ever have the chance. The issue of contention has more to do with generational heritability, both spiritual and carnal (e.g. DNA), and with our relationships with other people.

Sharkly responded to Jason’s diatribe. [Edited for clarity.]

“So if “God” the Father who doesn’t owe us an inheritance (including me), gave you one……and didn’t give me one. tough breaks???”


But you also did get stuff others of us didn’t get. “Why are you 6′ 4″ and I’m only 6′ 1″?”, etc. We need to be content with what we have been given. Contentment with godliness is great gain.

It sounds like your brother got even less. Yes, it sucks to be the one who gets less, but in eternity, many who were last shall be first, and many who were first shall be last. God will reward us according to how we used what we were given, our stewardship. To whom much has been given, much will be expected.

This life sucks much of the time, but it is only a test, to decide where you fit in eternity. Don’t blow your test, just because somebody else seemingly is getting an easier life. They may very well mean going to hell for eternity. Just focus on glorifying God with what you do have and can do.

If you weren’t given as much, just having a good attitude about it, can be a major victory over selfish desires. Coveting is a sin, and we should work on ridding ourselves of it. We should learn to be able to be happy when others are blessed even though we are not.

There isn’t really any equality here in this life, but the Potter is free to make what He wants from the clay. Just try to be thankful for what things God did give you that he didn’t give to others.

I do sympathize, and I know it is tough, but that is how it is.”

Derek responded to Sharkly.

“But you also did get stuff others of us didn’t get.”

This is a dodge. It addresses the question “Will God give every man a wife?” to which the answer is “No”. The OP question “Does God care if you get a wife?” has a different answer. God is neither vending machine nor cruel.”

This is a counter-dodge, because Derek missed Sharkly’s main point about contentment and stewardship. Instead, he assumed the claim was that God is a cruel vending machine, and he didn’t offer the “different answer” he alluded to.

Furthermore, I feel that this argument hinges on the definition of “just”.  This is complicated, because God’s idea of “just” is a completely different animal than mankind’s concept of justice. This is what motivated me to study this matter further and write this essay.

Family Tree, by Norman Rockwell, 1959.

Case Study 3 – Patrilineage and Generational Curses

In the Bible, God says the firstborn get twice as much as all the others. Yet the firstborn can abdicate/forfeit for any reason.  Looking at the example of Jacob and Esau, we find that Esau forfeited his whole inheritance, and was kicked out of the covenant completely. Among the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben forfeited by invading Jacob’s harem. Simeon and Levi abdicated by an act of violence that would have justified reprisals on the family. Thus, Judah received the birthright — the double portion and the right rule. (Ancient tradition says that the firstborn can abdicate for good reasons, too.)

But the buck stops somewhere. Somebody in the covenant has to step up and take the helm. God decides this, and sometimes His choices make no sense at all (like David as the youngest over his brothers). Yet being accountable to the tribe is expected under God’s justice as well, so the outright oppression of the people by the ruler is wrong.

This much is clear in the scriptures, but our own experience of life is not like what is described in the Bible. Once you get to a certain age somewhere in mid-life, you’ll begin to see that it is the children who receive that which the parents deserve. I covered this phenomena in my earlier studies of divorce and generational curses. According to the Bible, this is God’s doing. (See Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Psalm 79:7-9; Psalm 109:13-15; Isaiah 65:6–7; Jeremiah 32:18.)

Furthermore, the scriptures are filled with stories of people who did wrong, but then God “relented” upon their repentance, such that the consequences came to rest on their children, rather than upon themselves. David, Solomon, Jehoash (2nd Kings 12, 2nd Chronicles 24:25), and Hezekiah are noteworthy examples.

In the Bible there is an apparent contradiction between two passages of scripture.

Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in faithfulness and truth; who keeps faithfulness for thousands, who forgives wrongdoing, violation of His Law, and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, inflicting the punishment of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

Exodus 34:6-7 (NASB)

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin alone.”

Deuteronomy 24:16 (NASB)

So which is it?

One interpretation of all this is that God has a different standard for divine justice than what he expects of men who execute justice. But even this explanation doesn’t cover it, as this interesting passage makes things even more confusing.

Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned for twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.  He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, only not wholeheartedly.  Now it came about, as soon as the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, that he killed his servants who had killed his father the king.  However, he did not put their children to death, but did as it is written in the Law in the Book of Moses, which the Lord commanded, saying, “Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin.”

2nd Chronicles 25:1-4 (NASB)

I could be misreading this, but it seems to be implied that if Amaziah had been serving God wholeheartedly, then he would have gone against the scriptural mandates and killed the descendants of his enemies. His adherence to the law in this case seems to have been a mistake.

Anyhow, bearing the consequences of generational curses certainly does not strike me as being very just (nor most other people). Yet, God is just in all his ways, by definition. Certainly, God must have a much different concept of being just than we do.

Case Study 4 – Executive Clemency

Another facet about God’s justice is that not only do ostensibly decent people (from a human perspective) get railroaded, but blatant criminals receive executive clemency.  As an example of the latter context, we might view President Trump’s last minute pardons as being in accordance with God’s rendition of justice.

“I respect a man who looks out for his associates, even if he and they are scumbags and criminals. Props to Trump, not necessarily for the specific people he pardoned, but because in the end he did take care of his people. And that is at least something.”

Tony Odarg: Trump’s Latest Filthy, Though Necessary, Pardons (2020 December 24)

Odarg gets the point. Trump is an archetype of a God who looks after his own, and He does so according to His own good judgment, not ours, and certainly not that of his enemies.

Justice is Perceived Relative to Values and Ethics

In this section, I want to review values and ethics, because a thorough understanding of their origin, purpose, and function might help us gain a proper appreciation for God’s justice.

Value is the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

Value refers to those qualities of something, a piece of literature, or a jurisdictional ruling, etc. that make them worthwhile to one’s self. If we feel our time reading is well spent, or that the ruling is “in our favor”, then we can say that a book or a rule has value for us. If reading the book, or going to court, etc., was a complete waste of time, then we might say it has no value to us. Of course, this is a completely subjective evaluation. These same items may have great value to someone else.

Values are a collection of principles or standards of behavior that reflect one’s judgement of what is important in life. In practice, one’s values take the form of ideas and beliefs that an individual accepts to be predominantly important in life.

When a person can offer poignant words to express his/her values, then we say he is an articulate speaker. This trait is highly valued, and those who have it are highly respected, especially by those who share the same values.

Values are strongly influenced by one’s race, gender, ethnicity, location, heritage, culture and religious background. These factors all play a role in how a person perceives cultural attitudes, ideas and beliefs. For example, someone from Taiwan can identify who is from (or has a background related to) China based on what they say. This difference in cultural perspective is why it is said that A prophet is not accepted in his own land. (See Matthew 13:54-57, Mark 6:1-6, Luke 4:16-30, and John 4:44.)

If one grew up in an exceedingly insulated culture, it is possible for him to be completely ignorant of his own value system, and unaware of other value systems exist in other cultures. Upon first exposure, he would gain the impression that the other culture is bad in some way, simply because it does not perform well according to the value system to which he is accustomed. This is the basis of culture shock.

Ethics is a set of principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. These moral principles reflect the shared values, such that the right thing to do is that which preserves the shared values of a community.

Morality is often couched in terms of ethics, whether something is “right” or “good” within the context of a certain ethical system. However, true morality is based on the discernment of God’s concept of justice given a certain context.

Culture is a collection of general ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society. The values and norms of a culture influence how those people within the society act and form decisions.

People have (or should have) mental models of reality that are coherent with their individual system of values. In most cases, our mental models are a product of our cultural lore and family of origin.

Popularly acclaimed literature (hereafter termed “lore”, including history, the Bible, the Red Pill, and yes, the news and churchianity) has a significant impact on our thinking and our mental models of reality for many reasons.

  • Lore conveys stories that are set in the past and which draws on historical knowledge.
  • Lore is usually based on real settings and/or sometimes contain real historical persons, and therefore reflects the culture and society of the time period in which it was set.
  • Lore forms the Archetypal Mythos of a culture.
  • The values, ethics, traits, and concepts that define a culture are showcased through the supporting mythos of lore.
  • Societies and generations are educated by lore by learning from mistakes and events that occurred in the past, and thus improves cooperation and collaboration as a community.
  • Lore is a tool that assists in shaping the society and culture of the future by giving us examples of both the mistakes and victories of our ancestors. This informs us of things that occurred in the past that both should, and should not, be repeated, which we then learn from.

All these are good and proper facets of human sociology. However, there are certain elements of our Archetypal Mythos that fail to conform to God’s prerogatives – that which would glorify His image and aid men in carrying out His will.

The point of this section is that all our words and thoughts are couched within the Archetypal mythos and language of culture. The reason we see God as being unjust in certain instances is because the entire culture stresses values and ethics that are not in accordance with God’s prerogatives, methods, and purposes.

Whenever we are tempted to conclude that God is being unjust, perhaps it is only because we perceive that God doesn’t follow the code of ethics that we are most comfortable with. Yet, we hardly ever venture to understand God’s code of ethics. Instead, we simply dismiss it as being inscrutable and ineffable. And perhaps it is, because it can only be understood by the heart and soul.

The blind leading the lame…

Case Study 5 – Democracy Attempts to Supersede God’s Justice

In several posts, Ed Hurst has compared the Biblical Covenant under Patriarchy to Democracy, stating that the latter is flat out evil because it elevates the human concepts of fairness and equality (which are not outlined in the Bible, although they are typically read back into the Bible) above the authority of the Patriarch.

When we are consternated by what we read the Bible and left utterly confused about the justice of God, the issue here is that we are seeing things through a Western perspective by default, and not the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) traditions which form the context of the Bible.

Western concepts of justice are a mixture of Greco-Roman reasoning and Germanic Tribal notions of goddess worship – all pagan and largely anti-Christian. The organized church leadership lost their way very quickly after the Apostles died, and departed from the mystical ANE traditions well before they fell prey to Constantine’s political seductions just two centuries later.

The modern Western brand of Christianity was an outright fraud committed by the Roman church hierarchy as the means to bringing the invading Germanic hordes into alliance. The church leadership knowingly perverted the Hebraic mystical thinking into something more Germanic so the tribes would swallow the leadership of the churches and accept the politicized power of church leaders.

We are left with the task of very openly and consciously, and sometimes quite forcefully, reintroducing the Biblical standards of justice against a massive under layer of Western standards. A critical problem with uprooting Western ideology is that Western thinking is so very presumptuous about its own superiority. It’s quite a chore helping people who want to follow Christ to make them recognize the value of humility within the hierarchy of a Covenant, as outlined in ANE lore.

Case Study 6 – George Floyd

The American court system assumes that one is either innocent or guilty. Legal proceedings therefore attempt to establish either innocence or guilt, based on evidence.

At face value, Floyd had a long criminal history and he was a drug addict. Since he was not very intelligent and not able to hold down a job, he was not able to earn for himself, and so he turned to a life of crime. On the day of his death, he was passing counterfeit bills and resisting arrest. All in all, it seems obvious that he was a guilty person.

In most other countries, Floyd would have been written off as a basket case and no one would bat an eye. To pose a comparison, in Taiwan, anyone who shows up in a court of law, either as a prosecutor or a defendant, is taken to be guilty. This is because they have mishandled their own affairs so badly that they require external arbitration, and thereby become a burden to society. From a judicial standpoint, the overarching purpose of legal proceedings is to settle the matter and get them back to being functional members of society. But in America, the issue of guilt is more nuanced, because it is assumed that a specific person other than Floyd must have been responsible for his death, and that one or the other must be either innocent or guilty.

Recently, there were some new developments in the George Floyd case. Some eyewitnesses had some moving testimonies (link to BBC news article) which presented an underlying theme that Floyd was a product of his culture (viz. a victim of an institutionalized system), and that his actions were entirely understandable and forgivable. One witness was the clerk in the convenience store where Floyd was before he was arrested. He said Floyd tried to buy some items using a counterfeit $100 bill, and he accepted the bill. (CNN reports it was a $20, and that he “attempted” to use it.) In his court testimony, the clerk said he felt very guilty about this because if he had not accepted Floyd’s fake bill, then this whole situation would not have happened.

Ultimately, the responsibility for Floyd’s death comes down to the issue of cause-and-effect.

  • Did the store clerk tip his hand to an evil course of events when he accepted the fake bill, as he sincerely believes?
  • Was the morbidly high level of fentanyl in Floyd’s body responsible for his death?
  • Did the long turbid history of interaction between Chauvin and Floyd contribute to Chauvin’s harsh treatment of Floyd?
  • Did the stress arising from Floyd’s arrest, combined with the cocktail of drugs in his body hasten his death?

All of these facts present reasonable causes. Since there are multiple factors leading up to the event of his death, the legal proceedings are complicated. How then can justice be found in a court of law?

Furthermore, how we might interpret God’s justice in this matter is a subject that no one wants to touch.

Spiritually, we are all Floydian, and we are all Chauvinistic to some degree.

Human paper chain with light and shadow on wood table.

Case Study 7 – The Sacrifice of Christ

If you think about it through the lens of western justice, the crucifixion of Christ was one of the most unjust events in the history of man. He was betrayed. He was subject to a mock trial in the middle of the night. He endured false accusations. He was rejected by His own people, and His own Father, and abandoned by His friends.

From another viewpoint, it could be said that this sentence went through democratic process, since the Pharisees, Sanhedrin, and a large mob of people, all called for Jesus to be crucified. No one “voted” for him to live.

But any way you look at this democratic injustice, it was God’s will to sacrifice the innocent in order to redeem the guilty.

If God treated His own Son in this manner, and then declares it just, how can we ever claim that God is unjust whenever we don’t get our own way, or when something happens to us that we feel we didn’t deserve?

We want God to conform to our own concept of justice. We want certain desires to be satisfied, and most of all, we want to avoid suffering and sacrifice, especially for someone we feel is inferior to ourselves. But if God had adopted our own concept of justice, then all of us would be d@mned.


One recurrent theme concerning God’s justice is that God loves and cares for his own, although this sometimes requires certain individuals to suffer and sacrifice in order for the flock to be well cared for.

Another recurring theme has something to do with God respecting the choices of people, and allowing them to bear the rewards or consequences of their decisions. Thus, it can be understood how a person, or a large number of people, can suffer and sacrifice as a result of an individual or a society (respectively) turning away from God and wander away from under His protection and care. (I believe the latter reason is why so many men are unable to find a decent wife in today’s culture.) If the whole society wants to flirt with feminism and then the next few generations go through the meat market grinder as a consequence, then is it just to call God unjust for allowing such a result?

I have a theory that I’ll call The Mob in the Crucible Effect (c.f. “frogs in the pot”, or “crabs in the bucket”), which is based on the premise that we influence those around us, for better or for worse, and that it is the will of God for us to act as independent agents. We are all subject to the decisions and actions of others, especially those in positions of power (including power players in the SMP). From a wider perspective, this could be interpreted as just if we admit that God allows us to hurt and/or help one another according to our own choices. This would also explain generational curses, but it does seem unjust from the perspective of the subsequent generations, because children do not have any choice about which crucible they are born into in life.

True justice requires taking into account the whole picture. God alone knows the whole picture. It is the nature of living in fallen flesh that we cannot possibly see all that God sees. He has revealed a way of seeking peace with Him that includes leaving open the door for things we cannot comprehend in our flesh. Thus, He retains prerogatives that we must swallow sight unseen. That’s part of the definition of “faith”. Our only recourse is to repent of any participation we have in the matter, and ask God for forgiveness and clemency.

Yes, God’s justice is mysterious and hard to “justify”. Yes, some sons are disinherited for reasons God alone can comprehend. Yet, we must have faith that it is still just. We must be careful not to reject God’s justice in this life simply because it does not match our own, preconceived, solipsistic notions of democratic “fairness”. Otherwise, we will have nothing to show for what we could have claimed from the vast inheritance of faith.

If anyone could articulate a better distinction of the different concepts of God’s “just-ness” versus human justice, feel free to articulate your thoughts below.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Boundaries, Churchianity, Convergence, Cultural Differences, Culture Wars, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Enduring Suffering, Feminism, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Generational Curses, Holding Frame, Introspection, Leadership, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Politics, Purpose, Racial Relations, Sphere of Influence, Stewardship, Taiwan, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to God’s Concept of Justice

  1. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Constantine,was a expert politician who saw models that worked I.E.Armenia &tried to do it with the roman empire,thats what I was getting at yesterday!People have trouble knowing life is mostly suffering?This is a secret,its never been to myself!?Modern people(Women&government mainly!) are living in a delussional world of runaway fantasies!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. SFC Ton says:

    There are a lot of things I don’t care for but I didn’t create the universe so it isn’t my call.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Joe2 says:

    The American court system assumes that one is either innocent or guilty. Legal proceedings therefore attempt to establish either innocence or guilt, based on evidence.

    Nope. The defendant is presumed to be innocent and it’s up to the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges. A jury determines whether the defendant is either guilty or not guilty of the charges. Legal proceedings do not try to establish innocence, but rather try to establish the defendant’s guilt.


    • Oscar says:

      Yes, and the presumption of innocence is Biblical.

      Deuteronomy 17:2 “If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, 3 who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, 4 and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones. 6 Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

      If the accused was presumed to be guilty, then there would be no need to “inquire diligently” to determine “if it is indeed true and certain” that the accused is guilty.

      Furthermore, the Law requires at least two or three witnesses, not just one. Why? Because eye witnesses aren’t very reliable, so you need multiple witnesses to corroborate each other before you can declare the accused guilty. Why? Because the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

      Liked by 4 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Correct. This has always been my understanding of how it’s SUPPOSED to work.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      It helps to understand that “guilt” has two meanings. (1) One is the inner conviction that one has done something wrong. The other is (2) a legal standing under the law. When we talk about someone being “guilty”, we need to specify which one.

      “The defendant is presumed to be innocent and it’s up to the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges.”

      This is the ideal model that is put forth in American jurisprudence. It is based on the Greco-Roman style of rational, deductive thinking, and the trial is modeled after a philosophical debate. It views guilt decisively as black-and-white, and guilt (1) is schmoozed into guilt (2). Even so, it ignores the Biblical claim that “all are guilty (1) in God’s eyes”. Neither does it follow the punishments specified in scripture. There is no wiggle room for remedial/corrective discipline, clemency, or grace, however, a conscientious, discerning judge might take this into consideration. This is part of the reason why western courts are so lenient.

      In practice, if there is any evidence for guilt (2), then defendants must still convince a jury that they are not guilty (2) of specific charges, or otherwise, the jury may conclude that they are guilty (1) and sentence the defendant as guilty (2). Sometimes defendants are guilty (1) without being guilty (2), and vice versa (e.g. Duluth and met00 cases). Some laws are unjust, causing parties that are not guilty (1) to be found guilty (2) (e.g. Christian bakers). Judges are politicized (e.g. John Roberts). A “good lawyer” is one that can reliably obtain the desired outcome (e.g. Trump’s team). Moreover, the discernment of guilt (1) is not specifically addressed or dealt with. For better or for worse, it is very much a human-law-based system, and not a God-covenant-based system. Of course, we are all biased to think that one legal system is superior to another, especially one that we are familiar with.

      My point is that all legal systems instituted by man have some pros and cons. The western legal system might be good in some ways, but it does have its problems, like any other system. It’s good to be aware of the problems.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Novaseeker says:

    Justice as God views the matter is, from a human perspective, a true mystery of faith.

    This is one of the long-standing issues of faith. The Book of Job was given to address the basic issue: How is God just when it doesn’t really look like He is, based on what he allows to happen to people who are apparently just and upright people? God’s answer was basically: You don’t know what I know, and you just have to trust Me that this is the best way.

    This is profoundly unsatisfying from a human point of view, because it is not just from a human point of view. As people of faith, we are therefore required to “juggle” different kinds of justice at the same time:
    –The kind of “justice” involved in raising children, or managing employees;
    –The kind of justice required in drafting laws, enforcing them, in court if necessary;
    –The kind of justice involved in dealing with others’ wrongs against us in a human way (i.e., not on the spiritual level of forgiveness, but on the human level of making wrongs right in a human/earthly sense);
    –…and the divine level of justice in the eyes of God, which is beyond human understanding.
    These are all different. People slur them together in their minds because … that’s how humans roll. But they’re different.

    The harsh reality is that we may not like the details of God’s plan for our specific lives very much. They may involve martyrdom. They may involve various hardships. They may involve things we perceive to be unjust from a human perspective and things which are, in fact, unjust from a purely human perspective. Faith requires us to love God through this kind disappointment, difficulty, hardship, human injustice and the like because, as He tells us in the Book of Job, He knows things we do not know, and He wants us to trust him that his plan is good, even if that plan involves your specific suffering in very uncomfortable and, from a human point of view, unjust ways. This is one of the core points of the events of what the Western Churches commemorate on this day: Christ also endured unjust suffering in the flesh, in human form, for us. This is a great mystery of the intertwining of love and justice from the divine perspective … the unfathomable mystery of the Cross as the intersection of love and justice, time and eternity, justice and mercy, innocence and guilt, divinity and humanity, created and uncreated … the resolution of all in all, in and through the only One who could resolve them all in Himself, once and for all.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      “He wants us to trust him that his plan is good, even if that plan involves your specific suffering in very uncomfortable and, from a human point of view, unjust ways”

      It’s difficult for many to wrap their head around, especially when you understand the OT.

      23k were killed in one day for sexual sin.

      A man who should have been put to death under the law was provided a different sentence through a prophet. That king received a temporary grace, only to have his family destroyed.

      Priests were required to marry virgins, until one received a command to break this tradition for the sake of Convicting the nation.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. “God is gonna make all mankind suffer in these manners… and the men who do suffer are not Scott or DS. It’s 80% of the men who had no choice in their genetics, and if “she has the hots for you”.”

    It’s funny for me to be grouped in with Scott because I am no where near him in looks or body type, and probably not charisma either. Lemme provide a bit more info on myself in the past.

    I was probably about 5’7″-5’8″ or so when I graduated from high school, and 110 lbs soaking wet. Since then, I’ve grown a little and put on a ton of muscle through some hard work, but I’m still below average height (which is 5’9″ or 5’10 now). I was extremely introverted and I hated talking with people. I wouldn’t even answer a phone out of fear.

    I’ve been there — being a man that is virtually invisible to women.

    This is why I think most men in the Church (e.g. 20s and 30s Christian men) can do it, if they put in the effort to develop themselves into strong, masculine Christians. Most men have a higher physical starting point than me which helps a bunch. Most men were not as introverted and socially awkward as I was, starting out. I’ve seen men in their 40s and 50s get married, but it does seem more difficult.

    One can argue what “can do it” means, though, as there is a distinction on marrying vs. say, “marrying well”, for lack of a better term now at least.

    As far as the actual topic goes, it seems this scenario always ends up going towards a discussion of suffering. To go into a discussion of justice or righteousness typically means trying to answer the question of, “Why is there suffering in the lives of most of what we would call “innocents” to the situation?” Most cultures, including the U.S./American culture have had the 90-95% marriage rate, although once they start to become vastly more secularized (for reasons we’ve extensively detailed) and deviate from the structures that God created, then a lot of disorder follows. One could argue about the “left over” 5-10% before this happened as well. They were in the same position as men and women now. They had to deal with the same things in the same way; however, there are vastly more people in this situation now.

    Typically, this then goes the way of the discussion on free will, as that is a Christian’s most likely answer to it. Man and woman can sin and it can negatively affect others through cause and effect.

    I honestly don’t have all the answers, but generally, as I mentioned above and have detailed further on my blog, the stronger and more mature Christian I became, the easier it was for me to deal with women. I have developed the character and backbone needed to deal with women in a more masculine way. I started to rapidly see more interest from women as this happened. Not a ton mind you, but at least some more than the minimal amount I had in high school and college.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. redpillboomer says:

    “I honestly don’t have all the answers, but generally as I have detailed on my blog the stronger and more mature Christian I became the easier it was for me to deal with women. I had the character and backbone to deal with women in a more masculine way. I started to rapidly see more interest from women as this happened. Not a ton mind you, but at least some more than the minimal amount in high school and college.”

    My experience too. It’s interesting, even being an older man, my nickname, redpillboomer, can give you an idea as to my age, even now I get attention from women, and I believe it’s because of what I’ve learned over the years, particularly the last 3-4 years of being red pilled. Amazing! I’ve noticed post-wall women, particularly in the 35-40 age range paying attention to me. Now, I’m not saying I’m some sort of ‘older dude chad,’ nothing like that at all; although I am in good shape for my age and I can be articulate, intelligent, and witty when I want to be. I think the female attention is due to what I’ve learned and put into practice. The women, particularly the post-wall women, seem drawn to it. I’ve NOT noticed it happening for those under 35. I think this is due to those women still seeking to find a husband as they begin to hop off the CC.

    My point? Women notice this stuff, our masculine ‘aura’, our Red Pill mindset. I’ve noticed it gets their attention. Did I seek to get this attention, HECK NO! I sought to find out why the h*ll I was getting my ‘head handed to me’ while attempting to mentor/coach some women in an educational program I participated in a few years back. I sought answers into why I was so ineffective in my mentor/coaching when I really needed to be effective; I mean, how can I get my twenty somethings to stay in the program and not quit to run after players? I failed–big time! BUT, it sent me on a quest to get some answers. I had no idea how blue pill my mindset was, until I swallowed the red pill and found out. “OM freakin’ G! What have I been thinking all these years?” It was like, “Good God almighty RPB, what an ignoramus you’ve been when it came to female nature and the ‘game’ men and women were playing with each other, and on each other.”

    It’s amazing I had the success that I did have, getting married, etc. It was the grace of God, because I didn’t have a clue about the minefield I was sleep walking through back-in-the-day. God’s mercy kept me from getting blown to smithereens back in the late 80s dating/mating landscape; and it wasn’t nearly as bad then as it is today. It wasn’t great back then by any stretch of the imagination, but there was still some hangover effect from the old traditional model of dating/mating.

    I really feel for the younger men (and the good younger women too). What a sh!t show it is out there now!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Sharkly says:

    I could be misreading this, but it seems to be implied that if Amaziah had been serving God wholeheartedly, then he would have gone against the scriptural mandates and killed the descendants of his enemies.

    Yes, I believe you are wrongly connecting God’s assessment of Amaziah as most-way serving Him, but not wholeheartedly, with Amaziah’s following God’s law and showing mercy to those whom other kings would have surely killed. As though that act of Amaziah’s must necessarily be lacking somehow and thereby epitomize God’s aforementioned assessment. Hermeneutically speaking, if you arrive at the point where you view following God’s law to have been a transgression against God, somewhere you made a wrong turn.

    I would assume that God’s general assessment of Amaziah falling short of complete dedication, was to provide some insight contrary to the story given where Amaziah did fully endeavor to follow God’s law, and might otherwise appear to have been a great and merciful king without fault. Later on in 2 Chronicles 25 Amaziah obeys God and slaughters the Edomites and captures their idols, but yet ends up worshipping those same idols who did not protect the Edomites from his own God. I think that part is where he failed to serve God fully.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      I don’t think God specifically gave Amaziah instructions to wipe out a royal house like God did in regards to Ahab and Baasha, who had all their male offspring killed, both slave and free, regardless of how many generations afterwards, so that both revenge and a successor to the throne of Israel wouldn’t arise, in addition to being a punishment for those men’s idolatry.


  8. cameron232 says:

    “The organized church leadership lost their way very quickly after the Apostles died.”

    Thus the need for restoration by the prophet Joseph Smith.

    “The modern Western brand of Christianity was an outright fraud committed by the Roman church hierarchy as the means to bringing the invading Germanic hordes into alliance.”

    Fortunately, the Baptists in the east preserved apostolic Christianity.


    • Sharkly says:

      Hopefully that part about Joseph Smith was a joke…

      Weren’t you against polygyny a week ago? LOL

      Either way, I’ll share about the time I got flipped off by a Mormon missionary. Around 1987 on a rare hot afternoon in San Jose when the temperature was near 100F as I rounded a corner in my parent’s car I came upon two Mormons in dark suits pedaling their ten-speeds with rubber bands around their suit pants cuffs and sweat visibly dripping off of them. So, I hollered out the window of my land-yacht at those false-teaching bums to, “GET A JOB!” And one of them returned me “the bird” for my words of spiritual reorientation. LOL My parents happened to be missionaries also, just on the opposing team, so, it was my sonly duty to give them Mormon boys a little shout of encouragement in the right direction.

      Of course that was before I became the tactful warm endearing creature I am today. 😉

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes, sarcasm of course. The Mormons teach that the Christian leadership defected when the last apostle died and Joseph Smith was needed to restore from total apostacy. Mormonism was the weirdest of various early 19th Century “restorationist” movements – it’s the same old story: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, et. al didn’t go far enough in cleansing the church of roman-pagan influence.

        The Mormons are at least consistent/logical in that they recognize that the “apostacy” must have been rather sudden after the books of the bible were written and rather large in scope.


    • Scott says:

      The organized church leadership lost their way very quickly after the Apostles died.

      “I tell you, you are Luther. And upon this Luther I will build my church, and all the prophets, and apostles and saints and writings and decisions from 33AD until 15 centuries later will have been wrong but that the reformation will have saved them.”

      The Book of Protestant, 13:11.

      Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        One has to be believe that the real Church went underground somehow. And preserved a dim light until the fall of Constantinople led to Manuscripts reaching Europe that led to the Reformation.


      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Did this luthor fellow , write gospelofmathew23:9-10 in 1519A.D.?Also is your old brother dalrock a heretic?
        P.S.Next post going to teach protestants like dal’ their not saved? EXTRAP.S.Now see why I’m like GBFMtm?


      • Scott says:

        The social-psychological desire to see oneself as being a part of that special, unbroken line of elect and enlightened true believers–keeping the faith while the “harlot” of Rome (or in my case Byzantium) perverted and polluted the REAL message is very powerful. In Fowler’s “Stages of Faith“, this is known as stage 2 (Mythical-Literal) and a large number of religious adherents stay in it their whole lives.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:


        At one time Athanasius was in the minority. But it was Athanasius against the world of Arianism. And The Trinity triumphed over Arianism.

        That is the inspiration of the “Elect” keeping to the true faith prevailing to the end.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Luther’s 95 theses were aimed at curbing the church from peddling indulgences to sin to the rich and powerful in exchange for cash and political favors. The Great whore was committing immorality with the kings of the earth, as the Bible foretold. Even though Not everybody agrees with every word of Martin Luther, you’d have to be pretty willfully ignorant to not see that he did the work of the Lord, in almost singlehandedly stopping the sale of indulgences to sin. Jesus Christ said “make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” Luther thought priests should get married, and did to piss off the Pope. I would think the Orthodox might find plenty of common ground with Luther, if they weren’t set on demonizing him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        In Fowler’s “Stages of Faith“, this is known as stage 2 (Mythical-Literal) and a large number of religious adherents stay in it their whole lives.

        It’s a useful paradigm I think, and one I have seen reflected in my own life. One aspect of it that is not clear from that summary, though, is that it is virtually impossible for people from the different stages to discuss these things with each other in any way that delves beyond the most superficial, unless a person in one stage is actively and deliberately selecting only those elements from their own stage that are intelligible in substance, at all, to someone from another stage, and then also “translating” those elements into a form that will make them at least somewhat digestible/understandable to at least some people in that other stage. Otherwise, the rule is miscommunication, mutual misunderstanding and, often, judgment of each other. Lots of cross-talk among different kinds of religious people really relates to where they are, respectively, in these stages and whether they are progressing through them or not.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Luther thought priests should get married, and did to piss off the Pope”

        What a wonderful and godly reason to marry a woman – to piss off the Pope.

        The Orthodox aren’t going to find much common ground with Lutherans because they believe in a visible Church with leaders in succession with the Apostles, place authority in the early Church fathers and ecumenical councils, etc. and don’t think every believer is a potential Pope or ecumenical council. Being anti-Latin/Catholic isn’t much common ground. “Well we can both agree that Catholics suck!”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Not only that, I don’t think Catholics suck. The relationship between Holy Orthodoxy (especially when you are married to each other like me and Mychael) is a special. We pray for reconciliation often, as the hierarchies of both churches ask us to.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Sorry “the relationship between Holy Orthodoxy and RCC”

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      I think the churches continual temptation is cultural syncretism, or adopting the prevailing worldly beliefs into the church, as opposed to believing what God wrote down for us.
      During the time of the earliest church there was much Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Cynicism in the ambient culture, and even while the early church fathers railed against Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Cynicism, that was mainly because that thinking was widespread in their churches. However the Romanization of the church in the fourth century really let the dogs out, as far as all sorts of attempted new syncretism including goddess/Mary worship and more.

      To deny that the church could ever need reformers or reformation, is willful ignorance. Like pretending that the Jews didn’t need God to continually send them Judges and Prophets to try to bring them back to His long established truth. And pretending that men themselves can select their own correcting guides like how Pope Francis was elected by men, and not instead roused up by God’s Spirit, is also foolishness. Many churches arrogantly try to substitute themselves as the earthly mouth of God. But God has already spoken His word. We just need men willing to believe it, proclaim it, and enact it, so that God’s will may be done on earth.

      Today the culture is Feminist. And that is the churches fault! The church is a bastion of Feminism. Around the latter fourth century AD females were somehow granted “the image of God” by Roman leaders to allow Mary to then become a deity coequal with Jesus Christ, to appease forcibly converted goddess worshippers.

      Whereas the protestant reformation rolled back the deity of Mary, the image of God still needs to be reclaimed as the birthright of men and as evidence of men’s divine right to rule, according to God’s holy patriarchy, as fathers and sons, imaging our holy Father and Son. The earliest church father’s remaining writings unanimously show that the earliest church did not believe women to be the image of our Father & Son godhead.

      1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

      Ambrosiaster wrote: “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

      The erroneous belief that women were equally in the matchless image of God, led to the logical conclusion that women are therefore fully equal to men. And the church gradually got more and more certain of that error, despite God having clearly made men and women unequal. It is naturally apparent that men were made the stronger vessel by God to be able to subdue women and curtail their defiling ways.

      However, this unnatural belief spread by the church, that men and women are equal led to Feminism. And it is this heretical belief that women are equal to their exalted heads, that led directly to their current Feminist rebellion.

      Feminism teaches that traditional patriarchal marriage as set up by God is a form of slavery where one equal subjects another equal into an unequal relationship where he rules over her. If you accept men and women to be equals, then marriage automatically becomes unjust and also unworkable, since you certainly can’t operate by democracy while having only two fully equal partners.
      Egalitarian relationships don’t work. Somebody ultimately has to make the decision.
      Complementarianism tries to allow men only some figurative smidge of headship in decision making, while yet allowing wives the threat point of blowing up everything any time they don’t get their way. So the man really has to submit to his wife or he can basically get his entire life zeroed out. This tyranny of equality nonsense has to stop. We need to return to God’s truth. For more about the image of God see:

      Genesis 5:1-5


      Sharkly – Heresiarch or Church Reformer?

      He is risen!

      Liked by 5 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        My greatest problem with reformed theology is they stopped reforming hundreds of years ago. They developed a systematic theology on the presupposition that texts like James, John’s epistles and revelation were uninspired.

        They haven’t made any changes to their doctrines despite textual and physical evidence that was discovered many centuries later.


      • info says:

        “During the time of the earliest church there was much Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Cynicism in the ambient culture, and even while the early church fathers railed against Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Cynicism, that was mainly because that thinking was widespread in their churches. ”

        Railing against such things didn’t prevent Gnostic attitudes for example about sex creep into the Church even among the Church Fathers. Like St Augustine and perhaps St Jerome who viewed all sexual pleasure and passion as sinful and that the only good that it did was procreation in contradiction to the Scriptures:

        And would have like humans to have procreated asexually. But that wouldn’t have presented a good symbol and image of the relationship between God and Mankind. Christ and His Church.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Exactly like today, where most pastors believe they are opposed to Feminism, and speak out against “radical” Feminism, and yet their churches are in fact veritable Feminist tit-pits, compared to the churches of any prior generation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Mary isn’t a goddess to be worshipped in the Catholic/Orthodox understanding. She is theotokos, God-bearer/mother-of-God. You make the common mistake of assuming that because a doctrine was explicitly stated in three-hundred whatever (or later) it represents a pagan addition. Doctrines are explicitly stated/written down (in the type of important documents and statements that we have surviving records of) when the doctrine (or something related) is under dispute. In the case of Mary, the impetus for the formal definition (earlier statements by the Church fathers exist) was the Nestorian heresy and the controversy over the divinity of Christ.

        Virtually all the Protestant founders agreed with the theotokos teaching, pagans that they were.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    SCOTT.you are a doctor &I’am the mgtow -villian,That has to be the peace-maker as usual in these cases!
    What about these protest chapters in corinithians,also known as book of protestants:1:13CHRIST is not divided!&JOHN10:16&MARK9:39!
    It takes a lone wolf voice to mention these?


  10. lastholdout says:

    It is helpful to understand God’s justice in the context of His attributes. If you haven’t already read it, pick up a copy of A. W. Pink’s, “The Attributes of God“.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. SFC Ton says:

    It’s interesting how hostile immigrants are to the people of their knew nation, how often that hostility comes out and all the odd places you see that hostility on display

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Scott says:

    Willful ignorance LOL


    • Sharkly says:

      I guess I’m not comprehending why you can’t acknowledge that Martin Luther was a brave reformer of the church? He was a German priest with only a Latin Bible to work from, so we shouldn’t expect perfection from him. Being a bit Anabaptist myself, I feel that Luther didn’t go far enough when he opted to stick with infant baptism. But you as an Orthodox, should find common ground with him there.

      His most concerted efforts were firstly to stop the evil sale of indulgence to sin, and secondly to see to it that the Bible was published and available in the common language of his German speaking country. How do you oppose him for that? Or is it that your church just nitpicks other things that Luther said and then uses that as an excuse to claim he wasn’t used by God, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Millions more people know about Christ and follow His word because Luther risked his life fighting the Pope and pushed for Bibles to be printed and made available in people’s common language. He broke the Catholic churches Latin stranglehold over scriptural knowledge, by providing the Bible to the masses in a language they could understand and apply.

      I think that may be the root of your churches contention with Luther. They’d still rather have people ignorant of the scriptures and beholden to their cabal entirely for spiritual dispensation and interpretation. As if a million sheep going off a million ways, is worse than a million sheep all being led astray together in lockstep. They resent that people now are empowered to challenge the manmade tradition they teach, directly from God’s word. They punish Luther for giving Bible knowledge to the masses, as if they were Greek gods punishing Prometheus for giving us fire.

      Martin Luther was German. Many folks don’t think Germans have a sense of humor. But we do, it is just that our humor is often viewed as sarcastic, offensive, and arrogant statements, and not as humor by most other folks. It is even harder to get in written form, and especially if it is then translated into another language. Martin Luther was a bold and brash man who risked his life for decades by taking on the Pope and most all of Christendom. His jokes were like himself, bold, brash, in your face, confrontational, and shocking. So most of Martin Luther’s frequent German jokes (far fetched statements) are translated improperly and then used to make him out to be a heretic, not just another misunderstood German humorist.

      Judge the man by what he accomplished, instead of taking every humorously outrageous quip he made as his literal doctrine. If you aren’t willfully ignorant, you will have to acknowledge that Martin Luther did actually reform the catholic church away from its ungodliness, and push to provide people with the Bible in their common language. He did this at great peril to himself, as an agent of God, and it is my belief that if you get to heaven, you’ll meet Martin Luther there, and he will be highly esteemed, and not just among the Lutherans.

      Like myself, Martin Luther is believed to have been an INTJ. So it is no wonder that it took the Catholic church that he strove against, 500 years to finally acknowledge that he was a “witness to the Gospel”.

      Or do you maintain that was just another one of antipope Francis’ screw ups. LOL
      I’ll give you Orthodox a bit more time to recognize Luther as he recognized you.

      Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the “Greek church,” as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed. Luther never attempted to build a bridge to the Eastern church, but some of his followers did.

      Your Orthodox church may come around too, if they can ever get over their willful ignorance about what Martin Luther really clearly fought for, instead of just sniping at his heels. Repentance must begin with the church, not the world. But it takes a reformer to know that, or else somebody who can read that it in their Bible in their own language. Thanks Marty!

      Liked by 2 people

  13. locustsplease says:

    My divorce was a huge kick in the balls to what i thought justice was. My family turned on me and sided with ex i was written out of my fathers will. Literally lost everything. He has enough millions that before this he was talking about putting me and my sister on a payroll that way we wouldnt have to wait till he died. I got the worst beating from the final decree of any case i have read its not even close. It hurt bad but was so hard so fast and completely inescapable that it left no room for spiritual compromise.

    While i cannot see myself, routinely other christians will comment on my strong faith. I am in some form of the grieving process about my singleness. Its disappointing my church is full of attractive young women that i meet at zero events and church groups. It has been extremely unusual and not coincidental. Havent had sex in a long period of time.God didnt promise me another spouse one 10x better than the last, financial freedom or perfect health.

    You are gonna die in quite a bit of misery comparing yourself with jealousy to all your friends and neighbors. Look at what they are missing not what they have. The people who tried to destroy me oh my gosh it is a wall of could have been a good example but now im a terrible warning. They are missing so much spiritual comfort its hard to watch i would much rather b where im at. I feel bad for them.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Pingback: Commonalities of Successful Marriages | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Moral Injury | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Taking Headship by Force | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: The Roman Life Script | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: 8 Things that Increase Discernment | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Elements of Spiritual Maturity | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Dealing with Discernment | Σ Frame

  21. ramman3000 says:

    “God obviously doesn’t expect all men to pursue marriage, because some men don’t ever have the chance.”

    Generally, God does expect men to pursue marriage. It’s the default. However, individually, God expects you to do what you are specifically called to do. If he provides a clear answer of “no”, then that’s that. But, he may not explicitly reveal whether marriage is off the table.

    All of this is orthogonal to contentment and stewardship, which applies to everyone regardless of station. One can be perfectly content or not, and it doesn’t change whether or not God wants you to have a wife.

    “I could be misreading this, but it seems to be implied that if Amaziah had been serving God wholeheartedly, then he would have gone against the scriptural mandates and killed the descendants of his enemies. His adherence to the law in this case seems to have been a mistake.”

    This is a misreading. I agree with Sharkly’s comment that it was regarding idolatry.

    However, I do largely agree with your conclusion on the topic of God’s justice. Do I think God was unjust to allow my Anabaptist ancestors to be brutally murdered by professing Christians? No, for the same reason God was not unjust when the man from Bethsaida was born blind. It is unquestionable that many lives were positively impacted at a dear cost those men, women, and children.

    God’s grace washes away sin, eliminating the need for what we expect of justice. This doesn’t mean all justice is forgone, but it does alter the picture substantially. It is hard to do a study of justice without an equal recognition of grace.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Pingback: Wives reap what they sow | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Towards a more complete appreciation of Sanctification | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: What constitutes Adultery? | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s