"Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me; and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation" (Psalm 50:23)
God speaks through this psalm. The speech is about salvation and condemnation. He began by declaring the arrival of his words. The declaration is made on high and low, to all his creature, and to judge. The speech first set right the relation with Man, which is that of a judge indifferent to Man's offering and sacrifice. He is judge, and he judges, based on Man's offering of thanks to him, and action to others.
In accepting this speech, one accepts that God will judge, deciding on saving or condemning a person. The lacunae here is what if a person gives thanks to God for having the chance to slaughter his neighbour? As ratio ultima, God can continue to expose the malice in this person, and stop listening, instead of stop talking. However, this does not deny the fact that the condemned believed in the relation between his salvation and his action. The question, therefore, is why would he give thanks to God for being able to harm.
Two possibilities. First is that the person actually believed in a pagan faith similar to Viking's Oding belief. In this belief, Man naturally thanks God for being able to harm, for it demonstrate power. Thanking God in this religion ultimately is for the glory of he who thanks God. In other words, ability to harm demonstrates power, and I have that power, and that power is given to me, so I acknowledge this by thanking God.
Second possibility is that this person believed in a specific type of Christian faith that convinced him of his monopoly of providence. Harm in this sense is always an execution of God's Will. Thanks is given to God in this case is for the gifts of both the will and the power.
How would God reply? In both cases, God has to include those who injected these believes to the condemned. In our time, these are politicians and intellectuals. Intellectuals will be under the judgment of God, a Christian intellectual knows this much.
留言
張貼留言