Ezekiel 18-20

[wolfpurplemoon]

God has decided that the children shouldn't suffer for the sins of their parents any longer, why did he say that they should before? This sort of indecisiveness doesn't seem right in an all-knowing deity.

OK, so let me get this straight, a wicked person will die/suffer for their sins, unless they decide to turn away from their sin and do what is just. So, how long can you spend being sinful before the punishment kicks in, because once you're dead you're not going to be able to turn from your sin and become righteous, surely. And just how righteous do you have to become and how long for in order to correct the wrong God thinks you committed?

I haven't even got that straight and now apparently if you're righteous and then start being wicked then you'll die and your righteous acts are not taken into account, which makes even less sense. So, the moral of the tale seems to be, start out bad and become good, not the other way round. I agree with the house of Israel that this is unjust, and God's answer to that charge is not actually an answer because he just calls them unjust back and assures them he takes no pleasure in the deaths of anyone, wicked or good.

Comments

IMHO

[hypatiaslore.livejournal.com]

Ok. I think I can help with the explanation of the parable part in Ek. 19. Well, I can give you some interpretive literary perspective, at least. lol

So, the comparison being made here between the Kingdom of Judah and a Lioness. The Kings of Judah are likened to the Lioness' cubs, which groomed to rule became young lions and during their reign went out into their kingdoms became cruel, oppressive and destructive, even unto their own subjects. This can be both an allegory of the past, but also a warning to the kings of the future for those who may enact such cruelty from a position of power in the future by not following the commands of God. The next parable goes on to describe what happens from insubordination.

Regarding the Vineyard allegory, here there is a perfect summary of recent events. The description of their past when they were "well-behaved", i.e. the watered plant. The plant was flourishing with the branches, strong and suited for kings scepters, meaning the people, since they were submissive, had been cultivated to be the kind of kings that would be compliant to god's demands.

Then they were moved to the dry and thirsty land of the desert because of their disobedience of the mandates they had been given. So the pool from which God had to choose a deferential king was fairly non-existent, giving them even less of an ability to have a good leader to "shepherd" them back to the acquiescent lifestyle.

The last sentence reminds me of when people write cat macros like,"Nosy cat is Nosy" or something, because its like, Lament song is a lament song. LOL


This is just from a literary perspective, obviously; not a commentary on what I would think if there were a deity that actually behaved in this way.