I do believe that loving God is beneficial for the rule follower, but I think it's also beneficial for God. How is it beneficial for us? Well there is the no butt kicking. Also if we love God we'll do what he says is good for us the same way we might love our flesh and blood parents. That seems to get back to rule following and maybe it does, but now you'd be following the rules that God said out because of your love for God.

But back to loving God for his benefit. Do we love others only because it benefits us to do so? Isn't their benefit for the beloved as well? It could be rightly said that God doesn't “need” our love but I'm certain that he desires it and that it pleases him.

This is worthy of unpacking in a post by itself.

“I believe that the rules God laid out can certainly be beneficial.”

In its context, I read that as saying “beneficial for the rule-follower.” The next part of my comment is predicated on that assumption.

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

How is this “do” beneficial to those who follow it apart from “God is going to kick your ass if you don't”? If not getting one's ass kicked is the only benefit, how is this not coercion?

Anyway, I've always enjoyed your reverse-legalism and hope it doesn't go away.

The do's and don'ts of the scriptures are there for us to measure up to God's standards and then make adjustments to be more like Jesus. Not to condemn ourselves or each other.

We can discern right and wrong and are told to judge a saint bis his or her fruits, but this is to protect you from false teaching not for you to use the info to break out the preacher finger and start firing it off at every sinner under the sun.

I listened to a Catholic priest teach on Jesus the Judge and thoughoughly enjoyed it and was blessed by it. He explores more on this topic in the context of Christ Jesus.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/namesofjesus/j…

Shalom!

re: 1) Very true. Leigh (my wife) is reading a book on prayer and she taught a lesson on the prayer of examen which sounds kind of like what you and I are talking about.

2) I try ad stay away from you statements in general. Not a little bit of counseling/training responsible for that no doubt. It's largely unconscious. I hope that all conversations here are non-adversarial. I don't have any enemies in this, only friends and family.

1.An examined life doesn't have to be about worrying or making lists. It's about – to use more of a non-Christian expression – consciousness. Of yourself, of others, of your surroundings, etc. Setting a goal to live a fully examined life is sort of like most of the goals involved in Christianity in that it is something one can never attain. The Buddhists might beg to differ although even there it is exceedingly rare.

2.There is a key truth contained in the way you discussed things here. For many of your key observations you use the first person – singular or plural. “I need to talk to him” and “I don't have the right to. . .” The attitude one brings to these kinds of issues is key to whether it is an inclusive and – dare I say – Christian approach versus more of a controlling one. If I'm being told I can't do something because one group of people believes it's wrong, that's a “you” statement. You must or must not do this. If on the other hand someone personalizes it, the discussion becomes much less adversarial and much more effective. To summarize using such language – if I can't express my opinion or feeling in a way that leaves “the other guy” out of it as much as possible, then I'm not ready to discuss it in public. (And yes, there are occasionally exceptions – they do not invalidate the concept).