“Protection” doesn’t mean “no rocks will fall on you” or “no deer will jump out in front of your car and cause you to wreck” (both things that have happened to me). It means instead that we are eternal beings and God will use whatever comes to guide us to a good eternal status.
The Cross, as usual, is the answer: if God didn’t stop Jesus from undergoing that obscenely cruel death, then there is nothing lacking in terms of protection if He doesn’t block storms or CMEs.
One item I will bring up to add to our pool of knowledge in this debate is that many of these disasters are the result of planetary processes that evidently do contribute to the habitability of the Earth. Volcanoes, for example, do cause molten rock to flow on the surface and destroy ecosystems, but these volcanoes also add gases to the atmosphere. Early in Earth’s formation, volcanoes are one of the likely culprits toward the origin of our atmosphere, the other being comets hitting the surface and evaporating some gases from rock. The same process that drives volcanoes, meaning mantle convection, also helps to build a large magnetic field around the Earth, which blocks solar wind from stripping our atmosphere.
In short, I wouldn’t necessarily blame demons on natural disasters, as these events do have direct correlation to events that do drive life-sustaining processes.
God evidently breaks many of these laws, especially in the New Testament. It is impossible for water to become wine, men to walk on the surface of water, or even bring men back from the dead (which is actually somewhat common nowadays with shock revival technology but not several day old men in the first century A.D.), yet Jesus does all these things.
2 Likes
Certainly. The question is whether the system was intended to be this way from the very beginning—meaning that disasters and death are fundamentally necessary for life and its sustainability—or whether this is the result of some other event that altered the very fabric of creation. There are various views on this matter.
Thank you for the analysis. What I was referring to is when we get into discussions of catastrophic events like nuclear war, bio-weapon outbreaks, or even coronal mass ejections, we can set up securities to prevent the death that may come with their occurrence but, in doing so, you seem like you would believe that God would allow for these events to happen (especially nuclear war, which may complicates Revelation prophecy because of the claims about fire from the sky. “If the Bible indicates that nuclear war is inevitable, is there anything we can do?”). Essentially, you got to have a LOT of faith in God (nothing wrong with that) to feel secure that no one will press the big red buttons or the sun won’t get very angry and destroy our civilization because God is protecting us. To me, I just thought it was weird that I was supportive of nuclear protection when God makes it clear that he wouldn’t let humanity die in such a way. On one hand, it is silly to advocate that we shouldn’t prepare, but on the other hand, if you feel the need to prepare do you really trust God?
However, I will admit (which I something that I stole from Biologos “Science is Good” series) is that Jesus did tell us to prepare (as in the parable of the wedding guests, who didn’t prepare enough oil), so perhaps I may be mistaken (as one can certainly prepare for global catastrophe because Christ warned us to always be prepared).
1 Like
I will admit, that is a good point. As an Evolutionary Creationist, finding this point of original sin is a bit tricky but it is possible that it came with the fallen angles before our Universe began (such as if God prepared the Heavens before he prepared the rest of Creation). I don’t know much about the early history of the universe, so I can’t really speculate on what we could point to and say “maybe when the universe was really freaking hot the original sin occurred!”
The reason I say before the Universe was created was because our current creation (especially Earth) utilizes the laws of physics very well in such a way that if demons were the cause of natural disasters, then they would also have to be driving the same mantel, sun churning, gas heating, wind blowing, and rain falling processes that not o my sustain God’s creation but also made it possible in the first place. If you have any more thoughts on this, I would appreciate that
To be honest, I believe that the existence of nuclear weapons—and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction—is the primary reason why there have been no wars in the past 81 years that would make World War II seem like a mere skirmish by comparison.
Can you imagine what would have happened during the Cold War without nuclear weapons? Or even in Ukraine four years ago?
1 Like
Here Satan and the Corruption of Nature: Seven Arguments - Greg Boyd - ReKnew you can read an argument which—at least to me—is the most convincing explanation for the current state of affairs
I suppose that is a fair analysis. Admittedly, some generals in the United States were eying the Soviet Union as the next target for invasion as soon as the Second World War was won. If the USSR hadn’t gotten their own bomb, then there wouldn’t have been any potential for retaliation for if the United States dropped a bomb on North Korea or Manchuria in the Korean War (as China was looking to back their communist bros in the North and Patton was looking to get rid of them before they joined the battle). I think I actually got in a discussion in my history class over this topic: nuclear weapons serve as this weird dichotomy of the potential to end life on Earth but also this force that has thus far prevented a Third World War on several occasions. Indeed, the only time the bomb was dropped was when the United States held a monopoly on it. The Cold War was very much marked by proxy wars and hysteria, but never did the United States and the Soviet Union exchange hands in another major war, and neither has any two powers sparked a large-scale war since the 40s.
1 Like
This was my own speculation on the subject—even before I became aware of Boyd’s existence and his argument, lol:
And Doubt & Faith - Evolution, Afterlife & History - #39 by 1Cor15.54
If I remember correctly, even Churchill had envisaged the so-called “Operation Unthinkable”, which involved a potential war against the USSR
Exactly. This is why I believe that a scenario in which atomic bombs had never been created would most likely have led to even greater conventional wars after World War II. It is precisely the capacity of nuclear weapons to bring about total destruction that makes initiating a world war unsustainable. There is nothing to be gained—only certain death and devastation.
If atomic bombs had been developed fifteen years earlier, I suppose Hitler might have followed a trajectory similar to that of Francisco Franco (and I believe that the 50 millions people who died in WWII would have been spared).
It’s a bit metaphysical, but an argument can be made that since Christ took on human nature then since the Ascension He feels everything we do via that shared nature. In that case, it isn’t just that He understands suffering die to the Cross but that He shares every moment of every kind of suffering – as well as joy! – that we go through, believers or not.
I will admit, there were some really good points made. However, there are a few questions I do have before I fully consider the argument (because, again, it is well written). As someone interested in astronomy, I recognize that Earth is but one planets amount sextillions of others (many of which could host life, but that is a completely different discussion). All of these other planets and star systems are under the same laws as Earth, but seem to have little strategic advantage against God’s creation (unless planets have consciousness, making a super-Earth orbiting class to its parent star a lava world doesn’t seem to hurt God’s feelings too much, as he cares more about the sentient than the rock).
Also, some biological laws are very painful but also very good at maintaining order in creation. The wolf does eat the rabbit but if there was no wolf then the rabbit would grow out of control and eat all the grass. Indeed, in a more remote sense, we do have to consider that all life (even herbivores) have to consume other living things (producers/plants) in order to survive (as our complicated biological systems cannot be powered by photosynthesis alone). Though, in this topic I will admit that the Bible makes it clear that the animals in creation will eventually get along, so there is the potential for violence in biology to be very much the result of evil.
My biggest concern is seeing that this beautiful creation with all of its intricate laws and structures being that not of God but that controlled of the enemy.
I think that involves a God Who is capable of violating His own ways.
You’re using a philosophical definition of “omnipotence” which does not actually fit what the scriptures say on the matter.
I believe that this Jesus parable might have something to do with this
“Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ “ ‘An enemy has done this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ “ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
This is very much God’s creation, but I do believe that it has been altered by evil angels—what we call demons.
This also seems to make sense in light of the intricate laws you mentioned. When I consider the second law of thermodynamics—which entails that the entire universe is gradually drifting, if left to itself, toward complete decay and eventual heat death—I find it difficult not to think, “An enemy has done this.”
The same can be said about many other things.
Creation may be conceived as the field called into being by God, while the evil and disorder found within it may be understood as a corruption sown by an opposing will—parasitic upon the good, wholly incapable of generating any being or good of its own. Indeed, as Christ Himself attests, this opposing will is “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44), a bearer of death rather than life.
1 Like
I’d say that image of god is so human, at that point we might as well build a golden calf and start worshipping it.
Vinnie
Which He certainly is, in my opinion.
Then how can He be called “faithful”?
Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The same can be said—by analogy—of His own laws. God is faithful, but above all, He is love; indeed, God is love in His very essence. Even His Trinitarian nature reveals God as love: the Trinity is an eternal communion of Persons, in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist in perfect self-giving and reciprocal love. The Father eternally begets the Son, the Son responds in filial love, and the Spirit proceeds as the bond of love between them. Thus, love is what God is in His very being.
If, in His love, He were at times to act beyond the ordinary course of His own laws on behalf of His children, I see no difficulty in that. I have never thought of God as a mere clockmaker who set things in motion and then said, “Now it is no longer my concern.”
Rather, I believe that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is fundamentally different from the God conceived by the deists.
I do like this analysis. However, this does remind of a claim made by Professor Dave (a YouTube science personality whose short video somehow made his way to me). In one short clip, Dave calls a God that needs to intervene “lame,” referring to claims that evolution is inferior to creationism. Here is that video:
(While speaking on Professor Dave, he makes a bunch of other claims that I was wondering if anyone was interested in looking at).
what are your thoughts in this?