You were talking about the current one not 80 years before .People and circumstances change so fast.Irrelevant argument moving on
People would fight for their family and their survival .Simple.No church nor stalin. Either prove your point by citing sources or better no to argue at all/ You have no sway here. I can see right trough your bs
I think Michael Horton’s book “A Place for Weakness” does a good job of challenging our typical formation of questions related to evil and suffering and offers a very good, honest framework for dealing with suffering, in spite of our inability to really understand it or its relationship to evil.
At the beginning of chapter 3 “Suffering on Purpose”:
Neither this chapter nor this book aims to address the larger theoretical problem of eil. In fact, I do not believe there is a satisfying theoretical answer for us in this life. But, better than that, there is a practical answer: It is the cross and resurrection.
Instead of trying to solve the mystery of evil, I want to relate a specific biblical theme to the practical situation of those who suffer and grief. In th ecross and resurrection, God does not explain the problem of evil to our satisfaction but actually overcomes it in a way that surprises and overwhelms us. It may not be good philosophy, but it’s great theater—and the stage is actual human history, where certain reovlutionary events have happened, not abstracted speculation about the way things “are.”
I really value Horton’s discussion of the Thelology of Glory and Theology of the Cross as well. It actually does a very good job of laying the groundwork for the quote above.
It’s a fairly short book, which is an outlier among Christian discussions of suffering and evil. Horton does not attempt to explain what cannot be explained, and his respect for those going through suffering is profound. Yet he provides a view of hope in Christ for those who do or will suffer, which is all of us.
Apparently your opinion represents the consensus opinion. My point is simply WHY did it have to be that way? There was a much cleaner, easier and simpler way to offer us salvation for our faith. You seem to be starting with an answer and developing a logic that arrives at a pre-determined endpoint.
Reading through this thread, there is a lot of jousting and deflecting, semantics and redefining. I hesitate to join the discussion since it started in the middle of a story, so to speak, rather than at one of the ends. In the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang theory, what was God thinking when he created the processes to start the evolutionary creation of our planet (again, in the midst of the newly formed universe). I know, it took time to for the earth to form. Set that aside for a moment. What was God’s intent in creating a process that brought about Homo sapiens? Personally, I like CS Lewis’ indirect answer to this question in “The Problem of Pain.” God can not create “free will,” humans with agency - having the capacity to be an a relationship with Him - and direct His omnipotency to nullify that free will, our own choices. This is seen in the Adam and Eve story; God gives them a choice, knowing they will fail, but he nevertheless gives them the choice to succeed. So before “suffering,” we had “struggle.” The Genesis story does not use the words “and it was perfect.” It was “good;” God rested, not because He was tired but he had turned over stewardship to His creation and processes, fine tuning when necessary. If you accept the problem of suffering as caused by the problem of evil, an entity bent on temptation and destruction, then atonement occurs. If you accept the opportunity of struggle within a creation that has its normal rhythms of life, Jesus is not just an atonement, a Plan B, but more of a course correction already in the plans for completing the relationship of humans with God, the God of love.
Some of you are going to have problems and questions throughout that condensed narrative. I know. Part of your questions are part of my journey, a journey which, in time, is not yet finished. God of eternity, timeless, will wait on me and complete the picture.
One question I’ll anticipate and answer. I don’t think God made lions to eat plants; death happens in the natural cycle before the Eden story. Jesus comes to eliminate death in the new creation, the resurrected creation - kainos - rather than an absolute Plan B: atonement and news.
Time for me to sit back and duck for cover!
Bear with me, please, those who have seen this before, initially drafted as a response to a YEC:
I guess you have not been paying attention to what is going on over there. Putin is trying to undo the events of the last eighty years.
The Ukrainians will suffer for their nation, and their freedom, and their faith will give the strength to do so. How much are the Russians willing to suffer for Putin/Stalin?
What is the rest of the world going to do when the Ukrainian harvest fails?
Please put your clairvoyance to better use.
I’m not interested in being offered salvation for my faith, except as a ritual. The death of God is the most spectacular possible statement of God’s existence. No ignominious, powerless, shameful death; no jaw dropping, breath stealing, elating resurrection.
No disrespect intended, but the topic was the philosophical analysis of God’s actions (if they were His) and whether (or not) Christ’s crucifixion was a necessary component. Your interest in the offering of salvation has nothing to do with it. Simple question: was it necessary by any reasonable/rational analysis?
None taken. If Jesus was God incarnate, then salvation is just a… misunderstanding. The greater meaning is transcendence. Life has meaning.
Perhaps it is. If so, it has been quite a significant one since most believe the foundations of our faith reside in the details of the atonement. I like your re-characterization of it as transcendence, by the way.
Life has meaning ultimately because God is personal.
You make a great point. And you have adhered to it well. I notice that when an adversary falls and/or fails in his arguments, he typically accuses the other side of changing the subject. You have not done so. And to watch the Ukrainians develop such steadfast and resolute convictions to retain sovereignty, and remain vocal about their faith, is heartening indeed. This is pure anecdotal, but I have a (new) friend who is 6 months an immigrant from Ukraine. Her parents remain there and she talks to them daily (by internet). She supports exactly what you have said.
Are you really that ignorant?Like he is not changing the subject?
He said that Ukrainians are getting more religious because of the war and that faith helps them fight back.What he wrote above has nothing to do with what he claimed
Also you should have tagged me since you are clearly talking about me .You show proper christian character huh
Pitifull christians defending their “brother” even though they are clearly on the wrong.Diocletian did something right . Cant wait for that moment again 
Mr. Sawtelle, I have a short update, narrative given me by my new friend from Ukraine. Her parents told her about the massacre in a village near them 4 days ago. Over 20 men were rounded up and cuffed behind their backs, then executed with a single shot to the base of their brains. The villages/suburbs nearby gathered for prayer. Most of them are of Orthodox religion, some Greek some Russian. Her words were that “100% are of faith and resolute against the Russians”. Even allowing for some degree of hyperbole, she delivers a powerful message. Thanks again for your thoughts!
No one knows what the atonement is, only the fact that there was one. Such belief misses the point. Glad you like if God, as in Christ, then all is well for all. There are no details.
There are objectively knowable details in God’s providential interventions into the lives of his children. He does not use the same M.O. with all, but with some there are facts without bias that point straight to him, and flat out denialism is the only way to avoid the truth.
Ha! Apparently you haven’t figured out whose pigpen you’re playing in, and you failed to notice the sign at the gate: the one that says “Abandon Hope all ye who play here”. Worse, you failed to obey the first rule of playing in a pigpen which is: Always treat the pig with respect, regardless what it does in its own pen.
Not only is that thought a warming comfort, it has the added benefit of being a logical consequence of our evolution. There is a reason so many scientists are moving toward a faith in God. They see that the likelihood of random natural occurrences resulting in the impossibly complex organisms we are today as being statistically implausible. So God was in control. Is he still, I wonder, but perhaps so.
I will heed that sage advice, Terry! On a (barely) related note,I have often been accused of drawing a target around the place my arrow lands.
Absolutely, but in ways we cannot detect. Sometimes they become obvious, though, as in Maggie’s case, and Rich Stearns’. And then there’s George Müeller. God hasn’t changed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.