The ain problem is not with God at all but with idealistic people who seem to think that evil could ever be stopped or cease to exist.
Yes evil is horrible. Yes suffering can seem unbearable. Yes we hate to see it, especially with those we love. Yes we would like it to end
God does have the answer.
He does not stop or prevent evil and suffering, but He does provide the strength and courage to endure and conquer it. It is a shame that much of the world is ignorant of this help.
Exodus 21:29 provides a compelling explanation, âBut if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to deathâ The principle shown here exposes, omniscience, ownership, evil, and justice. It is the law of the responsibility of the owner. Simply put, the owner has ultimate responsibility for secondary causes of creation under his care.
So the oxen was given freedom, but ultimately the owner is also responsible.
Or just use the definition of the Greek word behind the Latin omnipotens, which is ΠαΜÏÎżÎșÏÎŹÏÏÏ (pan-toh-KRA-tore); it doesnât mean âcan do anything whatsoeverâ, it means âowns all the power there isâ. It goes against tradition, though it fits with a strain in Judaism that arrived at the position philosophically; it allows that God is constrained by the parameters He has established and is thus impotent in some, even many, situations. So given the laws He established for this universe there are things He is not able to interfere with.
So we donât become robots so much as we get our desire to be/do good confirmed so we stop failing ourselves. I like the sound of that â kind of like being able to reach inside and alter our programming, decide if we like what we did and write it to our operating system.
Maybe thatâs what our glorified bodies will be like, all our best aspirations written into our wills so we always follow them. And then we step up to a new sort of freedom with a new sort of challenges, so itâs not losing freedom but facing a new kind.
Makes me think of Fiddler on the Roof, the song âIf I Were a Rich Manâ, especially the endâ
I think there would have been something like the Plagues no matter what; part of the whole point of having Israel in Egypt so long was to humble (smack down) the gods of Egypt.
It is opposite in the sense that good creates and evil destroys. But while you can have good without evil, there can be no evil without good, for without creation there can be no destruction. But it is very misleading to define evil as the opposite of good or of God, because it make far too much of evil and partakes a bit too much of Zoroastrianism. These are not two great opposing forces from the beginning of time. It is frankly like calling ants the opposite of people simply because we do not want ants in our house. Evil is only a big deal for us because there is too much inside us and our lives, just as ants can be a big problem if there are too many in your house. The freedom to choose between good and evil is a nearly insignificant part of free will, for the choices between the infinite possibilities of goodness is the far greater portion.
Likewise, it is wrong to simply say evil is an absence of good. There can indeed be nothing at all, in which there is no good or evil. And although you can say nothing is the logical end result of evil it does not imply evil by itself, for evil is in the destruction of good and not simply its absence. Part of the problem with that âevil is absence of goodâ way of thinking is the infinite nature of goodness and the endless nature of creation. There can always be more goodness â always room for more good, and in that sense always an absence of goodness.
But then there are the words above âin some contextsâ⊠Is there a context in which an absence of goodness is evil? Yes. In the nature of fallen man where there is both good and evil, so that if goodness is abandoned then evil rushes in to take its place. Because while evil does not create, it does grow or spread⊠like a fire growing to consume and destroy more of everything.
I wonder, if you asked the (human) writer of evelation what constituted the whole world what the answer would be?
Rvelation is aimed at Judaism. it is the restorarion of Israel as the People of God. As with the flood, you are intent on globalising texts that were never meant to be globalised.
Sin does not rule the earth. Sin has no body or physical presence to do so. Sin is not a disease. Sin canot be inherited. Sin has no body to move and no mind to overpower or dominate. Your whole religion is based on a false view of Sin and the world.
I wonder why you attempt to insert into a human writers account the idea that what he saw in vision was a flat earth and therefore that God is a liar presenting it to him that way?
It is this forum that claims the fossil record is millions of years old and that must be true because God doesnt lieâŠand yet here you are doing the very thing you claim is heresy when reading scripture.
If the apostle John saw in vision as he claims, why infer God lied to him?
Do you not understand that is wilfully twisting the interpretation of scripture to suit your own ends?
Anything you read in the bible that is contrary to naturalism, you do the same thingâŠrehash its meaning or discredit it as being written by someone else, or it has multiple writers therefore isnt God breathedâŠits always the same lousy arguments to get around specific biblical theologies that ruin evolutionary beliefs in christianity.
I never said that. I doubt God told Him either way⊠That wasnât in the brief. And there is no indication that the writer was tryng to interpret or finalise the Revelation. It would not change the text .
You are basically claiming that the lack of scientific knowledge constituted alying by God, because he knew bettwr? Does God reveal all He knows? All he sees? All He understands. All, not whatis needed?
Revelation is about heaven descending to the Holy mountain, it is not necesarily heaven taking over the earth. In fact it seems to imply that people away from that area would come to the mountain to share in it. IOW it is not a global event. In the text, it can be interpretted either way.Who is to say that your understanding is the ony one?
Be careful whqat you claim, especially if it involves someone elseâs perspective or understanding. That is non of your business. We witness, we do not indoctirnate or dmand agreement.
Taken literally the Great commandment is to tell, whether they accept is not your cncern. God converts (or convicts) not you or I.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks⊠God offers forgiveness. There is no compulsion in either of those statements for acceptance.
Why would God be a liar? Do you really expect Him to give a science seminar to bring writers up to your level of science before theyâre allowed to write? Or will He use their understanding of things to gt the message across?
That Jesus did the second and not the first suggests quite strongly that the former idea is ridiculous.
Thatâs exactly what you do every time you insist that God was required to speak in your understood terms and not those of the people He was actually communicating with.
In fact itâs idolatry: YEC has set up their understanding of modern science as a judge to which God is answerable.
If that applies to science, why does it not apply to theology and / or doctrine?
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
154
I would think it does apply. When I was in the church we were often taught about the historical and cultural context of the New Testament and how it impacted our understanding of Christian theology. For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan takes on added meaning when you understand how Samaritans fit into the culture at the time.
I agree, but it adds an extra dimension to how we read and understand Scripture. Taking something at face value , or claiming a precise meaning or âInterpretationâ be it specific words or understanding, becomes less clear. Also, do we use the understanding of the time or are we âallowedâ to understand it using modern values. All this talk about ANE or MSW or whatever box you want to stuff us into, becomes contentious and argumentative (If it isnât already!)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
156
For the record, being a non-Christian I donât take a position. I discussed my personal experience, which I consider a positive one. If you want to strip scripture of all its historical context, thatâs your choice. I think it takes meaning away from scripture, but perhaps I am wrong.
To be fair, I am not aiming anything at you or your understanding, and I dislike boxes of any nature. I am sure that someone would try and categorise your viewpoint.
. The proto do with how we are supposed to know what either what was originally meant or even what the view of the original audience would have been? And if it was necesary then tha tlimits the number of people qualified to give an understanding.
In truth, much can be gained from using a commentary but they are automatically biased towards whatever group or person wrote it⊠Thee is a tleast one person around here who seems to value human knowledge and learning to the extent of claiming thaqt thse without it are unqualified or are using their own understanding instead of âThe right oneâ.
(Mentioning no names)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
158
You should write up your thesis. Maybe you could nail it to the front doors of the local church.
On a more serious note, the Protestant Reformation started the movement away from top down control of theology, and in modern times Christianity seems to be more personal, especially in evangelical churches. Iâm not sure how UK churches view things, but here in the US there is a strong individualistic streak which you also seem to share. I also find the modern history of Christianity to be fascinating, such as the First and Second Great Awakenings. I think it is fair to say that even modern churches exist in their own historical context. Why do Baptists think one thing, and Anglicans another?
Paul was writing to the first Christian churches, so I would consider them to be both general and personal. Did he ever expect his letters to be holy scriptures 2,000 years later? I would be absolutely stunned if he did. There is general theology in those letters, but there are also specific issues in each of the churches. I tend to think understanding those issues gives clarity.
And swinging back toward a bid for top-down control again here in the U.S.! (at least if the current trend lasts). Maybe Catholics could give protestants a pointer or two!
A basic principle in all the literature courses I had to take â really the core principle â is that the meaning is what the writer intended and his audience understood. That doesnât change whether itâs ancient Greek drama, middle English sagas, Deschampes, Quixote, Byron, la Fontaine, or whatever â thatâs how literature works. If you donât start there, youâre not reading what the author wrote, youâre merely using your modern understanding of the words to spin your own version. Once you start there, you can apply it however you want, but if you donât start with the actual meaning your application is just invented.
And they canât be understood without knowing what they were about! A great example is the oft-abused I Corinthians 14:34-35 which is supposedly a command that women arenât allowed to speak in church: there is evidence that suggests that this is a quote from one of the division-causers in Corinth and Paul is correcting it (beyond just the evidence of I Corinthians 11 where Paul assumes that women are speaking in church) â recognize that, and suddenly Paulâs exclamation in v. 36 makes sense; he is shocked that anyone would say such a thing.
