(Except from my book follow-up book God 102)
On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina, one of the deadliest and most costly storms in United States history struck the Gulf Coast region. This massive category 3 storm, its accompanying tornadoes and storm surge resulted in catastrophic damage along the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coastlines. The massive influx of water in New Orleans? Lake Pontchartrain led to significant levee breaches that left nearly 80% of the historic city under water. The destructive storm resulted in the loss of more than 1,600 lives, widespread homelessness and estimated damages at over 125 billion dollars. The effects are still being felt.
In December 2004, an Earthquake registering 9.0 on the Richter scale occurred in the Indian Ocean triggering a tsunami which resulted in devastation in more than 11 Southeast Asian nations. After the raging flood waters receded, nearly 250,000 dead were discovered among the debris or carried out to sea. Tens of thousands were left homeless and billions of dollars in damage resulted.
In the summer of 2004, Hurricane Charley barreled through the State of Florida, destroying more than 30,000 homes and leaving 27 people dead in its wake. Over $7 billion dollars in damages resulted. Eight years prior, Hurricane Andrew leveled South Florida resulting in the deaths of at least 40 people and damages of nearly $25 billion dollars.
In the fall of 1989, Hurricane Hugo struck the southeastern coast of the United States, killing 60 people and resulting in more than $4 billion dollars in damages. In October of the same year, an Earthquake registering 7.1 on the Richter scale struck the San Francisco Bay area in California, destroying more than 100,000 buildings and roadways and killing 67 people.
Throughout history, many such tragedies have been recorded. In 526 A.D., an Earthquake shook modern day Turkey resulting in the death of 25,000 people. Similarly, an Earthquake striking China in 1556 A.D. left over 830,000 people dead.
In 1883, the volcano Krakatoa erupted with a thunderous blast that rocked Southeast Asia dispersing so much ash into the upper atmosphere that global climate was affected for several years. During Krakatoa?s eruption, movement of the nearby seafloor resulted in tsunamis that destroyed 160 villages and killed more than 36,000 people.
Many such natural disasters occur frequently, randomly and ubiquitously. In a moment?s fury, tornadoes swoop down from the sky to destroy the hopes and dreams of many. Flood waters rise and cover what took years or decades to build. In seconds, Earthquakes shake the foundations of landscapes, permanently transforming them. Hurricanes roll in from the ocean creating a path of devastation before quietly dissipating. Each time disaster strikes, the populace of planet Earth suffers. With mounting fury, humanity responds by shaking angry fists at the sky demanding to know why a loving God would cause or even allow such tragedies.
For millennia, God has been assigned blamed for every major catastrophe from hurricanes and floods to droughts and famines. These catastrophes are often labeled "Acts of God". The image created by this phrase is that of an outraged and uncaring god who lashes out at his creation through violence. This idea raises the question: Are natural disasters actually acts committed by a God of love?
What do you think???
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 113
Certainly, natural disasters are predicted in Bible prophecy, but to say that they are the judgment of God (punishing certain individuals for sin) is to completely confuse God's nature & purposes. Even though this idea that all natural disasters are Acts directly purpetrated by God is a time honored superstition.
When we see natural disasters as punishment, we misunderstand the context of our material world in the eternal scheme of things.
You are correct in asserting that God is the "First Cause". He set all that we see (and don't see) in motion and gave us the ability (to a large degree) to choose how we wanted our world to operate.
The Earth was designed by God to develop and change (evolve) over time. What we call natural disasters are nothing more than the natural changeable system of nature being played out in our nations, towns, and communities. There is no conspiracy.
There is no wrathful, vengeful punishment by God for our sin as some have insisted. Natural phenomena have occurred on Earth long before modern humans appeared on the Earth scene. If the occurrence of natural disasters were actually punishment for sin, then whose sin was being punished when earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanoes occurred on Earth millions of years ago?
If natural disasters were actually God attempting to punish mankind for its insistent sin, then the Earth as we know it would have already been destroyed; for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23, KJV). And because all have sinned, all would have found themselves subject to punishment. If God were punishing sin by issuing natural disasters we would all perished already because we are all guilty before God.
Truth be told: God is not sitting on His throne in the Heavenly realm orchestrating every single event that occurs on Earth. He created the universe, and set it in motion. He created the planets with ability to evolve and correct itself.
God created a physical world that contains a dynamic Earth crust riding on a molten sea, wind, water and rain. These things are all good. The same water that brings life to plants, trees and sustains us may be the source of floods, drownings and tsunamis.
The wind that blows gently over streams and provides a cooling breeze from the heat of the day may unite to form tornadoes and hurricanes that leave destruction in its wake. The rain that gently falls and waters the Earth and makes it lush and green may also become a downpour that gives rise to floods or it may fail to rain as often as the Earth necessitates and droughts result.
However, even in the presence of devastating catastrophes God is there. He is ever-present to help, to heal, to restore. God does not cause the storms that come, but He is there in the midst of it pleading with mankind to repent and be restored to Him. He calls out to them to come and live in the spiritual plane above the effects of the natural world. He calls out to us to come to Him be His children and He will be our Father, living with Him in peace and safety above the often damaging (from our perspective) effects of the changing world.
Your pithy explanation of this principal has me envious to learn how you are able to sum up the point using so few words (and add such humor in the process).
Good show old man (or old woman).
Now, on why you think these situations occur matters if you believe in a higher power or not; and that is a completely different conversation.
The problem enters when people ascribe these "natural" events to God. They insist that they are his way of punishing His wayward children; I disagree!! I think that you do as well.
If we believe in a God of love then accepting the idea that He would send disasters that kill the innocent (I realize that none are really innocent before God, but I talking about those whose sins are not being judged in the particular natural disaster) with the guilty is faulty reasoning.
There is a good and He is good. He is so much better than we give Him credit for being.
But I also would like to restate on what Sandy commented on, eveything that happens along the terms of disasters and bodily functions or births or whatever is a natural event.
You are correct in asserting that not every positive result is necessarily a direct intervention on the part of God. However, there are times when His hand of love, provision, health, help, grace, mercy, etc is evident!!! (and appreciated)
If there is a God; we must assume that He is good (to not be completely good would make Him the same as us and I know that I don't qualify for goodhood. How about you?) and can do only good; therefore let us all quit now and go worship a rock!
I am daring to believe that in the face of supernatural occurrences that produce good; God is most likely the cause!
The evil that we see in the world comes from "our evil hand" demonstrated through the gift of free-will. The fact that goodness exists at all points to the workings of a perfect God.
I am just saying that a lot of things can happen in a short amount of time and I think it doesn't require supernatural influence.
But I do respect that you think this is how things work and it is good you believe in some form of how the world forms
Just as men (and women) debate the origins of our universe and human evolution, we also find ourselves in a similar debate over the things that we witness in our world.
If you are from the school of thought that supposes that the world form from a spontaneous "singularity" and evolved into all that we see (and do not see) today, then you probably do not believe in a single divine creator. Therefore all that you see in the world that fails to function according to "natural" law, you would call an anomoly.
For those of us who believe that God caused the singularity that sparked all that we see (and do not see) in our natural world our world view is a lot different. We see God as be the author of good and not evil. We see Him involving Himself (as requested by way of prayer) in the lives of His creation bringing about healing, restoration, life, blessing, salvation, provision, wisdom, hope, joy, peace, etc.
We see an active God in the affairs of His creation -- those who invite Him into their lives to make it better.
The way you view things in the world all depends upon your foundation -- is it built on rock (eternal truth) or merely on sinking sand (human opinion, perception)???
Believers frequently invoke his guidance in their lives, usually if it is something good that happens to them. If they happened to have been on the upper floors of the twin towers on September 11 however, then their horriific deaths are attributed to the mysteries of God.
The Bible states that God created the earth ala Genesis in six days. That concept is totally wrong. If the description of God's will can be so incorrect in the opening chapters of his book then how can believers rely on the rest of the book to be any more reliable.
The other reality that cannot be ignored is the overabundance of gods in the world today. Which god is it that created or controls things. Gods come in all shapes and sizes. The Chinese have no reason to believe in the Christian god so why are they being left out? The old cliche that the more solutions you have to a problem the less likely any one of them is true seems to fit here. The only idea that stands out as being true and universal is the rational world of science and nature.
IS this the God of the Bible? Probably not, but I believe the God of the Bible is horribly misunderstood. If you believe in the God of the Bible, you must believe that Jesus brought the New Testament to fix the things that were wrong with the OLD Testament. These are words that are attributed directly to Jesus. HE says that the old way was flawed and that he is the new way, and that his father sent him to soften the hard hearts of men. In the text, he is referring specifically to questions asked of him in relation to the Saduccis and Pharisees.
If you believe that any of what is in the New Testament is valid, then why is it that the words of Jesus, on which the testament is the rock, are of the same import as the words of men, no matter how they believe their spirit was guided?
I chose to believe (and was taught) that what Jesus expected of us was that we live our life as he did, to the best of our human ability. I also see this kind of life lead by other humans from Gautama to Ghandi.
First of all, I am a Christian (in the spiritual sense, not in the religious sense). I do not believe that the Earth was created in six days. I believe much of the Old Testament of the Bible to be stories that describe things too complex for the ancient peoples of the time to understand.
I believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is between 13-17 billion years old. I believe that life has "evolved" in the process of a progressive creation. I believe that God is the creator, however, I am a rational human being and I refuse to reject the evidence that science produces.
There is no reason why science and religion cannot co-exist, each one complementing the other.
I also believe that any account in the Bible the portrays God vengeful, hateful, unmerciful, reactionary, uncertain, contrary, etc. is an error on the part of the writer and not an actual flaw in the perfect God that I serve. If I believed that God would tell the Jews to kills villages of gentiles in the face of the 6th commandment (Thou shalt not kill), I could not serve this God. I do not however, believe that this happened.
I see men and women often promoting their own interests and then erroneously adding God's "blessing" to their conquests. This is not a new phenomenon; it is as old as modern humans.
Bruce, I believe in a God who is good and kind and loving. He does not kill people or hurl thunderbolts at them. He loves all of the time. If the failed to love all of the time then He would cease to be divine. He would be just like us -- flawed, vacillating, grudge-holding, murderous, etc. He is not!!!
Therefore all good comes from Him (when He is asked by way of prayer) and all that is not good comes from us. In many cases it is our selfish choices lead to the negative consequences that we see on the planet.
Thank you for your comments.
I agree with you that Jesus was incarnated to set the record straight. He came to show us the true character of God, which is summed up in love. How could this God of love tell us to forgive our neighbor "70 x 7" times per day and then fail to forgive us our transgressions? How could this be the case? How could He tell us to not take vengence and then do so Himself? There are no special rules for God and then rules for us. He expects us to act as He acts -- in perfect love!!
If you were to ask anyone in the medical field, I'm sure they would all agree that it is a medical impossibility that an entire limb of a human being (say a leg) would instantly grow back.
One might make the case that if someone's cancer is instantly eradicated on its own that perhaps the doctor's either misdiagnosed the condition, but it should be noted that if several doctors examined a patient and found their body to be virtually consumed with cancer and that they all agreed that the patient would die - then the patient's cancer has completely been eradicated, it would be safe to assume that something beyond the natural laws known to man has occurred.
My point with this is to demonstrate to you that you cannot rule out the possibility that a benovelent supernatural force instantly healed these people. Certainly, one cannot rule out this possibility - in in these instances it may be the plausible explanation.
Ask some doctors (especially about an entire limb growing back) and I'm sure you'll find out that in their opinion, this action is completely impossible (in the natural).
The random mutation proposition is highly improbable and completely without precident. Besides nearly all mutations are harmful to the host. I believe if you were consult geneticists, you would find that they would agree that this extreme of a genetic mutation is essentially impossible (in the natural).
If you have a more plausible natural explanation for these phenomena, I would like to hear it. I'm not saying that they must "without a doubt" be the direct act of a supernatural being; however this possibility certainly seems more plausible in these situations.
It took a long time to recover from these traumatic invasions, and much difficult work. I had a great time at the basketball court this evening though, as I often do. I like Dr. Chase, he's a very good doctor.
Socrates, a wise man in my opinion, says that one who is wise will admit willingly that they do not know. We are all in this life seeking truth. It is a blessing that we get to seek together.
Blessing to you my friend in the journey!!!
If your God does not posses these eternal qualities of love and forgiveness perhaps you should do some serious evaluation.
Steve, thank you for your comments and how you have enriched the debate. I look forward to hearing more from you.
Looks like factions of our modern time Chrsitianity still believe in a God like this, that this God needs something from us before He will protect us, before He will be "on our side," before He will love us. sacrificing our own brothers and sisters who are homosexuals, for example. God is a mobster leader that we need to pay "protection money" to. It's totally against any Christian theologies that I'm aware of.
Thank you for sharing!!
That is an interesting idea. If only we had God's wisdom to help us understand how our concept of "good" was flawed, perhaps we could see the "goodness" of a world that sometimes hurt us.
I have faith in Dr. Chase. I knew he was going to hurt me, but I let him, even paid him, to do it. I remember how hard it was to convince my young daughter that the things her doctor did to her were "good", even though they hurt. But she's much older now, and goes to the doctor by herself. She seems to have altered her concept of "good", and this too is wisdom I think.
On this I think we agree. I think that we disagree on the role our own free will plays in what is "released" into the world as "judgment. We are choosing. We must never forget that. We are choosing!!!
I am glad that you notice that when our reasoning is immature or based upon false premises, we can misunderstand that some things that will have a "good" result may require us to experience some temporary physical pain (which of course our flesh resists because its goal is to maximize our pleasure, while minimizing our pain). However, as our reasoning matures, then we understand to a greater degree "how" certain things can be "good" for us in the long run despite the temporary "pain" our flesh may feel.
I thank God that he is constantly communicating his wisdom to us and that we may partake of that wisdom. Clearly God is trying to help us to see things as clearly as he sees them (everything he does and everything about Jesus' ministry indicates that God is not trying to "hide" some secrets from us, but wants us to be enlightened). It is us, letting our own flesh & physical desires rule our reason that keeps us (or sends us) into ignorance, not God.
Naturally, we cannot imagine that we will become "all wise" and "all knowing", otherwise we would become God; however God has certainly given us the ability to distinguish between good and evil (despite whether or not we exercise that ability properly all the time). Otherwise, it would be utterly unjust to reward or punish any being for making wrong decisions or choosing incorrectly if "by their very nature" they were ignorant of the meaning of what they were choosing.
I do realize my examples are extremely improbable. I just choose to believe it was not a supernatural deed.
Thats all I mean.
Ronald's follow-up response to Justin:
I understand this is your belief. My point was that because we cannot disprove that these actions were performed by a supreme supernatural being, we cannot rule out this as a possibility.
In fact, if one employs deductive reasoning to an investigation of the cause of these "healings", then one would begin by considering all causes as being possible. Through deduction, one would eliminate causes that "could not" be the cause of this phenonmenon, until eventually one cause was left. If one could not disprove that cause, then the person would have to conclude that either "it" was the cause of the phenonmenon or some yet undiscovered cause was the actual cause.
I would be curious to hear your reasoning as to why you believe that instantaneous re-growth of an entire limb on a human being is not caused by a supreme supernatural being. Do you have a theory as to what is causing that phenonmon to occur?
Well yes, we are choosing. I suppose I take that for granted when I speak to Christians, and assume we are discussing the finer points of what is happening here.
Perhaps the analogy of a basketball game will help;
The two teams are trying hard to make the ball pass through the basket , and prevent the opposing team from doing the same. This is the overall object of the game, everything the players do is in relation to this goal, and they struggle desperately to get that ball to enter the hoop.
Yet, the players are not thinking that they, or the world at large, is in desperate need of that ball passing through that hoop. It is the context of the game that makes this so important.
You and I agree that God does not seek or need adoration itself; He could create a gillion beings to cheer and praise Him, anytime He wished. Our "choice" to serve him is surely the object of His "game", but I think He is having us participate for the benefits it brings to us. He seeks something more than "scoring points".
So, YES, it's about our choosing. But God seeks much more than just our "choice".
What more, in your opinion, does God seek from us beyond our choice and what I have mentioned?
GOOD question, and the very heart of what I've been trying to express.
He wants us to become fully active; mentally, emotionally, spiritually etc.
Think; what does being "good" really mean if you KNOW God is watching you?
How could we understand all that honor entails in the presence of God?
How would all the complexities that necessity stimulates us to consider develop in a state of constant satisfaction?
Without struggle, how could we become independent?
Could we ever really have "free will" in the overpowering presence of God? Or would we be merely be reflections of His will?
If He seeks companionship for eternity, what sort of companions would he be looking for? Not little copies of himself, not robots that mirror his thinking and feeling. But something ALMOST unimaginable;
MORE LIKE HIMSELF !!!
(I love the idea of free will in the presence of God seeming like nothing at all. His love is so alluring, affecting, magnetic that we could never refuse Him. Our true hearts' desire would be revealed in His presence. Thanks for that)
RIGHT!! We would be overpowered by our mutual love.
If He seeks companions, He must be attempting to create FULLY functioning independent beings, like HE is. This explains how Satan could disagree that it was possible, and why he strives to prove God is failing.
Think of the book of Job; Satan says Job isn't REALLY good, just acting good because he wants reward. God allows Satan to test Job's integrity to the max. And Job passes, he even declares that if God is not good; He wants no part in eternity.
However, how could we be good "regardless" of God. He alone is "goodness" personified. It is because of His goodness that we are able to partake and walk in goodness.
I also don't fully understand the concept of "independent beings". Are you saying that God desires to reproduce Himself in full so that we become God?
Please clarify!
You raise some good questions Mary. Clearly no thing can display any of God's qualities or characteristics without his involvement. We can never be disconnected from God and we certainly cannot exist independent of him. Even Satan can't do it, otherwise he would cease to exist.
Additionally, the theory that in God's presence we would only choose good (or choose him) because his presence would be overwhelming borders on actually destroying free will. Our will cannot be free unless there is "always" a choice to choose apart from God or his will. All we have to do is consider Satan to see an example of this. If we believe common Christian theology, we would believe that Satan was most certainly in God's presence and yet he chose his own will over God's will. If Satan (another free will being) was capable of it, then so would we.
I do believe that most people's reason and desire for God's goodness would dominate in them and they would choose God in that circumstance, but clearly it's possible to "still" choose our own desires (even existing as a spirit being which Satan is/was) when face to face with God. If we don't except this, then we really are not accepting that God gave us the gift of free will. Any limits to our free will is not really free will (I don't mean abilities, certainly we have limitations to our abiliities, otherwise we would be God).
I think we're bumping into a kind of semantic ceiling on the meaning of "good". What you say of God's goodness is not what I'm challenging, it is surely unparalleled and immeasurable. What I'm suggesting is that He is capable of creating beings that are also good in their own right.
It does, I know, sound almost like blasphemy to say there is goodness that is not God in some sense, but I beg your indulgence for a moment to consider this from God's side of that statement; Isn't that remarkably similar to what Satan is saying when he claims Job is not truly good? Isn't Satan claiming that if God cut Job loose, he would no longer remain good, that his goodness is only because God is with him?
So I ask; Could God create beings that were good regardless of God? Not alien to God, since they are His creation, but eventually independent of Gods goodness. If not, why not? Why do we not grant God the capability to do this? Is it not born of our limited concept of God, despite His own words in His Word? He declares the goodness of Job repeatedly at the beginning and end of that book.
We also are shown that their is "ungood" in the form of Satan, who was created by God. Is Satan's ungood not independent of God? If this can be so, why is it not possible for a being created by God to have goodness that is independent of God?
As to what the eventual outcome of God's plans are, you out of my league. I can't believe we are destined to be "equal" to God in any real sense. This is too much for me to consider. But for the first time in my life, it has crossed my mind, and I can't say with certainty that God could not "reproduce" somehow. This would seem something so far away that such thinking is pointless. Besides, I don't think I like the idea of not being "under" God.
Your reasoning is delightful, it is so rare to hear someone "run it right down" like that, thank you.
Now of course, I'll tell you where I think you MAY be in error, though obviously we are breathing some rarefied atmosphere at this point that I speak only tentatively.
Satan is not one of us. He is a VERY special case. We seem to be something of a "new" form of being. The very thing I'm suggesting is that we are now being exposed to a "maturing" process, that will eventually permit us to be in Gods presence and have "free will", but that without this process we were not capable of doin such a thing. (I certainly don't think I could)
You might say we're a creature with a longer, more involved "childhood", that will eventually lead to a "better" form of "adult" than could be created fully developed.
Yes, Satan is being allowed in the very presence of God (He is everywhere) to be "ungood". God does not stop him or mow him down. He allows him to sift His creation as wheat so that only the wheat kernels will remain. This is free will in action, being demonstrated (perhaps in full, perhaps not).
Is is possible that we without any influence from God (which is what I think you are suggesting) demonstrated goodness? I think this reasoning is circular because if we are capable of demonstrating any goodness (on our own) it is only because God is! Therefore, we need Him to exist, to be, to be goodness personified, in order for us to demonstrate any goodness. So, to say that we are able to be good (to any degree) without God doesn't follow because it can never be tested. God will never cease to exist.
I will however consider that we are able to demonstrate the goodness of our Father to a far greater degree than we currently perceive that we are. This is due to the fact that He has made us to be good and do good and also enables us to choose contrary to goodness. Yes, I suppose we are capable of choosing good without any direct influence from God, but this is only possible because of His original goodness.
I think that ulitmately John, we must conclude that God is good and we can demonstrate goodness only because He is the "first cause" of goodness. I agree that He desires that His goodness, holiness, sinlessness, etc. flow from us as naturally as it does from Him. But I cannot see us being able to do it apart from Him.
It may even be possible to do this without His direct influence, but I submit that He influences just by virtue of His existence. He lulls, draws, calls out, beckons, with His love. This is His eternal position!
Which is the greater Creator;
One that cannot create beings that are independantly good?
Or one that can create beings that are independantly good?
I don't see us ever evolving to the point where we do not need God to be good. But, if I am incorrect I desire correction. Is there anything in the scriptures that alludes to your point of view???
I am open!
Of course it's because He's good, and of course it's His goodness in us.
The point I wished to arrive at is already reached. I'm not saying we would ever be entirely free of God, or that He would not deserve great praise for Giving us such a capability. It would be precisely for His pleasure that He would do this. That we would be better able to relate to Him, and He to us. It's not to be free of God's goodness, but to be more fully a part of it. To more fully participate in it.
Recall, we're discussing our presence in a world with much suffering. And wondering why we are put in such a position if He loves us. I am saying that this is understandable if we realize He is not simply responding to our sinfulness, our "ungoodness", He's bestowing the capacity for goodness.
Is it possible John that there are those who live full lives in God who draw near to Him and love Him and prefer Him and allow Him to demonstrate His kindness without ever having to suffer the sinful effects of this world? Is it possible to be "perfected" by God's goodness (positive reinforcement)/ Must we only be able to attain to this standard of love, goodness through adversity?
I think so. Recall Christs words in Mathew 25, at the end. He speaks not in a parable, but of the future, saying;
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory...And before him shall be gathered all nations: and shall be separated them one from another, as a Shepperd divideth his sheep from his goats:"
It is not by the sins they have committed that they are separated, but by the good they have done for "the least of these my brethren" when they were in need.
John, is this correct or am I leaving something out??
VERY close, I would dicker about three points;
"The positive and negative circumstances of our lives (coming as a result of our choices)"...I would add; or misfortune. As clearly all circunstances are not our own doing.
"not because they fear punishment, but because they would rather die than sin against God, their Father"; I would alter that to; not because they fear punishment, but because they would rather die than abandon their moral integrity, written in their hearts by God, their Father
"that seeks only to commune with the Father and do His will." I would say; that seeks to commune with the Father, and only do his will.
In whole,
God is good and we are here on Earth in "love school" learning to be like our Father. The positive and negative circumstances of our lives (coming as a result of our choices or by fortune) shape us and assist us (if we heed them) in becoming more Christlike. In the end, God wants sons and daughters who are like Him. Who are found in His son Jesus shunning sin not because they fear punishment, but because they would rather die than abandon their moral integrity, written in their hearts by God, their Father. They have so identified with Christ that they have taken on His nature (a divine nature) that seeks to commune with the Father and only do His will.
And Bravo! to you.
You have remarkable patience too.
As noted, the common ground between ourselves & Satan is that we are both beings created by God with free will. There of course are other differences (such as the fact that Satan has apparently existed longer than we have and that he is apparently only a spirit being and has been to heaven), but my point was to comment on God's will and our condition relative to him based upon the fact that we are beings he has imparted free will too (which includes human beings, Satan, angels, etc.). I don't know if I would consider Satan a "special case" just because he is a very good example of a free will being whose actions are opposed to God's will and is in flat out rebellion against God. Human beings easily duplicate these actions within our own abilities.
I don't believe God is capable of creating a being (such as Satan) who it was God's will that he be in rebellion. Clearly Satan's rebellion (or ours) is due to our own will and not God's will. We are exhorted to not be double-minded (thus we are capable of being double-minded), but God cannot be double-minded – this quality is opposed to his divine attributes. I don't believe you are saying that God created Satan to be in rebellion, but if you are then we need to discuss this further because if this were actually true, then either God is not truly divine (and thus not truly God) because he would be double-minded or that we erroneously ascribe that God is somehow displeased with anything that Satan has done (but this belief would force us to toss out the Bible, which I feel pretty certain you are not suggesting).
Certainly, we are currently in a maturing process (school, as I often refer to our existence in the material world) and I believe that we will eventually (in our next plain of existence) experience God on a deeper level (this is often referred to as being in God's presence). However, I must take exception to your comment that once "we are permitted to be in God's presence we will then have free will". You seem to be implying that we don't have free will now. I have read this belief before (in one sense or another); however this notion is obviously false and can be easily demonstrated to be in error. We don't have to think very hard to come up with countless examples in our own lives of things that we have decided to do, done, or at least felt inclined to do – regarding things that are obviously out of God's will. When I respond in violence to being struck on my cheek, I am clearly out of God's will as Jesus described. How could I accomplish this act unless I had the free will to do so. If had no free will, then it would be impossible for me to act out of harmony with God's will (or God's programming, if I were a not reasoning being).
I'm sure your not suggesting that God intends for us to sin against him. If this were the case, then it could not be defined as sin or if you are suggesting that sin is from God, then certainly we could not be judged to be guilty of anything because we would not be responsible for the decision that led to our action.
You may be suggesting that we are incapable of choosing God (by using our free will) in our presence plain of existence; however I would contend that this notion is also in conflict with the teachings of Jesus (who exhorts us to choose the father repeatedly). How could the being who is "love" and "truth" itself be encouraging us to do something that it is impossible to do?
I agree that sinning and reaping the consequences of our own sins should aid in our eventually reasoning it out that insisting upon traveling down a path that is opposed to God's will is ultimately harmful and we are simply wasting our time trying to feed our self and causing ourselves great hardship. However, I don't believe God created sin just so that we could learn this lesson. Some people insist upon experiencing the consequences of bad decisions over and over again before eventually changing, others experience the consequences of a bad decision only once before changing, while still others never experience the consequences of a bad decision (about a particular thing) and avoid the consequences of sin altogether. I truly believe that God has given us all that ability (the teachings of Jesus bear this out). We cannot reject this idea on the grounds that we don't see anyone around us living the perfect life. The mere fact that we can see various degrees of obedience demonstrate that it is possible to be fully obedient. All we need to do is consider our own lives. I'm sure you can see progress in this area in your own life. We are constantly encouraged to flee evil and pursue good. Jesus sent his Holy Spirit to aid us in this. If we just follow the Holy Spirit's guidance we could avoid all of the bad consequences (or lessons) that most people end up going through to either learn and change or continue in disobedience.
You said that by arriving at an independent existence about from God, that "God would better be able to relate to us".
I must point that this notion indicates that God is lacking something and that if he had "it" he would be "improved". God lacks nothing necessary for his divine existence. Some go too far (and misunderstand God's divine existence) by saying that God also does not lack sin or evil, but this conclusion is based upon the false premise that "sin" & "evil" are good things (and God can only create good things). There have been many comments you have made which indicate that you do not believe that God is immutable – is this your belief?
By espousing this notion, you also are suggesting that God is not the first cause of all things, thus you are implying that we can cause something that will have an effect upon God. This squarely places God within temporal boundaries – which is impossible, if He is God. If God is not beyond the boundaries (or effects) of all created things or all causes, then he is not its cause (see the article posted in God 101 entitled "Arguments for the Existence of God").
I agree with you that one of God's gifts to us is his goodness (it is to some degree intrinsic within us because we were made in his image). However, we are not mere images of God, although we were made in his image, he also gave us a will of our own capable of altering our appearance to reflect an image other than God's (our own).
I also agree with your comments that God is not "responding to our sinfulness or ungoodness" – of course, I would say that because God is not capable of "responding" to anything because of his very nature of the first cause of all things and his immutability. Naturally, I don't mean that God can ever get "caught off guard" – I mean that God in his infinite wisdom and eternal nature has accounted for all things and is consistent (immutably, eternally) toward all things within time.
I agree with Mary that we need not be perfected and attain the standard of God's goodness "only" through adversity (experiencing the consequences of sin). Not every child had to learn to not touch a hot stove by putting their hand on it (although some did).
Most of your other comments regarding God's love drawing us toward a relationship with him in which we are completely in line with his will – I agree with. I see that you have touched upon our "moral compass". Have you read Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason"? This book provides an extensive detailed description (in Kantian language) of the "Absolute Moral Law" that God has imprinted in all of us.
I would also suggest that Thomas Aquinas' works pertaining to God's immutability are very good reading. If you can get a copy of his "Summa Theologia" or at least the "Summa of the Summa", there are some terrific explanations and logical arguments for many of God's characteristics.
Your power of reason is somewhat intimidating, which is kinda nice.
On our free will in the presence of God. What I did not express clearly is that; in the time before we lived here, we, being a "long gestation period" form of created being, may not have had the capacity to exercise free will in the sort of dynamic way Satan can. If we were relative infants, we might, as our infants do, tend to be anxious to please and impress God, more than pursue our own "agenda". Here, away from sure knowledge and awareness of God, we are left little alternative but to commence developing an independent attitude. Hence, when we later return to God's sphere of strong influence, we will more likely maintain our own will to a greater extent, presumably to the point were one could call it "free will" in a functional sense.
As to the "nature" of Satan, and God's role in his downfall, this is of course very difficult to comprehend on any level, and I don't try really. I would disagree however that it would be impossible for God to have in some way "intended" Satan to fall, as it would make him duplicitous. He does deceive, as is clearly shown by his statement that he "will send them strong delusion", as well as other instances were He misleads people. I take God at his word, and hesitate to impose human logic on His capacities or intentions. I believe God definitely has free will, and may at times do what to us seems "wrong". Statements about the limits of what He can or cannot be or do, are for me reflections of human concepts of God only. I, like Job, declare my allegiance only to a God that is good, but do not pass judgement on his goodness, I merely have faith in it.
On sin and God's views on it, I think he understands what befalls us, and how hard we do or do not struggle to overcome our weaknesses. I am alone in my sin, and take responsibility for it. Others are not mine to judge.
In the matter of following the Holy Spirit's guidance, I am of a different mind than you. I see such guidance not as something I follow, but something that leads me whether I wish it or not. I often ask God for guidance, and trust he provides it. Following spirits is to me a risky proposition, since I know who the lord of this world is. I believe many follow spirits that only claim to be of God, and Satan is able to deceive any man that will listen. He too can reward and punish, and I take care not to judge any by what befalls them, including myself.
On whether we can effect God, He states he created us for his pleasure. I don't see any room for the notion of a God that is not effected by us.
There is a clear contradiction between your assertion that God can only create good things, and that God created all things. I do not believe in what to me appears to be a second God, a "God of Fate" if you will, that is somehow propagated by sin, and results in all "bad" things. The notion that the world is being punished for the sin's of it's inhabitants is to me wholly undeveloped, and lacking any logical or Biblical foundation. God said He does not punish children for the sins of their fathers, I see no reason to doubt His words. I offered a different explanation for the widespread and universal suffering of human beings, and see no need for assessing blame on man or God. Endless logical maneuvering cannot unmake reality; there is famine, disease, catastrophic meteorological and geological and cosmological events. Unless you can provide something more than the vague concept that sin is somehow generating all this, without God's participation, I find no reason to abandon what to me is a far more coherent description of the world I find myself in, and the God I read of in the Book.
All this talk of immutability and impossibility seems to me rather odd. He's God. If He wishes to change, He changes. If He wishes to do a thing, it is done. If he wishes to be effected, so it is. He's God, not the concept of God. THAT is what is immutable. THAT, is what we cannot effect. THAT is what is unchanging: His freedom.
And He freely chooses to love, not because He has too, or is in anyway limited only to love. He is good because He chooses to be good, nothing but His own wisdom causes this. It's His show, start to finish, end to end.
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. They that make a graven image are all of them vanity".
"time before we lived here" - should I presume from this sentence that you believe that we pre-existed in another plain and/or form prior to our conception in the material universe? If this is your belief, what facts or ideas do you hold that cause you to believe this? Is this belief similar to the idea common in Ancient Greek philosophy or is it more similar to the Hindu concept of reincarnation?
Regarding your comment on the tendency of infants, it has been my observation that infants more frequently develop their own agenda long before they realize that there are some benefits to pleasing or impressing adults (or God). I would also contend (as Kierkegaard does in "Works of Love") that attempts to please or impress others are also a form of self-love (which would essentially fall into the category of attempting to fulfill one's own agenda). Most kids I know say "mine" and whine & complain long before they develop the art of using tact & praise to achieve their ends (using the carrot vs. the stick).
I was wondering if based upon this train of thought you had another example which indicated why we may not have had free will during a pre-existent state?
Also, your idea that once we were removed from God's presence (during this pre-existent state) we had little choice but to develop an independent attitude makes sense if this truly were to occur and that we actually are "less aware" of God's existence than we would have been during a pre-existent state - presumably in heaven). However, by considering the example of Satan's fall (or any angel's fall to a demonic existence - if you believe that this occurred), it is hard to reconcile your idea with the cause of that fall by Satan or any other angelic being. If being in God's presence places that being in a position where they can see God for who he is and would not deviate from his will, then how did Satan (and purportedly 1/3 of the angelic hosts) choose to disobey God? If your answer to this question is that "Satan and the angels were a special case and human beings were given the chance to develop to the point where they would only choose God", then why would an all-loving God not give his other free will beings that chance as well?
Regarding you comments pertaining to the fact that you believe it is God's will to "deceive" (or lie) from time to time…..I also take God at his word when he says the following:
Titus 1:2:…God cannot lie.
Hebrews 6:18: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie.
John 18:37: …for this cause I cam into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.
John 14:6: Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life…
John 8:44:…there is no truth in him (the devil). When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar the father of it.
1 John 1:6:…when we walk in darkness, we lie and do not have the truth (i.e., when one lies he is out of harmony with the truth).
1 John 2:21:… no lie is of the truth.
Jeremiah 27:15: For I have not sent them, saith the Lord, yet they prophesy a lie in my name (God's saying that those who lie do not speak for him).
Proverbs 19:5: A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape (will God escape his own punishment for lying?).
Proverbs 19:9: A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish (how will God perish or is he simply setting a bad example for us by lying, but punishing us for lying?).
Psalm 58:3: The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies (Is God wicked?).
Psalm 63:11:..the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped (who could stop God from lying?).
Exodus 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness...
I am familiar with the scripture you are paraphrasing (1 Thessalonians 2:11) where it is purported that God is saying he will "send a strong delusion". However, this is a good example of one of the many instances that a certain scripture is inconsistent with other scriptures. There are many examples of these in the Bible (unfortunately). To me this does not mean that God's word is not inspired. On the contrary, the word of God can only be truth because God cannot lie.
Obviously, this inconsistency needs reconciling. We cannot simply "believe" one passage that is in clear opposition to other passages. We must choose which one is true. Naturally, God's word aids us in this endeavor and regarding the question whether God deceives people (or in effect lies to people) or not, the scriptural documentation on this point is overwhelmingly in favor of God not lying. Jesus is the truth (not just tells the truth, but is the truth). Clearly the truth cannot lie, because it would cease being the truth. Please don't try to explain this away by saying we don't know the ultimate meaning of these words because if we are to understand the Bible or any form of communication the words being used to communicate must have some known meaning otherwise any endeavor to understand anything about God (or anything) would be useless.
In Thessalonians Paul states that God deceives (or lies), while in Hebrews he is adamant that he believes God does not lie. Certainly human beings are not perfect and we should not struggle with the idea that Paul was not perfect and that even if his concept of God either changed with time or he simply erred at the time of writing the Thessalonians passage. We can always lay the blame at the feet of persons who copied Paul's writings if we wish, but we should not (and I certainly don't) lay the blame for error on God. God cannot err and I take him at this word, but I must evaluate the word of men if those men's words are sometimes inconsistent.
The issue here is not "our understanding God's definition of right and wrong", but the issue is more basic than that, it is "reconciling inconsistencies between words written by men". Certainly, the Bible is inspired of God, but not every word in the Bible was from God's mouth (reflecting his will & character) directly. Satan is quoted in the Bible (these aren't God's words). Paul explains several times in 1 Corinthians when he is speaking his own opinion or when he "believes" he is being inspired by the Holy Spirit. I'm sure if Paul were on Gather.com, he could clear this up right away and point out that he was not perfect.
Believing the God can lie causes a plethora of problems regarding Jesus' assertions that he was the truth. I would recommend that you consider this point carefully because to continue to believe that God can lie (because we feel compelled to accept the words in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 as an accurate description of God's character) would put one in opposition to so many other scriptures which state that God cannot lie and is certainly opposed to lying and will punish people for lying. Accepting this notion calls God's justice into question and certainly creates a climate where we cannot trust God or take him at his word (i.e., the rock of our salvation becomes sinking sand).
We also cannot accept that both scriptures are both entirely true because this forces us to exist in a state of ambivalence (which is understandable if one is insane, but all rational beings should have a problem with believing two ideas that contradict each other).
It may be a hard pill to swallow, but any understanding we have about God (or anything) comes into being as a human concept (in our minds). I'm certainly not saying that we invent the idea of God – actually I believe that because we have the idea of God in our minds (someone who we cannot experience through our senses) this demonstrates that God exists and is communicating his existence to us. Words written in the Bible were also (at least at one time) human concepts in the minds of its authors. What we are exhorted to do is to judge what is true and what is not. I realize that to most Christian theologians this opens a can of worms, but the can is open and has been open by its very nature – our trying to pretend that this issue does not exist does not make it cease to be.
I'm sure that you understand that I am not attempting to pass judgment on God's goodness (other than my judging that God is good by nature). The things that I am judging are ideas about God as proposed by individuals. We need to sort out which ideas accurately describe God and which are errors or fantasies contrived by imperfect man.
I agree with your comment on sin and God's view of it. I also agree that the Holy Spirit's guiding us occurs whether we wish it to or not; however, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit forces us to obey. If this were true, then either we could not sin or there would really be nothing that we could call sin (i.e., sin would not exist).
I would be the last one to advocate that we follow any spirit communicates to us. However, we must be able to recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit and to discern the voice of other spirits (or our own flesh). The Holy Spirit was sent to lead us and guide us and help us. Jesus clearly did not intend for us to adopt a policy of never following the lead of any voice (which would force us to ignore the Holy Spirit as well) because we might be led astray. We are encouraged to come to "know" his voice so that we're not led astray. I agree that many people are not mature enough to fully discern God's voice, but if none of us can be sure when God is speaking to us (either now of to the prophets or apostles of old) then heaven help us.
Once again, we can't hide in fear from the Holy Spirit because it might actually be Satan in disguise. This should encourage us to get to know God's voice better, so that we can avoid deception and grow in discernment.
The conclusion that you draw from the idea that "it was God's pleasure to create us" makes an erroneously anthropomorphic presupposition and utilizes the improper definition of the word "pleasure". Clearly the word "pleasure" in this context is used as a synonym denoting one's will, desire or choice. You are presuming that the context denotes an anthropomorphic usage of the word "pleasure" as a verb with the object being the "cause" of the pleasure (which is presumed to be his created beings or human beings).
There are quite a lot of anthropomorphic & temporal qualities ascribed to God in the Bible (especially in the Old Testament). These should never be taken literal or used in the context of some object other than God affecting a cause upon him (or essentially being the cause of a change in God). When read from the perspective of an accurate understanding of God's true nature, it is quite easy to put these scriptures into context.
The Jews of the Old Testament are constantly berated for continuing to fall into the trap of worshipping false gods and trying to become like other nations. Many ideas about the false gods that they worshipped worked their way (deceptively) into Judaism – just like many pagan ideas worked themselves into Christianity over the years.
It is quite clear that the dominant ancient view of God (even among the majority of Hebrew writers) was that God (or Gods) were very powerful beings that displayed many of the same qualities (including frailties, limitations and emotions) that human beings displayed. Essentially, the early notions of God were largely based upon people's ideas which made God in their own image. Only a small handful of persons had an accurate understanding of God's qualities which placed him beyond space and time (largely because ancient peoples had not reasoned about such concepts for their very existence).
This is easily recognizable if one studies not only the progression of thoughts of ancient peoples, but also if one studies the Bible (chronologically). The older texts (largely pre-Babylonian and Greek) portray God & nature in very different terms than later texts. Additionally, notions such as immutability, eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. are largely absent from the oldest texts. These oldest text contain numerous passages that betray this ignorance of God's true nature. You will often read of situations where people are of the opinion that God has to search for them because they are hidden or that God has to learn something about them. One of the more obvious examples that indicates God is not all powerful (but perhaps more powerful than the "many" other Gods who exist in the world is Judges 1:19, where is says that even though God was with Judah when they attempted to drive out the inhabitants of some mountain, they could not drive them out because they had "iron chariots". I guess if your opponents are using better technology, then the God who created all things can't overcome such folks.
This is just an example, I am not suggesting that we toss out the oldest passes of the Bible – by no means am I suggesting this. I am suggesting that we put certain passages in their historical context (which contain the limitations of the people who wrote them). I am not saying that God was limited in any way, but people are. It is very important to note that Jesus scolded his followers for holding fast to many of these notions – he essentially turned many of their ideas about God upside down (not because God somehow changed but because imperfect man largely did not understand God in an eternal sense. I'm not suggesting that we now in the 21st Century have all knowledge (far from it); however we have the benefit of many of those who have come before us – we stand on the backs of giants – of course that does not mean that these giants were flawless, but gradually over time people began to accept more and more truth.
The book of Hosea is a terrific example. Chronologically, Hosea marks a turning point in Bible scholarship that introduces many of the concepts that are central in the New Testament scholarship. If you do a study on this, you will see what I mean. God is portrayed in many ways as he is in New Testament, for the first time in Hosea. Hosea (and other later Old Testament authors) had unshackled their minds from many of the erroneous limiting notions of God which had grown pervasive in Judaism. Revelations about God's plans and prophetic words about the future are central throughout most of the later works in the Old Testament (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel, etc.). It is in these works that we get much greater clarification about end times events and the first & second coming of Jesus.
I'm not saying that we should throw out everything older than Hosea. Clearly God is speaking to us by words and phrases in every book of the Bible.
Let me make a few points to demonstrate why we cannot have an effect on God (who is the first cause of all things)….
- All things created must have a cause, if not they would be eternal or created by nothing (i.e., nothing in nature causes itself or exists prior to itself).
- Nature is a succession of causes, with causes being the effect of other causes; thus, the first cause of all things must be outside the created universe.
- God is the creator of all things (or first cause of all things) – Hebrews 3:4
- We cannot be the cause of any effect that affects God because then we would (in effect) be the cause of God (or at least the cause of some aspect of God).
John, please allow me to make a slight modification to your concern about a contradiction between the statements that "God can only create good things" and that "God created all things". Based upon the statements above, we may conclude that God is the "first and efficient cause of all things", but in the strictest sense God is not the "direct" cause of all things. It is insightful of you to notice this subtle distinction.
I would contend that even though God is the direct cause of human beings (or at least the universe, depending upon your perspective), God is merely an indirect cause of things created by human beings. Certainly, God's existence is necessary for all things to exist, but human beings are capable of creation on our own and when we create something that is opposed to God's will & plan for the universe (such as sin or evil) then God is not actually causing these things to come into being (at least not directly). They certainly are opposed to his will (otherwise he never would bother to make a distinction about them being wrong and certain other things being right – a moral sense that he has endowed us all with).
We don't have to invent a second God (or "God of Fate") to explain the existence of evil. We are made in God's image and its clear that we can create things (from something, not from nothing). It does not take much evaluation to demonstrate that we create evil (if we have a firm grasp of what evil is). Of course, many people assign the label of evil to many things that they consider harmful, but these things are not evil (see the last three Books of Augustine's "Confessions" for a more thorough expostulation on this subject).
I actually concur largely with your comments about the notion that "God is not punishing the world for the sin's inhabitants". I've always found to this be lacking as a theory; however I am still open to accepting this idea if further convincing data is provided on this theory. Of course, I concur with you that if this were to occur it would not be "God rising up because he's had enough and sending tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis against people (especially given that these things have existed for hundreds of millions, probably billions of years). I have heard a pretty good theory that essentially indicates that the world (and perhaps the entire material universe) was corrupted billions of years ago due to sin of some former race of free will beings (perhaps Satan and his minions). This theory is very difficult to prove at any level or completely reject because of the lack of evidence either way. I tend this think this is probably nonsense, but as a good scientist, I cannot completely reject a theory that I don't have the data to refute.
Regarding your comment "God said he does not punish children for the sins of their fathers"…I can actually think of some scriptures that say that children will be punished for generations for the sins of their ancestors. I believe that this idea is inconsistent with many other passages of scripture and thus I tend to reject it on those grounds. I do however believe that there are consequences to future generations for sins (or mistakes/bad decisions) by preceding generations. This idea can easily be demonstrated when we simply consider an AIDs baby or someone born into poverty or someone born with a defect that was caused a result of incest. This may be the phenomenon being discussed in scriptures that mention the "sins of the father".
John, your comment in the next to the last paragraph is somewhat confusing. It seems as if you believe that I was proposing the idea that our own sins are responsible for all physical misfortune and all dangerous natural phenomena. I never said (and certainly did not mean to imply) that this was my belief. If you knew me better you would know that I'd be the last man who would say such a thing. As a scientist, I am very much aware of natural & biological phenomena and how they were active and in operation long before human beings were created. There is no way I could say that the sins of human beings are responsible for viruses, tornadoes, hurricanes, gravity or meteoric phenomena. I also don't "blame" God for these things because I don't consider any of these things evil.
I do believe that we largely experience calamity (whether it is universal, local or personal) due to bad decisions. These bad decisions may be based on ignorance or sin. If your local officials warn you that a Category 5 hurricane is bearing down on your area and you should evacuate and you don't heed that call, your own choice to stay is largely responsible for your own unfortunate circumstances. I realize that these two causes probably don't explain every calamity (like a newborn baby contracting MD or people dying in a plane crash). However, it is possible that even these things are the result of sin. Some would say they are the result of original sin because we either live in a fallen world or that we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, where we were protected from these dangers – and this may be so.
However, I can conceive of the possibility of how sin could be responsible for even the two examples I mention above. It is conceivable that God (in his infinite goodness) is warning us of all of these dangers and we (or our parents) don't heed the warning. I realize that it is difficult to come up with specifics, but it is at least conceivable. Perhaps God warned the parents of the little girl to not be in a certain place (to avoid a certain dose of radiation) or to avoid eating something that may cause a disease in their unborn child. Perhaps God warns people to avoid planes that he knows will crash – there were many testimonials from people who "for some reason" strongly felt they should not go to work in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. I think to be fair we would have admit that it is possible (I know this is hard for people to swallow, because it essentially puts the blame back on them).
I certainly can't blame an all-loving, all-merciful God for people's misfortunes (even my own).
Finally, John, it is clear to me that you do not grasp why God must be immutable by his very nature and that everything about him and his qualities apply eternally without change. Certainly, God chooses to love and to be good (and everything else about him), but these choices are eternal. He does not really decide to choose anything, he chooses eternally. God is not constrained by time as we are. If you consider what it would be like to be outside the boundaries of time – you can better understand God's true nature. I'm sure you believe that God created time. If God created time, then what was he doing before time? This very question digs into the very nature of his eternal nature. The nature that creates certain things in time (including time), but all the while long he remains unchanging and unaffected by time or anything in creation.
I am not trying to limit God by saying "he can't help but love us", I am saying that by his very nature (chosen eternally and out of time) he is all things that we understand him to be: love, truth, life, goodness, etc. This concept of God actually frees him from the confines of our limited existence. To say that if God wishes to do something, he will because he's God is extremely obvious, when you understand God's true nature. God always does what he wishes because no thing in creation can affect him, he's God and he is the only thing that exists outside of creation (and yet he is responsible for creation and the fiber that binds all creation and communicates his existence to creation). He is the only thing that does not change in the vast plain of created things which are changing all the time, that's what makes God separate from everything in creation – he is different by his very nature. God is the only being who is also being itself. He is the only thing that is its own cause. Nothing in creation causes itself.
Nothing catches God off guard or causes him to act. His omniscience makes this possible. He is the only truly eternal (everlasting to everlasting) thing. He does not exist in time from moment to moment but exists simultaneously in every moment in time. And yes, God has free will and choice, but even these qualities are eternal. He does not decide to choose anything, he has already chosen everything eternally. Therefore, I'm not limiting God's free will or ability to choice in my previous comments, I'm actually describing how truly free his is. We are forced to decide using limited knowledge and in time, but God has already decided everything that he will ever choose. I realize these are hard concepts to fully grasp, but they are graspable thanks to God who communicates his nature (which we cannot possibly experience with our senses) through his Holy Spirit.
So much of what you say is reasonable, but I feel the "spirit" of your many points is somewhat confrontational, and sometimes bordering on hostile. I much prefer to discuss such matters as these with an eye toward increased understanding. I find your "tone" became more agreeable as you proceed, so take my slightly acidic "chastisement" here, with a grain of...soda. I feel a bit overwhelmed.
My mention of a possible existence before this life, was in regard to a discussion of the potential need for being "apart" from God in order to exercise free will fully. I believe with a few moments consideration you can imagine the pressure YOU would be under to "behave" in the presence of an all knowing, all powerful being.
My belief that it is possible that we did indeed exist in a previous form is certainly not contradicted in any way I've ever seen, and can be inferred in several things God says and does in the Book. Knowing Jeremiah before "I formed thee in the belly", being one example from the OT, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son..." in 'Romans' being an example from the new.
But surely you know these things. And you speak of Greek and Hindu legends, in what appears to be an attempt to intimidate me. What is your interest in me that you do such baiting? I have been truthful and sincere. why do you taunt me with word games?
I said God deceives, and gave an example. And could give more, for the word does not merely mean "lie" as you switched it to, but also conceal, obscure, render incapable of perceiving truth, hide oneself, withhold full truth, etc., all of which one can find examples of in the Book. Why the word games?
I never said Jesus was not the Truth. Games.
Pleasure of God an anthropomorphism? And His Love as well perhaps? And His Mercy, and forgiveness, and Delight...all anthropomorphism ? Odd he would use this warped way of speaking so very often, yet you say He cannot deceive. Shall I strain to see you calling Him a liar? Heaven forbid. But I say He made us in His image, so it is bordering on calling Him that to say our feelings are not a reflection of His. Word games.
Let's cut to the chase; You and I are both rather familiar with the Book. You and I are both rather familiar with science. We probably agree on a hundred times as many things as we disagree. There is however an underlying difference in the way we see God. I am well aware of your more classic view of a perfect God, and I have rejected it as my leading candidate for being actual truth. It is unlikely that reciting the multitude of conceptual components of that view will cause me to return to it as a primary possibility, but I do not reject it as a lesser probability truth. I have found some rather intractable contradictions in it however.
My view of God is less based on human concepts of perfection. For me, to say God is all knowing, does not mean He knows all things in advance. Rather, it means He knows His created universe perfectly. All the forces and all the limits. He knows the future, in so far as He intends very definite large scale events to occur, and will do exactly what it takes to keep that future unfolding, perfectly. He has determined in His infinite wisdom that this future is necessary for the best interests of His children, who's welfare He values most highly. He has feelings something akin to ours, NOT because you or I imagine them so, but because He created us in His image. He gave us feelings like He has, and we are not truly anthropomorphising when we think He is pleased or displeased, merely being vaguely, childishly, imaginative.
To me, God's perfection does not mean He cannot change, but that He is immutably elegant and precise in all he does. God can even change His mind at times, as actually happens in the Book. This does not mean He was once wrong, and then corrected Himself; it means something in the world of man has happened, that was left open to man to decide. For He has given us free will, and that means we can actually make decisions He left up to us to make. None of those decisions can alter His intended future, but they can alter our own.
I am perfectly willing to discuss any matter you wish to hear more about, but see no point in sparing with interpretations of a Book you do not feel obligated to accept anyway. I can get right down to this or that point of scripture, but we both know that in the end, any words can be parsed to yield slightly different meanings, and I'd prefer that you focus on matters that would actually help you understand how I come to my conclusions, or provide something more compelling than rigid definitions for vague terms like eternal or unchanging, to help me understand why your view is best. (some of this you did and I am pondering this reasoning carefully, and thank you for the "meatier" tone you aquired)
The perfect tree grows.
The perfect day dawns and wanes.
The perfect man cried and bled.
Perfection too is nuanced, to us.
It is sometimes difficult to convey "feelings" in the written word. Please be reassured that my manner, tone and intent are anything but hostile toward you. My questions & comments are certainly meant to "confront" certain ideas and beliefs that I recognize as flawed, but I am not trying to confront you personally on any level.
I am actually quite impressed and pleased at your comments and trains of thought. I believe what you are sensing is my enthusiasm to discuss these ideas with you and to engage you in a friendly, but lively, debate over these deep concepts.
I am convinced that most of our beliefs are very similar, but because your comments are rich in content, I am able to see some of our differences and I am merely expounding upon them (sometimes to voluminous degree). Please don't misinterpret the length of my responses and sometimes extensive discourse on certain subjects for anger run amok. The differences in belief between myself and others is never a cause for anger or hostility. We're all going to believe what we believe. My goal is to talk about the differences (come and let us reason together).
Mary H. will vouch for me – I've known her for years and she will agree that I'm not angry when I debate, normally the person I'm debating with has a tendency to get angry, eventually, if the debate goes too long or gets more involved than their original expectations (which may be what you're experiencing).
Responses to your specific theological comments (I'll number them so that you will know when I am commenting on an entirely different comment of yours):
1.
If I were in God's presence (meaning the type of presence in which we actually fully experience him by all of our senses (spiritual senses, I guess, I'm not sure how to describe the means by which we experience God beyond this present material reality, but anyway), I will be honest with you – I'm not sure how I'd feel. I'd like to think that I would be so overwhelmed with joy that I would just weep. I don't believe I would be intimidated or be fearful and try to "behave myself". I'm sure I would be very conscious of the fact that any attempt to "act" a certain way would be fruitless because I would probably feel more exposed than ever in my existence. How do you think you would feel?
2.
Regarding the passage in Jeremiah & Romans, it seems likely that God is referring to his eternal omniscience (i.e., God knew everything even before we came into existence. In fact the idea of "us" as individuals must also have been in the mind of God through eternity.
I'm not saying that I can rule out pre-existence, but God's eternal omniscience seems to explain all examples I've read that people use to attempt to demonstrate that the Bible is referring to a pre-existence. I will say that these passages "may" be referring to a pre-existent state for human beings, but I am strongly leaning toward the explanation that God is simply conveying the fact that he is eternally omniscient.
3.
John, I brought up the Hindu & Ancient Greek concepts of reincarnation (or pre-existence, more accurately to describe the Greek concept that Socrates defended in Plato's dialogue, the Meno) merely so that you could inform me whether or not your belief about pre-existence followed one of these well-known models. I'm not trying to intimidate you by asking this question – if I'm guilty of anything it is presumption. I am simply presuming that you believe in (or are leaning toward) pre-existence and I simply presumed that you could probably expostulate on your take on this idea. There is no baiting with my inquiry, I simply want to hear your take on this concept.
4.
A quick evaluation of all the words you list as synonyms for deception reveals that they all clearly imply that the goal of the being engaged in deception is for the recipient of the deception to believe an untruth (or lie). Saying that to "deceive someone" is in effect "lying to them" is not a stretch.
My point on this idea is to simply convey that when we say that God is capable of lying (or deception), then he cannot be the "truth incarnate". Given that Jesus is the "truth incarnate" and given that Jesus is God, then God must also be the "truth". If something is the "truth" it cannot also be a "lie" (or untruth).
One of the things that I am doing (that it does not seem you were initially prepared for) is that I am giving you my reasons why I cannot accept certain points or premises that you are conveying in your comments. My hope is that you will enlighten me as to your beliefs about a particular idea by conveying the reasons you believe what you do.
I'm not trying to play "games" with you. I am very serious about my wish to know what you think. I have read many of your comments on Gather.com (and some of your articles) and I am curious as to what your opinion is on certain matters. Please indulge my inquiry and understand that a main motivation behind my inquiry is that I am testing my own beliefs and asking you to help me in my endeavor to prove to myself that these beliefs are correct or to give me convincing evidence as to why they are wrong. I do not want to believe a falsehood and that's my goal with all discourse/debate – to get at the "truth".
5.
I believe that all of God's attributes are eternal and therefore need to understand that they function differently in him than they function in us (because he is eternal and we are not). Also every one of God's attributes cannot change because he is immutable. Therefore, any pleasure, delight or forgiveness that God experiences is not something that is born out of an emotional response to a cause outside of himself. He eternally and immutably must experience these things (about particular things, if you will). I do not consider God's love or mercy as emotions experienced by God. Love as an emotional response is not the true unconditional love that flows like an endless river from God. By his very nature (and the very nature of unconditional love) this type of love is not in response to anything from us – he loves us all the time.
I don't doubt anything that God actually has said. I would judge it to be true, simply because God said it. However, the interpretations we draw from words in the Bible (attributed to God) are certainly open for debate & discussion.
6.
I would be very interested in hearing your contradictions for the "classical" view of a perfect God. Once again, please don't think I'm trying to bait you. If you have hit on some element of the truth that I lack, I desire to know what it is.
7.
Your discourse about your idea of God raises the following questions in me:.
You mention that your views are not based upon "human concepts" of perfect. Are there any other "concepts of perfection" that we could reference or discuss that are not "human"? It seems to me that all "concepts" of anything we could possibly discuss would have to have either originated with a human being or have come through a human being (but originated from God – or perhaps the Devil).
You state that you don't believe that God "knows all things in advance", but you believe that "God knows the future". Do you believe that God knows some things in advance?
I get the impression from your discussion about your image of God that you feel that God is busy at work, focusing most of his energies on "large scale events" is this your view or do you believe that God is actually working to direct "all events"?
Concluding comments:
Please know that I do accept the Bible as the best authoritative source for God. I would know very little about God/Jesus if I did not accept the truth in the Bible.
Please also know that I am not playing word games with you. I presume that when we use the word "eternal" or "immutable" that we understand their definition. Please let me know if you are curious about the specific definition of a particular word that I am using in future correspondence. I will be more than happy to define any word I use, so that my meaning & usage of these words will be clear. It not my goal or intention to trick anyone or to use words out of context with their common meaning – this should be clear given that I routinely define words and inquire as to the meaning of words that you have used because of the ramifications of the conclusions that are immediately apparent when I consider the content of your comments (naturally using the words and my understanding of their definitions to understand what is being said).
Nice poetry at the end of your last comment.
Please accept this as my olive branch of friendship, so that we may continue to learn from each other.
Thank you very much!
I most certainly accept your kind and friendly words.
But as you may have gathered in our other current conversation, I am not one that puts a lot of faith in remembered truth, and actually do quite a bit of pondering on such serious matters. Therefor the sheer size of this recent comment of yours "condemns" me to a whole lot of consideration of both what you've said, and what I can make of it once I've absorbed it. Odd as it may seem, I actually don't "know" what I think of God before a question arises. There's plenty of memories there, but I want to get a look after I've seen this through your "eyes" as best I can.
I will respond at least in part fairly soon, but may need some time to address all these areas.
Thanks again, your quite the interesting challenge
John
On 1, I'm pretty much with you on this, I'd probably spend about a month just laughing, shaking my head, and saying thank you. But remember, you and I have pretty much taken advantage of our time here to explore our 'free will', and what Mary and I were talking of was the possibility that this life is a sort of training ground on this aspect of ourselves. If this is the way we would act after being here many years, I think you can understand my thought that we might not have been able to do much of anything as "babes". Another thing to consider is that we are not probably the most typical of subjects for this little mental exercise.
on 2, Yeah, I don't disagree that it may not have happened this way, it's not a doctrinal thing with me, more like a running best guess. The same logic applies to the "maturation" before true free will concept regardless. I have just seen indications at several points in the Book where it seemed to explain things.
On 3, Well I'm familiar with these other ideas but don't draw from them in any way I can sense. This is more about eternal life, and how that could mean we're not at the very beginning. I think it began with Jeremiah's peculiar discussion of a destruction scenario in chapter 4, coupled with the discovery that the Hebrew for verse 2 in Genesis more accurately says "And the earth became without form, and void...", which opened the possibility of a "before time" of some sort. And then just the confirmations here and there like Titus 1:2, where Paul says eternal life was promised before the world began. Well, promised to who, if not those that would taste death?
On 4, I suppose a good example of what I'm speaking of as deception that is not actually lying is the basic premise of the book of Job. Obviously Job was left in the dark till the very end. God had good reason from my point of view, but clearly Job was thrown a curve ball. Or the whole affair in the Garden, you can't honestly believe God didn't know what was going to happen when He left those two to deal with the Deceiver. Or God actually couldn't find Adam or know what was what. A similar odd questioning sequence occurs when God first asks Cain where his brother was, when He could next reveals He already knows. I know you have doubts about the older books, but I don't. I used to, but have been "shown" wrong to many times in study, to believe these are the works of men.
Things like sending the strong delusion, or spirit of slumber, are more recent examples, and the very fact that God is everywhere yet clearly conceals this from us so that we must have faith, shows He uses slightly deceptive methods at times. I don't see these as lies, and I agree He does not lie, but there no reason He can't be tricky in how He reveals the truth. As often is said, 'lie' is a strong word.
5 and 6 are to me very closely related, and to deal with them well I will leave them for now, and work on them carefully; This is the big enchilada I think.
On 7, As I briefly told in my last real comment, I think, He knows the future He intends to bring about, such as the events of the end of the age, thousand years of Christs rule, Judgement etc. Of course this means He knows and ushers in many less dramatic things as well, certainly preserving His Word would be one. I suppose the best way to put it is that He intends for each of us to enter a world that will provide us an opportunity to learn what we're here to learn. Within that framework we are given free will to live out our lives, but He will intercede at times. How often, I cannot say. He seemed to have clearly done so with me a few times. I don't imagine He was at my shoulder, but that He at least gave the go ahead for some being to hang with me for a few hours a couple times, and see me through difficult events brilliantly.
I hope I've at least partially answered some questions. I will work on the enchilada tonight. Thank you for being so straight forward about my display of concern, I assure you it was done more for revelation than emotional release. I can handle way more than what you did, I just wanted to know were those vibes were coming from. Your response was more than adequate to clarify things.
Soon my friend
John
I agree with you that we are not to judge others' hearts. I believe that we have been given the wisdom to judge the things that we see (given input from the Holy Spirit). There are times when we judge falsely; this is true. Only God can reveal truth to our hearts and so our judgments (as they are revealed from heaven) are really just proclamations of the truths that we have been blessed to receive. And these truths set us free.
Your point on goodness raises an interesting question. Ronald, Liz and John tackle this one: Is a thing good because it is inherently good (has good qualities, is made of good, is made by the one who is good) or is a thing good because it results in good or positive consequences? Or must a thing be both inherently good and result in good consequences in order to be labled good?
I apologize for the delay, but I suffer from a rather intense aggravation of an old back injury that has left me rather limited in sitting at the computer to write you. It will pass, and is not a common condition that often bothers me. I will likely be just fine in a few days. As with most things, there is a bright side, as it has permitted me an opportunity to consider the matter of the problems I find with the "classic" view of God's perfection in some depth.
The concept around which I find the "classic view of God, as an assortment of human notions of perfection, to collapse, is purpose. If God is "doing" something, from His perspective, He is changing himself. This does not mean He is changing from our perspective, it means He is inevitably changing himself, he is active. The "classic" view does not allow for God to be Self changing, in this way. It defines immutable as rigid, in a time based way, as in; the same at different times. But if God is independent of time, He can be immutable, in action.
The classic view, I think, falls into the "half way" trap; the old notion that for an object to get from point A to point B, it must move through a point C exactly half way between. Then a point D exactly half way between C and B. Then another half way point, and so on infinitely, and can never arrive at B, owing to the infinite number of half way points along the path. Yet of course, objects in the real universe pass easily from point to point with no apparent difficulty, no apparent hesitation. So our concept of "half way", is a human concept of perfection, which breaks down in the real universe.
At first blush, time seems to be a limiting thing, owing to our own inability to violate it's relentless procession. So we tend to think of God as being immutable in the sense that He must be the same from one moment to the next if He is unchanging. But like the object moving from point A to point B in the real universe, time is in reality a liberating thing, which allows change. God's changing is the relentless passage of time, immutable from our perspective, but in reality, God taking action, God doing something.
God is the universe. As the universe proceeds to pass from moment to moment, God is immutably changing himself, and we are bound to Him and His action. We can extract ourselves from time in concept, and imagine timelessness, but this is merely an illusion, and we cannot rationally equate this self generated timelessness to God, or bind Him in it's "half way" trap. He is free, to change as He wills, and yet we are bound to change along with Him, and hence, from our perspective, He is immutable, and unchanging. To resist His changing is impossible, nothing can alter His will, which is to say, He is immutable, unchangeable.
Classic notions of perfection leave God inactive, doing nothing. If all is to remain the same, unchanging, then there is no point to God's actions. All must be the same after His plans unfold, as before they began. He cannot be doing anything. This is why we believe He must be all knowing, in the sense of knowing every person's response to every choice, which leads to the "sin paradox", which is akin to the "half way" paradox, in that it casts sins as points along a timeless path. Each point becomes an "out of time" illusion, a definable, detached, event.
But in reality, each human action is connected to innumerable pressures and influences, and are not discrete events, but arbitrarily selected and bounded segments of action, intimately related to the whole of what the human experiences. One lie is not the same as all lies. One violent behavior is not the same as all others. Hence, we cannot be "judges", for the totality of circumstances are not knowable to us. The pressures and limits another faces in the act of sinning are beyond our comprehension.
Yet, all are indications of incomplete understanding of reality, and it is this lack of understanding that binds them in the way that Christ eludes to when he says; "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone ..." He is not justifying sin, but reminding us that no one understands the movement of another through life, to the point that we can say their sin is greater than ours. This is similar to the point He makes when he notes the greater contribution made by the poor woman who casts in her last pittance, than the outward, measurable, large donations made by the well off. In a similar way, grand schemes of perfection, are no more valid than a simple sense of faith in God's immutable righteousness. We are all but as children guessing at something we cannot comprehend.
If God chooses to change, it is so. In this sense He is eternal, for no thing born in time can alter His decision. All things born in time, ARE His decision, and bound to it forever. He himself is not born in time, and so is free to act within it, without altering his eternal nature. His "goodness" is not diminished by the "badness" of that which is born in time, for His action is itself good, and linked not to any moment within the procession of time, but to the whole of the action He is performing, which is "perfect". Who are we too say that "badness" in the universe is not a necessary component of His good plan? Do we know some superior means of creating a better universe, of God enriching His experience?
He pledges His devotion to us, and tells us to be patient with Him as His action proceeds. He promises we will one day understand the purpose of the agonies and aloneness we experience in His "absence", and that He has not abandoned us, but wishes us to act on our own for now, with what we call 'free will', to do our best to discover "goodness" in this life. He knows we will not complete the task, and forgives us our faltering path toward the light He beckons us with. Our "sin" is not the cause of the "evil" in the world, rather, what we perceive as evil, in men, or nature, are the learning pangs of our rebirth as independently "good" children.
If He chooses to create independent beings with whom he can share his eternal existence, who are we to question how best to do so? Do we know a better way?
I see this as a perfectly reasonble view and respect it immensely!
Is it possible that the created world a desire in the mind of God burst forth (beginning time) as He willed it. And within the very framework of his creation (the universe), we are the active ones creating and destroying as we will.
Also, I have a hard time accepting that God IS the universe. The universe is a physical thing. God is unseen, eternal and spiritual.
Just some comments!
Would to God we could all get a revelation of it! We are all the same!
I use the term 'universe' in it's "classic" sense; all that IS. God, is hence the universe, in toto, both physical and non-physical. Nothing IS, that is not God.
The concept of it being "necessary" for God to change is not mine. It is, I think, not 'necessary' for God to do anything, yet He does. The idea that a perfect Being might wish to create at all, is to me, indication that perfection is not a "stagnant" state, that cannot change itself. A "perfectly" happy couple, are not denying their happiness by wishing to procreate. I find no reason to think a perfect God is denying his perfection by wishing to create beings with which to associate.
When I am feeling good, it is not a reason to resist experiencing something new. It is perhaps the best time to do so. God wishing to experience something new, does not seem to me, to indicate He is needy, but that He is "adventurous" in some sense, and unafraid to experience His own growth. From our perspective it might seem odd, but He may see things quite differently. He may see an opportunity to enrich his perfection, where we might think it somehow risking imperfection. And, it might even be that He is risking something, perhaps even His perfection.
But He declares that it is what he feels it best to do, and that He intends to "play out" this decision along with us, and abide by it's outcome as well. That He is "pained" by the process is apparently something he He is willing to accept, and sees as "worth it". Why we would deny Him his own desires and activities is not something I fully grasp, I take Him at his word. That we would insist that He cannot be similar to us in wanting to "procreate" seems somewhat judgemental on our part. As though we new what was best for God to do. That we would find it hard to believe He has undertaken such a difficult task, might indicate our own fears more than our understanding of His capabilities.
Also, what is "new" to a God who knows all? How can He "experience" something new when He doesn't experience; He simply is. An experience impli