The debate regarding free will rages within the Church as well as without it. There are those in the faith who maintain that because God is all powerful and all knowing, all that happens in the world is just as He wills it to happen. For example, if someone gets healed, He selected them to be healed. If they stay sick, it is His will that they suffer with that sickness. This is not quite the picture of a loving good God. Moreover, there are those on the outside who also give this argument as evidence that if Christians are indeed serving God, they do not serve a good God. Whether it is a Christian or a non-Christian arguing that there can be no true freedom if an all powerful all knowing God exists, it still boils down to is God truly a Father or is He merely an all powerful Puppeteer holding all the strings of every life situation?
We have to explore the character and nature of God. In our culture, we often have aversion to authority figures especially that of the father. Many of us cannot relate to the idea of a loving father for in the natural we have not experienced it, and if God is a Father we think Him to be as controlling and demanding as natural authority figures. We think that if He has all power and all knowledge then all that happens is either His fault or He isn’t really all powerful, and, in reality, a figment of our imagination. There is a third option. He is all loving and all powerful, but He restrains His will to give us freedom. Or, rather, He does not impose His will upon us even though He could if it were not against His nature as a loving good Father. His power to assume the strings of our lives is trumped by His lovingly granting us the freedom to exert our own volition.
How could an all powerful and all knowing God be good and not run a utopian society for His people He claims to love? He is capable of creating such a utopian life for the world. Obviously this world is far from utopian. Just the same we desire a life of peace and love. Most of us believe things ought to be better, but where does this ideal “better” come from?
God did create a utopia, an
Our relationship with God is analogous to the union of a man and woman in marriage. They become one, bound tightly together in an intimate relationship. If God were to allow sinful man into this intimate relationship with Him it would be harmful to man because of the extreme holiness of God. God protected mankind by having him exit
Even though man used his freedom in a way that was to his own detriment, God did not give up on His creation. He already had in place the redemption of man. The debt of man to sin is great, but God had set in motion the coming of His own Son as the greatest sacrifice of love in all eternity to pay our debt for us with His sinless life. God demonstrated His continued love for man, by sending His son, while we were yet undeserving sinners--only deserving of the just judgment and eternal separation from God. By the work done on the cross by the Son of God and His resurrection, we can have anew a wondrous relationship with the living God for our sins are forgiven and we are made holy as He is holy. He has cleansed us from all unrighteousness and redeemed us to live a life as heirs with His Son.
God continues to relate to us as a Father and does not usurp our will. We can freely surrender our will to His perfect will or we can hold on to it and go our own path as Adam did. The choice is still ours. We can still freely walk away from His gift of eternal life in Him and the full grand reality of His Kingdom. Or we can trust Him and come under alignment with His perfect Fathering and rest in His love for all eternity.
Can God rule the world with an iron fist and only have His will be done on earth? Yes. Does He do it this way? No. Because He is, by nature, eternally a good Father and good Fathers don’t usurp the will of their children, but they lead gently and show the way by example. He gave us His son as the perfect example of the life available to us. We can choose Him or we can reject Him. The world today is a reflection of a world that is not in alignment with Him. He has given those who are in alignment with Him the authority and the mandate to usher His Kingdom into the world so that that utopia we all desire one day comes to fruition. However, it will only be a utopia to those who are in Him, to those who reject Him they won’t fit in His Kingdom because they cling to their own will over and above the will of the good King who wants them to know His love.
C.S. Lewis puts it best when he said that one day each of us will either tell God “Your will be done” or He will tell us “your will be done.”
46 comments:
karla said: The world today is a reflection of a world that is not in alignment with Him.
... and yet it is a world *full* of variations of religious faith in that very God you speak of. Theists are in the vast majority of the worlds population all working away at their interpretations of Gods Will.
So how is it that most of the world stinks? Especially considering that most of the world has *not* turned its back on God. Indeed it's often the worst off places in the world that have people with lots of faith in God. So why aren't those places better off? Is it because there is no real link between faith and utopia?
...and of course your utopia might not exactly match up with other peoples utopias..... but that's a whole other issue!
"For example, if someone gets healed, He selected them to be healed. If they stay sick, it is His will that they suffer with that sickness."
Paul's thorn in the flesh would be a good example of God willing someone to remain with a sickness, or at least some kind of ailment, not to mention Job.
But I think we need to be very careful with claiming that anyone can be healed if their faith is strong enough. The opposite is dangerous: if it is not God's will that determines healing, then the consequent is that those with weak faith don't get healed.
It galls me to hear the faith theologians telling people that they are dying of cancer because their faith is not strong enough.
This is a symptom of the larger problem that occurs whenever the will of man is afforded primacy over the will of God.
Quixote, oh yes, I never make doctrine about why there isn't healing and I never ever blame the person in need of healing. I too have a problem when that is done.
The healing issue was just an example and not the focus of the post. You can e-mail me on that one if you want to talk further about it.
cyber kitten, there is a big difference between being a theist and having a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only one who has bridged the gap and paid for our sins. He is the only door to the Father.
Being a Christian isn't about intellectually assenting to the existence of God and following rules He gives us. It's about belonging to Him. Knowing Him personally, experientially, relationally. It's a real union between God and man.
It's not simply theism. Isn't not just a belief system. It's a life. A way of living that is not by human power, but by His power working through us.
karla said: It's not simply theism. Isn't not just a belief system. It's a life. A way of living that is not by human power, but by His power working through us.
...and yet again you are simply asserting that *your* belief is correct - indeed the only correct belief - and that the rest of the world no matter what they believe are wrong to varying degrees.
...and yet there are other believers (who believe differently to you) who are making exactly the same claim! That *their* way is the *only* way for human salvation! How is it possible to differentiate between these competing 'truth' claims. Clue: Simply saying that *you* are right is not sufficient.
Are you saying that anyone who does not believe as you believe is at best obstructing Gods work or even actively opposing it (a concept I find very difficult to give any credit to).
A significant percentage of your countries population are apparently what we over on this side of the pond would call devout or hard line Christians. Why is it then that the US isn't more utopian than it is? Aren't *all* of your politicians Cristians, many of whom profess to have a personal relationship with Jesus - including your soon to be gone President? Why is it then that your country has singularly failed to be more utopian?
Cyberkitten, most Americans would claim to be Christian. That doesn't mean they have a relationship with God. The term "Christian" has become greatly overused, misused, and misunderstood.
I don't know any politicians personally and I cannot judge their commitment to the Lord. Though I would say that those who publicly claim to be devout Christians are few and far between these days.
You do ask good questions. It would appear that if most of America claims to be Christians, American society should be a good deal better than it is.
Moreover, it is also possible to have accepted Jesus as one's Savior and be a Christian and yet not have matured as a Christian. So there are a lot of variables.
You are correct that a nation with so many Christians ought to look like it if we really have the truth like we claim. The thing is many of us have the mentality that the truth is only for inside the Church and isn't for transforming culture. We fail to give it away to help our society and that is the fault of the Church. However, a move is happening in the Church that is rapidly growing to where Christians are understanding that we must lovingly help the world and our cultures no matter if they are Christians or not. That we must care about our societies, economics, businesses, governments, etc. That God does want us to bring His truth to these spheres and help bring the world to rights. Many Christians who have entered these spheres have done so in a wrong manner where they have been condemning and judgmental. This is not the way of Christ. The way of Christ is one of love and kindness. It's leading by example. The Church has been lax in her role and the secular governments have had to bear the weight of problems that should have never been problems had the Church done it's job.
I'm sorry. I don't know if this idea is communicating well.
As for how I can know that Jesus is the only way. . . I know that opposite truth claims cannot be equally true. I know that Christ comparatively speaks to the great questions of life better than any other system of belief. I also know that there is truth in all belief systems and that I don't reject all of other philosophies about life for many are very close to the truth. Many have distortions, many have errors. But it's not all wrong. When there is a Truth to be known it is going to come through in all reality for we all live in the real world. But when all the pieces of the puzzle come together there is one truth. I am not talking about pluralism. I am not saying we mesh all religions. I am saying that Christ is the truth, but because there is A Truth to know that that web of truth can peak out from many different places and people. Am I making sense? I'm not asking if you agree, but is my answer at all coherent? I'm finding it difficult to explain what I'm trying to say here. I'll expound if it didn't communicate well. Let me know.
By the way, you differentiated yourself from Americans. Can I ask what nation you are from?
karla said: The term "Christian" has become greatly overused, misused, and misunderstood.
...and who decides exactly who a *real* Christian is? You might judge people as not being Christian despite the fact that they others call themselves such, believe in the Bible and much else besides. But how are outsiders (or even insiders) supoosed to tell the difference?
karla said: Though I would say that those who publicly claim to be devout Christians are few and far between these days.
Really? I thought that it was virtually impossible to get elected in the US without talking about your faith....
karla said: It would appear that if most of America claims to be Christians, American society should be a good deal better than it is.
Indeed. So why *isn't* it a better place?
karla said: Moreover, it is also possible to have accepted Jesus as one's Savior and be a Christian and yet not have matured as a Christian. So there are a lot of variables.
It sounds like there's not many *real* Christians about by your standards - though I expect the other Christians might not exactly agree with your assessment!
karla said: That God does want us to bring His truth to these spheres and help bring the world to rights.
As do many Muslim's funnily enough.....
karla said: I'm sorry. I don't know if this idea is communicating well.
You are communicating well enough I think...
karla said: I know that opposite truth claims cannot be equally true.
Indeed. Not all religious claims can be true. But many religions *say* that they are true. Which proves precisely nothing.
karla said: I know that Christ comparatively speaks to the great questions of life better than any other system of belief.
...and other belief systems say that *they* are superior to other claims. Stating such opinions - which is all that they are - is proof of nothing.
karla said: we all live in the real world.
Oh, I really think that's a matter of opinion....
karla said: Am I making sense? I'm not asking if you agree, but is my answer at all coherent?
Yes, its a fairly coherent argument....
karla said: Can I ask what nation you are from?
I'm European. British to be more precise.
"...and who decides exactly who a *real* Christian is? But how are outsiders (or even insiders) supposed to tell the difference?"
Jesus was the prime example of what a Christian looks like. So you judge us by our fruits. Do our lives resemble His to a degree that there is something different about us. Do we show it by our love, by our actions, by our lives?
What I am talking about here is different from the question of salvation. Salvation is the first step through the door and many can be saved and not look like Christians. So I'm not talking about judging people's souls. Only God can see the soul. All we can see is outward signs of inward change.
Yes, Muslims do believe in integrating their faith through all of culture and society. However the difference is that Jesus didn't teach us to do it by force. It has to be done in love and with freedom. It has to be a free choice of heart and not a forced change. Yes, Christians have tried to force it in the past, this was very wrong, and is not supported by the Bible. Some try now to force it not by military means, but force it just the same.
Politicians do often have to have a platform of faith in some communities, but that is something that is fading into the past in our culture.
Europe! That's awesome. I love Europe. I would love to travel there one day. I really want to visit Oxford.
"I love Europe. I would love to travel there one day."
Huh? How can you love Europe if you've never been there?
OK, so it's all our fault that Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden and we deserve to go to hell for it? Is that what you want to claim? Really? Is it moral or just for god to punish all of us for the sins of our forebears?
god allows us to go to hell because he values our freedom more than our safety? Really? Is that what you want to argue? If you knew (had omniscient knowledge of the future) that someone was going to choose to go swimming and that they would drown, would you value their life and save them from swimming or value their freedom and let them drown, claiming, "Well, god says that freedom is more important than avoiding infinite torture, so who am I to save someone who chooses to do something that kills them?"
And, what do you know...no one in America is a True Scotsman!
Anonymous. Really. I never addressed hell in my post. Please stay on topic.
Karla,
That's a new way to dodge questions. Unfortunately for you, you did allude to it...
"...while we were yet undeserving sinners--only deserving of the just judgment and eternal separation from God."
That's a euphemism for hell. You don't have to say the actual word to talk about it. And, if you are going to open the door about god giving us free will because he desires to, then you have to address how the consequences of god's actions affect us.
Is it better for us to have freedom for a finite time only to be able to go to hell for an infinite time or for us to not have freedom but be assured of eternal bliss?
karla said: Yes, Muslims do believe in integrating their faith through all of culture and society. However the difference is that Jesus didn't teach us to do it by force.
So? Maybe Islam is the one true religion (if such a thing exists). You're only judging it from your point of view as other faiths judge yours.
karla said: It has to be done in love and with freedom. It has to be a free choice of heart and not a forced change.
Then I wouldn't hold your breath if I was you!
karla said: Yes, Christians have tried to force it in the past, this was very wrong, and is not supported by the Bible.
Really? I seem to remember a bit of faith based violence in the OT.
karla said: Politicians do often have to have a platform of faith in some communities, but that is something that is fading into the past in our culture.
Really? Then good.....
karla said: Europe! That's awesome.
Erm.. Why? [laughs]
karla said: I would love to travel there one day. I really want to visit Oxford.
While Oxford is OK I wouldn't come here just to visit it. If you want to visit somewhere outstanding I'd pick Rome or maybe Paris.
"So? Maybe Islam is the one true religion (if such a thing exists). You're only judging it from your point of view as other faiths judge yours."
Why is it only in the area of spirituality that people think it odd for there to be a true way of things?
__________
I've just always wanted to visit England. I like English accents. I like the architecture. I like Oxford University as a classical institute of learning. I'd like to see Cambridge too.
I would like to visit Rome and Paris too one day. I've never been out of the states thus far.
Anonymous, I'm sorry, I did allude to it. Forgive me?
I think Quixote is discussing the topic with you in the other comments. Can we leave the conversation over there for now?
Karla, I could use some of that healing right now. I'm flat on my back--never felt this bad in my whole life. Food poisoning or something.
Quixote,
I'm sorry your sick. I pray that all sickness leave and that you be fully restored to health. In Jesus name.
Prayer can travel the distance. I hope you feel better soon.
I just looked down and the word verification is "blesses" that's kinda cool. Be blessed.
"Anonymous, I'm sorry, I did allude to it. Forgive me?"
Sure, if you address the questions or give a cogent reason not to.
"I think Quixote is discussing the topic with you in the other comments. Can we leave the conversation over there for now?"
Nope, sorry, because we are not discussing this specific topic. This topic starts with the assumption of free will and is about the consequences of it. So, assuming that we do have free will as Xians contend, we should determine whether the claims to god's goodness follow from this. My questions directly speak to that issue. I'm also asking about god's justice and whether it is just (and why) to judge us all guilty for actions in which we had no part.
karla said: Why is it only in the area of spirituality that people think it odd for there to be a true way of things?
Probably because its one of the few areas where belief in the 'true way of things' exists. Most other areas recognise that 'truth' is at best approximate and open to dispute and being revised (if not completely overturned).
karla said: I like English accents.
Oh? I find that most really grate on my ears.... though I like Northern accents quite a bit more than Southern ones.
karla said: I've never been out of the states thus far.
Then foreign travel should be quite an eye-opener to you...
Anonymous said "My questions directly speak to that issue. I'm also asking about god's justice and whether it is just (and why) to judge us all guilty for actions in which we had no part."
Okay. I will address your question. I don't think we are being judged for actions we didn't do. The Bible says and I think it's pretty self-evident that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Unless you've met a perfect person, I assume you will agree that we all do wrong things and none of us even keep our own standards.
Let's start with this. Are we agreed on this before I move on?
Cyberkitten said, "Probably because its one of the few areas where belief in the 'true way of things' exists. Most other areas recognise that 'truth' is at best approximate and open to dispute and being revised (if not completely overturned)."
So you are saying that the rest of the world's systems already accept a postmodern fluidity of truth and the "religious" world is behind the curve?
I know I have had professors teach that history isn't knowable, and there are no facts, and such things. But I don't think most of the world outside of academia operates in this manner. Maybe the English culture is more postmodern than the American one at this point. I know the US culture follows behind England about 30 - 50 years. I know our culture is in transition between modern and postmodern and is often depicted as pre-postmodern. I would assume that England is more postmodern at this point then America.
karla said: I think it's pretty self-evident that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
As I don't believe in sin (it being a crime against God who, as you know, I do not believe in) then I do not believe that *any* of us have sinned - though we have all probably done questionable things of greater or lessor severity.
karla said: I assume you will agree that we all do wrong things and none of us even keep our own standards.
Yes.
karla said: So you are saying that the rest of the world's systems already accept a postmodern fluidity of truth and the "religious" world is behind the curve?
I don't think that it has anything to do with post-modernism (most of which I honestly think is crap) but the scientific belief that all truth (never TRUTH) is provisional until something better comes along. This has been proven true [grin] time and again throughout history.
karla said: I know I have had professors teach that history isn't knowable, and there are no facts, and such things. But I don't think most of the world outside of academia operates in this manner.
Probably not no - but just because the majority of ordinary people believe something to be true doesn't mean that it is. As to historical facts... I'm pretty certain that we can say such and such an event happened at such a place on such a time. Sounds like a fact to me! Of course historical events are being constantly reinterpreted as view points change and new information is (often literally) dug up.
karla said: Maybe the English culture is more postmodern than the American one at this point.
I wouldn't know..... I think post-modernism is a passing fad actually...
karla said: I know the US culture follows behind England about 30 - 50 years.
Strange. I thought *we* followed *you*.
karla said: I would assume that England is more postmodern at this point then America.
Well, we're more European.... which might mean the same thing.... [laughs]
cyberkitten said "but just because the majority of ordinary people believe something to be true doesn't mean that it is."
I agree. But. . .
Um. . . correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who has told me that if all of humanity believed something to be morally right it would become right?
So are you separating out truths here? So a thing can be true even if most or all of humanity does not accept that truth. (A point I agree on) But as soon as we start talking about morality that all changes and what humans believe is what is right or wrong? (this I don't agree)
karla said: Um. . . correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who has told me that if all of humanity believed something to be morally right it would become right?
Firstly I doubt *very* much if all of humanity could agree on anything for any length of time.
But if they could it would not make something objectively right it would just mean that for as long as such a belief was held - maybe for a few minutes or so - that it would be *defined* as right. As soon as the mythical consensus failed it would, of course, no longer be believed to be so and arguments/wars/persecutions would ensue.
karla said: So a thing can be true even if most or all of humanity does not accept that truth.
Yes. Truth is independent of belief.
karla said: But as soon as we start talking about morality that all changes and what humans believe is what is right or wrong?
There are no such things as moral 'truths' because morality is invented not discovered. In the same way there are no cultural or political truths. They are, putting it crudely, matters of opinion.
"There are no such things as moral 'truths' because morality is invented not discovered."
How do you support that statement?
karla said: How do you support that statement?
Because for one thing you can trace the cultural history of morality and see where it developed, how it developed and why. Moral ideas have very human origins and very trackable geneologies. They certainly don't appear out of thin air, nor are they 'discovered' under rocks. If you look at any culture and understand its history you can explain its morality - without the necessity to imagine a supernatural moral law giver.
That might could explain the "what" of morality at times, but it can't account for the "ought." And even if you could prove there is a natural reason for it, that doesn't discount that a supernatural unseen reason could have brought about the natural.
Are their any books you would recommend that have done this tracing and linked it to this subject?
karla said: Are their any books you would recommend that have done this tracing and linked it to this subject?
As you've already been exposed to Nietzsche you could always try his 'On the Genealogy of Morality'. Its rather strange in places but readable.
Failing that any decent (non-Christian) text book on moral philosophy will do.
An objective study would include theist sociologist as well as secular.
There is still a difference between tracing particular virtues or vices through cultures and exploring the idea of the moral ought.
"Okay. I will address your question. I don't think we are being judged for actions we didn't do."
You don't believe in original sin?
"The Bible says and I think it's pretty self-evident that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Which presents another question as to why god would create entities that are inherently unable to meet his standards...and further why god would judge us against impossible standards.
But, the fact that we are sinners, incapable of meeting god's standards is a direct result of god's punishment from the garden of Eden. Because of what Adam and Eve did, we were all born incapable of meeting god's standards. It's not like the Bible doesn't explicitly say that the sins of the fathers will be revisited upon the children. god says that he will punish the children of those who sin down to the x-th generation. Now, it's true that he also says he will multiply the joy of the children whose parents follow the lord to the y-th generation, but is this fair either? In either case, people are being punished and/or rewarded for actions they had no hand in.
If you want a specific example, take the case of Saul and the Amelekites. god specifically says that he wishes Saul to kill all the Amalekites (men, women, children) as well as their livestock because he wishes to punish them for something that Amalek did year before (Amalek is actually already dead by this time).
karla said: An objective study would include theist sociologist as well as secular.
Then study both. i was recommending secular moral theorist because I presumed that you would already be familiar with theist theorists.
karla said: There is still a difference between tracing particular virtues or vices through cultures and exploring the idea of the moral ought.
Then I would recommend you check out David Hume.
Anon Said: If you want a specific example, take the case of Saul and the Amelekites. god specifically says that he wishes Saul to kill all the Amalekites (men, women, children) as well as their livestock because he wishes to punish them for something that Amalek did year before (Amalek is actually already dead by this time).
I've got to say, that does seem a tad harsh.
Anon asked “You don't believe in original sin?”
I do. I also believe we have all sinned in our own right. That none is worthy by their own merits.
”Which presents another question as to why god would create entities that are inherently unable to meet his standards...and further why god would judge us against impossible standards.”
We were able to. We chose not to. Humanity chose not to. And when sin entered the human race it was passed down in our nature. The solution was going to be the solution for all mankind and not just the first sinners. But still we can refuse it. I’m surprised if anyone would desire to be created as a robot.
Anon said: “But, the fact that we are sinners, incapable of meeting god's standards is a direct result of god's punishment from the garden of Eden. Because of what Adam and Eve did, we were all born incapable of meeting god's standards.”
It is the consequence of sin entering the human race through Adam. Yes. But the “punishment” is really a protection for us and not a bad thing all the way around. It was to put us on the path of redemption. Adam did not seal our fate. God provided redemption.
“It's not like the Bible doesn't explicitly say that the sins of the fathers will be revisited upon the children. god says that he will punish the children of those who sin down to the x-th generation. Now, it's true that he also says he will multiply the joy of the children whose parents follow the lord to the y-th generation, but is this fair either?”
The sins of the father are to the 3rd and 4th generations. But the God blesses those who follow Him to the 1000th generation. This shows the impact of living in accordance with the goodness of the Lord versus living in opposition to it. The impact on the generations is greater for goodness. And sin also has a generational impact and can affect the family for a while. We see this all the time in the natural. Abusive fathers often beget abusive sons who become abusive fathers. It’s a learned pattern that can be broken by walking away from that kind of life and finding freedom from that bondage in God. How we live effects far more than our own life. There is a spiritual impact of our choices yet that impact can be broken and we can find freedom from that bondage in the Lord. The consequences for living outside of Him are there for our protection to draw us back to him. The same way that our physical bodies feel pain when we do something that can harm them. If we put our hand too close to a fire we feel the heat and pull back. If we prick ourselves with a needle while sowing it’s going to hurt and we know not to keep pushing the needle. Some children, in rare situations, are born without this pain receptivity and they damage themselves. They chew their thumb and don’t stop like the next kid would and hurt themselves in the process. They put their hands on a burner without feeling their skin burning. This hurts them. The pain is a protection for them. Likewise, the consequence of sin is a protection to help us encounter the error of our ways and avoid further destruction to our selves.
”If you want a specific example, take the case of Saul and the Amelekites. god specifically says that he wishes Saul to kill all the Amalekites (men, women, children) as well as their livestock because he wishes to punish them for something that Amalek did year before (Amalek is actually already dead by this time).”
I’ll have to look into this further. But I think the Amalekites were involved in human sacrifice and all kinds of evil practices and God needed to protect the rest of humanity from that kind of thing. They had chosen their path by their destructive actions. And justice was released upon them. God is the holy Judge. So I don’t see any problem with Him exacting judgment. He would be the only one qualified to do it. And the only one that can see the big picture.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/amalekites.html
Check out this site and the links at the end of the article regarding the subject. Then let me know what you think.
It gets better! The Israelites wiped them out and God claims the credit.
Plus, they can't have all been evil, especially as that is open to interpretation. i.e. Slavery is evil..... now, perfectly fine a few hundred years ago.
"We were able to. We chose not to. Humanity chose not to. And when sin entered the human race it was passed down in our nature."
You do believe in original sin, so you do believe that we are born sinful as a result of the actions of our ancestors. So, god IS holding us responsible for the actions of other people. This is not just.
And, I don't accept the "it's part of our nature" argument for one simple reason. The reason that we have this nature is because god gave it to us. Who is the one that set up the rules whereby sin would be passed down from generation to generation?
Finally, this leaves the question of god's complicity in the situation. Didn't god know what would happen? Giving god the maximum benefit of the doubt, let's suppose that he didn't cause this to happen, but he fully knew, and he knew that the actions of Adam and Eve would cause people to spend eternity in hell in eternal torment. He allowed it to happen anyway. This is grossly immoral.
"The solution was going to be the solution for all mankind and not just the first sinners."
By which you seem to be claiming that it was pre-ordained that we would be sinful...pre-ordained by god, which would mean he set this situation up on purpose. It is entirely his fault!
"I’m surprised if anyone would desire to be created as a robot."
False dilemma, unless you think all souls are robots in heaven? If that's what you think, then you yourself desire to be a robot. Again, wouldn't it be better to not have free will and get to go to heaven for eternity than to have free will for a limited amount of time only to be tortured in hell for all eternity?
Either way, god is still setting impossibly high standards for all of us. If we can not possibly achieve them, through no fault of our own, then they are unjust standards. There is no reason why we have to want to choose sin in order to be free. This is wrong-headed, especially because there's no logical reason why we should have to desire evil, while desiring good would be considered to be not free.
"The sins of the father are to the 3rd and 4th generations. But the God blesses those who follow Him to the 1000th generation. This shows the impact of living in accordance with the goodness of the Lord versus living in opposition to it."
That's not what the Bible says. The Bible clearly shows god keeping a grudge against those he doesn't like while favoring those he does like. Just like how he chose Jacob over Esau for no apparent reason. This is inherently unjust behavior.
"I’ll have to look into this further. But I think the Amalekites were involved in human sacrifice and all kinds of evil practices and God needed to protect the rest of humanity from that kind of thing."
No need, god tells us exactly why he orders the genocide in the Bible. He says he wishes to have the Amalekites slain because Amalek attacked the Israelites during the exodus out of Egypt (which never actually happened BTW). We can add all kinds of apologies for god committing genocide (an all-loving god that had infinite power to come up with another way to affect the situation minus wholesale slaughter), but it's not supported in the Bible. The Bible clearly shows a god that is seeking vengeance for "sins" that happened hundreds of years before and is taking it out on Amalek's descendants.
Anon said “You do believe in original sin, so you do believe that we are born sinful as a result of the actions of our ancestors. So, god IS holding us responsible for the actions of other people. This is not just.”
Yes. I do believe that because Adam sinned – the sin nature entered into humanity. We are not being held accountable for Adam’s sin, but for our sin. For we sin in our own right. And while sin separates us from God, God provides forgiveness. He took the wages of sin upon Himself and paid our debt to sin for us.
Anon said, “And, I don't accept the "it's part of our nature" argument for one simple reason. The reason that we have this nature is because god gave it to us. Who is the one that set up the rules whereby sin would be passed down from generation to generation?”
No we have a sinful nature, because Adam gave it to us. Our nature was altered when Adam took on sin and passed that nature from himself to his children. It’s not a rule, it’s how it works. We are spiritual and physical beings. When sin entered in it corrupted our nature. God did not corrupt our nature. He created us good, with the freedom to not be good.
Anon said, “Finally, this leaves the question of god's complicity in the situation. Didn't god know what would happen? Giving god the maximum benefit of the doubt, let's suppose that he didn't cause this to happen, but he fully knew, and he knew that the actions of Adam and Eve would cause people to spend eternity in hell in eternal torment. He allowed it to happen anyway. This is grossly immoral.”
He allowed us freedom. How is this wrong? How can a mortal person be the judge of God? How can we say God did something wrong. By what standard can we appeal to, to judge our Creator? If an omniscient God exist, don’t you think He knows more than we do and that maybe if you saw things His way you wouldn’t think things are so wrong? If you deny the standard of Truth how can you have a standard left to judge Truth?
Anon said, “By which you seem to be claiming that it was pre-ordained that we would be sinful...pre-ordained by god, which would mean he set this situation up on purpose. It is entirely his fault!”
He didn’t cause it, but He wasn’t surprised by it either. You keep looking at a small part of the picture. The big picture is much more complete than the part you focus on. If that is the end of the story then maybe you would have some credibility in your statements. But the story is still in progress.
Anon said “False dilemma, unless you think all souls are robots in heaven? If that's what you think, then you yourself desire to be a robot. Again, wouldn't it be better to not have free will and get to go to heaven for eternity than to have free will for a limited amount of time only to be tortured in hell for all eternity?”
Heaven is a different situation. We voluntarily give up our will for His greater will. It is not by force, it is by our own volition. We desire to be like Him and we have come to trust His good will and see that we want that more than we want our way. Our way becomes His way. It becomes one. Like a child who wants to be just like daddy except that in this scenario Daddy doesn’t disappoint. He is perfect. And it’s good to imitate Him. It is the best thing for us to be in that place of being in His will. This is different from being a robot or a puppet. This is being a son or daughter to a perfect Father. Our will becomes His will, because we WANT it to be. This was available to Adam in the beginning, to live in perfect relationship with God, to always be in harmony with what is good, pure, and loving. In heaven this is perfected in us. We have become a new creature. The thing is this heavenly life is available to every Christian here on earth, not just when we die. We can begin to be transformed into the likeness of Christ into the reality of a heavenly Kingdom now.
In contrast, naturally those who exercise their freedom the other way, to rebel against God’s order and love begin to take on a nature unlike Him more and more. It is the natural way of things. How can one expect to experience heaven if you don’t want God? How can one judge God as being unjust to allow some to live outside of His good ways and experience the fullness of what that separation causes? He has provided a free way to be reconciled to Him? What more could He do other than force us? And if He forced us, how would that be just?
Anon said “Either way, god is still setting impossibly high standards for all of us. If we can not possibly achieve them, through no fault of our own, then they are unjust standards.”
Yes. The point is that no one can be righteous apart from God. One sin is one sin too many. One sin corrupts. One sin separates. God is so holy that sin has to be dealt with so that we can have that relationship with Him we need. So He dealt with it for us. He is the Judge who took off His robe and stood along side the Defendant and took the punishment in the place of the Defendant. The point is that we can’t do anything to save ourselves. We don’t need to. We just need Him plain and simple. And we can have as close of a relationship with Him as we want to.
"Yes. I do believe that because Adam sinned – the sin nature entered into humanity. We are not being held accountable for Adam’s sin, but for our sin."
This is straight up, 100% contradictory. If you believe in original sin and that we are inherently sinful due to the actions of someone who came before us, then we ARE being held accountable for someone else's sin, regardless of whether we also sin. You can't have it both ways.
"No we have a sinful nature, because Adam gave it to us. Our nature was altered when Adam took on sin and passed that nature from himself to his children. It’s not a rule, it’s how it works."
It's how it works because it is how god set up the universe to work. Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that god set up this universe when something good happens and then deny that he had a hand in it when something unjust is happening. There is no logical necessity for the sinful nature of parents to be passed to their offspring, yet this is exactly what we see. In fact, it would be much more just for all of us to be born with a blank slate, able to sin or not sin as we freely choose. Instead, we are born into a state whereby we choose to sin (and no, I'm not saying we have free will, I'm simply allowing it for the sake of this discussion) no matter what. This is unjust and immoral.
"He allowed us freedom. How is this wrong?"
Because he will send people to eternal torment for exercising that freedom. Do you think it is better to have freedom for a limited time and then be eternally tormented and tortured in heaven, or to not have freedom and have eternal bliss?
"How can a mortal person be the judge of God? How can we say God did something wrong. By what standard can we appeal to, to judge our Creator?"
By this argument, what non-tautological standard will you use to judge that god is good/right? If you claim that I can't judge good as immoral/wrong/evil, then you similarly can't judge god as good/moral/right. Again, you can't have it both ways.
"If an omniscient God exist, don’t you think He knows more than we do and that maybe if you saw things His way you wouldn’t think things are so wrong?"
I doubt that any being, omni-max or not, can justify eternal torture.
"He didn’t cause it, but He wasn’t surprised by it either. You keep looking at a small part of the picture."
Au contraire. I'm the one who's looking at what the big picture is and what it means. If Jesus was determined to come and save us from our sins, then god surely meant for us to be sinful.
"If that is the end of the story then maybe you would have some credibility in your statements. But the story is still in progress."
Why does an omni-max entity need a long, drawn-out story to enact his great plan? And, I should point out that it doesn't matter what part of the story we are in when that story necessitates that people will be eternally tormented and tortured.
"Heaven is a different situation. We voluntarily give up our will for His greater will. It is not by force, it is by our own volition."
So, you choose to be robots IOW.
"This is different from being a robot or a puppet. This is being a son or daughter to a perfect Father. Our will becomes His will, because we WANT it to be."
If you choose to give up your will, then you are choosing to be a robot, even if the robot overlord always chooses correctly. Also, might I point out that there's no reason why our souls should have to magically transform into souls that only desire good in the afterlife. Besides, if our souls only prefer good, doesn't that mean that we don't have freedom according to you? Don't we have to be able to choose evil (usually the Xian apologetic is that only if we desire to choose evil are we free) in order to be free? The example of heaven shows that things don't have to be the way they are on Earth, yet they are. This is an act of immorality on god's part to set up a system whereby evil exists on Earth, when he could create a heaven instead.
"What more could He do other than force us? And if He forced us, how would that be just?"
Haven't you been paying attention? He already has forced us to have souls/thoughts/whetever that want to rebel or are in rebellion from the beginning!
"Yes. The point is that no one can be righteous apart from God. One sin is one sin too many."
Considering that we are born in sin and are therefore already in need of saving through no fault of our own, god is unjust and immoral. The fact that none of us can live a life free from sin* means that to judge us against this high bar is immoral and unjust.
"God is so holy that sin has to be dealt with so that we can have that relationship with Him we need. So He dealt with it for us."
Which is the only fitting thing he could do - it is his moral responsibility. Since he set up the rules whereby we would fail no matter what, it is his responsibility to make things right. That he does not do so for all people is a moral failing and unjust. IOW, it's not a great thing to dangle someone over the edge of a cliff and then decide to not drop them. It's also not a great thing to decide that SOMEONE has to die and then decide to kill yourself instead. The initial decision that someone has to die puts everyone into a bad situation to begin with.
*Again, since we can not live free from sin, this means that we are forced at some point in our lives to sin - forced by god. To argue that god does not force us to be good and ignore that god does force us to do evil is again trying to have it both ways.
What is justice? Where is it found? How do you define it.
It's satisfactory to use the dictionary definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice
especially numbers 5 and 11a
jus·tice
n.
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
4. Law The administration and procedure of law.
5. A judge.
6. A justice of the peace.
3.
1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
2. Law The administration and procedure of law.
3. A judge.
4. A justice of the peace.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law
1. A judge.
2. A justice of the peace.
Who determines what is fair? An imperfect person or group of people, or a perfect God? Do you think there can be justice in a world if there is no God? If, so how is that found. By what standard do we say something is unjust or just?
karla said: Do you think there can be justice in a world if there is no God? If, so how is that found. By what standard do we say something is unjust or just?
We've have this debate before.
Justice is a human concept defined and used by humans. That's why the idea of justice is different in different places and over time. What is considered just today may not be considered just in 100 or 500 years.
Justice is actually a very complex idea regularly fought over by present day political philosophers.
We don't need God to have a system of justice just as we don't need him in order to be moral - but, of course, you wouldn't agree with me on that.
This is actually yet another variation of the objective/subjective debate.....
Yes we have had this discussion cyber kitten. I think anonymous's answer will differ from yours though.
I'm signing off for tonight. I'll answer any further comments tomorrow.
Karla,
I fail to see the relevance. By what measure are god's actions just or moral? If you knew that someone would die if they went swimming, would you allow them to go swimming and let the actualize their free will, or would you try to stop them? Is it better to have a lifetime of freedom followed by an eternity of torture or to simply be in bliss but not free? And, if we can be both free and blissful in heaven, why not simply do that? How is it just or moral to hold us accountable for things that we did not do? Why is it moral or just to hold us to impossible standards? You are avoiding these questions with irrelevant discussions about absolute justice vs. human justice.
Post a Comment