Re: From daily bible readings =)meralogDecember 7 2007, 02:05:20 UTC
So are you saying by these quotes that it is ok for God to allow evil, but not ok for us as humans? Is this understanding correct? If this is correct, would it be also correct to say that we cannot follow God as an example in this regard?
Please answer my questions directly, I am still confused.
God can allow Satan to perform evil for a greater purpose known to God. Being an all-powerful omnipotent being, God is capable of reasoning that we are not. We are flawed. He is not. While God does not do evil, the evil that he allows is for good, whether or not we're keen enough to understand why. Since all existence revolves around Christ, not people, it's important to accept that not everything is about us even when it happens to us.
In a way, you have a responsibility to stop evil and perform good. So, yes. You are not held to the same standard as God, however, so comparing the two (ie. God's ability to allow evil for the sake of good v. your ability to ignore evil stuff) isn't a sound comparison.
Is that more direct or are you still looking for something else?
Ok, sounds good. However I have another question - if I were to stop evil from happening, would I be interfering with God's overall plan (i.e, allowing evil for the sake of a greater good)?
Not necessarily. By living in the light of Christ, you are compelled to act in such a capacity. I doubt anything so simple as a courteous act will stunt God's plan.
Because for God, time is irrelevant to the issue. God sees things from a perspective we cannot gain until we reach heaven. Remember that the concepts of Good and Evil come from God; they did not pre-date him.
Take murder, for example, which is a commandment (against do so.) You could argue, if you took God out of the picture, that murder is immoral, evil and wrong, but you really have no basis for doing so.
Why is it wrong for me to murder if I take a solely natural or rationalist view? In the natural, I would have as much right to murder as a mother grizzly, so I could murder simply if I *felt* threatened. In the rationalist view, murder is bad because it promotes civil instability. However, under that view, if murder is my proclivity, I am being robbed of my personal desire and right to murder.
Reply
Please answer my questions directly, I am still confused.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Is that more direct or are you still looking for something else?
Reply
Thanks
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://community.livejournal.com/christianity/2931430.html?thread=61327078#t61327078
Reply
Take murder, for example, which is a commandment (against do so.) You could argue, if you took God out of the picture, that murder is immoral, evil and wrong, but you really have no basis for doing so.
Why is it wrong for me to murder if I take a solely natural or rationalist view? In the natural, I would have as much right to murder as a mother grizzly, so I could murder simply if I *felt* threatened. In the rationalist view, murder is bad because it promotes civil instability. However, under that view, if murder is my proclivity, I am being robbed of my personal desire and right to murder.
Reply
Win.
Reply
Leave a comment