(Untitled)

Dec 06, 2007 20:45

Hello, Everyone ( Read more... )

suffering, evil, being christian, questions

Leave a comment

pastorlenny December 7 2007, 03:00:24 UTC
Great question! My position is an unqualified "It depends." Here's why. I find that people often want to extract a particular scriptural principle and operate on that principle. Yet scripture has examples on both sides. The Ezekiel passage seems to explicitly speak of intervening against evil -- as do the many other cases where someone saves someone else (Solomon's wise custody decision comes to mind, as do the various times that prophets intervened to make sure Israel or Judah won the day ( ... )

Reply

meralog December 7 2007, 03:05:58 UTC
This seems a bit dangerous to me. Because it in a way implies moral ambiguity of God... We then can't really say that He is good, whatever God does is according to His seemingly morally ambigous will, so then we can do just the same, right? I agree with the notion of internal judgement, but who is the judge?

...

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 03:26:48 UTC
Ahhh... Godel's theorem :)

If nothing can be said about moral standards, then why even say anything? Why write scriptures, develop theologies, philosophies and religions?

Seems like the first quotes from OT imply personal responsibility anyway... But in other hands, God is a Potter who creates us out of clay (nothing) as pots, then it seems its all God's responsibility anyways... Seems very confusing to me...

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 04:10:13 UTC
Say if a law existed, but yet it would be admitted that it is not a complete law, then where Christianity would stand? I thought Christ was a complete revelation? And if God allows evil for a higher purpose, where does it lead us exacly? The end justifies the means? Just like 1917?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 04:19:56 UTC
Ok, I thought you were replying in the scope of Christianity (regardless of your religious affinity). If not, then it is another story - this is specifically a Christian community, the question was raised specifically in Christian scope.

Reply

spyro_prime December 7 2007, 04:13:35 UTC
Genesis resolves the "God as a Potter" problem by having us do things which God doesn't foresee.

God doesn't foresee?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

spyro_prime December 7 2007, 04:48:25 UTC
When God is omnipotent we cannot say that he can't forsee something.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

spyro_prime December 7 2007, 05:02:24 UTC
"In the beginning" the Holy Trinity created the world (heaven and earth) "out of nothing" (ex nihilo) and not out of preexistent matter. The world is a production of God's free will, goodness, wisdom, love and omnipotence.

Reply

spyro_prime December 7 2007, 05:06:27 UTC
Before their fall the first human beings experienced the creation as one harmonious whole. It was like a beautiful garden (paradeisos, Gen. 2:8) which they tended with care and love. The human fall, however, which was essentially a sinful exercising of human freedom, introduced forces of disintegration into the body of creation. Humanity experienced a two-fold alienation. On the one hand, it was estranged from the Creator, since Adam and Eve tended to hide themselves away from the sight of God (cf. Gen. 3:8) as their communion with the source of life and light was broken. On the other hand, humanity lost its capacity to enter into a proper relation with nature and with the body of the creation. Enmity between the natural world and human beings replaced the relationship of harmony and care. Domination and exploitation of the creation for selfish ends by greedy human beings became the order of history. Thus, manifold forms of disintegration set in which converged in the fact of death and corruption. Fear of death instilled anxiety, ( ... )

Reply

spyro_prime December 7 2007, 05:44:07 UTC
ps: the key word is two-fold alienation, as in duality...

Reply

pastorlenny December 7 2007, 03:22:16 UTC
It doesn't imply moral ambiguity on His part at all. I thought your question was about *our* response to situations that *we* perceive as inherently evil. Should we intervene or not? My position -- which I believe is a strong one scripturally -- is that the Spirit instructs us if it our place to do so. The guy who thought he was doing good by keeping the ark from being tipped over was struck down. Paul was instructed *not* to preach the gospel in Asia at one point. Isn't the preaching of the gospel good? Yes, in a general sense. But the Spirit can also tell you *not* to do it. His ways are higher than ours -- so our ethical judgments can be incorrect. Heck, Peter didn't even want Christ to go to the cross! He got a stern rebuke for that. Was what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus "good?" Well, yes, we know that now. But it certainly appeared tragic at the time. Was what happened to Joseph "good?" I dunno. It's usually not so much fun when your brothers sell you into slavery or when some guy's wife falsely accuses you of rape ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up