This is a continuation of first God is Love; Christ is Pain, and then Why did Christ have to sacrifice himself?
Below is part of how, in my book “Penguins Pain, and the Whole Shebang: Why I Do the Things I Do,” by God (as told to John Shore), I have God himself answering the question, “What does the whole ‘Atonement’ thing actually mean?” So (literary device-wise) this is God speaking:
The At One-ment (Hey! I’m hooked on phonics! Wait—no I’m not) refers to that act in which I allowed myself to get brutally murdered so that all humans could be forever cleansed of the guilt associated with the things they do or think that do not, shall we say, represent their finest moments.
I let myself be tortured to death so that you could live free of pain.
But, hey, no pressure or anything. I don’t want you worrying about it. I was glad to do it. Seriously. No problem. It was a Friday. I really didn’t have all that much to do but hang around anyway.
For three days.
I was just killing time.
Oh, don’t I just slay you?
Cuz I sure do me.
Speaking of which, why don’t we revisit the final moment of my human life as recorded in the Bible? Here’s the last of that experience, as remembered by that prophet to end all prophets, the inimitable John:
Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
So. There’s that.
You know, when you’re dying from a prolonged beating while nailed to a giant wooden cross by steel spikes hammered through your hands and feet, nothing says “refreshing” like a filthy sponge full of wine vinegar being smeared all over your face.
And it leaves you feeling so dignified, too.
Ahh. Not good times.
Still, there was a job to do, and I was the man to do it. And so I did: The “it” in “It is finished” refers to the establishment of the means by which all people, forever, could have access to real and lasting salvation. I know I just said this, but if anything in the universe bears repeating, it’s that what my dying on the cross secured was the means by which, from that point on, any human being could have rinsed from their hearts and minds their guilt (however “naturally” they acquired it), which, without my divine intervention, must otherwise fester inside of them, where at best it severely undermines the quality of their lives and at worst compels them to contribute to that wretched, twisted cause which seeks to drag all of humankind down into the pits of degradation.
Do you see? I won the battle between good and evil by paying, in full, with my body, any and all karmic debt that might ever be incurred by anyone doing evil.
You might owe the phone company, the electric company, the credit card company, and your landlord. But you don’t owe me, or the world, anything. I’ve already totaled you out.
I’ve already atoned for your sins.
Which means that you and I, forever, are copasetic.
As long as you believe in me, that is. As long as you believe that as the Christ I took human form and stepped into human history for the specific purpose of removing from all people—by which I most definitely and forever mean from you personally—the debt incurred by any and all sin.
Believe that, and it’s all about you and I, friend.
Don’t, and you’re on your own.
But you believe it. You have to. Cuz you know who’s on your side, don’t you? You know who’s got you covered, don’t you? You’re feeling the love. You know you are. C’mon. Admit it. Who loves you? Who? Who cares about you? Who gave his all so you could delight in life instead of being bogged down by true existential angst?
Who’s your daddy?
That’s right: Me. The Father. Jesus. The Holy Ghost.
Us.
I.
And what do really good fathers do? That’s right: They fork over the big bucks to cover the cost of every single thing their kids could ever think of doing.
Do you really wonder why such infinite numbers of people have always signed on for Team Jesus? Do you really think they’re all just lazy, shallow simpletons?
Well, they’re not. What they are is debt-free. Which is to say that, spiritually-speaking, they’re forgiven.
Forgiven!
By God Almighty!
Forever!
Man, I just don’t know what else you could possibly want from me.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 224 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
I’m going to be flippant for a moment, and say this: my dad spent 2 years dying of lung cancer. Jesus had a really bad weekend. Same end result. same loss of dignity. Dad suffered longer, if not as intently. How is it, being divine, and essentially immortal, Jesus managed to atone for all of humanity, and yet the death of my dad and the deaths of soldiers and those who died in service to humanity don’t count for that much? Jesus, theoretical as he is, didn’t sacrifice half as much as those who are dead /permanently/. It disturbing to hear the de facto claim that those deaths and sacrifices don’t matter as much as a sad but nevertheless common death of one man thousands of years ago (especially if that death was temporary).
By whose “authority” is the Bible an accurate definition of God?
I assume you wrote the post itself but all of your comments are unsubstantiated claims that I would wager to have their origin in the Bible, such as:
“This is why God allows Earth to suffer the consequences of sin – the misuse of freewill on humanity’s part – for a time. He knows it is best.”
“What we will not do, because of our moral code, is similar to what God will not do, because of His Code, and because of the alternatives that He can see and we cannot.”
“God believes in our free will so much, He would take on the cumulative suffering of all the world upon Himself … than deny us our Choice.”
Do you claim ownership for those ideas (not just the words), in which case I will make sure to cite you if I repeat them, or are they based on what you have read from the Bible or do you have another previously unmentioned historical source?
I like your Greek Myth analogy. It is far more appropriate than you seem to understand. However it fails miserably to match these circumstances since no one actually believes the Greek gods are real, so we are free to discuss them abstractly as fictional characters from fictional, mythical tales. No conflict. No leaps of faith. No need to provide supporting evidence of their existence. But you are taking a series of stories that are mythical, just like the Greek tales, and you are expecting me to accept them as a description of reality, without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Do you see the difference? Accepted fiction vs. unsubstantiated claims of reality.
“So if your definitions and understanding of God are based exclusively on the Bible, then any attempts to continue this discussion are futile, because in order to accept your arguments, I must do what I am unable to do: accept the Bible as truth.”
Not as Truth – Although I accept it as truth – but as an authoritative source for the definition of the Christian God.
Back to the school analogy:
You would never hear this in a Greek literature class “if your definitions and understanding of Hercules are based exclusively on the Greek Myths, then any attempts to continue this discussion are futile, because in order to accept your arguments, I must do what I am unable to do: accept the Greek myths as truth.”
By the way, are you saying I didn’t give ANY philosophical arguements after I quoted the Scriptures? There is NOTHING in my post but Bible texts? NONE of those words were my own? Did I post that post myself or did a first century scholar do it for me? (Sorry, couldn’t resist :-0 )
Michele,
I believe I’ve been phrasing most of my questions as if the assumption that God exists is correct. I realize that it is not possible to provide evidence for the existance of God, so I am not expecting you to provide that for me… it was never part of my inquiry. But I was asking you to explain your ideas in generic, philosophical terms. Isn’t it possible to speak of God without refering to the Bible? Do you not consider issues of your faith and explore the ideas behind religion in your head or with others, using your own thoughts and words and not those of the Bible? Are there no other sources that could help you explain your belief system to me?
If not, then our difficulty to communicate may be less in our thoughts on God than in our views on the Bible. Christians are willing to accept it as the “truth” and “the word of God” (though it has always fascinated me how selective you can be about which parts you actually accept into your daily lives and how you manage to ignore the inconvenience of the rest). Knowing something about the history of the Bible, namely who wrote it and who altered it to fit their agendas (fallible man, not God), I can’t do that. So if your definitions and understanding of God are based exclusively on the Bible, then any attempts to continue this discussion are futile, because in order to accept your arguments, I must do what I am unable to do: accept the Bible as truth.
But if you would like to provide evidence as to why I should accept the Bible as truth, we can talk… as long as your evidence isn’t “because God says its the truth”. I’ve never been a fan of circlular logic.
Second Michelle, great answer on omnipotence and responsibility for evil.
LCR
There are two differant discussions that are going on and we need to try to keep them separate.
One is – Does the Christian God exist?
The other discussion has to do with whether the beliefs of Christianity fit together logically **If they were true**
When atheist ask if our God is just, or if the ideas of Omnipresence, Omnibenevolence, and Omnipotence can exist logically in the same being, Christians will not give an answer that tries to prove that God is not just like a purple unicorn.
They will give an answer based on the **theory of God** set forth in our belief system and our Bible. I was trying to explain what the Christian God is like from the Bible and my own understanding – not prove His existance, but explain how such a God, if He exists, can be just. To explain such a God, I have to refer to the definition of what the Christian God is, ie, the Bible.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to explain your beliefs without mentioning what the definition of your beliefs are – which are found in the Bible.
You cannot be upset if you ask us questions about the Christian God, and we respond by discussing – of all things- the unbelievable, far-fetched concept of the Christian God, as described in the book which defines the Christian God.
In school, you might be asked to analyze a character in mythology, even make arguements for or against certain personality aspects of that Character. Hey, people even do that when discussing fictional TV characters.
But it is not logical to tell someone “Your theory about this character makes no sense because he/she is fictional.”
Of course you will point out that I do not believe my God is a myth. Which is true, I don’t. But this is a logically separate debate from the defense or defamation of the “character” of God.
Born4Battle,
If you are in a discussion with other believers, then of course you don’t need to persuade. But if you in a discussion with non-believers regarding your faith, what is the point of your participation? If you seek only to convince us or you faith, you are wasting your time and mine. I already believe you. But is you are trying to help us understand where we are wrong in our conceptions of your faith, then I’m afraid you need to use language that persuades. So its really up to you and what you hope to gain from the discussion.
LCR, Thanks for that insight. It helps to know that part of the driving force behind your questions is anthropology. As far as my recommendations for further study goes, I based that on what I read as surprise to hear “no he cannot” in response to “God can do anything.” I was under the impression that “God cannot lie” or “create a rock too big” were basic Christian theology. Or were you feigning surprise/ignorance to goad or bait as part of an anthropological study?
Actually, its not like that. There may be many who “feel it necessary to believe.” I do not. In my case I really have no choice any more. Its hard to explain but I like your “purple unicorn” approach so I’ll steal it for a moment. I know stealing a sin but I’m over it.
For me and for many Christians, when someone who does not believe comes up and questions our view of God it is like someone coming up to you and trying to convince you that the sky is not blue. So if you would like to gain insight, anthropologically speaking, into what goes on in my head, substitute “blue sky” for God in all of your comments.
Speaking of theology…Reclaiming the Mind ministries has an online theology course aimed at those who will probably never go to seminary for one reason or another. You can pay $100 and get a certificate, or lurk in the shadows for free and go at your own pace.
ANYWAY, these guys are Evangelical Christians, but they work hard to present the material irenically (?), which is to say they're trying to explain the various views objectively without attacking anyone.
I've only made it thru the first session myself (I lurk), but was impressed by what I saw.
So LCR (and/or anyone else interested in Christian theology) might want to check it out–
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/ttp/gettingstart…
Ric,
It's apparent that you fail recognize that your version of the New Testament Christian God is very different from other Christian versions. I have an uncle who is Methodist and a Bishop Spong enthusiast who doesn't recognize your God as his. I have a Unitarian friend who can't abide descriptions of God as she sees this as limiting God to that particular characteristic. My neighbors are avid creationists who believe that to live in fear of an all-powerful and certainly not necessarily loving God is the most righteous of paths to take in life. And then of course there are the Catholics (like my in-laws) who see God as a benevolent but occasionally tyrannical patriarch; they look on your version of God as a relatively powerless goody-two-shoes. Your vison of God is not universal to all who practice Christianity and is the product of your particular interpretation of the bible. So to answer your question, no, your contentions such as "God can not lie" are NOT basic Christian theology. They are unique to those of the evangelical flavors of Christianity. The fact that you do not recognize this is interesting and a little disturbing, but not too surprising. And no, I was not goading you. It was an honest question.
And I understand that you feel that you don't have any choice but to believe as you do. But as someone who used to feel obligated to practice a religion, and no longer does, I recognize that you actually do have a choice. I'm just not sure if your failure to acknowledge this fact is due to fear of that option, stubborn blindness, or honest obliviousness.
The "blue sky" exercise is not that useful. I get that God is real to you, as real as the blue sky itself. The purpose of my suggestion to Michele was to help her understand my perspective, which is often difficult or impossible for believers to fathom. And since she was trying to explain things to me, not the other way around, her choice of language and her explanatory perspective was what was in question, not mine.
"When you speak that way to a non-believer (complete with bible quotations) it carries no power to persuade. . ."
Without being personal, I wanted to comment on that statement. I don't know about other believers who have posted in here, but i don't see it my duty to 'persuade' the non-believer of spiritual truth, only to put it out there. Only the Holy Spirit of God can illuminate the human heart to God's truth.
I commend any believer who applies Biblical truth (quotations) to any discussion!
LCR,
I am known for snide remarks (sarcasm) and for raising more questions than answering. Why do you ask so many questions about Christian theology?
Morse,
The twilight zone (where things are all backwards) was not inspired by a single comment but rather the DAY listening to you and LCR abandon logic without a second thought. I felt like I was listening to evangelical fundamentalists … not terribly pleasant. Why to you ask so many questions about Christian theology?
Andy said:
“If parents could somehow know that their child would become a murderer, would they be responsible for his crime if they went ahead and had him?”
If they knew absolutely (as God supposedly does) that their child would become a murderer and that there was nothing they or anyone else could do to turn him from that path, then yes, the parents would be just as guilty of the crimes as there child would be.
In our criminal justice system, one’s foreknowledge of wrongdoing by another but with no action taken to prevent that wrongdoing can actually lead to charges of accessory to that crime. Not to mention the fact that it is morally reprerehensible to stand by idly and watch evil take place when it is within your power to stop it.
So if God is able to prevent evil (is he?), evil that he knows will take place, and yet he chooses not to act and permit that evil to occur, then yes, he bears responsibility for that evil occurring due to his lack of action. I would also argue that it puts God’s moral judgement into question. Can’t say this recommends him as that special omnibenevolent someone with which I would wish to have a “meaningful relationship”.
… Unless God is NOT all-knowing, in which case he wouldn’t be culpable? Ric seems willing to allow that God is not omnipotent, so maybe he is not omniscient either?
Morse,
The issue of God alleviating human suffering is a complicated one, and a difficult one. What do you say to someone whose daughter is dying of cancer? So what follows is not intended to gloss over the difficulty of the issue.
I believe that for God to allow suffering is part of getting us to realize there is a problem that needs to be addressed: Our relationship with Him is broken by our sin. In the Genesis account of the Fall, God did not send Adam and Eve straight to hell, but He also did not shield them from the consequences of their sin. He told them their bodies would return to the dust from which they came and that they would painfully toil to make a living (Genesis 3:17-19).
God cares about our physical well-being. But He cares even more about our spiritual salvation. He understands, as we often don’t, that the first ultimately depends on the second. He wants to bless us, to shower His goodness on us. But because He loves us He cannot just do that if it runs counter to His plans for our salvation. I believe He wants more than anything for us to turn to Him so He can be good to us.
Sometimes it might advance His redemptive plan to intervene supernaturally on behalf of a non-believer. And sometimes, the fulfillment of His purpose to bring about spiritual growth in the life of a believer might mean allowing adversity. That adversity does not come from God, it comes from this fallen world. Our world is a function of two things: 1) God’s perfect creation, and 2) Our rebellion against God. Whenever we talk about suffering or the human condition, we need to keep that in mind.
And how do we know God has not stopped tsunamis from happening, or saved people from being killed in earthquakes?
Ah, a snide comment…which means you can’t answer my question? Come on… help me understand.
Actually since God cannot be contained within our realm of reality (more limits and such), I find it curious that he must be sensical. Why must he obey the laws of our natural world since he is supernatural, or beyond that of the natural world? Why do you find it necessary to fit God into the same logical shoebox in which we are required to exist?
And why in the world can’t God lie? More limits, huh?
Ok… I’m am laughing now.
LCR:
For the record:
God cannot:
Create a rock too big (which is mathematically nonsensical)
or
Lie
So I guess the argument is since God cannot be nonsensical and evil he is then not omnipotent…. So what you’re saying is if I drop the omnipotent claim, you will drop the nonsensical and evil claims? Its like a compromise right?
Thank you, Second Michele, but what you need to understand is that your argument only makes sense if you are already a believer and if you are pre-biased to accept the conclusions made by your argument. When you speak that way to a non-believer (complete with bible quotations) it carries no power to persuade or explain, because it is based upon a belief system we don't follow. I am convinced that you believe in God, but I am merely left with the impression that the contradictions I've raised don't really concern you because you believe God doesn't want you to be concerned with them. The unquestioning acceptance of these conflicting ideas is very disturbing.
Do you believe that purple unicorns exist? I'm guessing no. To get a feeling of how it is for a non-believer to read something like your post, insert the words "the purple unicorn" into the passage every time you see the word "God" and it might just give you a feel for how little sense it makes to us. I don't mean to offend, just as I know that wasn't your intention at all, but I hope this makes you more aware of how others see the world around you.
My curiosity has lead me to read a selection of books and I have taken a few comparative religion courses over the past 15 years or so. As an anthropologist I find the history and development of religions in general to be fascinating. But since everything I read further amplifies the contradictions and incongruities of God and faith (which gave me the impetus to step away from religion in the first place), I am truly puzzled how others can remain such avid supporters. Its interesting to talk to the "old joes" of the blogosphere for some personal insight that I can't get from a book and I enjoy the back and forth between two opposing viewpoints. I really am interested in trying to understand why you feel it so necessary to believe as you do and I also don't think it hurts to have believers exposed to the ideas the make non-believers tick.
About Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence (spell?
:
Titus 1:2 (New King James Version)
2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began…
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
2 Timothy 2:13
Even if we are not faithful,
he will remain faithful.
He must be true to himself.
It may be fair to say that God has "limitations" – in context of these verses.
I"m not particularly threatened by my God giving Himself these limitations in Scripture. I would say that these texts argue for a God who is by nature Good, not one who makes up the definitation of "good" as He goes along.
But to those who say "Well, then, Good must exist apart from God.
And furthermore, we should be able to judge God by whether He meets His own standards of goodness"
One problem with that thought is that God knows everything. We don't. We really, really don't.
This is why God allows Earth to suffer the consequences of sin – the misuse of freewill on humanity's part – for a time. He knows it is best.
We don't know that. We can't see that. We only see the evils of the world we're living in.
We are limited in our ability to percieve evil. We see a Tsunami, have a family member get sick, watch a friend die. And we look at all these things and say they are evil. And they are.
What we cannot look at, is the world that does not exist, the world where God never gave anyone free will, or the world where God zapped the first person who sinned, the world where people obey God only out of compulsion and fear not love, or just walk around like machines waiting for God to tell them what to feel and think.
Although I cannot show you a comparison of the evils of a world that does not exist with the evils in the world we know, I will try to illustrate the choice God has made.
Look at how we treat criminal defendants. We give them rights, even though many of them are obviously guilty. Sometimes, the guilty go free – and commit more crimes – as a direct result of the fact that there are certain things we as a society WILL not do to stop evil doers.
And yet, while we do take responsability for the results of our justice system, it was not us who chose to commit those crimes. The evil was not our desire or our doing, but our UNWILLINGNESS to take certains actions against evil – because we respect human dignity – has allowed some crimes to happen.
What we will not do, because of our moral code, is similar to what God will not do, because of His Code, and because of the alternatives that He can see and we cannot.
To tie it back to the OP, God believes in our free will so much, He would take on the cumulative suffering of all the world upon Himself (in a supernatural experience that outweighed the physical torture of the Cross) – than deny us our Choice.
Morse, Thanks for the response. I do not understand what you are getting at with the "label" thing but that is ok…I'm not terribly interested in that. For what is is worth I agree with your bad doesn't mean right/wrong video on you youtube site. Although it won't fly well with mass media. Bad morals/Good morals whatever, its not what its about. That is, I am not a Christian because it teaches me good morals.
LCR, If you are truly curious about Christian theology there are A LOT better ways to go about acquiring the information. I could recommend a few books if you'd like. Chatting with any old joe in blogosphere is not terribly reliable. Most of us here are unimpressive and unconvincing at our very best.
Very good question.
You will find that many atheists and agnostics who arrived there after spending much of their prior lives practicing a religion have dedicated a lot of time exploring the ideas behind their faith and asking harder questions about the contradictions that start to become apparent. It is often the absense of clear, logical answers to those contradictions that leads a person to conclude that religion is false and doubt the existance of a god. It is a relief to not have to do the mental gymnastics required to pretend that those contridictions don't exist or aren't imporant.
But the curiosity over the attraction of religion remains and those questions about the contradictions have never been answered. Whenever I find a person or a group of people who feel strongly about their faith and seem to understand it well, I like to raise questions such as these to see if they can resolve the issues. I don't really expect any resolution, but its interesting to see not only what your responses are but how you respond. You are pretty typical in your response pattern.
This conversation has been very curious. The God of my childhood was described as all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, though that last bit was qualified with the understanding that if you were bad, God could be bad to you right back. God was a supernatural being and he was bigger than big, immeasurable by any human standards and indescribable as well. He could conceivably be anything he wanted to be, simply because he could, and you would never know when he might be influencing or evaluating you, so you better measure up.
The God I've met in this thread is much, much smaller. He has limits. He can only do certain things. He is a good loving God who is not able to do bad things, even if he wanted to, and yet he is either powerless to help those he has created or he chooses not to, so he is either weak or mean. He forgives us of our sins simply by our agreeing to "welcome him into our lives"… in other words, he doesn't ask us to be responsible for our actions any more then he is responsible for his own. With each qualification, each description of what God is like or why he acts as he does, you manage to chip away at the immeasurable, impressive vastness of "God" and gradually reduce him to a meer "god" with human characteristics, weaknesses and foibles. Religion has nothing to fear from science because God's own followers will reduce him to nothing at all within a decade if you aren't careful.
Oh, and the "logic" comment to Morse is absurd. Our questions were honest and born of logic. When you began to recognize that you couldn't honestly answer them logically without acknowledging the existing contradictions in your faith, you resorted to dishonest, snide, empty responses. Quite a soldier for your faith you have turned out to be. We would have respected you more if you had given an honest "I don't know but that won't change my relationship with God". The mental and semantic twists and turns you chose to take instead were interesting but not impressive or convincing in the least.
Logic is only as valid as your starting point. So your arguments could be logically valid, but still wrong and insane.
I don't abandon logic. But I also don't give a label to something and then argue constantly why that label doesn't apply.
LCR,
Andy, God created us with free will AND He is all-knowing, so by definition, he knew that his actions would ultimately result in evil behavior among humans. He is therefore responsible for that evil as it is the direct consequence of his informed actions. If this is not true, then which part of that first statement is false, that he created us with free will or that he is all-knowing?
I guess I disagree with the premise that since God created us with free will and is all-knowing, He is responsible for our evil actions. If parents could somehow know that their child would become a murderer, would they be responsible for his crime if they went ahead and had him? I believe God is responsible for allowing evil to happen, but He does not cause anyone to commit evil, nor can He Himself commit evil. (see James 1:13-18) Foreknowledge of evil does not equal responsibility for that evil when we chose to commit that evil, and when God allowing us to chose it results in a greater good — the ability to be in a meaningful relationship with Him.
Your religion posits a man who can walk on water, turn water into wine and rise from the dead…and LCR's comment inspires the theme to the Twilight Zone?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
I'm hearing the theme music for the Twilight Zone …
I’m not dodging! You seem to think that saving a person’s life is somehow breaking their free will. I’m not speaking about stopping people from doing evil. I’m talking about saving people from unfortunate natural occurrences.
I don’t want to turn this into some silly “Yes you are, no I’m not argument”, but if anyone is being stubborn or dogmatic it is you John.
I believe that you think I’m being stubborn because you don’t have a good answer for the question.
But I won’t force you to continue down this road if it’s uncomfortable.
Well, I can’t do this with you anymore; you’ve Gone Stubborn, which always means a debate is over.
One more time, and I’m outta this sad loop: God can’t violate the free will of any human because doing so would dehumanize that person, and God loves every person too much to rob them of that quality–free will–which defines us all. It doesn’t matter how awful a thing someone wants to do with their free will, God still won’t stop them from doing it.
I keep saying that; you keep dodging around it. Happy dodging, mate.
And my whole point is that if the first proposition is true, so is the second.
Say you and I walk by starving men on the road. We are both capable of helping him. You stop and help them, but I don’t. You are helping them, and I am letting them starve.
Why is god exempt from this? Does he chain his own hands? Does he say “nope, I will not save anyone from death” just because?
If you have the ability to save someone’s life and do not, then you are guilty of assisting in their death. Obviously there are different levels of this. I can’t physically help anyone from dying sitting here at work. But I am a tiny bit guilty, because the excess I have could help others.
God, being omnipotent, is therefore able to help anyone at any time. So if he exists and is omnipotent, then he is, by definition, the most guilty of assisting in the death of starving and dying people.
I know you love your god, and you don’t want to think anything bad of him, but I’m not being illogical here. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
God did not create us to do evil. We decided to do it. We are responsible for the mess we are in, for the evil we do to each other.
God is quite capable of doing something about all this. And someday He will. What we need to understand is that we should not be too eager for God to “do something about all this evil”, because until we are forgiven of our sin, we are each on the wrong side of God’s judgment. Because He loves us He is holding it back to give us a chance to repent and turn to Him. Even allowing us to experience the consequences of our evil is loving because it helps bring home to us the spiritual predicament we are in. And that spiritual danger is what God is most concerned about, and what we should be most concerned about.
God is not cruel and manipulative, we are. He is loving. If He wasn’t, He never would have sent His Son, never would have created us with freedom to choose, probably never would have even bothered to create the universe and put Himself through all that He has. I doubt very much that I would have; fortunately, God is not like me. And it is so amazing that He cares enough about me to want to show me what love is all about.
This wasn’t going to be a long comment, but you know me.
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
{ 2 trackbacks }