God won't let evil men destroy His plans

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:01 pm

Spot:-6

My understanding is Hitler used the Christian faith as a crutch but was not a Christian in any sense of the word. Though apparently the pope seemed to support him??

I could be wrong on that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:51 pm

Novelty:-6

Christians do not deny the atrocities committed in the Name of God. Those atrocities were no better or worse than the atrocities committed by the members of other faiths.

It is so easy to judge the ancient past by todays standards but such an approach is highly misleading and inaccurate. These things must be judged on the basis of the culture of the day.

As far as ignoring the original text goes the fact of the matter is that we do not have the original text. It simply no longer exists unless of course some archaeological researcher is lucky enough to find an autograph.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:59 pm

Novelty:-6

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. You are not describing the church to which I belong. You may be describing some but far from the majority of churches.

Yes atrocities are continuing on. What are you doing about them? I'm doing my part as is my church but we are far from being the majority in society. We are small by comparison. So I ask again what are you doing about it? Ranting and raving will not solve the problem. Actions speak much louder than words.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:09 pm

Novelty:-6

I should wait until you have answered my question. LOL However, I will let you know.

I belong to the Anglican church of Canada. I had a hand in the vote for the ordination of women and we in this diocese are now into the homosexual question which I hope will be resolved in the positive for the alternate sex population. In connection with that I am a member of the churches "Social development and Environmental" committee endeavouring to help the homeless and the needy.

We, my wife and I contribute a fairly substantial amount of money to the church of which 80% of the money after expenses must go to charity both here and overseas. My wife and I help support two foster children. We support, financially both the local food bank and the recycling organization. We are helping to support, financially,and with transportation, a family living nearby and in poverty. In addition we support, financially the local fund raising of the Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke foundation plus others.

Personally I am a qualified "Seniors Peer Counselor", a volunteer position, and am on the client services committee for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, also a volunteer position, now called simply the CNIB.

I have spoken and continue to speak publicly on the issue of the oppressed and needy encouraging folks to do more. I lobby the provincial government on the issues of the homeless and needy.

During my 30 years in education I encourage all students to think of others who were and are oppressed and in need. I encouraged the girls to broaden their outlook and think about the maths and sciences etc.

I continue formal studies to try to improve my ability to continue to make even better positive contributions to society.

On a personal note I will add that I am visually impaired.

Now, its your turn.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:18 pm

Novelty:-6

I can only hope that I leave the world a slightly better place than what is was when I came into the world.

I am also aware that not everyone can do what we do. Many with children lack the time and the money. While we are not rolling in money we do get by. Many simply lack the money but there are many ways to contribute and many could.

I also recognize that in your post you were trying to stimulate that kind of thinking and I can appreciate that. One might want to ask a few questions before making spurious statements though.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:14 pm

Novelty:-6

I cannot speak for your location but here math and science are taught but many of the women seem to avoid it for whatever reason so they need the encouragement the look that way.

As above I cannot speak for the church in your location but I can tell you that the Anglican church of Canada is moving ahead on social justice issues.

Personally I don't view the church in the negative way that you do. However, that is a matter of perception and as I say I cannot speak to the church in your location. I do not think the church is the whole answer but it can be and is, here at least, part of the solution. It is not silent here or inactive on social or environmental issues.

I congratulate you or your efforts. If more would be like us the world would indeed become a better place. Even if everyone who could, did a bit, it would make a difference.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:38 pm

Novelty:-6

I certainly agree with most of what you wrote. The church is in the process of transformation and that takes time. I would agree that hell does not exist. As far as an afterlife goes, I will leave that up to God.

Sunday school teachers are teaching what they were raised with. This transformation is a slow process and more clergy need to be more open and less afraid to step into the 21st cent. It will take time. On the other hand the things that you protest against have been passed along time ago in schools of theology. Some clergy have trouble trying to find a way to pass on the new thinking to their congregations. It is changing and the more the people speak up and demand these changes the sooner they will happen.

As for using "sin" or "hell" as a stick, I would agree with you. To me that in itself is a sin.

As for the world being 6000 yrs. old I think most clergy now accept that is not true; that it is in fact billions of years old.

None of this speaks to the fundamental/literalists who want to remain in the more traditional paradigm. I am constantly arguing with them on these points but they are absolutely adamant. Is that from fear? I think in part.

Some of us choose to fight for those changes within the church rather than ignoring it. I see great value in the church and in the wisdom of the ages. I also think that we must respect the elderly in our societies who find change very difficult and disturbing. If we couple that need for respect along with the need for change we must indeed make haste slowly. I certainly would not want to upset someone's granny or grandpa with the converting to the emerging paradigm overnight. That could be highly destructive and unfair.

The church will change and I am working on that also as I continue my studies and speaking engagements.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:09 am

Novelty;527965 wrote: Jesus said " I'll be with you to the end, then seek the man who poor's the water and go into his house" is this not to suggest the ages of the zodiac are true? The Pieces entering Aquarius, the end of an age and not the end of the world, the end of Jesus the fish by knowledge and information, you are living proof Ted that this is happening.
Ian, I couldn't find this ( I have an NIV Bible). It sounds inspiring & I'd like to read more. Do you know where this is?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:20 pm

Novelty:-6

I would most certainly agree that better answers are needed. They are coming. As for the signs of the zodiac I really know nothing about them beyond hearing of them.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Reb185 · Post by **Reb185** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:33 pm

I have to agree with that...whatever is the Lord's will, it has to come to pass. A lot of people wonder why evil things happen in the world...while I think those things God certainly see's and knows such things will happen, I don't think it's part of his divine will to stop it. I tend to see it as God laying out his will in the bible, act righteous, help the poor, do not sin etc. and then there's God's divine will, which is certain things he has ordained that must happen regardless of how many attempts to alter his plans. Think of Jesus Christ's life, there were many attempts to stop him, as early as birth when King Herod I think it was wanted him dead, but, God did not allow that to happen. God see's everything but certain things I believe he guards because they are of immense importance, the rest is up to us to use moral judgement (don't kill others, don't steal, etc.)

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:20 am

Reb185;597483 wrote: I have to agree with that...whatever is the Lord's will, it has to come to pass [...] the rest is up to us to use moral judgement (don't kill others, don't steal, etc.)

The Indian Ocean tsunami on Boxing day three years ago which killed a quarter of a million people didn't have much to do with moral judgment. Did that qualify as an act of God which has to come to pass?

For mere humans, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. God's acts seem immune from that sort of scrutiny. If He's able to prevent unjust suffering on that scale and chooses not to, I question His moral judgment, His right to be considered good and His worthiness to be worshiped, praised, respected or helped. His plans incorporate more evil than anything man can come up with, if "God certainly sees and knows such things will happen", but "I don't think it's part of his divine will to stop it".

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:12 pm

It seems to me that part of the problem is free will.

Either we have free will or we do not. We cannot have it both ways: God interferes to prevent disasters but then we want Him to but out when we may be having a good time even if we are acting immorally.

Of course much of what we consider moral is culturally based and does not come from God.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **spot** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:42 pm

There is no culture in which the suffering inflicted by the Indian Ocean tsunami was either morally neutral or desirable. Either it was an act of God, or God lacks either omnipotence or a well-disposed attitude toward all people. If it was an act of God then God is not good. Any process which sacrifices individuals in order to improve the majority is bad, not good, morally or ethically or theologically.

I realize that we're defining terms here, but without some agreed language there's no communication. Every classical Christian description of God includes both all-powerful and good, and to me those attributes can't exist together unless "good" gets redefined and diluted into something divorced from a reasonable use of English. I'd rather use "good" in the natural sense we all understand.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:03 pm

spot:-6

I don't believe for one moment that God causes natural disasters. They are simply part of the activity of the cosmos. In short, sh*t happens.

You are using words like omnipotent etc. Such words are used to describe or define the divine and as such they are but metaphors. That is the only language that we have to do so.

Nor do I believe that God has laid out plans for everyone or even the progression of evolution.

I am reminded of the story of an 11 year old boy who was hung by the Nazis and due to his size and weight took much longer to die then the grown men. A theologian when asked where God was then replied "Hanging on the end of that rope and suffering with that boy.

Like I said to we want free will or to be automatons. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Shalom

Ted

Post by **spot** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:22 pm

In what metaphorical sense is God omnipotent, then?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:18 pm

spot:-6

How else would you describe the creator? I accept the Biblical expressions because I realize that for the most part they are metaphorical. I cannot define or describe the creator beyond metaphor. It can't be done.

On the other hand I can experience, and have done so,the reality of his abiding presence.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:17 am

You use the word "metaphor" in the way other people use the word "incorrect", it seems to me. Something you wish to deny being true you call metaphor because saying it's untrue sits uncomfortably with you. If it's a truth that God, however metaphorically, is omnipotent, then He's not good. It's far more honest (within the limits of language and understanding) to concede that since He must be good He isn't, even metaphorically, omnipotent. Even were He self-constrained into inactivity in these matters He'd still not be good.

TerahEl · Post by **TerahEl** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:10 pm

God and the Devil need each other to exist .

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun May 06, 2007 5:15 pm

spot:-6

You are making a mistake in equating "metaphor" with something that is not true. Metaphor can convey truth and in many cases better than direct speech.

If you are of the opinion that one can describe or define the divine in other than metaphor perhaps you could enlighten me. You could also send out emails to a multitude of scholars.

Shalom

Ted

Post by **spot** » Sun May 06, 2007 5:55 pm

Christianity has a perfectly good metaphor for a constrained powerless God in Christ crucified. Omnipotence has no place at the cross. Omnipotence is the bane of religious understanding, it has no place whatever in any discussion of the divine.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:14 pm

spot:-6

It is in God's weakness that we see His ultimate strength. (John Douglas Hall, "A Theology of the Cross".)

Jesus death on the cross was Rome's answer to God. The resurrection was God's vindication of Jesus.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:11 am

spot;607973 wrote: Christianity has a perfectly good metaphor for a constrained powerless God in Christ crucified. Omnipotence has no place at the cross. Omnipotence is the bane of religious understanding, it has no place whatever in any discussion of the divine.
You seem to imply that being omnipotent necessitates using that power at all times. Can't an omnipotent Creator exercise restraint if he/she chooses?

I can't help but align our relationship to God with a child's relationship to his parents. The good parent often allows his child to make mistakes, even get injured, if he deems it valuable to the child's development. A child often doesn't understand her dad's reasons for his actions (or inactions) and sometimes will call him mean for not giving her what she wants.

In the broader scheme of things, all this evil and destruction - even death - might just be developmental lessons.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:48 am

I rebel against parental gods, that seems the only rational way to grow up.

Yes, an omnipotent Creator can exercise restraint if he/she chooses, it's just that he/she is an evil toerag if he/she behaves that way. I'm trying to distinguish between the traditional attributes of God and Satan in this thread, and for my money Satan wins hands down when it comes to any pretension to morality.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:50 am

spot;608064 wrote: I rebel against parental gods, that seems the only rational way to grow up.

Yes, an omnipotent Creator can exercise restraint if he/she chooses, it's just that he/she is an evil toerag if he/she behaves that way. I'm trying to distinguish between the traditional attributes of God and Satan in this thread, and for my money Satan wins hands down when it comes to any pretension to morality.
Different perspectives, I s'pose.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:07 am

Accountable;608066 wrote: Different perspectives, I s'pose.

If you see it as such. I'm not prepared to forgive any omnipotent God who stands back and allows the death of innocents in natural disasters - the Boxing Day Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 is a good example, any number of children were slaughtered by that. Omnipotence, to me, is a word which demands that God is capable of intervening in the world. What possible good comes from not stepping in under such circumstances? If good and evil have any meaning as words, an omnipotent God who refuses to care enough to protect children in times of disaster isn't good.

By all means accept that God isn't capable of intervening other than through the agency of His creation. I'd buy that. Such a God could certainly be good, but He lacks omnipotence.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:28 pm

Accountable;608052 wrote: You seem to imply that being omnipotent necessitates using that power at all times. Can't an omnipotent Creator exercise restraint if he/she chooses?

I can't help but align our relationship to God with a child's relationship to his parents. The good parent often allows his child to make mistakes, even get injured, if he deems it valuable to the child's development. A child often doesn't understand her dad's reasons for his actions (or inactions) and sometimes will call him mean for not giving her what she wants.

In the broader scheme of things, all this evil and destruction - even death - might just be developmental lessons.

Could you really stands by and watch your child being injured, knowing that you could stop it, just to teach him(her) a lesson?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon May 07, 2007 6:40 pm

spot:-6

One would certainly get that feeling if they took the Bible in any literal sense. Read Numbers 31 for a good example.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 07, 2007 7:07 pm

spot;608073 wrote: If you see it as such. I'm not prepared to forgive any omnipotent God who stands back and allows the death of innocents in natural disasters - the Boxing Day Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 is a good example, any number of children were slaughtered by that. Omnipotence, to me, is a word which demands that God is capable of intervening in the world. What possible good comes from not stepping in under such circumstances? If good and evil have any meaning as words, an omnipotent God who refuses to care enough to protect children in times of disaster isn't good.

By all means accept that God isn't capable of intervening other than through the agency of His creation. I'd buy that. Such a God could certainly be good, but He lacks omnipotence.
I might agree with you if I thought death was a final thing, but I don't. I don't know what's beyond this life. For all I know, this life is our equivalent of learning to crawl and discovering our fingers. My point is perspective.

You may be right. God may be evil and cruel. If so, what's the point of life? If I'm right, the possibilities are wonderful beyond imagining.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 07, 2007 7:12 pm

Bryn Mawr;608522 wrote: Could you really stands by and watch your child being injured, knowing that you could stop it, just to teach him(her) a lesson?
Perspective ... degree. If a child tries to walk and falls on his butt, he thinks he's injured. Depending on the situation ... I think that bears repeating ... depending on the situation, a good parent will let him fall and then will stand by and allow him to get up by himself, proudly cheering at his accomplishment.

So, to answer your question, yes.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon May 07, 2007 8:08 pm

Acc:-6

I am in total agreement with that last comment. My son was a head banger when something didn't go his way. One day this happened and he turned without looking and proceeded to bang his head on the corner of an archway in the house. He knocked himself down rather hard. I bent over him to check that he had not split his head open and seeing that did not happen all I said was "Hurt doesn't it." and then walked away. He got himself up rubbed his head and, I guess, decided that head banging really didn't accomplish much. Actually it was rather funny.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon May 07, 2007 8:10 pm

Acc:-6

When I caught him playing with matches on day my response was different. I'd rather see a red bottom than a burned child. I would do the same with the stove or running out between parked cars.

The trick is to know when and when not to intervene.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon May 07, 2007 8:21 pm

Thinking about the OP leads me to say that God won't stop us from destroying human viability on the earth. Eventually the earth will rebel in one way or another and get rid of us. We won't the the first or last species to be wiped out. We do get what we ask for. Our extinction is well within the realm of possibility.

Shalom

Ted

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 07, 2007 11:37 pm

Accountable;608534 wrote: Perspective ... degree. If a child tries to walk and falls on his butt, he thinks he's injured. Depending on the situation ... I think that bears repeating ... depending on the situation, a good parent will let him fall and then will stand by and allow him to get up by himself, proudly cheering at his accomplishment.

So, to answer your question, yes.

Bad example - falling on your backside is not an injury. Educational certainly but it doesn't qualify as getting injured.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 08, 2007 3:16 am

Bryn Mawr;608561 wrote: Bad example - falling on your backside is not an injury. Educational certainly but it doesn't qualify as getting injured.
Not from our perspective as adults, no. And that's my point. From God's perspective, just how serious is what we call suffering? Is death really all that bad, in the scheme of things? We have no way of knowing for sure. We can only look at the evidence at hand and decide how we wish to view it and react to it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 08, 2007 3:22 am

Ted;608543 wrote: Acc:-6

When I caught him playing with matches on day my response was different. I'd rather see a red bottom than a burned child. I would do the same with the stove or running out between parked cars.

The trick is to know when and when not to intervene.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Right. And you as the father make those decisions based on your knowledge and wisdom, which may be too deep and complicated for your son to even begin to fathom.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:46 pm

Accountable;608596 wrote: Not from our perspective as adults, no. And that's my point. From God's perspective, just how serious is what we call suffering? Is death really all that bad, in the scheme of things? We have no way of knowing for sure. We can only look at the evidence at hand and decide how we wish to view it and react to it.

I've looked and I've decided and I'm with Spot on this. If God knowingly and willingly allows events like the Boxing Day Tsunami when he could prevent them then he's not one I want any part of.

And yes, I can envisage a scenario where, had the Tsuami not happened, one of the little children that died would have been the next Pol Pot but that suggests that his power is so limited that he has no recourse but to massacre innocents by the hundred thousand.

I can even envisage a scenario where, without the Tsunami, mankinds respect for nature would have weakened and we walk into a worse disaster but this also relies on a powerless God without finesse.

I truely believe that you're batting on a sticky wicket here and that disasters of this magnitude and across the board malign nastiness are a strong indicator that the omnipotent, benign God of latter day Christianity does not exist.

The early Judaeo-Christian God of fire and brimstone and bloody vengance maybe. An omnipotent God indifferent to life on Earth maybe, but not the God of love shown in the New Testament.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:03 pm

Accountable;608596 wrote: Not from our perspective as adults, no. And that's my point. From God's perspective, just how serious is what we call suffering? Is death really all that bad, in the scheme of things? We have no way of knowing for sure. We can only look at the evidence at hand and decide how we wish to view it and react to it.A good God can certainly do anything to any individual for that individual's eventual benefit, however mysterious and impossible to understand the process might be. I've not tried to dispute that. I brought the question of wholesale slaughter of children into the thread, though, specifically by a natural rather than human agency. One child might "benefit" in some fashion by an early death before experiencing growth and personal development, but not thousands whose premature end is determined merely by where they happen to live. A God who seeks to build maximal benefit to His creation at the cost of wasting a minority is not good. He may by all means sacrifice Himself but He can't under any circumstances sacrifice the few for the good of the many. Or are we going to pretend that these children weren't real people with real souls and that what we think we see is entirely illusory?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:27 pm

Again, I'm not willing to stipulate that death is the end; therefore, those lives may not have been "sacrificed". I'm under no illusion that I can use logic to convince you of a matter of faith.

Isn't it possible that our good God allowed/brought forth that tsunami specifically for the benefit of those that died?

Post by **spot** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:52 pm

Accountable;609263 wrote: Again, I'm not willing to stipulate that death is the end; therefore, those lives may not have been "sacrificed". I'm under no illusion that I can use logic to convince you of a matter of faith.

Isn't it possible that our good God allowed/brought forth that tsunami specifically for the benefit of those that died?

Only if one's prepared to say that death was the best possible route for all of those children who died, without exception, and not the best possible route for all of those children elsewhere in the world who didn't, again without exception. That the division of children geographically also isolated those who would benefit from an early death seems less likely than that the event wasn't determined by their interest.

It is so much simpler to say there's no God capable of intervening in the Tsunami process. It allows God to be at least potentially good. It just accepts that He isn't omnipotent. Why is insisting on the traditional view of God as omnipotent such an essential bit of baggage to hang onto?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:56 pm

It really comes down to the question of free will or being an automaton. We cannot have it both ways. Either we want God, if you so believe, to but out and leave us our free will or we only want Him to intervene when **** is about to fly.

Most folks I know choose free will.

As for a definition or description of the divine even 6600 years ago folks refused to try accepting that the divine is beyond human understanding. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 08, 2007 11:53 pm

Accountable;609263 wrote: Again, I'm not willing to stipulate that death is the end; therefore, those lives may not have been "sacrificed". I'm under no illusion that I can use logic to convince you of a matter of faith.

Isn't it possible that our good God allowed/brought forth that tsunami specifically for the benefit of those that died?

No!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 09, 2007 7:28 pm

Bryn Mawr;609314 wrote: No!
:wah:

Post by **spot** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:31 am

Far Rider;613732 wrote: why is death seen as bad for those who passed in some sort of natural disaster or otherwise?Most of the children who died in the tsunami weren't Christians, and presumably some of those who were Christian weren't sufficiently good ones to qualify for admission to heaven. Death, for them, is the gateway to eternal damnation and torment.

My emphasis so far has been on the unselective nature of natural disasters. I can't see any way in which those culled by the Lord were also those who would benefit from an early death. If we all would, presumably the disaster should have been more wide-ranging.