Progress

[Kevin Seitzer]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't really get what you're saying. Are you saying that God allows evil, unspeakable, horrific evil, to exist in the world to push real Christians into action against it?

No.

I will have to think about how to explain what I am saying.

[OaklandA's]

I guess I think the moral case for action in response to evil is far stronger in secular humanist thought, where we actually have to do it because it's right, not because it's commanded and because acceptance of G-d and G-d's law will earn us salvation.

I agree with this.

[Gregg]

So I guess you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, which is cool by me. I hope that this flows over to your views on other things touched on in the Bible, like homosexuality.

You like to talk about homosexuality a lot.

I find nothing in the words of Jesus that tells us to treat anybody badly.

[Kevin Seitzer]

In confronting the text, don't we have an obligation to ask ourselves "why?" with regard to G-d's role/behavior in the story?

Hmmm. Maybe? I don't think, though, that the point or the orientation of that story is the way the 21st-century American mind would approach it. It's not about "how does God treat us when we encounter trouble?", which tends to be the question we want answered. I don't think the story is addressing that question, and to make it try to do that tortures it a bit too much.

[heyelander]

If you are referring to things like greed and laziness, then I think they are called out in most religions.

yeah, I really wasn't speaking to Christianity specifically or even religion generally. Just saying that it may be a view of the ramifications of the sinful nature of man that causes bad things to happen to innocent people.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I guess I think the moral case for action in response to evil is far stronger in secular humanist thought, where we actually have to do it because it's right, not because it's commanded and because acceptance of G-d and G-d's law will earn us salvation.

But that's not the Christian belief, and I don't think the Jewish one, either. It's a question of whether one wants to join with God in a crusade to destroy evil and resurrect good where it appears to have been completely stamped out and obliterated. That includes within our own lives as well as in the world surrounding us.

If it's just about commands and obedience, that's like the black-and-white, 13-inch TV version of God's full-screen, full sound IMAX movie.

[Kevin Seitzer]

That's because homosexuals are constantly persecuted in the name of Jesus and your Bible

That is a great evil.

[heyelander]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't really get what you're saying. Are you saying that God allows evil, unspeakable, horrific evil, to exist in the world to push real Christians into action against it?

Your question makes it seem like G_d is creating the circumstances as tests where most of the circumstances you speak of are man made. I think what Kevin is saying is that God's answer to unspeakable, horrific evil is to call real Christians, or people in general to action against them. You are the answer. G_d's more senior management I guess, setting goals and mission statements and allowing his employees the authority to make decisions about how to do their jobs.

[regular-guy]

Religions can be assembled, Scientology is the best example that comes to mind, and that is 100% anchored in the crazy. Mormonism is another modern example. All religion is a construct, made by men, the same as philosophy. The key is to author and define the content, which is exactly what was done in both those examples. Why is it that you "believers" can accept that other religions are wrong/false/misguided, but not put the same analysis towards your own? How are the "founding fathers" of John, Luke, Matthew and Mark different than L Ron Hubbard or Robert Smith?

You have a valid question, and i probably don't have a satisfactory answer for you--but i'll give you my reasoning on how this issue is settled with me on a personal basis. i sort of began to answer this post and one that El Diablo posted at the same time, and decided i should give you a more direct answer so as not to confuse.

First off, these are two very young religions when compared with Judaism and Christianity, Scientology especially.

in all fairness, i haven't examined Scientology in great detail. However, the whole idea of all the space alien stuff is grounded in Hubbard and his own writings (one founder, one writer, one language), who appears to me to have lived in his own science fiction world. Wasn't he a bit of a prankster as well, or am i confusing him with someone else? Anyway, without Hubbard's writings, there isn't a Scientology, just like Joseph Smith and Mormons. There are around 45 writers of the biblical text. There's no archaeology, no additional founders, no previously recorded prophecy fulfilled in Scientology or Mormon writings. The "angel" that dictated the holy text of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith dictated English translation errors of the King James Bible. i guess the angel hadn't gone to seminary to learn Greek? The Bible was not, and is not, presented as God's dictation to man. The Bible records the movement of God over thousands of years, many writers, in different languages and on three continents, supported by irrefutable archaeology that has been found not only by believers but also skeptics. Through all of that, the texts of the 66 books in the Bible do not contradict in any way IF read in textual, cultural and historical context. The Bible is still accepted as a source of history. In regards to Mormonism and Scientology, scholarship outside their respective circles scoffs at their claims of historical "proofs." While there is considerable debate among skeptics about some Biblical historical claims (ex. many years ago historians insisted there was no Hittite empire, only to discover they were wrong), most scholarship agrees that there is substantial historical evidence to support large portions of it. i'm not referring to miracles but names, dates, places, locations, etc. It is most inconvenient to Jews and Christians that Muslims destroyed libraries in their conquests as they moved west, because we will never know what additional historical evidences were destroyed.

Mormons deny it, but it's a proven fact that Mormons did change the writings of the Book of Mormon three times to deal with inconsistencies and embarrassments with the text. i don't know about Scientology. i may be mistaken on this, but i have a fuzzy recollection that The Pearl of Great Price has also been edited for the same reason. If i am wrong on that, i apologize, i don't have that research in front of me. Mormons also claim to have many archaelogical evidences of their faith, but none of them are supported outside Mormon circles. i've read (don't know this firsthand) that the Smithsonian has a form letter denying they support Mormon archaelogical claims--they are asked often enough they need a form letter?

i'm not aware of physical evidence to prove the Biblical texts were ever corrupted (other than misspells, misplaced articles, nothing of substance that changes information). However, there is a lot of evidence that supports that it has never been changed despite the myriad of challenges that have come up over the past two millenia, and probably earlier than that with the Torah. The church had ample reasons over the centuries for changing the text when some discoveries and/or theological challenges came about, but they didn't. Instead, once traditionalists died, they discovered the scriptures supported new scientific discoveries. The Christian church in the West is beginning to undergo a form of reformation, and i hope that it continues. Finally, even evolution and pyschology theories have changed (evolved? adapted?) a bit since they came on the scene with its challenges to teachings of the Bible, but yet the Bible hasn't changed--but theories in evolution and pyschology have.

In addition, i find it too convenient that Joseph Smith (a wandering gypsy), and only Joseph Smith, all alone in the wildnerness, was given the revelation of the Book of Mormon--a book which incidentally seemed to answer "for all time" theological issues that were time specific to the early 1800s.

My understanding of the gospel founders is that they recorded stories to make absolutely certain it would not be corrupted. It was done at a time when there were still many witnesses alive who could have refuted the facts, but didn't. There is no record of it. The argument against this statement is, "Well, the church destroyed them". Well, then they didn't do a good job of it, because there is still ample evidence of gnostic writings and other theological issues that argued against the theology posed in the gospels. The fact that those still exist indicate that the church either is unwilling to eradicate difficulties or is not powerful enough to do so.

i have a guarded hope that the lead codices that have been recently revealed (discovered about 5 years ago) will present some new archaeological evidence to support 1st century Christianity. i'm not about to point to it as evidence until it has been propery vetted by skeptics and believers alike. It's an interesting find, and may provide some breakthroughs. If fake, i hope it is revealed as such soon.

[Gregg]

Even if you believe that death is not a big deal, I don't see any justification for the suffering that so many experience while they are alive. In many cases, death is greatly preferable, but I don't understand why God would ever want someone's life to be that way.

I don't have a very satisfying answer to this question. I can tell you I have seen and read about some amazing things that come out of great suffering.

One that comes to mind is a young girl at our church who decided to end her life. She stepped in front of a train. Her legs were cut off and as she was laying there she was ministered to spiritually (I do not recall all of the details and do not want to embellish or misrepresent). The medical community said she would not make it. But she did. Now she is no longer depressed, she is grateful to be alive. She gets attention from the wheel chair and uses it for her testimony. She knows the wheel chair is a consequence of her decision. It is not a punishment. Although some would say she deserved it. She would say God has blessed her.

[regular-guy]

I think what Kevin is saying is that God's answer to unspeakable, horrific evil is to call real Christians, or people in general to action against them. You are the answer.

i agree totally. i am in part to blame, and i'm ashamed of it. It's my fault as a minister and my failures as a minister to lead my people more effectively. i am proud that some good stuff has taken place, but so much more needs to be done, and there are not anywhere near enough workers. If we Christians were truly multiplying and discipling, the world would be a much better place.

However, i disagree with God being an indifferent upper management guy. The scriptures indicate He is always at work, and it's the failure of His people to join Him in His work--and the scriptures also teach that we will be held accountable.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't really get what you're saying. Are you saying that God allows evil, unspeakable, horrific evil, to exist in the world to push real Christians into action against it?

Here's a first attempt at an answer to your question. But first let me say, as I tried to say to Fresno Bob, that the question is a serious, troubling one, and for me to attempt to answer it on a message board is a task for which I'm not sure I am able. However, it is a question so worth struggling with, and one that I continue to engage with throughout my life, that I will try.

I don't know why there is such horrible evil in the world. When I think I have either seen or imagined the worst possible, there is something worse, and something more inexplicable. One thing which I find to be a sobering reminder from the scriptures is the depth and potential of human depravity, the constant occurrence of human suffering, and the depth and difficulty of the questions that leaves us with.

As to the origin of evil, the Jewish scriptures do give us at least two explanations. One is that evil comes from within us--this is seen for example in the story of the temptation in the Garden of Eden (which I'm sure raises a set of questions of its own, but I'll cite it here in support of my point without addressing those questions for the moment)-. The other is that evil comes from outside, that it is caused, for example, by the Accuser (the "Satan") of God's children or the Enemy (the "Devil") of God. Sometimes this enemy is characterized as personal, but often it is treated as an impersonal force much as we today talk about "the economy", "the weather", or "the stock market" as if they were independent actors. However, the scriptures don't really address the ultimate origin of either cause of evil. That's one big reason why I said earlier that the focus in Christian scriptures is not on why evil exists or on its philosophy but rather on what should be done and is being done about it.

Second is a point that Gregg has touched on already, that God does not allow evil to have the final word. What appears to be completely unjust state at the moment where the innocent have been harmed and the guilty have profited is something that is lamented time and again in the scriptures, and God is called on to address it. The pattern that emerges is that God does set and is setting and will set those things right, and that he can raise life from dry bones (as in the prophet Ezekiel), whether in this life or the next life (the next life, btw, in a very real world--not an abstract bodiless "heaven" or an afterlife inhabited by shades as the Greeks proposed).

Then there is a third point which I feel particularly unsuited to try to explain. (Probably this point belongs second in the progression, rhetorically speaking.) However, I believe it's an extremely important point, so I'll include it. God is not primarily presented in either the Jewish or the Christian scriptures as a judge or an omnipotent ruler. He is a first and foremost an intimate lover of the people and creation he has made, and often as such, a wounded, saddened, and rejected lover. Jesus was the personification of this type of god. So when the people hurt and injustice is done or the creation is broken, God too is hurt and broken and saddened and wounded.

[Gregg]

That's because homosexuals are constantly persecuted in the name of Jesus and your Bible, Gregg. What is a pretty damn natural state is pretty clearly laid out as an ABOMINATION, same as eating shrimp.

However, as you choose to ignore the abomination that is eating shellfish, I choose to ignore the rest of your book.

Again you are back to the OT and you didn't finish the line. Gossip is an abomination, killing, stealing, etc. All sin is an abomination.

Persecution is evil. NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. That is direct opposition to what Jesus teaches us.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Your question makes it seem like G_d is creating the circumstances as tests where most of the circumstances you speak of are man made. I think what Kevin is saying is that God's answer to unspeakable, horrific evil is to call real Christians, or people in general to action against them. You are the answer. G_d's more senior management I guess, setting goals and mission statements and allowing his employees the authority to make decisions about how to do their jobs.

Senior management in the sense of the best manager you've ever had or seen. One who figures out how to bring the right pieces into play and how to equip and empower you to do things and that gets down there in the trenches with you and gets his hands dirty and encourages you when the going is tough and sometimes lets you take on something bigger than you ever thought you could do but you find out you can do it and that makes you so excited and pumped to do more and when things fall apart shoulders the blame and helps pick up the pieces and gets things moving again when everyone else has lost hope and who sets the vision that inspires people to be bigger and dream bigger.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Similarly, the story of Abraham being commanded to murder his son bothers me a lot. I cannot reconcile the notions that God commands worship (blind obedience, as in the case of Abraham) but also wishes us to learn from our mistakes via free will. Those things are not compatible.

That story bothers me, too.

Abraham is called righteous because he is willing to murder his own innocent son in cold blood, as if that's some sort of obedience badge.

Abraham is called righteous because he believed God. One of the other biblical authors (the author of the book of Hebrews? I forget) says that Abraham believed that God could raise his son Isaac back to life.

Still doesn't make the story satisfying for me, though.