Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interventionist God

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    I'll remember that you said that.
    Please do. It's what I believe.
    If Protestant priests are leading people away from salvation by means of perverting Jesus' word, which is the case as far as Catholicism is concerned, then yes! someone should damn well get 'zapped'.
    OK, if that's how you feel. As for me, I'm much more inclined to let free will operate and to live and let live.
    Whereas an uncorroborated account of a Christian torture victim's experience is evidence of intervention.
    Who said it was evidence? You asked me for an example and I gave you one. You shouldn't ask questions if you're going to get all snotty when someone gives you an honest answer.
    A just and merciful God turns a blind eye to genocide, mass-murder, paedophilia, putting countless mortal souls in jeopardy but reacts violently to prostitution, being Indonesian or Japanese and other such terrible sins?
    No, Christians believe that each and every son will be punished, either in this life or the next. No-one turns a blind eye.

    As for the idea that God reacts violently to anyone being Indonesian or Japanese - now you're just dropping any pretence of rational discussion and resorting to rather silly trolling.
    Either God is not just and merciful or God is non-interventionist. Pick one.
    False dichotomy. Epic fail.


  • Options
    #123
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    How does what help? I'm attempting to put you straight. You asked a question, and you got a answer. Whether you think it was satisfactory or not doesn't mean that you were justified in implying that the provision of an answer was an attempt to close the case.

    I know what you are attempting to do.

    'I heard about someone who heard that...' is not a satisfactory answer and you should have interpreted 'Case closed' as 'Case closed...not'.

    Some on this thread have indicated that they believe that the Japanese are being punished for their sins. Does Christianity stand for xenophobia? Yes, it does in that no Christian here has denounced such a position.

    Evil flourishes where good men do nothing. Did you forget?


  • Options
    #124
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    I know what you are attempting to do.

    'I heard about someone who heard that...' is not a satisfactory answer and you should have interpreted 'Case closed' as 'Case closed...not'.

    It's a perfectly satisfactory answer. You asked for examples of how some Christians believe God still acts in judgement today, and I gave you an example.

    No-one presented it as evidence of anything, or to close any case. So can you stop the muppetry please?
    Some on this thread have indicated that they believe that the Japanese are being punished for their sins.
    Who? I've looked through the thread and I don't see that at all.
    Does Christianity stand for xenophobia? Yes, it does in that no Christian here has denounced such a position.
    As far as I can see just about all the Christian posters on here have said they think what happened was a natural disaster. I think it's a bit much to expect us to denounce a position that no-one appears to be advancing. :confused:
    Evil flourishes where good men do nothing. Did you forget?
    :confused:


  • Options
    #125
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    I know what you are attempting to do.

    'I heard about someone who heard that...' is not a satisfactory answer and you should have interpreted 'Case closed' as 'Case closed...not'.

    Some on this thread have indicated that they believe that the Japanese are being punished for their sins. Does Christianity stand for xenophobia? Yes, it does in that no Christian here has denounced such a position.

    Evil flourishes where good men do nothing. Did you forget?

    If you want to challenge the veracity of PDN's story then go right ahead. However, given the fact that you didn't bother to ask for one jot of further information before declaring the answer you received was an attempt at shutting down the conversation, I think I could be forgiven for being suspicious of your intentions.


  • Options
    #126
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    If you want to challenge the veracity of PDN's story then go right ahead. However, given the fact that you didn't bother to ask for one jot of further information before declaring the answer you received was an attempt at shutting down the conversation, I think I could be forgiven for being suspicious of your intentions.

    I suppose so.

    God made a covenant with His people. I think everyone agrees that that is the case. However, it appears that noone is familiar with the terms of that covenant. Who are God's people? How can the terms of the covenant be so vague as to give rise to so many interpretations?

    If we were to ask God directly, 'Are you an interventionist?' then He could reply with either 'yes', 'no' or 'sometimes', i.e., there is a correct answer.

    Why isn't there an agreed definitive answer to what seems to me to be a simple question?

    Does 'the atonement' only apply to dead people? And how are we supposed to become repentant if our lives are cut short by God's judgement? How are these things reconciled with the covenant?

    These are reasonable questions and are worth consideration with respect to the OP.

    What exactly are the terms of the contract between God and His people? What does he expect from us/them and what should we/they expect from Him?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    OK, if that's how you feel. As for me, I'm much more inclined to let free will operate and to live and let live.

    Me too but I would consider it my duty to warn of the perils in the next world too if I was convicted.


  • Options
    #128
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Me too but I would consider it my duty to warn of the perils in the next world too if I was convicted.

    Me too. We call that evangelism.

    Btw, I'm still waiting to find out which Christians in this thread are supposed to have expressed xenophobia against Japanese people. If you're going to make allegations of that nature then you need to back them up.


  • Options
    #129
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Btw, I'm still waiting to find out which Christians in this thread are supposed to have expressed xenophobia against Japanese people. If you're going to make allegations of that nature then you need to back them up.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Some on this thread have indicated that they believe that the Japanese are being punished for their sins. Does Christianity stand for xenophobia? Yes, it does in that no Christian here has denounced such a position.

    is what I said:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    ALL normal events happen only with His permission: one doesn't fall victim to chance. It may look like chance from our viewpoint, but God had to say Yes before it could happen. Much more for special judgements: He decides what judgement is to fall and when.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No. Just no special, on-going curse like at the beginning. God does intervene - all the time, to bring all things to accomplish His goals. No one dies, not even a sparrow, without His say-so. We are never just victims of chance.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I believe all suffering whether allowed by God or caused by God, is the result of sin. And I'm not saying that God causes suffering! But I do believe that God would not allow suffering if there were no sin.


    pts wrote: »
    I think the OP can be interpreted in a few ways, the way I see it large disasters can be caused (or allowed to happen)
    1. as a corporate judgement, i.e. punishing a geographical or social group for the groups sins
    2. as judgement on a person or smaller group, but where collateral damage occurs.
    3. as the result of the fall, unrelated to sin.
    To me it looks like all three opinions have been expressed in this thread. What I am curious about is how LUKE 13:1-5 (or any other relevant Biblical passage) helps to strengthen or weaken any of these arguments.

    are the type of comment I was referring to.

    To suggest that natural disasters are proof of God's disdain is reprehensible.

    Does Christianity stand for xenophobia? If the God of Christians is associated with the slaughter of non-Christian nations in Divine Judgement then yes, Christianity stands for xenophobia.

    And even though you may disagree, not one of you has challenged that position.


  • Options
    #130
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    You guys need to learn to read. Sheesh!


  • Options
    #131
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    are the type of comment I was referring to.
    None of those are remotely xenophobic (and, if you had bothered to read what he said, pts is an atheist/agnostic).
    And even though you may disagree, not one of you has challenged that position.
    How could we challenge a position that no-one has advanced?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    None of those are remotely xenophobic (and, if you had bothered to read what he said, pts is an atheist/agnostic).

    And none of you put him right.

    If I had made the same statements as pts did you would have been falling over yourselves to 'correct' me.
    PDN wrote: »
    How could we challenge a position that no-one has advanced?

    By comparing your interpretations with theirs; you obviously disagree with the notion that God implements intervention through 'natural disaster'.


  • Options
    #133
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And none of you put him right.

    If I had made the same statements as pts did you would have been falling over yourselves to 'correct' me.

    Get over yourself. pts summed up various options that people could believe without pushing his own view. It came across as a genuine enquiry from someone who wanted to discover what Christians really believe.
    By comparing your interpretations with theirs; you obviously disagree with the notion that God implements intervention through 'natural disaster'.

    But who are you talking about when you say 'theirs'? No-one expressed any view that could remotely be described as xenophobic.

    We really shouldn't be required to go condemning viewpoints which no-one in the thread has expressed on the off-chance that you might be imagining them.


  • Options
    #134
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Get over yourself. pts summed up various options that people could believe without pushing his own view. It came across as a genuine enquiry from someone who wanted to discover what Christians really believe.

    And is none the wiser for it.
    PDN wrote: »
    But who are you talking about when you say 'theirs'? No-one expressed any view that could remotely be described as xenophobic.

    And nor did I say they did. My point is that some Christians think that God is an interventionist and some don't; why is that? Both views cannot be correct and yet there is no discussion between Christians of either camp who seem happy to defer to each other.

    If the Christian position is that the greatest suffering is endured by the greatest sinners and under the auspices of God then Christianity can be accused of condoning xenophobia.

    Although no-one has said specifically that the Japanese are being punished by God, that view can be inferred from one or two of the posts in this thread.
    PDN wrote: »
    We really shouldn't be required to go condemning viewpoints which no-one in the thread has expressed on the off-chance that you might be imagining them.

    He he, that's funny. :) Of course not but one could seek to clarify.


  • Options
    #135
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And is none the wiser for it.
    That would be for him to decide, not you - wouldn't it?

    I think a number of Christians have outlined their opinions in this thread and have tried to answer questions, even if at times the questions have seemed less than genuine.
    And nor did I say they did. My point is that some Christians think that God is an interventionist and some don't; why is that? Both views cannot be correct and yet there is no discussion between Christians of either camp who seem happy to defer to each other.
    As I read the thread I see that Christian posters have largely taken the view that God does intervene in human affairs, but they disagree as to what extent.

    Without intervention there is no Christianity at all, for the very basis of our faith is that God intervened to send His Son to earth.

    One thing that does seem to be agreed by most Christian posters is that the earthquake and tsunami were not specific acts of judgement against the Japanese people.
    If the Christian position is that the greatest suffering is endured by the greatest sinners and under the auspices of God then Christianity can be accused of condoning xenophobia.
    That doesn't appear to be the position of any Christian here - so the xenophobia is more in your own head.
    Although no-one has said specifically that the Japanese are being punished by God, that view can be inferred from one or two of the posts in this thread.
    I don't think it can be inferred by any reasonable person from what Christians have posted in this thread.

    Maybe you should listen to what we're actually saying rather than trying to manufacture contrived arguments?


  • Options
    #136
    yammycat
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭yammycat


    The Christian God is all knowing and all powerful, he created the universe and everything in it, at that moment of creation he knew everything that would ever happen in the life of the universe.
    I don't see how it could be argued that it was not his intent to cause that earthquake in Japan, if it was not his intent it would not have happened. God does not make mistakes or tragic oversights.


  • Options
    #137
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    yammycat wrote: »
    The Christian God is all knowing and all powerful, he created the universe and everything in it, at that moment of creation he knew everything that would ever happen in the life of the universe.
    I don't see how it could be argued that it was not his intent to cause that earthquake in Japan, if it was not his intent it would not have happened. God does not make mistakes or tragic oversights.

    I think you're addressing the issue of theodicy (why God allows bad things to happen) rather than interventionism.

    If you wish to address this in another thread then feel free to do so, but I think you are (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting what many Christians believe about omniscience.

    For many Christians 'omniscience' means that God can see all the possible outcomes in the future, but that He cannot know our choices until we make them.

    Others take a more determinist view, but that is still very different from saying that God intended something to happen. I allowed my daughter to learn to ride a bike, knowing full well that part of that process would inevitably involve her falling off and picking up a few scrapes and bruises. But it would be wrong to say that I intended for her to hurt herself.

    If you wish to discuss these issues, or that of theodicy in general, please start another thread.


  • Options
    #138
    Boulevardier
    Registered Users Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭Boulevardier


    I think that the 2 issues are closely related, and cannot easily be split into 2 threads.

    If God knows something is going to happen, and if he could prevent it happening but does not, then that differs only subtly from saying he is intervening.


  • Options
    #139
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    I think that the 2 issues are closely related, and cannot easily be split into 2 threads.

    If God knows something is going to happen, and if he could prevent it happening but does not, then that differs only subtly from saying he is intervening.

    Moderating Instruction:
    If anyone wishes to discuss theodicy (why God allows bad things to happen) rather than Intervention then please start a new thread or resurrect one of the many previous threads where this has been discussed.

    Thanks.


  • Options
    #140
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    I don't think it can be inferred by any reasonable person from what Christians have posted in this thread.
    Wolfsbane wrote:
    No. Just no special, on-going curse like at the beginning. God does intervene - all the time, to bring all things to accomplish His goals. No one dies, not even a sparrow, without His say-so. We are never just victims of chance.

    = God sanctioned the deaths of the victims of the Japanese earthquake.

    Are you just being obtuse?
    PDN wrote: »
    Maybe you should listen to what we're actually saying rather than trying to manufacture contrived arguments?

    That's my line.


  • Options
    #141
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    You have this remarkable ability to segue from one notion to the other through fixed-view application of the English language. Watch..

    You earlier wrote:
    Although no-one has said specifically that the Japanese are being punished by God, that view can be inferred from one or two of the posts in this thread.

    So: God is inferred to act with the intention of punishing a nation. PDN expresses doubt that anyone has said/implied this in thread. You dig up Wolfsbane..

    Wolfsbane wrote:
    No. Just no special, on-going curse like at the beginning. God does intervene - all the time, to bring all things to accomplish His goals. No one dies, not even a sparrow, without His say-so. We are never just victims of chance.

    Note a) there is no talk of punishment here b) say-so can be by means of positive assent. Or silent inaction. Now watch your switch..

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    = God sanctioned the deaths of the victims of the Japanese earthquake Are you just being obtuse?

    God sanctioning death (by either action or inaction) isn't God punishing anyone for anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Wolfsbane wrote:
    No. Just no special, on-going curse like at the beginning. God does intervene - all the time, to bring all things to accomplish His goals. No one dies, not even a sparrow, without His say-so. We are never just victims of chance.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Note a) there is no talk of punishment here b) say-so can be by means of positive assent. Or silent inaction. Now watch your switch..
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God sanctioning death (by either action or inaction) isn't God punishing anyone for anything.

    sigh! Will they not read?

    God does intervene - all the time.

    No one dies without His say-so. We are never just victims of chance.

    Why did you bring 'inaction' into this? :confused: Intervention cannot be characterised as inaction.

    And if God caused an earthquake somewhere, isn't it reasonable to characterise such an intervention as punishment.


  • Options
    #143
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And if God caused an earthquake somewhere, isn't it reasonable to characterise such an intervention as punishment.

    Not necessarily exclusively.

    1) Believers amongst the dead are being taken home. Far from punishment.

    2) Unbelievers who have exhausted God's attempt to save them are removed. Although punishment awaits, the function of removing them hasn't itself to do with inflicting punishment.

    3) For those who survive, dependence on gods of various hues .. is shaken. Perhaps some will go on to be saved as a (part) result of their experience. Others in other lands might be similarily affected.

    4) Plain punishment for some. A direct one-on-one response to personal evil doing.


    I would envisage multiple facets to God's interventions whenever and whereever they occur


  • Options
    #144
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Not necessarily exclusively.

    But reasonable though. I mean God would hardly 'bless' a nation with an earthquake, would He?


  • Options
    #145
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    double post


  • Options
    #146
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But reasonable though. I mean God would hardly 'bless' a nation with an earthquake, would He?

    Your penchant for taking semantical refuge rears it's head again :)

    Since you can't reason your way to punishment or blessing in every individual persons case you can't reason yourself to a nation blessed or cursed. A nation is a collection of individuals.


  • Options
    #147
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    2) Unbelievers who have exhausted God's attempt to save them are removed.

    But i thought 'repent and you shall be saved' was a pillar of christianity. How could god's attempt to save them ever be exhausted? And what of free will??


  • Options
    #148
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    rockbeer wrote: »
    But i thought 'repent and you shall be saved' was a pillar of christianity. How could god's attempt to save them ever be exhausted?

    We're supposing that no one dies without God's approval. Death then, is the point at which your answer is sealed for eternity. It comes to everyone - so God's attempt must be exhausted for everyone who dies unbelieving.

    Else no one could die unbelieving.


    And what of free will??

    A person is free to reject Gods desire that they "know God and enjoy him forever" (as the theologian summation of God's revealed purpose for man goes)?


  • Options
    #149
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    We're supposing that no one dies without God's approval.

    No we're not. 'We' are assessing god's motivations for death-causing interventions in human lives.

    "isn't it reasonable to characterise such an intervention as punishment?"
    "Not necessarily exclusively."

    Your reply implies acceptance of the term 'intervention', which you will agree is a very different thing to 'approval'.

    So you're suggesting that god denies people their free-will - their opportunity for repentance and salvation - by intervening in a manner that brings their lives to an end prematurely. Of course, if god sanctions all our deaths then free will is in fact meaningless because he decides on behalf of each one of us how much time he's going to give us.

    He's even sicker than I thought. At least if it was down to chance the odds would be the same for each of us. But if he's the one deciding...

    (You can't really and truly believe this stuff can you?)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Death then, is the point at which your answer is sealed for eternity. It comes to everyone - so God's attempt must be exhausted for everyone who dies unbelieving.

    Else no one could die unbelieving.

    But as I say, there's a world of difference between each of us popping off by chance and god actually deciding for each of us individually when our time is up.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    A person is free to reject Gods desire that they "know God and enjoy him forever" (as the theologian summation of God's revealed purpose for man goes)?

    Well maybe. But you're saying god himself decides when we've had enough time to consider our options. I like him less and less, this god of yours.


  • Options
    #150
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Your penchant for taking semantical refuge rears it's head again smile.gif

    In that case:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    1) Believers amongst the dead are being taken home. Far from punishment.

    That's not why 'believers' are killed. The un-believers are cursed and the believers would be 'collateral damage'. All the deaths are a result of punishment.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    2) Unbelievers who have exhausted God's attempt to save them are removed. Although punishment awaits, the function of removing them hasn't itself to do with inflicting punishment.

    Ah, like slapping a child and saying 'wait until I get you home'; the slap doesn't count as punishment. Why does God slap (kill) His children?

    And do I detect a hint of xenophobia?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    3) For those who survive, dependence on gods of various hues .. is shaken. Perhaps some will go on to be saved as a (part) result of their experience. Others in other lands might be similarily affected.

    God 'punishes' them as an example (warning) to us?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    4) Plain punishment for some. A direct one-on-one response to personal evil doing.

    And punishment.

    So when you said 'Not necessarily exclusively' you meant it could be punishment, punishment, punishment or possibly just punishment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And do I detect a hint of xenophobia?

    Moderator Warning
    I'm tired of your trolling. Please count this as your one and only inthread warning. You have been unable to support your baseless and untrue accusations of xenophobia - so give it a rest.

    (From here on in I will only be participating in this thread as a mod, not as a poster.)


Advertisement