A caring and loving god?

Fanny Cradock

Folks, if you want this thread to stay open then stick by the charter.

mardybumbum

In an attempt to drag this thread back to the topic of theodicy, I shall post this.

He states, that to reconcile the tsunami disaster with a belief in a loving God we must change the way we view god.
We must see him not as the great puppetmaster up in the sky.
Instead, we should see god as being in all things, and who suffers when we suffer.
Surely this version of god is incompatible with the one described in the old testament.
It seems to me that he is trying to hold onto something which he just doesn't believe in anymore.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

He states, that to reconcile the tsunami disaster with a belief in a loving God we must change the way we view god.
We must see him not as the great puppetmaster up in the sky.
Instead, we should see god as being in all things, and who suffers when we suffer.
Surely this version of god is incompatible with the one described in the old testament.
It seems to me that he is trying to hold onto something which he just doesn't believe in anymore.

He is stating what Christians have taught for centuries. But its certainly very apt at Christmas time when Christians tend to think more about the implications of the Incarnation.

Anyone wanting to do some serious reading up on the concept of a suffering God should try out Jurgen Moltmann.

homer911

This might be relevant to the debate - I got this on an email from a friend before Christmas - I have highlighted the bit about Hurricane Katrina. Its an obviously American slant, but still interesting.

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it.It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her ‘how God could let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... Terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem. We said an expert should know what he’s talking about. And we said okay. (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide)

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.


My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

Soul Winner

cooker3 wrote: »

Do you accept genesis as literally true?
If not then what exactly did we or our ancestors do that justified the last x amount of years of god wraths?

We haven't even begun to see God's wrath yet. According to Jesus it will be a time of troubled unparalleled from the beginning. I'm banking on not being around when it hits. God wiped out everyone over 20 years of age in the Old Testament because for 40 years they judged God and put Him on trial and never acted on His Word. God is all merciful BUT you can piss Him off and leave it one day too long to start acting on His promises. Now if like Malty you don't actually believe in God then why all the falter-all about Him being responsible for the tsunami? He would have to exists in order to do that. I don't believe for one minute that God caused that earthquake in order to punish people for their sins and anyone who says He did is an censored!. We screwed this planet up and we are capable of causing many disasters including earthquakes, we can even manipulate the weather for crying out loud.

antiskeptic

mardybumbum wrote: »

Thats exactly the route I intended to take once original sin was mentioned.
So what about those children?
He didn't give them much of a chance to undo their sins.

The usual response to this is that the children haven't sinned so there is no sin for them to undo. If they had sinned (which necessitate conscious, willful act in the face of a knowledge that the action is wrong) then they'd be as guilty as the adults and there is no issue.

Im sorry, but did you just say God died for us?

I did.

And if God is such a prick then why do you worship him?

If you're prepared to rephrase the question so as to remain civil then civil discussion can commence.

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

I don't believe for one minute that God caused that earthquake in order to punish people for their sins and anyone who says He did is an censored!. We screwed this planet up and we are capable of causing many disasters including earthquakes, we can even manipulate the weather for crying out loud.

Even if we could cause earthquakes, God could have stopped it to protect those he supposedly loves.

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Even if we could cause earthquakes, God could have stopped it to protect those he supposedly loves.

He could have also stopped all wars if that is the case. No, God lets man do his thing until the time comes for Him (God) to intervene. As already pointed out in other posts, God is a God of set-times. He will act when the time is right on His calender. This will be in accordance with His feast days or properly translated set-times. Jesus said that unless God had cut those day short no body would have made it Matt 24:22. We have become so technologically advance that we could destroy this earth hundreds of times over. We have the capability to cure all the evils in the world, but we can't do it because we have a bent for evil in our nature as a species, added to that the problem with the Satanic ruler-ship of this world. It is a supernatural problem and only a supernatural solution can sort it out.

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

He could have also stopped all wars if that is the case.

Wars are not classed as Acts of God on insurance forms.

Man does not cause earthquakes or tidal waves.
Your God can do anything, why not protect his people?

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

.

We have become so technologically advance that we could destroy this earth hundreds of times over.

No we aren't even near such a level.

We have the capability to cure all the evils in the world

Depends what you mean by "evils". Many of them are out of our hands for the time being, but then again you don't seem to regard earthquakes as one of them.

antiskeptic

Soul Winner wrote: »

We haven't even begun to see God's wrath yet.

Yet Paul tells us..

Romans 1 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness..

"Is being" indicates the present continuous.

I don't believe for one minute that God caused that earthquake in order to punish people for their sins and anyone who says He did is an censored!.

I wouldn't be inclined to rule it out. Although God could be expected to be killing a number of birds with one stone. We have the possibilities of

- punishing sinners

- disciplining believers (unto death as per Paul)

- taking believers to be with him without that involving discipline (everyone has to die someday - including believers)

- removing those who won't be saved from the scene (everyone has to die someday, including unbelievers).

Assuming that no one enters death without God's say so, implicit or explicit, what does it matter whether that say so occurs via the naturalistic advance of cancer or the supernaturalistic sending of a Tsunami?

irish_bob

mardybumbum wrote: »

I watched a very interesting documentary on Ch4 yesterday evening entitled "TSUNAMI: Where was God?".

A synopsis of the film can be found here and it has even been uploaded to youtube.

Basically, the presenter David Rosenberg talks to Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists and poses the same question; how they reconcile their belief in God(s) with natural disasters that claim thousands of lives.

I would be interested in hearing how the religious on boards can still believe in a god when so many innocent people lose their lives to earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, e.t.c.

The only way in which I have been able to explain it is that if there is a god, it wants to punish innocent people, or it doesnt care about them.

Either way, I dont care very much for it.

my interpretation of god ( if he indeed exists ) from listening to believers over the years is that he is to credit for absolutley everything from winning an oscar , passing your driving test , getting a job promotion or surviving cancer but has nothing to do with it if the opposite happens in all the scenarios i have outlined above

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Wars are not classed as Acts of God on insurance forms.

Well He caused a few wars in Old Testament times. He raised up Gideon in the time of the Judges to defeat the Midianites, He was with David in his battles and commanded that the Israelites enter the land that He promised them in order to conquer it and posses it.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Man does not cause earthquakes or tidal waves.

How do you know?

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Your God can do anything, why not protect his people?

He does protect His people. How do you know if many of these previously impoverished people were not better off dead and with Him in eternity or not? From God's point of view it is better to enter eternal life than to prosper down here. Paul describes death in one of his epistles as a starting point, not an end. If the people who were killed in the 2004 tsunami were really his people (and I don't doubt that they were) then they are with Him now forever. If they weren't then why should He protect them? God will be what He promises to His people including their protector but they must be trusting Him on it. How are we to know how many were doing this at that time? You can't, only God and they know that. The problem with people like you is that you don't actually believe that God exists and you use tragedies like this to put down the faith of people who do. You can't get lower than that IMO. If God exists then He is sovereign and can take life as much as He gives it and He hates people who put Him trial about it. God is a loving God but He will not allow ******* who don't trust in Him to judge him on anything. You either get right with Him or you burn, simple as. In any case I don't believe that God caused that tsunami, I believe it was a result of the many years of abuse that we as a species have put this planet through which caused it.

cooker3

Soul Winner wrote: »

We haven't even begun to see God's wrath yet. According to Jesus it will be a time of troubled unparalleled from the beginning. I'm banking on not being around when it hits. God wiped out everyone over 20 years of age in the Old Testament because for 40 years they judged God and put Him on trial and never acted on His Word. God is all merciful BUT you can piss Him off and leave it one day too long to start acting on His promises. Now if like Malty you don't actually believe in God then why all the falter-all about Him being responsible for the tsunami? He would have to exists in order to do that. I don't believe for one minute that God caused that earthquake in order to punish people for their sins and anyone who says He did is an censored!. We screwed this planet up and we are capable of causing many disasters including earthquakes, we can even manipulate the weather for crying out loud.

I am going back to fundamental idea. We are born sinners, right? Why?
It's always been my understanding of Christianity that it's because of Eve eating the apple which I assume to be the idea of disobeying god (and not the actual eating of the apple) which led to this.
But if you don't think the Adam and Eve story happened literally. Why are we all born sinners?

antiskeptic

cooker3 wrote: »

But if you don't think the Adam and Eve story happened literally. Why are we all born sinners?

Well, it puts us in the position of sliding down the slippery slope to Hell. And to counter that option (it's an option for us because we are not forced to take it) God puts in place a mechanism whereby we can be saved from sliding off the edge of this slope. That mechanism forms the other option.

Heaven or Hell. We effectively decide.

The advantage of this way of doing things is that those who are saved cannot take any credit for saving themselves - anymore than a trout can take credit for it being landed by a fisherman. And because God's way of salvation involved great sacrifice on the part of God, the way is open to man to love God wholeheartedly. And for man to take up his correct hierarchial position before God: under God, but a son.

Other possible systems inevitably involve man placed on a par with God in some way or other. And that just isn't the order of things.

Soul Winner

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Is being" indicates the present continuous.

The tribulation the Great Tribulation is God's wrath which will be poured out on this earth. The wrath that Paul refers to is 'Orgé' which means a slow boil, not the 'Thumos' or explosive wrath that is to come. The reference to it being revealed from heaven has to do with the constellations and the story they have to tell. I recommend that you read E.W. Bullinger's 'Witness in the Stars' and Joseph A Seis' 'Gospel in the Stars'. But if you check here it will give you a good run down on the true meaning of the constellations and what they mean. Revealed from heaven means that God wrote the story of Christ in the stars, starting with Virgo the Virgin and ending with Leo the conquering Lion and coming King. It is revealed from heaven, one only need look up to see it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't be inclined to rule it out. Although God could be expected to be killing a number of birds with one stone. We have the possibilities of

- punishing sinners

- disciplining believers (unto death as per Paul)

- taking believers to be with him without that involving discipline (everyone has to die someday - including believers)

- removing those who won't be saved from the scene (everyone has to die someday, including unbelievers).

Assuming that no one enters death without God's say so, implicit or explicit, what does it matter whether that say so occurs via the naturalistic advance of cancer or the supernaturalistic sending of a Tsunami?

I don't rule it out either but I refuse to believe that the purpose of the 2004 tsunami was simply to kill thousands of already impoverished people. There are many more worthy recipients of death in this world than that and a lot of them are at the higher echelons of society, not struggling daily to make a living in poverty. Blessed are the poor. I agree that nobody dies unless God allows it but that does not mean that it was His will for them to die at that time. Cain killed Able and God allowed that to happen but do you think that it was God's will for it to happen? Satan wrecked Job's life and God allowed that to happen but it wasn't His will or desire that it should happen. If God exists to cause tsunamis then Satan also exists and he isn't just a passive onlooker in this world affairs. He is active and powerful and will use any events in mankind's history to break people's faith in God, including inducing earthquakes which kill thousands of people. That God allows it to happen is His prerogative and His promise is that He will enter in to work His good to them which are the called according to His purposes. God would rather have us die in faith than live in prosperity.

Soul Winner

cooker3 wrote: »

I am going back to fundamental idea. We are born sinners, right? Why?
It's always been my understanding of Christianity that it's because of Eve eating the apple which I assume to be the idea of disobeying god (and not the actual eating of the apple) which led to this.
But if you don't think the Adam and Eve story happened literally. Why are we all born sinners?

Who says we don't believe that the Adam and Eve story happened literally? And it wasn't an apple. The Bible doesn't say what type of fruit it was. And the talking snake as some would have us believe wasn't a talking snake at all, it was a serpent, and its curse was to crawl on its belly, and that curse came after the eating of the fruit hence after the temptation, which means that when it tempted Eve it wasn't in the form of a crawling creature. The Bible just describes it as the most subtle of all the creatures but it was under the control of Satan when it tempted Eve. We have to remember that at the time of temptation they were in an un-falled state. In that state they had dominion over all the earth including the animals. I believe that in this un-fallen state that they could literally communicate with them. Not necessarily in a speaking kind of communication. That is all speculative of course but it cannot be ruled out either. If the story is not true and only metaphor then I'm with Dawkins, Christ died an excruciatingly painful and shameful death because of a symbolic man committing a symbolic sin which is quite rightly barking mad.

antiskeptic

Soul Winner wrote: »

The tribulation the Great Tribulation is God's wrath which will be poured out on this earth. The wrath that Paul refers to is 'Orgé' which means a slow boil, not the 'Thumos' or explosive wrath that is to come. The reference to it being revealed from heaven has to do with the constellations and the story they have to tell. I recommend that you read E.W. Bullinger's 'Witness in the Stars' and Joseph A Seis' 'Gospel in the Stars'. But if you check here it will give you a good run down on the true meaning of the constellations and what they mean. Revealed from heaven means that God wrote the story of Christ in the stars, starting with Virgo the Virgin and ending with Leo the conquering Lion and coming King. It is revealed from heaven, one only need look up to see it.

From whence the idea that the wrath in Romans means a slow boil? And from whence the idea that a Tsunami would be anything other than a slow boil wrath given the wrath to come (where folk beg the mountains to fall down on them).

In Romans 1, Paul ties in the wrath of God with it's finding expression in handing men over to their sin - resulting in headlong falling into depravity - nothing is mentioned about the physical heavens revealing wrath. What possible wrath is revealed to man by the constellations anyway?

I don't rule it out either but I refuse to believe that the purpose of the 2004 tsunami was simply to kill thousands of already impoverished people.

What has already impoverished to do with sinfulness. Or God's wrath being expressed against sinners if that's what he decided to do via Tsunami?

There are many more worthy recipients of death in this world than that and a lot of them are at the higher echelons of society, not struggling daily to make a living in poverty.

Isn't the case that everyone is worthy of death? That all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. On what basis do you judge the one more worthy of death than the other. Besides, death is a blessing to a Christian - no?

Blessed are the poor.

..in spirit. Not material wealth.

I agree that nobody dies unless God allows it but that does not mean that it was His will for them to die at that time. Cain killed Able and God allowed that to happen but do you think that it was God's will for it to happen? Satan wrecked Job's life and God allowed that to happen but it wasn't His will or desire that it should happen.

And God sent a flood which wiped out man, woman and child. Rich and poor. Which leads me to suppose that he wouldn't necessarily refrain from utilising a similar, if smaller, event for his purposes.

If God exists to cause tsunamis then Satan also exists and he isn't just a passive onlooker in this world affairs. He is active and powerful and will use any events in mankind's history to break people's faith in God, including inducing earthquakes which kill thousands of people. That God allows it to happen is His prerogative and His promise is that He will enter in to work His good to them which are the called according to His purposes. God would rather have us die in faith than live in prosperity.

Granted. As you say, you wouldn't rule it out.

Soul Winner

antiskeptic wrote: »

From whence the idea that the wrath in Romans means a slow boil? And from whence the idea that a Tsunami would be anything other than a slow boil wrath given the wrath to come (where folk beg the mountains to fall down on them).

Contrast between Thumos and Orge from Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

"(1) Thumos, "wrath" (not translated "anger"), is to be distinguished from orge, in this respect, that thumos indicates a more agitated condition of the feelings, an outburst of wrath from inward indignation, while orge suggests a more settled or abiding condition of mind, frequently with a view to taking revenge. Orge is less sudden in its rise than thumos, but more lasting in its nature. Thumos expresses more the inward feeling, orge the more active emotion. Thumos may issue in revenge, though it does not necessarily include it. It is characteristic that it quickly blazes up and quickly subsides, though that is not necessarily implied in each case."

antiskeptic wrote: »

In Romans 1, Paul ties in the wrath of God with it's finding expression in handing men over to their sin - resulting in headlong falling into depravity - nothing is mentioned about the physical heavens revealing wrath. What possible wrath is revealed to man by the constellations anyway?

Read the link I gave you and you'll see it, also those two books I mentioned. God's wrath is revealed in the constelation names and the names of the stars that they contain.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What has already impoverished to do with sinfulness. Or God's wrath being expressed against sinners if that's what he decided to do via Tsunami?

Nothing, I just don't believe that God deliberately killed those people out of wrath. I believe He has bigger fish to fry than those poor souls. His wrath is still future tense. But that is not to say that I don't think that He is not capable now of doing this sort of thing. He is, I just don't buy the claptrap that it actually was His wrath on these people's sin. I could be wrong though but I'm entitled to my opinion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't the case that everyone is worthy of death? That all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. On what basis do you judge the one more worthy of death than the other. Besides, death is a blessing to a Christian - no?

Well I could ask the same question. Why do you see these people as being more worthy of death than others? Why single out these folks?

antiskeptic wrote: »

..in spirit. Not material wealth.

Luke 6:20 omits in spirit rendering it poor in general. Maybe its' both?

antiskeptic wrote: »

And God sent a flood which wiped out man, woman and child. Rich and poor. Which leads me to suppose that he wouldn't necessarily refrain from utilising a similar, if smaller, event for his purposes.

Well yes, but that does not mean that He actually did in this case.

cooker3

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who says we don't believe that the Adam and Eve story happened literally? .

I didn't say you didn't but there are Christians that don't believe in it literally. I always wondered how they can believe we are all born sinners . What's the justification

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well, it puts us in the position of sliding down the slippery slope to Hell. And to counter that option (it's an option for us because we are not forced to take it) God puts in place a mechanism whereby we can be saved from sliding off the edge of this slope. That mechanism forms the other option.

Heaven or Hell. We effectively decide.

The advantage of this way of doing things is that those who are saved cannot take any credit for saving themselves - anymore than a trout can take credit for it being landed by a fisherman. And because God's way of salvation involved great sacrifice on the part of God, the way is open to man to love God wholeheartedly. And for man to take up his correct hierarchial position before God: under God, but a son.

Other possible systems inevitably involve man placed on a par with God in some way or other. And that just isn't the order of things.

This doesn't help me understand why we are born sinners.
You seem to be suggesting that without any other intervention that once we are born then we are going to hell.
Why would god design us that way?

Seems to me that designing us as moral and or perfect would be a much more desirable for everyone.

If he had then he/jesus wouldn't have had to make such a painful sacrifice and it also would have ensured everyone alive before his time and after who didn't get exposed to the message would have avoided hell.

antiskeptic

cooker3 wrote: »

This doesn't help me understand why we are born sinners. You seem to be suggesting that without any other intervention that once we are born then we are going to hell. Why would god design us that way?

Suppose Gods ultimate aim is to create beings with whom perfect relationship of highest order is possible. This means a choice to enter that relationship must be given the being (not even God being able to compel a being into relationship of the highest order). Rendering them sinners places them in a position of choice

- remain as you are, a sinner (and you won't enter that relationship)
- don't prevent God changing you from the state of sin (and you will enter that relationship)

Remaining as you are requires an act of will on the part of the person. They must resist God's attempt to save them. And so you have a choice situation set up. Nothing need be chosen for in order to be saved: all men who don't resist change to the bitter end, will be saved. The rest will slide off the edge of that slippery slope

We can't examine things from the view "no other intervention". Man a Hell-bound sinner is but a part of the over mechanism. There exists other intervention.

Why would God design us that way? That answer is contained in the first section of my answer

Seems to me that designing us as moral and or perfect would be a much more desirable for everyone.

If robots is what you're after then I'd agree. God, apparently, wasn't

If he had then he/jesus wouldn't have had to make such a painful sacrifice and it also would have ensured everyone alive before his time and after who didn't get exposed to the message would have avoided hell.

The gospel of God isn't restricted to a time and place. Men before Christ were declared righteous (Abraham springs to mind). Men who've never heard the name Jesus Christ can be saved.

The gospel isn't just "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John". They report on what the gospel is (although being God's words they do have power). God's reach in the work of salvation extends to all men. At all times. Everywhere.

Soul Winner

cooker3 wrote: »

I always wondered how they can believe we are all born sinners . What's the justification.

We are all descended from Adam. When God cursed Adam with death because of his sin that curse included all of us in it because we all come from Adam.

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many" Romans 5:15

Because of Adam God sees us all as sinners and as such we are born in sin separated from God's presence which is the source of life. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are born sinners, born out of fellowship with the source of life and such death will be our portion. But because of what Christ did for us on the cross i.e. taking the curse that was coming to us - death - on Himself, God can now grant life to those who believe in Him. Christ - the second Adam as Paul calls Him - opened the door that was shut because of Adam's sin and to walk through that door you must first accept the following:

1) You are a sinner and in need of God's grace and forgiveness
2) That Christ provided these through His death

If you cannot accept either of these then the message of the Gospel is not for you. That is he basic foundational message of Christianity, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

Turtwig

I'm sorry if this is OT but it is something that bugs me and SW posts reminded me of it.
If God is omnipotent why on earth did He have to come to earth and die for us, surely there was another way?

liamw

Soul Winner wrote: »

We are all descended from Adam. When God cursed Adam with death because of his sin that curse included all of us in it because we all come from Adam.

That's totally immoral. Let's try applying the same logic to something else. Suppose my grandfather commited a murder. Should I be punished just becuase I share his genetic code?

Also, you say we all descended from Adam. I take it you don't believe in evolution then?

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sorry if this is OT but it is something that bugs me and SW posts reminded me of it.
If God is omnipotent why on earth did He have to come to earth and die for us, surely there was another way?

Because of this verse:

"And I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he (Christ) will crush your head, and you will strike his heel (the cross)." Genesis 3:15

The means of salvation will come through the seed of the woman. God decreed that this is how it will be done. The book of Ruth teaches that only one near of kin can redeem a lost inheritance, so in order for God to redeem us (His inheritance) He must first kin Himslef with us and pay the price.

Clearer now? I'm sure here could have been many other way He might have decreed to do it but the simple fact is that He didn't decree to do it any other way.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because of this verse:

"And I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he (Christ) will crush your head, and you will strike his heel (the cross)." Genesis 3:15

The means of salvation will come through the seed of the woman. God decreed that this is how it will be done. The book of Ruth teaches that only one near of kin can redeem a lost inheritance, so in order for God to redeem us (His inheritance) He must first kin Himslef with us and pay the price.

Clearer now? I'm sure here could have been many other way He might have decreed to do it but the simple fact is that He didn't decree to do it any other way.

Nope still not clear.

I asked why didn't He do it a different way. Why did God have to decree it to be like so in Genesis? He's an omnipotent being after all. He could have decreed to save us anyway he liked but he choose to die as a human? Why?

Soul Winner

liamw wrote: »

That's totally immoral.

By who's standards?

liamw wrote: »

Let's try applying the same logic to something else. Suppose my grandfather commited a murder. Should I be punished just becuase I share his genetic code?

No. But when Adam sinned and God cursed him we by default inherited the curse. God cannot allow sin in His presence, it must be dealt with and put away. Although God barred Adam from the source of life, He didn't totally cast him out. He left a place of meeting back to Him. That is the place were Cain and Able gave the offerings to God. There was a designated time and place to offer it, which is why they were together when God accepted Able's and rejected Cain's.

liamw wrote: »

Also, you say we all descended from Adam. I take it you don't believe in evolution then?

I believe that evolution happens and species adapt to changes in their environments. I am not totally sold on the idea that every organism living on earth today came about as a result of natural selection acting on random mutations as Darwinian evolution claims. But even if that was how it came about, I don't see how that contradicts the Genesis account anyway. God said in Genesis: Let us make Adam (not man) in our own image. There is no indication whatsoever that Adam was the first man like creature around.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope still not clear.

I asked why didn't He do it a different way. Why did God have to decree it to be like so in Genesis? He's an omnipotent being after all. He could have decreed to save us anyway he liked but he choose to die as a human? Why?

Because He said to Adam that if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he would die. Death was the penalty. So in order to save Adam and still be consistent to His Word, the penalty of death must be met. He took this upon Himself in Christ.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope still not clear.

I asked why didn't He do it a different way. Why did God have to decree it to be like so in Genesis? He's an omnipotent being after all. He could have decreed to save us anyway he liked but he choose to die as a human? Why?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and he saw that it was good. It is important to note that this is quite distinct from a state of perfection. So, from a biblical perspective, it seems that death and decay were always part of this finite universe, which was certainly the understanding of the earliest Christians. To paraphrase N.T. Wright, creation was understood to be a phased project, and this universe – with or without sin – was never the final step in that project. Indeed, Romans 8:22 speaks of creation groaning and travailing under the pain of childbirth. What Christians like Paul hoped for was (and is) a new heavens and a new earth.

At some point sin entered the world - it doesn't matter how one interprets the Genesis creation accounts - and we became spiritually dead. While no one understands the true nature of sin, I suggest that we can say as a minimum that it is the very antithesis to God's nature. Again, Romans 8 is relevant here, especially verses 18 – 25. Wright again suggests that sin and death and suffering became somehow entwined co-dependants.

God - as understood by orthodoxy – possesses the quality of being perfectly just. If God is perfectly just then he can't simply give our hair a rustle, call us cheeky chappies and send us on our merry way. There is always a price to pay - a reaction to the action, and considering God's nature clashes with nature of sin, it is a logical impossibility - like a square circle - for him not to judge sin. He simply can't let it slide. Fortunately for us God is also perfectly loving, and through Christ offers us redemption should we choose it.

With regards to the original topic, I personally don't see God as being a cosmic bully. Things like earthquakes, cancers and death are a part of this world, and in some bizarre sense they are required for life to exist. For example, without the organic matter from countless organisms, what of fossil fuels and, therefore, what of us?

Why didn't God do creation in a different way? Well, while remembering that Christianity never makes the claim that the universe is perfect, perhaps this world was the best of all possible worlds. Perhaps God is limited by our limitations. I simply don't know.

What Christians believe is that God - through Christ - is a suffering God. He is the God who was there in the aftermath of the tsunami and in the death camps, intimate in our sorrows. Such words might sound insultingly trite in the face of so much death, but perhaps the words of people like Victor Frankl (a survivor of the Nazi death camps), Alexander Solzhenitsyn (former Gulag inmate) and Oz Guinness (lived through the Rape of Nanking) will strike a chord. More than this comforting presence - as profound as it was for some people - Christianity teaches that the resurrection of Christ was the victory over sin and death and suffering, and one day we will all know this.

Finally, here is a talk given by Rev Dr. David Chester on the subject of natural disasters within a Christian context. He attempts to highlight the role that institutional and societal structures play in furthering loss of life within natural disasters.

liamw

Soul Winner wrote: »

By who's standards?

Any reasonable persons standards I would have thought. Do you think it's OK to punish a descendent for something their ancestor did?

No. But when Adam sinned and God cursed him we by default inherited the curse. God cannot allow sin in His presence, it must be dealt with and put away. Although God barred Adam from the source of life, He didn't totally cast him out. He left a place of meeting back to Him. That is the place were Cain and Able gave the offerings to God. There was a designated time and place to offer it, which is why they were together when God accepted Able's and rejected Cain's.

'by default', there's a default setting for inheriting curses?
The rest has nothing to do with my question.

I believe that evolution happens and species adapt to changes in their environments. I am not totally sold on the idea that every organism living on earth today came about as a result of natural selection acting on random mutations as Darwinian evolution claims. But even if that was how it came about, I don't see how that contradicts the Genesis account anyway. God said in Genesis: Let us make Adam (not man) in our own image. There is no indication whatsoever that Adam was the first man like creature around.

It does contradict it becuase if you go back up enough common ancestors, say back to the very first replicator, then you are saying we can call this replicator 'Adam'? Also, why are humans the only species inheriting this 'sin'?