God inflicted suffering to lead to salvation [Christian spirited only]

Bob_Harris

[Christian spirited responses only]

God is not real. People who believe in God are inferior to me.

Fanny Cradock

Banned for a week.

gramlab

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I understand what point you are trying to make, but perhaps you need to reread my post. I haven't gone out of my way to emphasise the physical suffering of Jesus.

The section I quoted from your post was relating to "thats the way things were done back then" and the crucifixion part of my post related to that.

The suffering part related to Chozometroids posts.

Overall my post was about how I see the trend in posts which emphasises the suffering and death of Jesus as a great act for our benifit, but sees similar suffering inflicted or encouraged by God as something minor and "good" because it's God.


Human on human = bad
Human on Jesus = bad
God on human = dont question, just accept???

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but it was God, not the Hebrews. A few years earlier God had decided to kill people by sending a supernatural flood, the likes of which has never been seen before or since, and soon after that sending his angel to kill the first born as they slept, so the idea that it was the way people killed people in those days is some what irrelevant.

God choose to destroy the neighboring civilizations in this manner, out of all ways available to him (which were basically infinite).

I know your reply was to Fanny, but here are my thoughts on this...

God sent the "angel of death" on the Egyptians to deliver them out of bondage. They weren't in a position to slay their enemies with swords and warfare. They were being saved.
When God's people slew the heathen nations, they were fighting for God, serving as vessels of His wrath for the purpose of purging the land of evil and establishing God's nation.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

You did? Can you repeat that as I've scanned over your previous posts and I can't discern it.

Can't discern it? You keep asking me about it :pac:

See below

Any particular reason ... ?

Wicknight wrote: »

The point of the thread is a discussion as to why God chose a method of destruction that involved suffering.

I'm honest enough to say I don't know, and I've admitted as much from the outset. Yet I fail to see why you think that God should have been compelled to seek a method of destruction that didn't involve some form of suffering. (I can't imagine what that would be, so I assume that it would have to be supernatural in nature.) The concept of a just war and righteous indignation has probably existed since the first group of Homo sapiens took up arms against another group. Perhaps this was the best way given the time and place.

I've already suggested that God isn't primarily (that's an important word) concerned with our temporal bodies or limiting our physical suffering. Rather I think that he is chiefly concerned with salvation.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that I don't believe God exists in the first place I am only looking for a logical theological position if one has one to put forward.

I believe that I have sketched such a logical position. It might not be correct but it is plausible. (That word again!)

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem quite dismissive of that question, I'm not sure why. To me it seems a perfectly valid question to ask.

I probably am. But then again I'm still unsure as to the value of this thread, especially when I have given two possible answers to your question. Firstly, perhaps it had to be this way (cosmic butterfly effect). Secondly, perhaps God saw no reason for them to be made a special case. Instead, if they stood in direct opposition to God and the Israelites, the result was that they died the same way people of any warring army or nation died.

Wicknight wrote: »

My point with that was simply to point out that all manner of death is not the same. It seems then silly to ignore how the Cannanitees died.

I'm not ignoring anything. I recognise that it is a nasty way to go, and I've often struggled with the idea that they had to be killed in the first place. I think a much more difficult question is why didn't God simply reveal himself to the his enemies and turn them into his allies.

Wicknight wrote: »

The reason God choose to hack to death his enemies is because he is too nice to boil them in acid?

Let me try again with this side point. You ponder why God, instead of sending the Israelites to destroy their enemies, didn't seek to minimise their suffering before their deaths. Yet if this is a valid question for you why is the inverse not registering? It was also God's choice not to make them suffer in the most gruesomely painful deaths imaginable - such as your suggestion that they be boiled alive in acid.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

God sent the "angel of death" on the Egyptians to deliver them out of bondage. They weren't in a position to slay their enemies with swords and warfare. They were being saved.

My point is that God is never constrained by circumstance. He isn't a supernatural MacGyver, making the best out of what he has. There is no reason why he couldn't have killed the Egyptians exactly as he killed the Cannanites. The Hebrews being slaves without an army would have been irrelevant. God could have made them into an army in a blink of an eye.

So, assuming God exists, there must have been a reason he choose the each method, why he choose to send his angel to kill the Egyptians, and why he decided to kill the Cannanites through warfare. It wouldn't have been because he had to because the Hebrews were slaves, and then didn't have to because they were an army.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

So, assuming God exists, there must have been a reason he choose the each method, why he choose to send his angel to kill the Egyptians, and why he decided to kill the Cannanites through warfare. It wouldn't have been because he had to because the Hebrews were slaves, and then didn't have to because they were an army.

Actually, the opposite of the part in bold seems perfectly reasonable to me. God was delivering the Hebrews out of the land of Egypt. He used Moses as a representative for Him and His people. When pharaoh didn't agree to let them go, God made him face the consequences, showing His power to both Egypt and His people, until His demands were finally met. It's obvious that this was His chosen method for a purpose, and miraculously turning the Hebrew slaves into an unstoppable army would not have accomplished what He wanted. Perhaps He wanted to show the Hebrews that He was their God and He was delivering them out of bondage. Had they killed the Egyptian army with their own hands, they would've taken all the glory.

The Cannanites presented a different scenario. The Hebrew army had to do this one on their own, perhaps for the purpose of testing their obedience and confidence in God's promise.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Actually, the opposite of the part in bold seems perfectly reasonable to me. God was delivering the Hebrews out of the land of Egypt. He used Moses as a representative for Him and His people. When pharaoh didn't agree to let them go, God made him face the consequences, showing His power to both Egypt and His people, until His demands were finally met. It's obvious that this was His chosen method for a purpose, and miraculously turning the Hebrew slaves into an unstoppable army would not have accomplished what He wanted. Perhaps He wanted to show the Hebrews that He was their God and He was delivering them out of bondage. Had they killed the Egyptian army with their own hands, they would've taken all the glory.

The Cannanites presented a different scenario. The Hebrew army had to do this one on their own, perhaps for the purpose of testing their obedience and confidence in God's promise.

Yes, that is my point.

God would have chosen the particular method to demonstrate his power to the Pharaoh for a particular reason.

He wouldn't have said "Man what I really wish I could do is get those Hebrews to form an army against the Pharaoh, but I can't I'll have to do it this way"

And equally he would have chosen the particular method to destroy the Cannanites for a particular reason. He wouldn't have been constrained by circumstance. He wouldn't be thinking "Man I wish I could find a nicer way of destroying the Cannanites, but I guess this is just the way things are done around these parts"

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can't discern it? You keep asking me about it :pac:

Oh right, sorry I wasn't making the connection between what you said there and being limited in his options.

I don't think that makes much sense, why would God be constrained by a butterfly effect? surely he can tweak things anyway he wants?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yet I fail to see why you think that God should have been compelled to seek a method of destruction that didn't involve some form of suffering.

Well that is a sort of different issue.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've already suggested that God isn't primarily (that's an important word) concerned with our temporal bodies or limiting our physical suffering. Rather I think that he is chiefly concerned with salvation.

But (again) it is illogical to think that God doesn't have a reason for everything he orders. It wouldn't be the case that he would be thinking I want you to destroy the Cannanites and I don't care how you do it. That would be illogical position for an omniscient being. We don't care about things because of the limits of our ability to micromanage stuff. God has no such problem.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that I have sketched such a logical position. It might not be correct but it is plausible. (That word again!)

It doesn't increase understanding though, you just plucked an explanation out of the air. You haven't give any reason for it over any other idea though, or even a logical justification for that it is plausible (see my objections to the idea of God being constrained by a butterfly effect)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You ponder why God, instead of sending the Israelites to destroy their enemies, didn't seek to minimise their suffering before their deaths. Yet if this is a valid question for you why is the inverse not registering? It was also God's choice not to make them suffer in the most gruesomely painful deaths imaginable - such as your suggestion that they be boiled alive in acid.

Yes but it is the same question?

If we know why God choose to do this in this particular way then we know why he didn't choose a way that caused more or less suffering.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, that is my point.

God would have chosen the particular method to demonstrate his power to the Pharaoh for a particular reason.

He wouldn't have said "Man what I really wish I could do is get those Hebrews to form an army against the Pharaoh, but I can't I'll have to do it this way"

And equally he would have chosen the particular method to destroy the Cannanites for a particular reason. He wouldn't have been constrained by circumstance. He wouldn't be thinking "Man I wish I could find a nicer way of destroying the Cannanites, but I guess this is just the way things are done around these parts"

I think God did choose to destroy the Canaanites in a particular way for a particular reason, and that's what I stated in my post.

chozometroid

This thread ultimately fails because we cannot know God's reasons for doing, or allowing things to be, a certain way. It's a cop-out, but it's true. He knows all the factors involved, and we don't. It's not realistic to think we could understand His method and motives behind every given scenario.

Children being slaughtered by God's chosen people doesn't sit well with me, but if we can accept that God can do what He wills with His creation, AND that the children are going to receive a just reward/punishment for their deeds, then the only thing we are really arguing about is why did they have to die by the sword? While Wicknight does seem to be greatly troubled by this question, I really don't see the significance. The same could be said for the "sinless by choice" Jesus Christ. Why did He have to suffer, and not just struck down by God Himself? Was God "constrained" as Wicknight says? Why did "normal people" have to be the ones carrying out the wrath of God on the sins of man?

There's a method behind the madness.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think that makes much sense, why would God be constrained by a butterfly effect? surely he can tweak things anyway he wants?

I'm not saying that he is necessarily constrained, I'm saying that we are.

Let me be clear that I don't wish to place limits on God like is done in open theology. I would take an orthodox view with regards to God's power and knowledge. However, this is somewhat complicated with respect to us insofar as we have been granted certain liberties, specifically freedom of will. (BTW I am not going to get into that debate again. We have all been there numerous times before and I have no desire to revisit it.)

So, with the above in mind, if Christianity teaches that God is to bring about a meta-plan for the redemption of all creation, then Christianity also teaches that we are very much part of it. I'm not saying that God needs us, rather this for whatever reasons is the way he deemed it would be.

The crux of my hypothesis (and that's all it is) hangs on two key aspects of the above paragraph. First: that there is a plan for salvation (indeed, I go as far as to say that it is the salvation of all creation, not just us). Second: how this is to be accomplished while also respecting our overall freedom to choose.

In this regard, I think it quite plausible to suggest that God knows - given the choices we make shape the future - the best (or possibly the only) set of circumstances and interactions that could have given rise to his plan. In other words, perhaps the Israelites had the right characteristics and they were at the right time and place for everything to come together. If Christianity started in China 300 years ago or whatever it would have failed.

To expand on this a little. If one considers that our actions and choices in life (the stuff that shapes our history) are like a series of barriers to God (and perhaps I could come up with a better analogy - I'm not overly happy with it myself) that he must navigate around in order to simultaneously reach the goal and respect our liberties. If he was to ignore our choices or if they were predetermined then freedom of will is just an illusion, and we live our lives stuck on the tracks. Similarly, if there is no plan then there is no Christian hope.

I'm not saying that any of the above must be true. I admit that there are a lot of presuppositions there. It's something that popped into my head very recently, and it could well be chock full of holes. However, you asked for answers and I'm presenting mine to you.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is a sort of different issue.

Given the way the debate between us has gone, I think that it is of interest. If God chose not to minimise suffering then why is his choice not to inflict maximum suffering not all that relevant?

Wicknight wrote: »

But (again) it is illogical to think that God doesn't have a reason for everything he orders.

I don't believe that I ever said that he doesn't have a reason for every action I was under the impression trying to give (guess) a plausible reason. Silly me

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't increase understanding though, you just plucked an explanation out of the air. You haven't give any reason for it over any other idea though, or even a logical justification for that it is plausible (see my objections to the idea of God being constrained by a butterfly effect)

Well, thanks for that analysis. I disagree, though :pac:

I do believe that it increases understanding insofar as it answers your question. But that increased understanding is not necessarily a good guide to truth. Our increased understanding might be built on sand. As for where I got the idea - what has that got to do with anything? Are you telling me you would be happier if it was contained on page 1 of the bible or 1,000 theology books?

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but it is the same question?

Wait! About 3 quotes above you said this was a "different issue". What is it? We have already established that God has "a reason for everything he orders" (your words). I would tend to agree with Chozo when he suggests that this thread fails because we cannot know God's reasons for doing something unless we are told.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given the way the debate between us has gone, I think that it is of interest. If God chose not to minimise suffering then why is his choice not to inflict maximum suffering not all that relevant?

Well you are asking me to judge whether I think what God did was morally correct or not, which is a black hole of a discussion because it just leads to charges from Christian that who am I to judge God, morality comes from God so what ever God does is moral by definition etc etc

So it is rather pointless for me to express an opinion on the morality of what God did. Nor is that the issue here.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that I ever said that he doesn't have a reason for every action I was under the impression trying to give (guess) a plausible reason. Silly me

The impression was given that God doesn't bother than much with how they were killed and therefore neither should we, that the manner they were killed isn't important.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, thanks for that analysis. I disagree, though :pac:

You can't, I forbid it :P

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for where I got the idea - what has that got to do with anything? Are you telling me you would be happier if it was contained on page 1 of the bible or 1,000 theology books?

Well obviously if it was contained in the Bible I would be happier.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Wait! About 3 quotes above you said this was a "different issue". What is it? We have already established that God has "a reason for everything he orders" (your words). I would tend to agree with Chozo when he suggests that this thread fails because we cannot know God's reasons for doing something unless we are told.

Judging the morality of what God did is a different issue to the reason why he did it (and a discussion that is rather pointless given you guys believe that morality itself comes from God, so a morally bad God is an oxymoron)

As for this thread failing the initial question was simply a request for understanding. If it we have not been told or hinted at why God did what he did then that is a satisfactory answer.

Fanny Cradock

I have to be quick...

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you are asking me to judge whether I think what God did was morally correct or not, which is a black hole of a discussion because it just leads to charges from Christian that who am I to judge God, morality comes from God so what ever God does is moral by definition etc etc

It wasn't a specific inquiry about morality. I was trying to highlight that there are two sides to the scale.

Wicknight wrote: »

The impression was given that God doesn't bother than much with how they were killed and therefore neither should we, that the manner they were killed isn't important.

Apologies. I didn't mean to give that impression.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well obviously if it was contained in the Bible I would be happier.

So would I.

Wicknight wrote: »

As for this thread failing the initial question was simply a request for understanding. If it we have not been told or hinted at why God did what he did then that is a satisfactory answer.

Fair enough! While it is made obvious why God ordered their destruction. I don't see his choice of method is as being particularly unusual given the time. If you are looking for answers you either have to say, "OK, that's the way it was because God decided that's the way he decided it" or you can put up with crack-pot hypothesis like mine (most of which are probably more satisfying).