Interventionist God

Zombrex

The response to the Japanese Earthquake raised a some what interesting question as to whether or not it is a particularly Christian notion to believe in an interventionist God, particularly if that intervention is in the form of something considered negative.

I have heard it said from some Christian friends of mine that since Jesus God is not really interested in big Old Testament style interventions, either positive (parting of the seas) or negative (destruction of Sodom), that since Jesus the issue is really been far more on salvation to the after life.

I was wondering what Christian views on this were, is the large scale interventionist position mainstream or the opposite, or is this just an area where different Christian interpretations differ?

(by interventionist I mean large scale stuff rather than God opening an individuals heart or minor miracles)

---

Just a note, I'm in no way offended or angered or upset by the idea that a Christian might feel this earthquake or any earthquake is an interventionist act of God for some purpose. I feel anyone who claims to be directly offended by that is just being silly. I don't like the idea, but to say I'm offended by someone expressing that idea is nonsense.

We can't have Christian only threads any more but to all non-Christians PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not derail this thread with such responses. There have been quite a few 'Whats your thoughts on this...' threads and as soon as a Chrisitan gives an honest answer they are set upon with faux outrage and anger.

This is just silly baiting in my view, this 'Say something offensive so I can be offended'. Atheists, get over it.

That is NOT the purpose of this thread, if you want to be offended take it to the A&A forum please. This is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to and would be interested to hear from Christians about.

Mods feel free to self destruct this thread if it quickly turns into this, which I hope it won't.

kelly1

Good question. For an atheist, you've quite an interest in the Christianity forum, I must say!

Personally, I don't think God causes disasters and I believe He chooses not to intervene in these situations according to His wisdom.

I don't claim to understand God's reasons but I would speculate that allowing disasters to occur could (or must) result in the salvation of a greater number of souls. God wants everyone to be saved according to the bible.

Let assume that we lived in a world where there was no suffering and people had all their physical needs satisfied. In such a world, why would we bother turning to God? Would we not forget about Him while we lived lives of comfort?

Suffering and situations that get beyond our control often cause us to look to God for help. When we cannot help ourselves and others can't help us, we have to look elsewhere.

Not sure if that answers your question at all?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Good question. For an atheist, you've quite an interest in the Christianity forum, I must say!

Know thy enemy :P

pts

A very interesting question I have also pondered from the A&A side of the fence.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't claim to understand God's reasons but I would speculate that allowing disasters to occur could (or must) result in the salvation of a greater number of souls. God wants everyone to be saved according to the bible.

Would it be fair to say that if this was Gods motivation then a lot of people end up being collateral damage?

Zombrex

pts wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that if this was Gods motivation then a lot of people end up being collateral damage?

Careful..:)

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

The response to the Japanese Earthquake raised a some what interesting question as to whether or not it is a particularly Christian notion to believe in an interventionist God, particularly if that intervention is in the form of something considered negative.

God's 'large scale' intervention in the OT seems centred on the task of raising up a 'holy' line through whom he would deliver a saviour to mankind. I'm sure there were plagues before that series of plagues sent convince Pharoah to let the Israelite go.

Those non-God directed plagues would be general, fall-related (or natural) disasters the likes of which I think are occurring today. In Japan for example.

Naturally, God is in control (by activity/inactivity) so all disasters can be said to be God-sent. But I would distinguish between the specific/purposeful and general/fall-consequential

pts

Wicknight wrote: »

Careful..:)

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to start arguments or lead this thread on a coarse the OP specifically asked us to try to avoid.

I am just curious if kelly1, or any other theist for that matter has pondered the consequences of an interventionist God who intervenes in order to maximize souls saved. I have no problem with a theist holding this view, it might not be what I believe, but I feel that this view is internally consistent (not internally consistent with an omnipotence God, but that discussion is probably not suitable for this thread)

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's 'large scale' intervention in the OT seems centred on the task of raising up a 'holy' line through whom he would deliver a saviour to mankind. I'm sure there were plagues before that series of plagues sent convince Pharoah to let the Israelite go.

Those non-God directed plagues would be general, fall-related (or natural) disasters the likes of which I think are occurring today. In Japan for example.

Naturally, God is in control (by activity/inactivity) so all disasters can be said to be God-sent. But I would distinguish between the specific/purposeful and general/fall-consequential

So do you think that post Jesus God would send an event like an earthquake, flood or plague, or is that period over with?

Boulevardier

This question is less of a problem for me because I am a Deist, that is, someone who believes in a supreme being but not in a busybody "Omnipotent" or "Omniscient" deity.

I can also say that another member of my family gave up mass-going not long after the 2004 tsunami, and I can see more of that happening.

I would consider the idea of mass suffering being imposed on humanity to ebsure that they "turn to God" quite appalling. I would certainly not give my allegiance to any such God.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

So do you think that post Jesus God would send an event like an earthquake, flood or plague, or is that period over with?

I'd reckon it over with for now.

Zombrex

Boulevardier wrote: »

This question is less of a problem for me because I am a Deist
...
I would certainly not give my allegiance to any such God.

As you are not a Christian the question is not really for you. I'm aware that other religions have very different views of natural disasters. I'm only interested in this thread for the Christian view point. Non-Christians need not apply

Fanny Cradock

"Big" interventions are rather rare occurrences throughout the Bible - at least when considered against the time scale of Moses onwards. It is sometimes easy to forget the many generations that span the time of the wandering Hebrews to the time of Jesus.

Reading Luke 13:1-5 I think it is striking that Jesus offers no explanation as to why bad things happen (like towers collapsing on people). There is no attempt at justification. Rather, he focuses upon the need for salvation in the face of the very real possibility that each breath might be our last.

I personally don't know if God still does the "Big" interactions. But things changed after the resurrection and Pentecost, so possibly not.

Boulevardier

Sorry Wicknight, but I do not see why I should go away from this thread on your say-so.

We deists seem to be the only group that both Christians and atheists try to keep away! Figures.

pts

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Reading Luke 13:1-5 I think it is striking that Jesus offers no explanation as to why bad things happen (like towers collapsing on people). There is no attempt at justification. Rather, he focuses upon the need for salvation in the face of the very real possibility that each breath might be our last.

That was a very interesting passage I am not familiar with. Please stop me if I am misinterpreting the passage (I am not much of a Biblical scholar unlike many of the fine folk on this forum ) but isn't Jesus essentially saying that there is not necessarily causation between people sinning and natural disasters?

PDN

pts wrote: »

That was a very interesting passage I am not familiar with. Please stop me if I am misinterpreting the passage (I am not much of a Biblical scholar unlike many of the fine folk on this forum ) but isn't Jesus essentially saying that there is not necessarily causation between people sinning and natural disasters?

Yes, I think that is what He's saying.

In Old Testament times there was much more of a group solidarity thing going on. Nations as a whole tended to worship their own deities, and people were much less likely to go against the flow. Also, God's activity was primarily centered upon a nation (albeit with occasional outsiders drafted in such as Rahab or Ruth).

So, if the nation of Israel sinned, then the whole nation got judged. If another nation oppressed Israel then that nation came under judgment.

But, since Jesus, God's people have been scattered among unbelievers. I don't see that since Jesus there has ever been anything that could genuinely be described as a 'Christian nation' or even a 'Christian city'. I do certainly believe God can and will intervene - but not on a grand scale against an entire city or nation.

Fanny Cradock

pts wrote: »

That was a very interesting passage I am not familiar with. Please stop me if I am misinterpreting the passage (I am not much of a Biblical scholar unlike many of the fine folk on this forum ) but isn't Jesus essentially saying that there is not necessarily causation between people sinning and natural disasters?

Something Pat Robertson would do well to understand.

Fanny Cradock

Read the charter, conor_ire.

pts

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Something Pat Robertson would do well to understand.

Amen

I don't want to steer the thread too far from the original discussion but I just can't understand how someone like Pat Robertson can possible blame natural disasters on feminism, gays, pacts with the devil etc as
that passage seems to be very clear verbatim quote from the most authoritative figure in the Bible.

It always amazes me that american neo-conservatives can read the same source material (the Bible) and come up with such a different interpretation.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

The response to the Japanese Earthquake raised a some what interesting question as to whether or not it is a particularly Christian notion to believe in an interventionist God, particularly if that intervention is in the form of something considered negative.

I will say with 100% certainty that it IS Christian to believe God is interventionist.

I have heard it said from some Christian friends of mine that since Jesus God is not really interested in big Old Testament style interventions, either positive (parting of the seas) or negative (destruction of Sodom), that since Jesus the issue is really been far more on salvation to the after life.

My two cent. I don't know of anything that suggests that God no longer intervenes in such a manner. Thats not to say that this means that all the disasters etc is God intervening neither. Nor does it mean he's directly intervened in the last 2000 years. All I'm saying is that I know not of any biblical basis to believe that he can't, doesn't or won't.

A few details.

The Bible would suggest that prophecy would come before a direct judgement from God. Noah and the flood, Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah and Ninevah (A judgement that didn't come to pass, as Ninevah actually paid heed and changed their ways) and the fall of Israel to Babylon. It would seem to me, that the next direct judgement, will be the final judgement, I.E Armageddon. This will be the final day of reckoning for the whole of the earth and also the judging of those who have passed. Just like other judgements, it has been preceeded with prophecy. Some directly from Jesus according to the Gospels, and some in Revelation through John. Revelation 11 may also be interpretted to mean that 2 prophets are yet to come before the great judgement, and when we see the power these prophets will alledgedly posess, we can write off all these phoney ten-a-penny 'prophets' we see pop up around the place who have nothing but words.

The likes of the Japan disaster etc, always seems to bring up what I like to call the 'hindsight prophets'. There is absolutely no reason to consider such things as judgements. This whole concept of after the incident prophecy, totally goes against what we see revealed in previous judgements.

Again, thats my present opinion on the topic.

kelly1

pts wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that if this was Gods motivation then a lot of people end up being collateral damage?

I want to make it very clear that this is speculation on my part. I don't know why God allows natural disasters to occur. But I may speculate that it might result in the salvation of souls somehow.

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.

We will never know the answers to these questions this side of death.

Zombrex

Boulevardier wrote: »

Sorry Wicknight, but I do not see why I should go away from this thread on your say-so.

We deists seem to be the only group that both Christians and atheists try to keep away! Figures.

I didn't say go away, I said any answer to the question from you is irrelevant as you are not a Christian, therefore you view is not going to educate me or anyone else to what the Christian position is. If I asked what was it like in Spain this time of year and someone said Canada is lovely I would have a similar response

kelly1

Boulevardier wrote: »

I would consider the idea of mass suffering being imposed on humanity to ebsure that they "turn to God" quite appalling. I would certainly not give my allegiance to any such God.

Who said anything about suffering being imposed? If God exists and is omnipotent, then clearly He allows disasters to happen. I'm not saying that He causes them.

pts

kelly1 wrote: »

I want to make it very clear that this is speculation on my part. I don't know why God allows natural disasters to occur. But I may speculate that it might result in the salvation of souls somehow.

I understand that you are speculating and appreciate your input to this interesting question.

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.

When you say sin are you talking about original sin? Fanny Cradock pointed to an interesting passage, LUKE 13:1-5 where Jesus seems to imply that natural disasters are not necessarily the result of sin, or at least not proportional to the amount of sin committed.

kelly1

pts wrote: »

When you say sin are you talking about original sin?

No, I mean actual sin e.g. abortion. If we all did God's will, I'm sure God would protect us from "natural evils". But we don't always do His will and there are negative consequences to our sinful actions. Probably personal, national and global consequences.

pts

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I mean actual sin e.g. abortion. If we all did God's will, I'm sure God would protect us from "natural evils". But we don't always do His will and there are negative consequences to our sinful actions. Probably personal, national and global consequences.

Fair enough, wouldn't natural disasters (tsunami, financial crisis etc) seem like a rather blunt way of punishing and also go against LUKE 13:1-5 though?

Fanny Cradock

pts wrote: »

When you say sin are you talking about original sin? Fanny Cradock pointed to an interesting passage, LUKE 13:1-5 where Jesus seems to imply that natural disasters are not necessarily the result of sin, or at least not proportional to the amount of sin committed.

There is at least one incidence in the NT (in Acts I think) that record God's judgement on two individual. The results weren't good for them. However, the distinction here is between the judgement placed upon an individual and the corporate judgement of a nation or whatever as asked in the OP.

By way of clarification, some people would suggest that death and suffering are the result of sin in a fallen world. (I happen to agree with this with the addition of a few provisos.) Which is distinctly different from the idea that some or all of the deadly earthquakes we experience is a result of God's judgement. Indeed, it seems to me that Christianity is at heart about a God who is in redeeming creation.

pts

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is at least one incidence in the NT (in Acts I think) that record God's judgement on two individual. The results weren't good for them. However, the distinction here is between the judgement placed upon an individual and the corporate judgement of a nation or whatever as asked in the OP.

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.

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

(by interventionist I mean large scale stuff rather than God opening an individuals heart or minor miracles)

Would God differentiate between small and 'large' scale stuff. It's not like doing something large would be harder for Him than doing something 'small'. I can't see any reason why if He does 'small' stuff He wouldn't do 'large' stuff too. I could understand the argument that He does neither or does both, but not that He does one and not the other.

PDN

strobe wrote: »

Would God differentiate between small and 'large' scale stuff. It's not like doing something large would be harder for Him than doing something 'small'. I can't see any reason why if He does 'small' stuff He wouldn't do 'large' stuff too. I could understand the argument that He does neither or does both, but not that He does one and not the other.

The differentiation would be more precision/broad brushstroke stuff. The 'large' stuff Wicknight referred to (earthquakes etc) would inevitably mean innocent people being zapped as collateral damage.

For example, I would have no problem with God zapping Fred Phelps with a hear attack, but I would have a problem with the idea of Phelp's entire town getting zapped with a tornado.

Keylem

This might be of some interest. Akita, Japan.




Second Message on August 3, 1973

"My daughter, my novice, do you love the Lord? If you love the Lord listen to what I have to say to you."

"It is very important. You will convey it to your superior."

"Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates."

"In order that the world might know His anger, the Heavenly Father is preparing to inflict a great chastisement on all mankind. With my Son, I have intervened so many times to appease the wrath of the Father. I have prevented the coming of calamities by offering Him the sufferings of the Son on the Cross, His Precious Blood, and beloved souls who console Him and form a cohort of victim souls. Prayer, penance and courageous sacrifices can soften the Father's anger. I desire this also from your community, that it love poverty, that it sanctify itself and pray in reparation for the ingratitude and outrages of so many men. Recite the prayer of the Handmaids of the Eucharist with awareness of its meaning: put it into practice: offer (whatever God may send) in reparation for sins. Let each one endeavour, according to capacity and position, to offer herself entirely to the Lord."

"Even in a secular institute prayer is necessary. Already souls who wish to pray are on the way to being gathered. Without attaching too much attention to the form, be faithful and fervent in prayer to console the Master."

Third and the Last message on October 13, 1973:


". . . if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests."
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."
"The demon will be especially implacable against the souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them."
". . . Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved."


http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Akita.htm

irishh_bob

kelly1 wrote: »

I want to make it very clear that this is speculation on my part. I don't know why God allows natural disasters to occur. But I may speculate that it might result in the salvation of souls somehow.

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.

We will never know the answers to these questions this side of death.

i find the above post very offensive , are you american by any chance

the above post suggest that those in africa for example who are dieing of hunger ,are so because of sin they have commited , therefore one must assume that the richest country in the world , america , is also the most virteous

irishh_bob

Boulevardier wrote: »

This question is less of a problem for me because I am a Deist, that is, someone who believes in a supreme being but not in a busybody "Omnipotent" or "Omniscient" deity.

I can also say that another member of my family gave up mass-going not long after the 2004 tsunami, and I can see more of that happening.

I would consider the idea of mass suffering being imposed on humanity to ebsure that they "turn to God" quite appalling. I would certainly not give my allegiance to any such God.

such a god would be no different to a gaddaffi or a hussein , love me or il kill you

id rather go to hell

Soul Winner

irishh_bob wrote: »

id rather go to hell

Assuming He exists and assuming He created you, wouldn't it be worse if He decided to make you nothing more than a robotic worshiper of Him without given you a choice on the matter? That you have the freedom to choose between Him or hell is a freedom that is bestowed on you by Him in the first place and for that alone He deserves a thank you at least.

Desert Rose

It is more like "love me or you will die" as a natural consequence to choosing wickedness instead of the true God.

himnextdoor

I think that Jesus' story tries to show us that death is not an enemy that cannot be overcome and the resurrection underpins His demonstration of this. Also, the death he endured was a very unpleasant one and He showed by example that even human suffering was not detrimental to your next life.

In a way, He was saying that death is simply a gate through which we must all pass on our way to another life and that there is no need to fear death as we don't fear birth.

For through death, we are re-born.

He then says that He will be at the gate to welcome each of us and that he will be the light that guides the way.

All of this suggests to me that when we die, our souls emerge into a different realm, if you will, and that we have to 'conduct' ourselves to where we will 'reside'.

Now, I think that the 'light' is what's important here; out of all the entities that dwell in that realm, all of whom would 'collect your soul', only one of them has the power to create light.

The other entities will advertise, they will appeal to our weaknesses and many will succumb but all of those who choose to go to the light will will find Jesus. And will be saved.

As far as intervention goes, I think Jesus is saying that it is not how the soul is dispatched that is important, it's the state of the soul when it is dispatched. He understood that this realm is unstable and in a state of turmoil; misfortune is unfortunate but is a consequence of being made of atoms.

I just hope that in general, all the Africans, the Japanese, all of those innocents who have lost their lives because of geography, and for any other reason, that they had been told to go to the light; whatever is is that they call it, I'm sure that they will find Jesus.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Would God differentiate between small and 'large' scale stuff. It's not like doing something large would be harder for Him than doing something 'small'. I can't see any reason why if He does 'small' stuff He wouldn't do 'large' stuff too. I could understand the argument that He does neither or does both, but not that He does one and not the other.

Well I don't want to speak as a Christian, but an interpretation I've heard is that the 'large stuff' are to have more of an effect on the rest of humanity. For example Christians still discuss Sodom and what the purpose of such an event was, so it has clearly effected more than the few thousand destroyed in the city.

Zombrex

irishh_bob wrote: »

i find the above post very offensive

I doubt that, but if you will notice the original post how offensive a Christians view point is to someone else is irrelevant to the question posed in the original post.

Boulevardier

Dear oh dear. This Christian thread is serving to remind me about the awful logic that organised religion can get people into. A God who says "Love me or face the consequences" is hardly a God worthy of anone's real love or allegiance.

If I have to "turn to" God in order to avoid Hell then yes, I will turn to him, but only under duress.

Can any Christian on this thread please answer this point, instead of telling non-Christians to go away?

Zombrex

Boulevardier wrote: »

Dear oh dear. This Christian thread is serving to remind me about the awful logic that organised religion can get people into.

This 'Christian thread' was started by me, a committed atheist and anti-theist. It is a thread asking for honest information from Christians about a subject I didn't know a lot about.

I'm not a mod so I can't make people behave a particular way, but can I ask that we all try and just keep the thread on topic. This isn't a thread for non-Christians to express how horrified they are by Christian belief.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Can any Christian on this thread please answer this point, instead of telling non-Christians to go away?

You haven't really made a point other than to say that you would only follow God under duress. You don't have to 'go away' but I would appreciate it if you could stick on topic. If you want to ask other Christians why they follow God when you wouldn't feel free to start another thread to ask that question.

Boulevardier

I really, really am trying to stick to this thread!

Now, can a Christian please answer my point, which is:

A God who says "Love me or face the consequences" is hardly a God worthy of anone's real love or allegiance.

If I have to "turn to" God in order to avoid Hell then yes, I will turn to him, but only under duress.

Any comments from Christians please?

Fanny Cradock

Boulevardier wrote: »

Dear oh dear. This Christian thread is serving to remind me about the awful logic that organised religion can get people into. A God who says "Love me or face the consequences" is hardly a God worthy of anone's real love or allegiance.

If I have to "turn to" God in order to avoid Hell then yes, I will turn to him, but only under duress.

Can any Christian on this thread please answer this point, instead of telling non-Christians to go away?

That isn't what Christianity teaches. But I don't think you are interested in hearing otherwise.

Zombrex

Boulevardier wrote: »

I really, really am trying to stick to this thread!
..
Now, can a Christian please answer my point, which is:

Asking that question is not sticking to this thread at all.

Your questions about why anyone would worship the god you describe is utterly irrelevant to the question asked in the original post, which was a question about whether Christians believe God still interacts in Old Testament terms with humans.

Please start a separate thread if you wish to ask your off topic question.

Fanny Cradock

Not to say that I don't agree, but please stop modding this thread.

Boulevardier

Wicknight, to me at least, you are becoming almost insufferable.

If others (such as I) wish to come on this thread and develop it in a different direction to what you intended, that is entirely fair. Starting a thread is not the same as owning it.

I am asking Christians to help me to tease out some of what I consider to be the more difficult problems of their interventionist God.

I intend staying on this thread as long as it takes to get some answers.

JimiTime

Boulevardier wrote: »

Wicknight, to me at least, you are becoming almost insufferable.

If others (such as I) wish to come on this thread and develop it in a different direction to what you intended, that is entirely fair. Starting a thread is not the same as owning it.

I am asking Christians to help me to tease out some of what I consider to be the more difficult problems of their interventionist God.

I intend staying on this thread as long as it takes to get some answers.

I'm with Wicknight. He suggested a route, i.e. You could set up your own thread. Of course, you are right, he can't demand you do this, but it would be courteous if you did.

We can't set up 'Christian only' threads etc, but there is a common courtesy we like to abide by in relation to thread requests made in good faith. Its not really a big deal to set up a thread to ask your question is it? Me, as a Christian poster, out of respect for Wicknights request, wont be tackling your question here. Maybe others feel the same, so for your sake, his advice is probably most beneficial to you. Also, everybody will then be happy. You don't want to make people UNhappy on a Friday do you??:)

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Assuming He exists and assuming He created you, wouldn't it be worse if He decided to make you nothing more than a robotic worshiper of Him without given you a choice on the matter? That you have the freedom to choose between Him or hell is a freedom that is bestowed on you by Him in the first place and for that alone He deserves a thank you at least.

Since the New Testament represents a renewed covenant, isn't the old one void?

I think Jesus was saying that the days of fire and brimstone were past and that His father is the God of light and peace.

Isn't the Old Testament largely irrelevant to Christianity?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Isn't the Old Testament largely irrelevant to Christianity?

Nope. Christians believe that the OT points towards the Messiah and is the word of God.

Boulevardier

No, I am not letting that go. A thread is about debate and discussion. I am asking Christians to discuss their belief in an interventionist God, as per the thread title.

I find this a bit surprising:

"Just a note, I'm in no way offended or angered or upset by the idea that a Christian might feel this earthquake or any earthquake is an interventionist act of God for some purpose. I feel anyone who claims to be directly offended by that is just being silly. I don't like the idea, but to say I'm offended by someone expressing that idea is nonsense."

By that statement, I am being called silly. Sorry again, but I think I am hardly sillier than people who do believe it. It may be non-offensive to some, but of course it is a different story with others. Still, I am prepared to avoid statements of offendedness if that is what people want.

Of course trolls may come on to a thread like this to mess it up, but I am plainly not one. I am very disappointed with the inflexible, controlled climate of this thread. It is certainly not what I would consider free or open discussion.

Fanny Cradock

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, I am not letting that go. A thread is about debate and discussion. I am asking Christians to discuss their belief in an interventionist God, as per the thread title.

Firstly, it isn't immediately evident that you are asking anything. A number of people have trotted out some "love me or go to hell" rubbish. You were one of them. I see no attempt to engage with people in on open fashion., which is pretty much the opposite to the OP.

Secondly, this thread isn't about soteriology, heaven or hell. It's about God intervening in the world, specifically in relation to "big" events. If you want to discuss hell, damnation, salvation or anything other than intervention you are free to start another thread. Starting a new thread is a three click process - back, new thread and post - and is not a big imposition.

Boulevardier wrote: »

It is certainly not what I would consider free or open discussion.

It is a discussion with a specific topic. Stick to it or don't post in this thread.

Boulevardier

Wow, Christians can certainly be as unpleasant as anyone else!

I am asking Christians, unpleasant or otherwise, to discuss the hows and whys of divine intervention.

The remarks about hell were in response to superstitious gibberish about God killing large numbers of people because they had sinned, or in order for people to "turn to" him. I am releived to see that this is not the unanimous view.

Fanny Cradock

Again, please stick to the topic. If you aren't going to stick to the OP then don't post in this thread. Start a new thread if you want to debate another topic.