Interventionist God

himnextdoor

I think I have been misunderstood.

Intervention of God against Christians seems inconsistent with both history and the notions of repentance, faith, works, free-will and the Atonement as enshrined by Christianity.

It is conceivable that none invited God's intervention more than Hitler did. Evil acts are performed with impunity every day and God does nothing. Wickedness abounds in this world but where is God?

In fact one could make the argument that God approves of that which we consider most evil and that it is required in the formula for 'new creation'; that Earth is 'designed' as a 'factory' whose main product is 'evil' which is required for eschatalogical purposes.

Now, to me, that makes sense in a perverse way and such a view is borne out by the news, the papers, history.

In other words, intervention is unnecessary for the production of evil. Man will corrupt and destroy of his own volition.

However, if the purpose of this world is to produce 'good' for eschatalogical reasons then intervention is absolutely necessary and ought to be evident everywhere.

But it is not evident anywhere. Dropping bombs on schools and hospitals does no good, only evil; AIDS, famine, disease does nothing to increase the quota of 'good' production; earthquakes and tsunamis do not reduce evil.

The other problem is, does God want us to have faith in Him or does He want us to fear Him? Destroying nations might make me fear Him but if intervention can cause me to believe in God what need is there at all for faith?

yammycat

PDN wrote: »

I think you're addressing the issue of theodicy (why God allows bad things to happen) rather than interventionism.
...
For many Christians 'omniscience' means that God can see all the possible outcomes in the future, but that He cannot know our choices until we make them.

I think thats a different point though as we are talking about an earthquake, not people and their choices, continental plates don't make any choices so there could only have ever been one outcome - an earthquake which was forseen even before creation, God knew before he created the universe that the universe he would create would have an earthquake occuring in Japan at that time.

As far as disasters go if you imply someone intended it to happen people will naturally assume malice, however this doesn't have to be the case as we can't see the whole picture, it could have been an act of great kindness, it's just not possible to know from our vantage point.

PDN

yammycat wrote: »

I think thats a different point though as we are talking about an earthquake, not people and their choices, continental plates don't make any choices so there could only have ever been one outcome - an earthquake which was forseen even before creation, God knew before he created the universe that the universe he would create would have an earthquake occuring in Japan at that time.

As far as disasters go if you imply someone intended it to happen people will naturally assume malice, however this doesn't have to be the case as we can't see the whole picture, it could have been an act of great kindness, it's just not possible to know from our vantage point.

I disagree with you, but that discussion would belong in a thread on theodicy, not this thread.

himnextdoor

yammycat wrote: »

As far as disasters go if you imply someone intended it to happen people will naturally assume malice, however this doesn't have to be the case as we can't see the whole picture, it could have been an act of great kindness, it's just not possible to know from our vantage point.

Good and evil are a matter of perspective though.

Suppose AIDS is the result of a Divine intervention. Africans might consider that evil has befallen them but an increasing population of Westerners may view such an intervention as fortuitous.

himnextdoor

Can I say that the answer to to OP appears to be yes, no and sometimes?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Can I say that the answer to to OP appears to be yes, no and sometimes?

You can say it, but it only makes you look rather silly. Different posters expressing different opinions is sort of the point of an internet discussion forum.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

You can say it, but it only makes you look rather silly. Different posters expressing different opinions is sort of the point of an internet discussion forum.

Pity there's no discussion though.

This thread has demonstrated the vagueness of Bible teaching; there is no consensus between Christians regarding the nature of the same God.

I would have thought that a true Christian would want to tease out what the Bible actually says regarding Intervention.

I would just mention that your superciliousness reflects more badly on you more than it does on me.

Supercilious and rude. :cool:

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Pity there's no discussion though.

This thread has demonstrated the vagueness of Bible teaching; there is no consensus between Christians regarding the nature of the same God.

I would have thought that a true Christian would want to tease out what the Bible actually says regarding Intervention.

I would just mention that your superciliousness reflects more badly on you more than it does on me.

Supercilious and rude. :cool:

Given how you have conducted yourself on this thread and throughout this forum, I can only conclude that your accusation of superciliousness is laughable. Enjoy your forthcoming holiday.

antiskeptic

rockbeer wrote: »

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

Okay..

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

Prematurely suggests 'before the appropriate time'. But who decides on the appropriate time if not God in all cases. What difference whether he removes me at 20 years of age through illness or whether he removes me at 89 years of age thorugh old age. He is still doing the removing.

Free will - in so far as it matters at all - involves your being given the opportunity to respond to God's enquiry on the matter of your relationship (or not) to him. Your answer can be given at age 20 or 30 or 40 or...whatever. If complaining that you need an open-ended timescale for answering then you would have to be permitted to live forever.

Freewill is free to answer God's enquiry of you the postive or negative. Freewill isn't the ability to decide what the enquiry might be or what the consequences of your answer will be.

But as I say, there's a world of difference between each of us popping off by chance and god actually deciding for each of us individually when our time is up.

I'm labouring under notion that nobody dies before God permits so. Not before he's had a final answer to his question that is.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

That's not why 'believers' are killed. The un-believers are cursed and the believers would be 'collateral damage'. All the deaths are a result of punishment.

That's another possibility. But it need not be. Hence my 'not necessarily'

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's another possibility. But it need not be. Hence my 'not necessarily'

Now I know more.

To be clear, is your actual view that God is more of an observer who, from time to time, bestows gifts, answers (reasonable) prayers, etc.?

I mean from a Christian point of view, doesn't it seem reasonable that God's interests would best be served if people thought He didn't cause people to perceive that evil has befallen them, natural disasters, etc., but believed He could save us from them?

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

To be clear, is your actual view that God is more of an observer who, from time to time, bestows gifts, answers (reasonable) prayers, etc.?

It would be my view that God is in far more directive control than even the sending of Tsunami would indicate. I think his direction would stem from the accumulation of countless infinitesimal (and for all intents and purposes, invisible) interventions rather than hammer-blows such as earthquakes and Tsunami's. Direction by a thousand cuts - as it were.

I was listening to a podcast this morning on the iron age and the point was being made that unlike bronze - the production/produce of which is intuitively arrived at, iron production techniques appear to arrive out of a vacuum - there being no concievable manner to intuit your way there.

Now if God was the source of such aha! moments you'd have micro-intervention producing significant directional change. I'm not saying iron production is a case in point - but give it as an example of micro-touch direction.

I mean from a Christian point of view, doesn't it seem reasonable that God's interests would best be served if people thought He didn't cause people to perceive that evil has befallen them, natural disasters, etc., but believed He could save us from them?

I'm not so sure. When it comes to things to be saved from, God's wrath appears to stand at the head of the queue. The Bible tells us that God attempts to convince people of sin, righteousness and judgment - all three of which reflect a persons standing before God.

Conviction that you are standing on the wrong side of the tracks strikes me as a good thing to know. That said, the manner in which 'conviction' occurs appears oblique to the subject of salvation. In my own case (and in the cases of many who've described how it was for them) it was post-the-point-of-salvation that I realised there was a God, was a Hell ... and that I wasn't going there.

Zombrex

himnextdoor wrote: »

Can I say that the answer to to OP appears to be yes, no and sometimes?

I'm ok with that.

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

. If complaining that you need an open-ended timescale for answering then you would have to be permitted to live forever.

LOL. That would be paradoxical: You have to stay alive for as long as you don't believe; if non-believers go to hell then Earth would have to be Hell.

'Permitted'... or cursed?

himnextdoor

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm ok with that.

I can live with it too.

rockbeer

antiskeptic wrote: »

Prematurely suggests 'before the appropriate time'. But who decides on the appropriate time if not God in all cases. What difference whether he removes me at 20 years of age through illness or whether he removes me at 89 years of age thorugh old age. He is still doing the removing.

In an utterly arbitrary way. Some people commit all manner of terrible deeds, yet are allowed live to an old age, dying naturally after being given every opportunity to repent. And in some cases doing so, thus apparently earning their eternal salvation. While other people are swept away at a moment's notice, without warning or adequate opportunity to 'repent' for far milder 'sins', thus apparently being condemned to eternal damnation.

If that is a chance process, then so be it. But if that is by design then what does it tell us about the way you imagine your god to behave?

I would not worship such a being even if you could prove to me conclusively that it existed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Free will - in so far as it matters at all - involves your being given the opportunity to respond to God's enquiry on the matter of your relationship (or not) to him. Your answer can be given at age 20 or 30 or 40 or...whatever. If complaining that you need an open-ended timescale for answering then you would have to be permitted to live forever.

I'm not complaining, just remarking on his whimsical and inconsistent nature. He would appear to have no grasp of moral equivalence, which is kind of funny considering that so many christians seem to need god in order to make sense of a random universe. Isn't celestial justice one of the key principles - that the evil will ultimately be punished and the good be saved? Yet according to you it would appear that the opposite, in some cases at least, turns out to be true, and your god in fact just reflects the inconsistent nature of the universe that we recognize from real life. By your reckoning, he's a great breaker of his own promises.

Just to be clear: it doesn't matter how long he gives me, I will never bend the knee, and if I get the chance (which I obviously won't because thankfully he exists only in the minds of christians) I will give him a piece of my mind.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

LOL. That would be paradoxical: You have to stay alive for as long as you don't believe; if non-believers go to hell then Earth would have to be Hell.


'Permitted'... or cursed?

It would appear that God resolves the paradox by ensuring your answer is given within the timescale of a life.

antiskeptic

rockbeer wrote: »

In an utterly arbitrary way. Some people commit all manner of terrible deeds, yet are allowed live to an old age, dying naturally after being given every opportunity to repent. And in some cases doing so, thus apparently earning their eternal salvation. While other people are swept away at a moment's notice, without warning or adequate opportunity to 'repent' for far milder 'sins', thus apparently being condemned to eternal damnation.

This works when we insert your standards of good/evil in the judgement seat. According to God however, "milder" sin is as worthy of damnation as more "serious" sin.

One way to visualise this is to suppose God's level of holiness as far from the Earth as the moon is. And you and Hitler to be two grains of sand sitting side by side on a beach arguing which of the two of you is closest to the moon. From God's perspective on the moon, both of you look equally far away. Equally sinful.

Installing this standard, could you re-compute?

If that is a chance process, then so be it. But if that is by design then what does it tell us about the way you imagine your god to behave?

I would not worship such a being even if you could prove to me conclusively that it existed.

The problem seems to lie in your not understanding God's holiness. I can't say I grasp the extent of it myself all that well.

I'm not complaining, just remarking on his whimsical and inconsistent nature. He would appear to have no grasp of moral equivalence, which is kind of funny considering that so many christians seem to need god in order to make sense of a random universe. Isn't celestial justice one of the key principles - that the evil will ultimately be punished and the good be saved? Yet according to you it would appear that the opposite, in some cases at least, turns out to be true, and your god in fact just reflects the inconsistent nature of the universe that we recognize from real life. By your reckoning, he's a great breaker of his own promises.

Does ejecting your sense of what deserves condemnation and what doesn't alter anything. If not, could you please point out the inconsistancy in God?

Just to be clear: it doesn't matter how long he gives me, I will never bend the knee, and if I get the chance (which I obviously won't because thankfully he exists only in the minds of christians) I will give him a piece of my mind.

Not bending a knee this side of the grave is your God-given perogative. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord on the other - he'll be simply too stunning to deny when faced head on.

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would appear that God resolves the paradox by ensuring your answer is given within the timescale of a life.

Are you saying that at the point of death, God forces us to choose; that He demands a final answer? That would imply that He kills us to know our decisions.

For instance, suppose God decided to end the life of a young, successful person with everything to live for by means of, say, cancer.

If such a person had faith before the disease, his faith may be shaken by such a thing and he might decide that there is obviously no God whereas if he was hit by a bus, he would die as a man of faith. It's like, if he dies now he goes to heaven but if he dies later he might end up in Hell. That would look as if God was limiting the numbers getting into heaven.

Does God give people cancer in order to see how far they can be pushed, faithwise?

In a way it seems comparable to telling examinees that they have two-hours in which to complete the exam and then arbitrarily deciding to end the exam prematurely for arbitrary students.

It would be, simply put, unjust.

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

This works when we insert your standards of good/evil in the judgement seat. According to God however, "milder" sin is as worthy of damnation as more "serious" sin.

According to God? I must admit to being a little surprised that you would make that assertion; you are saying that God told you that "milder" sin is as worthy of damnation as more "serious" sin?

Did he also tell you that "milder" goodness is as commendable as "greater" goodness?

antiskeptic wrote: »

One way to visualise this is to suppose God's level of holiness as far from the Earth as the moon is. And you and Hitler to be two grains of sand sitting side by side on a beach arguing which of the two of you is closest to the moon. From God's perspective on the moon, both of you look equally far away. Equally sinful.

God can't distinguish me from Hitler? How does that fit in with 'good works'?

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

Are you saying that at the point of death, God forces us to choose; that He demands a final answer? That would imply that He kills us to know our decisions.

I don't see why your answer can't be given well before you die. That said, I don't see why approaching death can't be used as a way of causing someone to examine the question.

For instance, suppose God decided to end the life of a young, successful person with everything to live for by means of, say, cancer.

If such a person had faith before the disease, his faith may be shaken by such a thing and he might decide that there is obviously no God whereas if he was hit by a bus, he would die as a man of faith. It's like, if he dies now he goes to heaven but if he dies later he might end up in Hell. That would look as if God was limiting the numbers getting into heaven.

For the purposes of simple answers to simple questions, the general Christian view is that salvation is like membership of the IRA. Once in, never out.

Does God give people cancer in order to see how far they can be pushed, faithwise?

I would see God testing (in the sense of tempering, annealing, strengthening). And I would see God utilising everyday things that happen to that end. But I wouldn't put it as "God giving a person cancer". I wouldn't see he'd need to - since life tends to bring troubles of it's own.

In a way it seems comparable to telling examinees that they have two-hours in which to complete the exam and then arbitrarily deciding to end the exam prematurely for arbitrary students.

It would be, simply put, unjust.

I agree. I suspect a persons death occurs post-their decision. Whenever their death occurs.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

According to God? I must admit to being a little surprised that you would make that assertion; you are saying that God told you that "milder" sin is as worthy of damnation as more "serious" sin?

Yes.

Did he also tell you that "milder" goodness is as commendable as "greater" goodness?

Commendable in what sense (since there isn't salvation through good works to provide a comparison)?

God can't distinguish me from Hitler?

In terms of a differentiation when it comes to his deciding upon your eternal destination no, he can't tell. Guilty is guilty.

How does that fit in with 'good works'?

It doesn't. Good works don't determine your eternal destination (according to many here - although Donnatello and other One-True-Church Roman Catholics might disagree with that. You could talk to them about it)

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

Commendable in what sense (since there isn't salvation through good works to provide a comparison)?

It doesn't. Good works don't determine your eternal destination (according to many here - although Donnatello and other One-True-Church Roman Catholics might disagree with that. You could talk to them about it)

Ah, it was my understanding that 'good works' was vital to ones salvation.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

Ah, it was my understanding that 'good works' was vital to ones salvation.

Cursory investigation would show that to be true of any world religion and significant cult you care to mention* - but not Christianity.

Welcome to the gospel of grace (gratis/for free). You don't have to do a thing.


* in which the word 'salvation' can be broadened to mean 'a percieved (by the subject) positive afterlife outcome'

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

Cursory investigation would show that to be true of any world religion and significant cult you care to mention* - but not Christianity.

Welcome to the gospel of grace (gratis/for free). You don't have to do a thing.


* in which the word 'salvation' can be broadened to mean 'a percieved (by the subject) positive afterlife outcome'

Therefore it is possible that Hitler is in Heaven? And Jack the Ripper?

But Ghandi went to hell? And Einstein?

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

Therefore it is possible that Hitler is in Heaven? And Jack the Ripper?

But Ghandi went to hell? And Einstein?

Certainly (although imo, Hitler and Jack gives every sign of having passed the point of no return. It would seem that all of God's restraint had been shaken off).

The issue isn't how rotten you are (since we're all too rotten to come into the presence of God), the issue is whether you recognise you're rotten. If Hitler did and sought the only solution God offers - and Ghandi didn't then...

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

Certainly (although imo, Hitler and Jack gives every sign of having passed the point of no return. It would seem that all of God's restraint had been shaken off).

The issue isn't how rotten you are (since we're all too rotten to come into the presence of God), the issue is whether you recognise you're rotten. If Hitler did and sought the only solution God offers - and Ghandi didn't then...

From our conversation over the last couple of days, it appears that God's intervention is redundant!

If God is unable to differentiate sinners (your grains of sand analogy) then 'bombing the beach', so to speak, is a very blunt instrument and has no relationship with justice.

Also, since God leaves no 'calling card' at the scene of intervention, those affected are more likely to attribute interventions to their own gods; an earthquake in India might be attributed to Ganesh, in Iran it might be attributed to Allah and in Ireland it might be attributed to Yahweh.

Therefore interventions are actually useless for the purpose of bringing people to God, that is, the 'correct' God.

Furthermore, if interventions are a means of punishing sin, which has no bearing on salvation, then what divine purpose is being served?

It seems odd that God would make human sacrifices to Himself; that God worships Himself.

In other words, if God's intervention was excluded from the mix then the notion of a 'God's plan' would be more effective in gathering His people. Intervention is likely to frighten people into the arms of the wrong god, to swell the ranks of false religions.

It seems to me that the only way that intervention could be of service to God's will is if there are a limited number of places in Heaven; that salvation was only ever meant to be available to a select few, in which case, intervention would be a way to 'thin out' the list of applicants.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

If God is unable to differentiate sinners (your grains of sand analogy) then 'bombing the beach', so to speak, is a very blunt instrument and has no relationship with justice.

If all on the beach are in essence the same (eg: guilty) then what is unjust about bombing them all. Leave aside our concluding the not guilty also present.

Also, since God leaves no 'calling card' at the scene of intervention, those affected are more likely to attribute interventions to their own gods; an earthquake in India might be attributed to Ganesh, in Iran it might be attributed to Allah and in Ireland it might be attributed to Yahweh.

No matter. The issue is whether or not a person is convinced of "sin, righteousness and judgement" (however that conviction takes legs in the life of the individual) not whether they get their doctrine of God right.

If convinced (by God) and if they cry out for release from the torment that follows conviction then that cry will be heard. It only someone who refuses to be convinced who won't be tormented and who won't cry out to be delivered from that torment.

Consider such a cry an answer to God's question.

Therefore interventions are actually useless for the purpose of bringing people to God, that is, the 'correct' God.

Incorrect (of the Christian God at least) thus. I'll leave responding to further developments you make along that erroneous path.

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

If all on the beach are in essence the same (eg: guilty) then what is unjust about bombing them all. Leave aside our concluding the not guilty also present.

No matter. The issue is whether or not a person is convinced of "sin, righteousness and judgement" (however that conviction takes legs in the life of the individual) not whether they get their doctrine of God right.

If convinced (by God) and if they cry out for release from the torment that follows conviction then that cry will be heard. It only someone who refuses to be convinced who won't be tormented and who won't cry out to be delivered from that torment.

Consider such a cry an answer to God's question.

Incorrect (of the Christian God at least) thus. I'll leave responding to further developments you make along that erroneous path.

So basically you are saying the the world is a 'colony of sinners'; that Intervention is simply God taking random potshots at the Earth and that as far as God is concerned, one sin is indistinguishable from another.

Oh, and that by crying out, we will be rescued.

Kind of like God is trying to make us say 'uncle'.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

So basically you are saying the the world is a 'colony of sinners';

Correct. Saved and lost.

that Intervention is simply God taking random potshots at the Earth

Incorrect. I've already given examples of Gods potential purposefulness. Punishment is one, discipline of believers another, bringing unbelievers to their knees another, taking a believer to glory yet another.

Yet you persist in concluding that which you can't conclude from what I've said. I don't see much point in going in circles with you in this.

and that as far as God is concerned, one sin is indistinguishable from another.

Incorrect. All lost sinners are damned - irrespective of the nature of their sin. In that they are indistinguishable.

Oh, and that by crying out, we will be rescued.

Correct - once the cry is elicted by conviction brought about by God. Not every cry of desparation need be this.

Kind of like God is trying to make us say 'uncle'.

Or Abba (Hebrew, not Swedish)