Interventionist God

irishh_bob · 17-03-2011 11:30AM

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 · 17-03-2011 04:55PM

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 · 17-03-2011 07:58PM

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

himnextdoor · 17-03-2011 11:55PM

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 · 18-03-2011 12:04PM

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 · 18-03-2011 12:07PM

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 · 18-03-2011 12:19PM

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 · 18-03-2011 12:27PM

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 · 18-03-2011 12:33PM

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 · 18-03-2011 12:42PM

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 · 18-03-2011 12:52PM

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 · 18-03-2011 01:17PM

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

Boulevardier · 18-03-2011 01:29PM

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 · 18-03-2011 01:35PM

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 · 18-03-2011 01:38PM

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 · 18-03-2011 01:45PM

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 · 18-03-2011 01:46PM

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 · 18-03-2011 02:03PM

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 · 18-03-2011 02:15PM

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 · 18-03-2011 02:43PM

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.

Zombrex · 18-03-2011 03:02PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

Apologies

I just hate to see a good thread ruined. I'll leave it in your's and PDN's hands.

strobe · 18-03-2011 03:18PM

PDN wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Hmmm, it wouldn't inevitably mean innocent (are there innocent people in Christianity?) people being collateral damage though. It would only effect who God wanted it to effect and only in the exact way God wanted it to effect them. To argue otherwise would suggest that God is either fallible or not omnipotent.

Boulevardier · 18-03-2011 03:34PM

Good point about Sodom. What exactly are we supposed to think of that?

himnextdoor · 18-03-2011 03:35PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

Do all Christians understand it that way? I thought that the original covenant was with the Jews and the new one was with all mankind.

If the first covenant still stands then the new one is contestable where the first one makes specific promises to a specific nation.

So I respectfully ask, Does

Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

still stand as far as Christians who are not descended from Abraham are concerned? Or have some 'clauses', if you will, been 'struck out', as it were?

I ask this because the New Testament seems to 'encourage' a departure from the old ways which were in keeping with the Old Testament.

Fanny Cradock · 18-03-2011 07:28PM

I think if you really want to explore this area then a book like Simply Christian might be of use to you. Failing that, the author, Tom Wright, gives a talk here about the core concepts of his book, which if memory serves correctly, includes a discussion about how and why Christians interpret the OT in light of the NT. It's a two parter including Q&A.

Desert Rose · 18-03-2011 08:06PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

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?

We all die one way or another whether from a natural disaster or nor, when I said "love me (follow me) or you will die" as natural consequence I meant a spiritual death or hell. It more of rejecting the Holiness of God.. but it is irrelevant to this thread..

himnextdoor · 18-03-2011 08:42PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think if you really want to explore this area then a book like Simply Christian might be of use to you. Failing that, the author, Tom Wright, gives a talk here about the core concepts of his book, which if memory serves correctly, includes a discussion about how and why Christians interpret the OT in light of the NT. It's a two parter including Q&A.

Thank you for that but your views on this are of interest to me.

It just seems to me that an interventionist God who causes 'natural' disasters is more interested in the affairs of mankind than in the souls of mankind.

18-03-2011 09:03PM

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?

My take-I don't believe God ever did.
I believe we're here for the ride.We don't have to take risks that could kill maim or injure us but we're prone to them anyway.Most of the stuff in the Bible is probably a collection of symbolical stories designed to deliver some moral or other as wrote by a human.
The trouble is they're taken literally..too literally for todays world as a lot of the teachings have been side stepped by evolutionary changes in attitude called modernity.

If as is likely we evolved here because of God's will,I expect someone as Brilliant as a God who created all this will have expected/anticipated or at least will have accepted all the changes in his/her experiment.
We're not that brilliant on the other hand so can't grasp why theres no intervention in floods/disasters/illnesses etc.
We're more minded to moan and give out about it or use it as a stick to beat the believers.

Fanny Cradock · 18-03-2011 09:30PM

himnextdoor wrote: »

Thank you for that but your views on this are of interest to me.

Well, I would say that if you are looking for a detailed account of the Christian view (and there are a couple of billion of us so obviously not everyone would agree) then Wright can do a far batter job than I ever could.

himnextdoor wrote: »

It just seems to me that an interventionist God who causes 'natural' disasters is more interested in the affairs of mankind than in the souls of mankind.

Yes, God is interested in the affairs of man because he has in mind (assuming God could be said to have such a thing) certain eschatological ends for creation. Which is another way of saying that God is interested in our affairs precisely because what we do impacts who we are, and who we are matters in the context of new creation.

himnextdoor · 18-03-2011 11:06PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, God is interested in the affairs of man because he has in mind (assuming God could be said to have such a thing) certain eschatological ends for creation. Which is another way of saying that God is interested in our affairs precisely because what we do impacts who we are, and who we are matters in the context of new creation.

Which suggests that God's plan could be derailed depending on how humans behave; is that true?

If it is then isn't God taking a risk by allowing 'free-will' and bearing in mind the apparent importance of 'new creation', is it a justifiable risk?

And can I ask this, when Jesus was alive and spreading the word, did He think that the only way that the population would understand His philosophy would be if great academics interpreted His words for them?

I thought that part of Jesus' draw was in the simplicity of His philosophy; it appealed to the ignorant, the poor, the unrepresented. Did those around Him, those who followed Him and listened to Him have a confused view about His teachings and therefore their faith?

Interventionist God

Comments