Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Discussions about the Bible, and any issues raised by Scripture.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Jac3510 »

neo-x wrote:But that is wrong! he may not kill unjustly.
It's not that you're wrong, neo. It's that you're talking about square triangles. You can't measure God's acts in such moral terms. God's acts are the measure of moral terms. If you think you can measure God's acts by moral terms, then the thing you are talking about is not God.
Further I take exception because I know human beings, have the great tendency to think God spoke to them despite the contrary. I further take exception again because to the people he commanded such and such, it was very convenient for them, with the loot/plunder/land and all that.
So they are wrong. Not God. Their actions are wrong. Not God's. What you need to admit is the principle that if God commanded someone to kill, then that killing would be justified.
neo-x wrote:And that is exactly my point Jac, it isn't about what he can or can't do but what he did do? did he told Israel to kill innocent infants?
Yes. He did. Therefore, the killing was justified. Not that God saw the killing was justified and therefore commanded it, but God's command itself justified the killing because God's command itself was and is nothing more than God's own absolutely infinite essence expressed in a command.
Edit: You see Jac, that same scripture usually explains the evil which is the reason why God usually kills someone, from Noah's flood to Soddom and Gomorrah. But in this particular case the indication is quite the reverse, there is no evil factor to kill babies and yet a command is given, and so I wonder why? Now you may trust inerrancy and that may not be your problem as you have said so, and I tend to agree with you. But for me this problem is there, may be you have learnt something I have not. I do know that God may not kill unjustly. I really don't understand a God who can kill unjustly. Is that the God I know or worship? It would be a surprise for me it that is the case indeed.
I would encourage you to be careful of the bolded part. You don't get to dictate to God what He must be to be worthy of your worship, as if He has to meet your puny standards.

As to why God explained the basis of His decision to kill, normally I agree that He does so. Especially in Scripture. And the reason for that ought to be obvious. God wants, in those cases, not merely to pass judgement (although that would be sufficient if He were decide to do that) but He wants us to learn from that judgment. In the Flood, it was fitting for God to kill all because all had been corrupted. It was fitting for God to save Noah because Noah found favor in His eyes. Neither were required, but both were fitting. And so we learn this: do not be corrupted, and seek the favor of God. God is not required, of course, to condemn those who are corrupted nor honor those who seek His favor, but He tells us that He is the kind of God who delights in doing just that. So He wills to do so, not by necessity or rule, but by absolutely sovereign free will (something you and I do not have in the same sense we do).

But by all that, God is not obligated to tell us why He does anything. We are on a need to know basis. So God told us why He commanded Joshua to kill the people. The Canaanites had had 400 years to repent and they didn't. Israel was to be God's instrument of judgment. The destruction was to be total because the judgment was total. But why the children specifically? God doesn't give any answer other than what He already said: the judgment is to be total. And from that, you and I have to bow and simply say amen. It is not our place to judge. It is our place to accept God's decree, call Him God, and not call Him a liar. We bow before the Creator, not the other way around. If He wished to tell us why this particular evil would befall these particular people, He would do so. He decided, though, that we didn't need to know that. And THAT is part of the lesson, now isn't it? I mean, here's a crazy thought. Maybe part of the "reason" (to the extent we can even talk like that) God ordered the killing of the children is precisely so that we could have kind of conversation! Perhaps God was doing something so shocking that the only way to get our minds around it is to a) realize that sin is far worse than we can fathom no matter how hard we try (which should increase our hatred for sin more than it is now) and b) realize that God is far more sovereign than we can fathom no matter how hard we try (which should increase our love for Him more than it is now). Such would not be unprecedented. I see similar themes behind God's command for Abraham to kill Isaac and behind God's allowing Satan to destroy Job. Just a thought . . .
And further we both agree he is under no obligation, yet you believe he preserved his word. You are convinced but where does this conviction comes from? Surely not his word for that is circular reasoning. So what makes you think he preserved his word?
No, I'm not convinced from Scripture. I'm convinced by reason, evidence, and arguments. There is a difference in articles of faith and articles of reason, and much error comes from confusing the two. I can tell you that I am a minority on this (Catholics disagree with me here, for an example), but as far as I can tell, the content of the canon and inerrency itself is an article of reason, not of faith. The preservation of the text--the result of textual criticism--is an article of reason. Now, the doctrine of inspiration is itself an article of faith. But it, in turn, is warranted based on a set of articles of reason, the chief being the resurrection of Christ.

But all that is beside the point. You seem to reject inerrancy because you judge the acts in Joshua to be immoral (and because you think Genesis 1 is wrong). And that's fine. I just think your reasoning circular and, at bottom, idolatrous. I know that's a strong change and may sound emotionally charged, but it isn't. I still love you, man. I don't hold anything against you personally. That's just the category your error fits into--certainly NOT your intentions, I know, but in the final analysis by nature of the claims? Yes, that's the basic problem. y@};-

edit:

Bottom line, neo, you are challenging the very sovereignty and therefore the very nature and therefore the very existence of God. I am aware that is not your intent, and I would fight anyone who said that is your intent. But it is the effect of what you are arguing, and I hope you stop. I hope you simply bow in submission to Him. I hope you continue to be skeptical of the claims of people who say they act in God's name. That's a biblical attitude to have! But I hope that, having so tested them, that you do not judge them by judging God Himself, which is what you are doing here (i.e., God didn't speak to you because God would/could never do such an evil thing!).
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by neo-x »

neo-x wrote:
But that is wrong! he may not kill unjustly.

It's not that you're wrong, neo. It's that you're talking about square triangles. You can't measure God's acts in such moral terms. God's acts are the measure of moral terms. If you think you can measure God's acts by moral terms, then the thing you are talking about is not God.
But that is precisely what I am not saying. I am not measuring God's acts, why? Because God did nothing.

In this instance our issue is inerrancy, to be exact.

1. God didn't write the Bible.
2. God didn't kill the babies.

Both of these acts, don't require God. We only know that apparently God commanded the infants to be killed for no particular reason. God may have a reason but we don't know.
What you need to admit is the principle that if God commanded someone to kill, then that killing would be justified.
For me this is not enough, I am asking why would God command someone to kill babies in the first place? Why not do on his own? Why let soemone cast the first stone? God killing as he chooses to, on his own, does the job pretty well and has done so on many accounts.

I am pretty sure people used to be dumb back then, as I see now too, so what's the difference? What's the margin of error here, how could these people confirm they heard God or heard him right?
Yes. He did. Therefore, the killing was justified. Not that God saw the killing was justified and therefore commanded it, but God's command itself justified the killing because God's command itself was and is nothing more than God's own absolutely infinite essence expressed in a command.
I understand the nuance but I don't agree with the conclusion based on how we see scripture.
I would encourage you to be careful of the bolded part. You don't get to dictate to God what He must be to be worthy of your worship, as if He has to meet your puny standards.

As to why God explained the basis of His decision to kill, normally I agree that He does so. Especially in Scripture. And the reason for that ought to be obvious. God wants, in those cases, not merely to pass judgement (although that would be sufficient if He were decide to do that) but He wants us to learn from that judgment. In the Flood, it was fitting for God to kill all because all had been corrupted. It was fitting for God to save Noah because Noah found favor in His eyes. Neither were required, but both were fitting. And so we learn this: do not be corrupted, and seek the favor of God. God is not required, of course, to condemn those who are corrupted nor honor those who seek His favor, but He tells us that He is the kind of God who delights in doing just that. So He wills to do so, not by necessity or rule, but by absolutely sovereign free will (something you and I do not have in the same sense we do).

But by all that, God is not obligated to tell us why He does anything. We are on a need to know basis. So God told us why He commanded Joshua to kill the people. The Canaanites had had 400 years to repent and they didn't. Israel were to be God's instrument of judgment. The destruction was to be total because the judgment was total. But why the children specifically? God doesn't give any answer other than what He already said: the judgment is to be total. And from that, you and I have to bow and simply say amen. It is not our place to judge. It is our place to accept God's decree, call Him God, and not call Him a liar. We bow before the Creator, not the other way around. If He wished to tell us why this particular evil would befall these particular people, He would do so. He decided, though, that we didn't need to know that. And THAT is part of the lesson, now isn't it?
I appreciate the concern.

The problem partly here is that you now have to appeal to mystery. I don't have to do it. I have a plausible scenario and REASONS why Israel would want to commit genocide.

The idea, that we don't know the reason but there would be one, God didn't tell us, is fine in some instances. But regardless of our difference I think in essence you agree with me that God would not kill unjustly as its against his own self, good will, the way he chooses to act always. Being Just. the sum of his expression, and what he chose that expression to be, a just God.

I appreciate the technicality of God actions being the measure of moral terms but I also don't need to go far and recognize that God is just. That is what the whole debate is about. If he is Just then there is no reason for him to be unjust. Not based on my criteria but on his. Since it is his idea of being just which makes me say that the killing of innocents is wrong.
You seem to reject inerrancy because you judge the acts in Joshua to be immoral (and because you think Genesis 1 is wrong). And that's fine.
No, in this case its a misrepresentation of what my reasons are, I reject inerrancy on verifiable genetic evidence.
I just think your reasoning circular and, at bottom, idolatrous. I know that's a strong change and may sound emotionally charged, but it isn't. I still love you, man. I don't hold anything against you personally. That's just the category your error fits into--certainly NOT your intentions, I know, but in the final analysis by nature of the claims? Yes, that's the basic problem. y@};-
I do appreciate the honest words and let me say there are no hard feelings at all. Personally I don't agree about circular but I do understand why you call it idolatrous. I think there is no other proper term to define it from where you stand and I have no problems with that.
I still love you, man. I don't hold anything against you personally.
The feeling is mutual, you are a beloved brother. y@};-
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Philip »

Jac: "... but as far as I can tell, the content of the canon and inerrancy itself is an article of reason, not of faith. The preservation of the text--the result of textual criticism--is an article of reason."
And the result of textual criticism, the enormous treasure trove of documents, their geographic spread, much of them, their antiquity, reveal that the claims Scripture makes about the preservation of God's Word are TRUE. And IF a God, such as the One described by Scripture, exists, it is illogical to think that He got sloppy with giving, providing, inspiring, preserving, and protecting His Word. Because if THOSE were true, then we should doubt the descriptions and examples of God in Scripture - as they couldn't possibly line up. You just can't take Jesus' testimony from the NT, that the ENTIRETY of the OT is Scripture, and then claim, "Well, I doubt much of the OT - particularly the Creation accounts, various ordered "atrocities," but as for the NEW TESTAMENT, THAT I believe is Scriptural."

To doubt Scripture's integrity is to also doubt God's integrity and His ability to stand behind His Word - to ACTUALIZE His Word, to make it come alive to believers, to see the words of The Prophets and The Law that Jesus came to DIE for its fulfillment is, indeed, TRUE! Is the NT testimony that Jesus validated the OT canon a complete fabrication? Are there hideous lies and defamation of God's Holy Character in the OT, but yet there's not one mention of such in the NT? It all either hangs together or falls together. God gave Scripture in such a way that this is a given. And IF it was known to contain terrible mistakes, fabrications, all blended with mostly, even some, truth - then how could you trust ANY of it? As what you would actually be trusting is your own human ability to know what is God's Word and what is not. But how could you know the differences, as the SOURCES for the information are the very same authoritative composers of the New Testament.
Neo: "No, in this case its a misrepresentation of what my reasons are, I reject inerrancy on verifiable genetic evidence."
That is showing MASSIVE faith in the technical ability of men and current technology to correctly analyze and interpret the data, that how and what they process is completely accurate. And, mind you, this is a process designed and interpreted by mere human beings. Science is forever changing, it's prior understandings often eclipsed by new ones. It's also acknowledging you don't believe Jesus said what He did about Scripture and the OT - a HUGE can of worms. So, again, how do you decide what of Scripture is trustworthy and what is not? Do we REALLY need a Savior? "Yes, well, the NT teaches that." Well, it teaches other things you question and reject - why not THAT?!!! Slippery Slope covered in rajor blades!
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by neo-x »

Philip wrote:
Neo: "No, in this case its a misrepresentation of what my reasons are, I reject inerrancy on verifiable genetic evidence."
That is showing MASSIVE faith in the technical ability of men and current technology to correctly analyze and interpret the data, that they process is completely accurate. And, mind you, this is a process designed and interpreted by mere human beings. Science is forever changing, it's prior understandings often eclipsed by new ones.
No not faith, evidence. Evidence doesn't need faith.

And mind you so is the case with the scriptures, where you are putting your faith in the ability of men and what they had to go on on, analyze what they thought was the voice of God or interpret his commands on their own. And you also believe that the process is completely accurate.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by PaulSacramento »

We can try looking at it this way:
As God is the highest moral authority and all that God does is good and just, would God be justified ( He is but for arguments sake we ask this question) in taking the life ( again knowing what that actually means in the God context and not human context) if the child was a murder? a rapist? indulged in cannibalism or had an active part in doing something that would be viewed as morally horrific?
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by PaulSacramento »

neo-x wrote:
Philip wrote:
Neo: "No, in this case its a misrepresentation of what my reasons are, I reject inerrancy on verifiable genetic evidence."
That is showing MASSIVE faith in the technical ability of men and current technology to correctly analyze and interpret the data, that they process is completely accurate. And, mind you, this is a process designed and interpreted by mere human beings. Science is forever changing, it's prior understandings often eclipsed by new ones.
No not faith, evidence. Evidence doesn't need faith.

And mind you so is the case with the scriptures, where you are putting your faith in the ability of men and what they had to go on on, analyze what they thought was the voice of God or interpret his commands on their own. And you also believe that the process is completely accurate.
Careful Neo, proof does not need faith, evidence does.
Though it can be argued that the faith we put in proof is NOT in the proof but the person presenting it to us IF we can not verify it for ourselves directly.
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Philip »

Neo: No not faith, evidence. Evidence doesn't need faith.
SURE it does! It needs faith that: the evidence is the correct evidence, that it is complete, that what you are measuring it with is accurate, that you've made the correct analysis concerning the evidences, and that you've applied all perfectly.
Neo: And mind you so is the case with the scriptures, where you are putting your faith in the ability of men and what they had to go on on, analyze what they thought was the voice of God or interpret his commands on their own. And you also believe that the process is completely accurate.
NO! I am relying in faith in God to control all related processes of giving, maintaining, preserving, protecting and disseminating HIS Word. Because if God's Word is riddled with the many problems you so assert - WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT GOD???!!! His ability? His integrity? His wanting us to know and understand critical truths? A broken, problematic, unreliable Bible would have to be directly related to a God Who doesn't see the integrity of His Word to be important to Him or us! Please explain how that would not be the case!

And, Neo, I do love you, man, even if I ask very tough questions!
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by RickD »

Simple question:

What is the purpose of scripture?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Philip »

Rick: Simple question:

What is the purpose of scripture?
Again, the perfect avatar face for the essential yet rhetorical Q!
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by RickD »

I think it needs to be asked. If God has a purpose for scripture, wouldn't it seem that He would make sure it fulfills its purpose?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
Nessa
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Nessa »

neo, you don't believe scripture is inerrant?
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Jac3510 »

Neo,

I appreciate you not taking my words to harshly. I don't want to press this too much further, but I'm concerned that some things still might be a bit confused.

First, I don't really see how this is an issue of inerrancy. Suppose you grant that the Bible is inerrant. You are still claiming that "this is not enough, I am asking why would God command someone to kill babies in the first place? Why not do on his own? Why let soemone cast the first stone? God killing as he chooses to, on his own, does the job pretty well and has done so on many accounts." This is where I am pointing out that, whether you intend it or not, you are judging God. But on the flip side, let's say I grant with you that the Bible is not inerrant. Then you reject this passage on this basis that God would never command such a thing. It's just too terrible. So you are still judging God's actions--in this case the action being God commanding the infants be killed. But you say you are not judging God's actios because it never happened--either the Bible is wrong and the whole event is made up/exaggerated or else the Bible is wrong because God never commanded it. But look very closely at what you are doing there. The basis on which you are asseting that the Bible is wrong and that the story is to be rejected is the judgment that such an act--such a command--would be wrong. That's what I'm telling you that you can't do. That's the circularity.

Second, you don't like that I appeal to mystery. You, instead, get to refer to "reasons." But this is exactly what I objected to before when I spoke of you appealing to a theology of necessity. It is this, more than anything else, that I want you to appreciate as the real difference between us. NOT inerrancy. If God acts for "reasons" then such necessarily and inescapably entails a view of God known as theistic personalism or neotheism. Such a view requires one to view God as falling under the genus of "person" or "being" (such that God is a person or a being). And there are MAJOR ramifications, none of them good, for that. One of the biggest is the old Euthyphro Dilemma. But as your example illustrates, you have a deeper problem with Divine Sovereignty. Look at this very closely with me. If God needs reasons to act this way rather than that, then you are saying that God is compelled by something outside of Himself to act in this way rather than that. You are saying that something is influencing God. But that means that God is affected. God is responding to us. That means that God is not the First Cause. That means that He is not Pure Act. That means that He is not Existence Itself. That means that He is mutable. That He is therefore in time. That He is therefore imperfect. That He is therefore caused to be. That He therefore is a contingent being. That He therefore is not God. What you must come to realize is that God doesn't have a "reason" for anything He does. God is completely and 100% absolutely free to act. But it does not therefore follow that His acts are arbitrary (in the English sense of the word). For reasons I won't bore you with (in this post, anyway), we must say that God's acts are identical to Himself--He just is what He does--and what God is and does is Good Itself in Itself. Therefore, by looking at these acts of God, we actually learn something about the nature of good. Therefore, I'm not appealing to mystery. Just the opposite! I'm appealing to the highest intelligibility that there is. I am saying that God is known through His acts. What I am denying is that God's acts can be reduced to some other principles. There is no further reduction, no further reason. The reason is nothing more than God Is. Imean, to even seek a reduction--to ask why God did this or that--is to assume that there is something more fundmental than God, that there is a PSR (a principle of sufficient reason) for what He does. Thus, to even seek such reasons is, again, to make God a contingent reality rather than make Him the absolute and fundamental reality upon which all else is contingent! As an aside, any "reason" we are given, that we talk about, is absolutely nothing more or less than God's explicit interpretation of Himself (that is, His self-revelation) so that we may learn from that Act something of Himself and ourselves. So I invite you to reconsider my words above about Noah.

Lastly, I appreciate your concern for people who claim to speak for God. I appreciate your concern that they may be truly convinced that God has spoken to them. But I just remind you of the obvious fact that just because someone could be and is wrong about some fact, it does not follow that from their confusion that others cannot see that person's confusion as what it is and know the truth for themselves. That's just standard skeptical nonsense. I have no reason not to believe that Joshua received the command from God to kill children and that the biblical authors accurately recorded that fact. I have plenty of reason to think, in fact, that they actually did (so my previous comments on the distinction between articles of reason and faith). At bottom, though, in no case can we read something God supposedly did and have an emotional aversion against it and therefore conclude that it couldn't have come from God. That's not the way this works. It cannot work that way. To say it can is to deny the very essence of God, and that whether you believe the Bible is inspired or not.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Kurieuo »

Nessa wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:
Nessa wrote:Would jac only give that response to someone whose baby just died if he was phyically next to them? Would he not also give it to them on a 'bloody' board?
In principle, of course not, Nessa. But there are practical problems. What my suggested answer I think you are referring to is doing, fundamentally, is validating and providing a comforting presence to the person. Just by the nature of things, though, responses need to be more in the moment, because what you are responding toi
are emotions and thoughts that people are going through right then. A discussion board is ill suited for such a task. Perhaps an IM system like our mini-chat is better for that. Still not perfect, but better. A phone is better still, and in person the best of all.

In fact, there are many times when I don't say anything. I just sit with people, maybe hold their hands, maybe not, while they just cry. Do it everyday. It may sound totally useless, but I promise you there is profound truth in that act (profound enough that deep theologians have discussed what is happening there). But you clearly can't do that on a discussion board.

I want to be very clear here. When dealing with the emotional level of this issue, we aren't just exchanging ideas. We are being with the sufferer. That may not be impossible, but it is much more difficult, on a board, in which what you are basically doing is . . . exchanging ideas.

Make sense?
Yes, what im saying is that a relational response is not dependent on being physically with someone at all. This is not just a logical unfeeling discussion board. You are going to get people talking about all sorts of stuff whether its in pm or chat or a thread. Relational responses do have a place here.

even the smilies have my back on this one :ewink: y:* y:x :heart: :grouphug: :icare: :donotbesad: :consent:

Edit; of course in personal is ideal where you can get hugs etc. But not always possible. And God himself doesn't offer us a physical hug. Thats different i know but it at least shows that relational responses go deeper than the physical.
Well, I disagree with final edit...
God does offer us physical hugs. I get them whenever my kids come and hug me.
And my wife I suppose when we're on good terms. :P Who set this design in place?

Is it wrong that I feel hugged by God when one of my kids just hugs me out of the blue when I'm feeling depressed or down?

And you know, we see God's emphasis on being in relationship with one another in Scripture.
We're told to look towards each other. We keep wanting to look up rather than here, myself included.
But, what is the second greatest commandment? The only possible eternal think I know of here on Earth I'm confident will be in God's Kingdom are us -- humanity -- in some form.

In a manner of speaking then, after Luke who records Jesus, you want to look to the kingdom of God then look a little closer to yourself:
  • Luke 17:20-21 -- 20Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Philip »

OK, God did and also commanded certain things in Scripture that seem, to us, on the surface, to be wrong.

Let's parse some things - and under the assumption that what is written is factual, as to God's actions or commands.

One is, obviously, God IS His own and ONLY standard.

If a MAN did some of things God did, it WOULD be sin. Why? Because there are somethings that ONLY God has a right to do. And we are not God!

God CAN but DOES NOT do or cause evil: "His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4); "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13); "... for God cannot be tempted 2by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." (James 1:13)

So, God says He does no evil. He also does not cause the temptations that lead to evil acts. He does, however, manipulate evil actions and intentions of others for His good purposes. He is sovereign over ALL living, all of their actions, and ALL outcomes. Everything is subject to Him and He is the ONLY standard that matters.

If God says He tempts no one to evil acts, this tells me that He also will not ever command anyone to do what is evil FOR THAT MAN. But obeying GOD'S command is allowing oneself to be used has His instrument as instructed. This takes the action commanded out from under the moral responsibility for the action commanded, as the action God desires is His responsibility - the one so commanded would only be responsible for being obedient to God's command. So, God COULD command a man to do something that for that man to obey would be righteous. But if that man did the same act on his own accord, it (depending upon whatever that might be), it may very well be a sinful thing, as only certain things can be done by God (I'm speaking of those things God has made unlawful unless He commands otherwise).

All of the above tells me that when God did something or commanded something in Scripture that we can't understand, that at least SEEMS to be unthinkable or evil, certainly for US, and perhaps seemingly for God, we know that this can never be the case. Because God says He ONLY ever acts in righteousness. So, we are left with (as Jac referenced): 1) Either the Scripture is untrue/unfactual/made up; 2) We misunderstand it somehow (lack of translation clarity, obscure cultural reference of the time, it's too difficult to know for certain, etc; 3) Or God's purposes for the action are unknowable to us - and likely, are ALWAYS going to be unlikely to be understood by us. I think, if we accept God's Holy Character and power is as Scripture reveals, then we're realistically only left with the answers almost certainly lying somewhere within numbers 2 and 3. All that to say, ultimately, we must trust our Lord to 1) be what and how He says He is, and 2) that whatever He has done is righteous and for ultimately the best eternal purposes as so deemed by the Lord.

What I think is a terrible response to these difficult passages is to simply dismiss it as NOT being true and accurate (in whatever way that it truly was/is), or to assert, "This can't be true because God would never _________________" - you fill in the blank. I just think it is the height of arrogance to claim such, given our puny understandings of present things, much less eternal ones!
User avatar
Nessa
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

Post by Nessa »

Kurieuo wrote:
Well, I disagree with final edit...
God does offer us physical hugs. I get them whenever my kids come and hug me.
And my wife I suppose when we're on good terms. :P Who set this design in place?

Is it wrong that I feel hugged by God when one of my kids just hugs me out of the blue when I'm feeling depressed or down?

And you know, we see God's emphasis on being in relationship with one another in Scripture.
We're told to look towards each other. We keep wanting to look up rather than here, myself included.
But, what is the second greatest commandment? The only possible eternal think I know of here on Earth I'm confident will be in God's Kingdom are us -- humanity -- in some form.

In a manner of speaking then, after Luke who records Jesus, you want to look to the kingdom of God then look a little closer to yourself:
  • Luke 17:20-21 -- 20Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
I don't think there is anything wrong at all feeling hugged by God when your kids hug you etc. I'd say it was a good thing :esmile:

And I love my kids hugs etc especially from my five year old (when he's not telling me how much he hates me forever :shock: )who still feels like my baby BUT i'd be lying if I said it was enough. I have dreams where at times I'm hugging someone or being around someone and I'll feel a feeling I have never felt before. Maybe what ku feels like when he hugs his family.. but a feeling of absolute pure happiness that almost feel like it must be drug induced or something cos its so intense.

But anyway... I want God"s hug, God's voice... and I'll take that order to go please. :P
Last edited by Nessa on Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply