Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    .0  Some may feel that death won't occur unless it's God's will.
    I am not among them.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I think that God can stop any death but it is my opinion that He
    chooses not to interfere in most things that go on. He's not a
    puppetmaster.

    			Alfred

I'm still confused (a normal state of affairs :^)

Richard, you are saying that under some circumstances, (murder, traffic
accidents?) the death of a person is NOT God's will? This implies something that
would be against God's will, something I thought impossible according to the 
classical religious teachings. It also implies (to me, at least) that only death
from 'natural causes' is God's will.

Alfred, one of the many things I have never been able to resolve in the teaching
of most major religions is the contradiction of an all-loving and all-powerful
God that allows the kinds of atrocities to take place. If God is omnipotent,
then he *IS* the ultimate puppet-master. He created the heavens and the earth
and knows all that will happen in the future (which to him is probably also the
present, but that is a different line) and there is no free choice. If there is
free choice, then God is not omnipotent, you just can't have it both ways.

Steve

Yes, you can have it both ways.

Omnipotence and free will do not conflict.

God has chosen to allow free will -- it is his will that others do what they
will.

Think about it as the difference between macromanagement and micromanagement.

/john

re: -1

Sorry, it just doesn't wash.

If you agree that God cannot see the future, I will buy it, or
If you agree that God is not responsible for all life, I will buy it, or
If you agree that God is not a loving God, I will buy it.

But if you believe that God creates life, and sees the future, and knows how we
will act and react throughout our lives, and knows what we will react with and
to, then there is no free will. God has simply set some of us up to be evil, and
given them the means to accomplish the most unimaginable of horrors.

Whether I micro or macro manage, I *DON'T* know how it will turn out. If I do
know how it will turn out then the theory behind 'how' I manage it becomes moot.

Steve

Again, knowing how someone is going to act doesn't mean control over
that act.  That's even true if you're _not_ omniscient.

/john

| <<< Note 844.3 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Theologically Impaired" >>>



| Richard, you are saying that under some circumstances, (murder, traffic
| accidents?) the death of a person is NOT God's will? This implies something that
| would be against God's will, something I thought impossible according to the
| classical religious teachings. It also implies (to me, at least) that only death
| from 'natural causes' is God's will.



	Steve, wouldn't that mean that suicide is also something that is God's
Will? If so, then why is suicide a sin?



Glen

Note 844.3

>Richard, you are saying that under some circumstances, (murder, traffic
>accidents?) the death of a person is NOT God's will?

Yes, and more.

>This implies something that
>would be against God's will, something I thought impossible according to the 
>classical religious teachings. It also implies (to me, at least) that only
>death
>from 'natural causes' is God's will.

It's not an easy thing to wrestle with.  And I can't say I understand it all.
But I know that it just isn't as simplistic as saying death wouldn't happen
if it wasn't God's will.  I realize this is contrary to the theology of more
fundamentalist/conservative believers.

I would go so far as to say that death from natural causes is not always
God's will.  At the same time, I recognize that death might be used by God
in some instances as a kind of healing.

Richard

re: .6

John,

If you mean that God created the world, put people on it, but from that point on
did not know what would happen, or couldn't control it, I'm with you. Then he 
might be omniscient, but not omnipotent. I can see logic in that. (I may not 
believe but at least it hangs together logically).

re: .7

Glen,

Same argument as above. If God created a person knowing that the circumstances
this person would encounter would drive them to suicide, it makes no sense to
call it a sin. If he created the person but didn't have a clue what would
happen, again I can buy that.

re: .8

Richard,

We're on the same wavelength. Again, it comes down to God not being omnipotent.

STeve

>If you mean that God created the world, put people on it, but from that point
>on did not know what would happen, or couldn't control it, I'm with you. Then
>he might be omniscient, but not omnipotent. I can see logic in that. (I may
>not believe but at least it hangs together logically).

It still hangs together logically even with him both omniscient and omnipotent.

Being omniscient, i.e. knowing everything, past, present, and future, does not
say anything about control of what is happening.

Being omnipotent, i.e. having the power to do anything that he wants, not only
does not mean that he has to change what is happening to be a certain way, it
means that he has the power to create what appears to you to be a paradox.

If he were bound by your rules of logic, he wouldn't be omnipotent -- you
would have power over him!

/john

>We're on the same wavelength. Again, it comes down to God not being omnipotent.

STeve,

	I think we are pretty much on the same wavelength.  But I'm not in
a position of saying God is not omnipotent.  I'm more inclined to say that
I do not understand the nature of God's omnipotence, because it doesn't seem
to square with my definition of omnipotence.

	Jesus' messiahship was not understood either.  In many ways, I
think it is still largely misunderstood.

Shalom,
Richard

| <<< Note 844.9 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Theologically Impaired" >>>




| Same argument as above. If God created a person knowing that the circumstances
| this person would encounter would drive them to suicide, it makes no sense to
| call it a sin. If he created the person but didn't have a clue what would
| happen, again I can buy that.

	Then are you saying it is man who has called suicide a sin?



Glen

 It is clear throughout the Bible that there will be times of trial and 
 tribulation.  Loved ones will die naturally, and unnaturally.  I don't know
 why my mother died leaving 3 sons, the youngest 3 years old.  I don't know
 why my grandfather died just 10 days later, leaving my grandmother with just
 those 3 sons as family.  I don't know why my exwife had 3 miscarriages.  I
 don't know why a friend's wife has suffered with all sorts of stomach 
 problems.  But, I do know that my Bible says that God causes all things to w
 work together for those that love Him..and I do know that Jesus said that in
 this life will be tribulation, but take heart for I have overcome the world..

 
 God is in control...those who are saved know without a doubt that one day 
 *regardless* of what happens in this world, we will be with Him and our 
 saved loved ones. That, is the hope that we have in Christ..that is what
 faith is all about...



 Jim

  >This implies something that would be against God's will, something I 
  >thought impossible according to the classical religious teachings.

I alway thought sinning was against God's Will.  At least, that's
what the Bible teaches.

Collis

    RE: .4
    
    		To me, it only makes sense that "free will" can *ONLY* be
    true if God is omnipotent.
    
    
    Dave

It's the same old cop outs that I always get, ie. in order to believe you gotta
believe.

OK, in harder terms, here is my premise, based on my understanding of the
classical descriptions of God. 

1. God is Omnipotent (classic definition, all powerful)
2. God is Omniscient (a subset of omnipotent, but it seems to come into play
		      separately)
3. God is merciful and all loving.
4. The world as we know it.

If you modify any of the four, you may come up with something I could find
plausible, but all four present unreconcilable contradictions. I am a logical
thinker and would like to simply look at it logically, you will reply with the
final 'proof' of:

1. God works in mysterious ways
2. You just have to have faith
3. Man cannot understand the mind of God,
4. etc.

In all of my myriad conversations, no religious person has ever tried to argue
logically. Here are the main contradictions:

1. God created the universe
2. God created Adam and Eve atom by atom (in God's image)
3. If God is omniscient, he knew how they would turn out when he created them
4. If God is omnipotent, he could have created them to come out anyway he wanted
   them to
5. Based on his creations, he KNEW at the time of creation how they, and all of
   their decendants would turn out, and what they would do.
6. The world can be a pretty lousy place

So,

1. God wanted the world to be full of pain, (contradicts #3 in my premise)
2. God did not want the world to turn out this way, knew it would, but was
   unable to prevent it (#1)
3. God did not know how it would turn out when he started (#2)

Which of the premises would you like to change. Saying that a rational person
simply cannot understand is admitting to at least the appearance of a
contradiction. (If we are created in his image why can't we understand?) So
where have I missed something?

Steve

P.S. If this comes across as 'loud' or 'strident' I apologize, it is meant to be
in a normal voice in a normal conversation.

    
    There's 'om-nipresent' too.
    
    I like words that begin with Om.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    re .16 (TINCUP::BITTROLFF)/Steve
    
    I didn't read this topic closely until .16 -- but I've since taken a
    second look.
    
>3. If God is omniscient, he knew how they would turn out when he created them
    
    It strikes me that when people say "God is omniscient", they assume a
    rather formal (and in my opinion, man made) definition of omniscience,
    that God must unquestionably know everything about everything,
    including everything little thing that will ever happen in the future
    -- and then assume that God is that way because it seems so ... well
    ... like what God is supposed to be like.
    
    However, the Bible itself doesn't state that God knows everything about
    everything, as though the future is scripted down to the last detail. 
    It really only says that *when* God looks into the future, he knows
    what it will be -- this being in addition to his having the ability to
    plan for the future, and make those plans come about.  The Bible
    doesn't say that God *has* looked into the future and foreseen *every*
    little detail about everyone in advance.
    
    If you take as a given that man has been made "in God's image" --
    meaning we possess similar moral and intellectual qualities -- then the
    fact that man possesses a sense of trust must mean that God does too;
    and this means that just as we develop trust in others without actually
    being able to see the future, then God must exercise a form of trust in
    man's abilities (especially to do good) that must preclude his having
    peeked into the future to actually know the outcome.
    
    This, for instance, is the lesson [or one of the lessons] of the book
    of Job.  Satan claimed that Job only worshipped Jehovah because Jehovah
    made him materially well off, and that if everything was taken away,
    Job would curse God to his face.  Jehovah allowed Satan to test Job to
    the limit, but Jehovah had trust in Job's character, and knew on the
    basis of the kind of man he was that Satan's challenge would fail.  If
    Jehovah had peeked into the future to know the outcome, then God's
    faith in Job's character would not have really been proven at all,
    since it's no real moral victory to bet on already known results.
    
>4.If God is omnipotent, he could have created them to come out anyway he wanted
>   them to
    
    Again, this is an arbitrary, though somewhat standard definition of
    God's power and the way he uses it.  But consider this:  God DID create
    Adam and Eve the way he wanted -- he wanted them to have the freedom to
    choose right and wrong on their own.
    
    Although, dare I say it, humanity may be a little unclear on the
    concept of what true freedom is all about (confusing it with license
    for any sort of behavior) -- still, we possess the sense of the value
    of freedom because God does too, and he infused it in us.
    
    The freedom to make choices is what makes individuals what they are. 
    It's just that God didn't give man the right (or the power) to make ANY
    arbitrary choice and have it always work out for the better.  For
    instance, he didn't give us the power to fly, so the choice to jump
    naked off a cliff isn't a very good one.  What he did, instead, was
    give us, in addition, an appreciation for our limitations, so that we
    wouldn't make such deadly choices.
    
    The one restriction given to Adam and Eve was meant to teach them
    something about their moral and spiritual limitations.  God told them
    in advance what the outcome would be IF they made the wrong choice; but
    the Bible doesn't say that God already KNEW they were going to make the
    wrong one.
    
>5. Based on his creations, he KNEW at the time of creation how they, and all of
>   their decendants would turn out, and what they would do.
    
    Why do you say this?  Where does the Bible say this, or what other
    proof is there that this is true?
    
    
    								-mark.

    .16
    
    Ouch.
    
    I'm sorry.  My theology is just not as tidy (neat, logical, precise)
    as others (which perhaps explains my inability to appeal to analytical
    types).
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re: omniscient

I rather look at it as a new parent might know their child.  The child is 
(usually) bound to take that first step in walking, or say that first 
recognizable word.  The parent *knows* these event will happen, yet what 
parent isn't pleasantly surprised when that first step is actually taken,
or that first word actually spoken?

_Peace,

Jim

  >1. God wanted the world to be full of pain, (contradicts #3 in my 
  >   premise)

  >3. God is merciful and all loving.

This is the weakest link I see, so I'll contend with this.

There is pain in the world.  Why do you say that God wanted
the world to be full of pain?  Because he knew it would be?
That doesn't follow.  Let's look at God in the flesh - Jesus.
Jesus knew he wasn't going to die an awful death and be
seperated from God at the time.  Did Jesus *want* to be full
of pain?  No.  He wanted the cup taken away.  

However, the pain was a means to an end.  As a parent, I spank
my child.  Do I want to inflict pain on her?  No - but it is
a means to an end.

Pain is very important in people.  It indicates problems.  People
who feel no pain (whether physical, moral or spiritual) are
sliding down the slope into a bad condition with nothing to
stop them.  Pain is what can prevent this.  

So, being loving and merciful does NOT mean that pain is all
bad.  If the end is worth it (and millions of souls praising
and enjoying God for eternity is worth it in God's opinion),
then pain is not only acceptable, but necessary.

Does this make sense to you?

Collis

For Cindy:

Om, Omaha, Oman, Ombudsman, Omega, Omelette, Omen, Omicron, Ominous, Omission,
Omit, Omnibus, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omniumgatherum, Omniverous.
:^)

Mark,

You seem to say that either God is not omnipotent, or chose not to excercise his
abilities in the area of omniscience. I don't know if the second is possible,
but given his omnipotence, it must be :^) I must admit that I haven't pondered
the possibility of him being omniscient, but choosing not to use it. Then the
world would make sense with God as the creator.

Kind of makes you wonder, though, why he didn't fix it. Especially after the
flood.

Richard,

Ouch? If I wounded you, it was completely unintentional. And your theology
appeals to me much more than many in this conference.

Jim,

Again, if God doesn't KNOW everything that will happen, my premise falls apart.

Collis,

I don't understand what you were getting at with Jesus on the cross, so I can't
respond.

As to the parent analogy, IF you could reprimand the child, and accomplish your
goal, without inflicting pain, would you? God certainly could if he chose. If
you had the power, would you make life perfect for your child? Or do you believe
that the child MUST suffer to grow? If you believe that I can buy it, but it 
doesn't fit with my understanding of loving and merciful.

I agree that pain can prevent many things, but if you were omnipotent, don't you
think you could create a world a whole lot better (more pleasant) than the one
we live in? I know I could.

Steve

    .22
    
    We might add the exclamation "Omigod!" :-)
    
    Richard
    

         
    Steve,
    
    Oh WOW!  Thanks!!!
    
    Om-aha - yep, that definitely makes it and comes so close to the real
    meaning.
    
    Om-i-god - I don't know, Richard, that might be considered blasphemous.
    (;^)
    
    Cindy

    .22
    
    Steve,
    
    	I'm not so certain God knows everything that's going to happen
    in advance of it happening.  I don't believe in predestination.
    At the same time, I think to some degree we help to determine our
    future by our present thoughts and actions; thus, reaping what we sow.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    re .22 (TINCUP::BITTROLFF)/Steve
    
>Mark,
>
>You seem to say that either God is not omnipotent, or chose not to excercise his
>abilities in the area of omniscience. I don't know if the second is possible,
>but given his omnipotence, it must be :^) 
    
    	I haven't said that God isn't "omnipotent" -- it's just that I
    believe that the most common [philosophical] definition of it doesn't
    exactly fit the way Jehovah God really is.  
    
    	The Bible calls him "the Almighty", but it doesn't say that he can,
    or will, do anything imaginable just because we can imagine it.  After
    all, the Bible says he can't lie [or, he doesn't lie] -- and thus we're
    assured that God would never use his power in an unrighteous way, to
    bring about a lie.  Since it says that God is wise, he would also not
    use it in a fool-hardy way.
    
    	We might also take note that since the Bible says God is "slow to
    anger", he's also the ultimate possessor of self-control.  Really,
    being "all powerful" includes having the ability to control that power
    in a useful, intelligent, and wise way.  If we were to argue that God
    MUST know everything because his omnipotence makes it impossible for
    him NOT to be unaware of the knowledge of every detail of the future,
    we might say that it's something that God has no control over, and that
    would actually contradict the notion that he is all-powerful; for how
    could the all-powerful God be unable to control his abilities in some
    regard?
    
>but given his omnipotence, it must be :^) I must admit that I haven't pondered
>the possibility of him being omniscient, but choosing not to use it. Then the
>world would make sense with God as the creator.
    
    	It goes without saying that this is what makes sense to me [and
    people of my religion].
    
>Kind of makes you wonder, though, why he didn't fix it. Especially after the
>flood.
    
    	Ah yes, the million dollar question.
    
    	The Bible says that he WILL fix it.  The real question is (or
    questions are) why did he let mankind take the course that it did, and
    why is he waiting so long to fix it?
    
    	Write me off-line if you're interested in my answers [which are
    what Jehovah's Witnesses believe].
    
    	While we're asking questions, a couple more are, do you WANT to see
    God fix the problems man has, and what's it worth to you to be part of
    the fix?
    
    
    								-mark.

  >I don't understand what you were getting at with Jesus on the cross, so I can't
  >respond.

The example was Jesus in the garden asking the cup (read pain) to be
taken away from him, but accepting the pain as necessary and good.

I think I do believe that we need a mechanism to force correction.
Yes, God could have made us robots, but chose instead to give us
free will.  Is pain effective?  Often.  Is there something better?
Perhaps.  Offhand, I don't know what it is.  But whether there is
something better or not, the original point stands.  Pain accomplishes
a very necessary purpose that would much more often NOT get accomplished
without pain.

Would we call God a loving and merciful God who took away the
current pain with the knowledge that we'd mess up both each other
and the world much worse if He did?  This is where your argument
seems to take us.

Collis

A final thought.

How are you going to create a better world that excludes
pain and includes free will (two very important parts of
our existing world).  (Well, I guess you could make the
creatures powerless - but that is too close to reality
because when even the totality of humans is compared to
God, we are, in fact, powerless.)

Collis,

According to my understanding of the legends, the garden of Eden was paradise,
and mankind would have been able to live in it, except for the apple. 

If we had paradise once surely he could do it again?

BTW, my idea of paradise isn't a perfect world, but it would be a world where we 
(mankind) weren't so interested in killing each other off by the millions, 
often in the name of religion.

Steve

Steve,

If people aren't killing off each other in the name of religion,
they'll kill off each other in some other name.  The problem
is not religion, you see, but man.

You are right that God did indeed create a paradise and that mankind
would indeed have been able to live in it had it not been for
one thing.  However, the one thing was not strictly the apple
for if there had been no apple, there would have been a banana.  :-)

It is possible (as far as I know) that Adam and Eve would have
chosen to believe God rather than Satan and chosen obedience over
disobedience, but they didn't - and that's the risk of giving
people free will.

It almost sounds like we're coming to the conclusion that God
did indeed do it right and does exist as He proclaims Himself
to exist.  Surely there must be other stumbling blocks to this
belief, aren't there?

Collis

re .29

Steve,

You ask "If we had paradise once surely he could do it again?", I guess
that you mean God by he. Well God's Word actually agrees with what your
saying. If one looks at Genesis 1:28 we can see that God's commision
was to fill the earth with righteous offspring and subdue the earth eg
extend the boundaries of the Garden of Eden (compare Genesis 2:15).
That is to make the whole earth a paradise garden. As we know from the 
Genesis account, Adam failed in this commission that was given him. 
However, Isaiah 55:11 NWT reads "so my word that goes forth from my mouth 
will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but will 
certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain 
success in that for which I have sent it." 

God commisioned Adam & Eve and their offspring to bring the earth into
a paradise condition. He has also garanteed that this must return with 
a successful result. He will use Adam's offspring to accomplish this
commission, in fact cultivating the ground was one of the main reasons 
for God creating man on the earth (Genesis 2:5), but how will he do this?.
Well there is a clue in what many call the Lord's prayer, where God's
will being accomplished here on earth was closely associated with his 
incoming kingdom (Compare Matthew 6:10).

But what would spoil a paradise earth? People interested in killing others?
Greediness, in exploiting the earth for its resources without considering 
the long term effects?.

The attitude of Adam's offspring needs to change if they are to live in 
harmony with this paradise earth. They would need to learn how not to fight, 
how to love so as to live in harmony with their surroundings. Not everyone 
wants to live on a paradise earth, so many will reject God's will and purpose
for the earth. Trouble is the paradise earth will come about with or without
them. The Christian Greek Scriptures tell us that those wishing to do God's 
will "should put away the old personality which conforms to your former 
course of conduct and which is being corrupted according to his deceptive
desires; but that YOU should be made new in the force actuating YOUR mind, 
and should put on the new personality which was created according to God's 
will in  true righteousness and loyality." Ephesians 4:22-25 NWT. Those 
wishing to live on the paradise earth would throw off their old personality 
and put on a new personality that conforms to God's will and righteouness.
Because Adam's offspring puts on the new personality, their God will bless
their efforts hence the earth will be changed into a paradise. They will
also show their worthiness to take hold of the earth, as Jesus said in his
opening speech on the sermon on the mount "Happy are the mild-tempered ones,
since they will inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5 also compare Proverbs 2:21,22.


Phil.

re .31


Just to carify my reply, what I meant by...

"Because Adam's offspring puts on the new personality, their God will bless
their efforts hence the earth will be changed into a paradise."

Was that God will bless their efforts in cultivating the ground, and not
their efforts of putting on a new personality. One would need God's help
to put on this new personality, though it does take some effort but it
would be impossible without being taught and helped by God. One needs to
be careful and clear so as not to cuase a misunderstanding.

Phil.

re: 844.20

>I rather look at it as a new parent might know their child.  The child is 
>(usually) bound to take that first step in walking, or say that first 
>recognizable word.  The parent *knows* these event will happen, yet what 
>parent isn't pleasantly surprised when that first step is actually taken,
>or that first word actually spoken?

	A new parent does not have omniscience.  They may *expect* an event to
take place, but they do not know the when, how, or why it takes place.

	God is omniscient.  He knows past, present, and future - to Him, all
these things are probably occuring in the *now*. 
	This being so, He has known what events will occur in my life, what
decisions and choices I will make in what situations.  He knows whether or not I
will accept Christ/have accepted Christ and my ultimate disposition to either
Heaven or Hell before I was even born - He knew this before Creation.
	As God knows these things, they are written in stone - my actions are
all foreknown in exacting detail and no illusion of free-will on my part can or
will change them.  My actions are thus pre-destined to occur and I have no say
in it.  God, by His knowing, has already either raised me to Heaven or damned me
to Hell and I cannot act outside of His foreknowledge of my life.
	A parent can only expect, not know.  God knows and cannot expect.

	Admittedly, this is all rather bleak.  I cannot reconcile God's
omniscience with my belief in free will - for me, this is where faith comes in.

George

re: Note 844.33 by George

>	A new parent does not have omniscience.  They may *expect* an event to
>take place, but they do not know the when, how, or why it takes place.

If that works for you, fine.  I was relating what works for me via an analogy.

Peace,

Jim

re: .34 by Jim

Jim,
	I'm not trying to insult you and I'm sorry if it appears that way.  I'm
just trying to shoot holes in your analogy :-)..

George

Hi George,

(by the way, are you new here?
I don't recall seeing your name before.  Welcome!)

No, I don't feel insulted, predestination is simply not my particular 
theology.  I don't find my theology bleak, as you state of yours.

I think God has a sense of humor (my existence is proof of that .-)
and enjoys being surprised, sort of in the way a parent is of their child.
(Yep, there's that analogy again! Doesn't shooting it make it holy? .-)

I don't think there's a topic on predestination, perhaps I'll start one.

Peace,

Jim