Board index ‹ Jesus

[jimwalton]

> So why doesn't God bless this higher understanding to us in this world?

He does.

* 1 Timothy 4:8 - "Godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come."
* 2 Corinthians 9.8: "And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work."
* 2 Peter 1.3: "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness."
* John 10.10: " I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."
* Romans 12:2 - "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

There are a hundred of these.

> I myself have attempted communication with God to ask for understanding of what I have trouble with, and have received no answer.

What kind of answer were you expecting to receive? I mean, I never hear God's voice, and often even thoughts don't come to my mind. But then when I read (like, the Bible, or helpful books) I'll get some understanding. Or when I listen to what someone is saying it will help me.

Just, for instance, you and I have exchanged, I dunno, about 75 posts each? Doesn't ANY of this qualify as getting answers that help you understand? As I've mentioned, God often uses people to accomplish His purposes. Just possibly God is using me to help you understand some of what you have trouble with. It's altogether possible He's been talking to you through me for a month now.

So is God blocking your relationship with Him, or is it maybe something you are doing that is blocking it? I dunno, I'm just talking off the top of my head (as usual).

[Book Mitten]

> The perpetuation of their evil act isn't necessary for a higher purpose, but God can turn it to be that. It would be better if they didn't do evil.

If it would be better if they didn't do evil, why doesn't God prevent it? I get that you're saying he "adapts" his plan to bring something bad out of something good (at least that's my understanding of what you're saying) but if it's preferable that the crime not be committed, why doesn't he act, either through convincing the perpetrator to do otherwise, or alternatively using force to protect the victim? This would be better for both the would be victim and would be perpetrator, as they avoid facing worse forms of force in this life or the next.

> God said to Adam, "Hey, there are thousands of trees of goodness and blessing you can't eat from. Don't follow the path of disobedience, or the consequences are dire." Adam did it anyway. Obviously revelation and warning don't prevent sin.

Alternatively God could give Adam a good reason not to eat in the first place. If the trees are of goodness and blessing, why does God advise against eating from them? Should he create a situation where the trees are clearly undesirable? You can argue that obedience to God is the reason, but I'd ask what makes you think obeying God in all this is reasonable if the trees are of "goodness and blessing".

[jimwalton]

> If it would be better if they didn't do evil, why doesn't God prevent it?

We've covered this. God can't interfere with human free will, or it's not "free will" at all.

>> God said to Adam, "Hey, there are thousands of trees of goodness and blessing you can't eat from.
> Alternatively God could give Adam a good reason not to eat in the first place. If the trees are of goodness and blessing, why does God advise against eating from them?

Oops. Typo. I meant "can eat from." Sorry. There were thousands to eat from, one to avoid. My bad. It changes the whole through, which will probably alter your response.

[Book Mitten]

> God has made Himself known. Go back to the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. God specifically approached Cain and said, "Don't do this. It will end badly and take you nowhere you want to go." Cain did it anyway. God did make His presence known, and it was rebuffed and ignored

I'm not an expert on Cain and Abel, but wasn't it a case of Cain being ontologically unable to live up to God's demands regarding sacrifice, and thus becoming embittered? I might be mistaken on this, but that seemed to be my cursory understanding.

[jimwalton]

> I'm not an expert on Cain and Abel, but wasn't it a case of Cain being ontologically unable to live up to God's demands regarding sacrifice, and thus becoming embittered?

No, there was no ontological inability, but instead a choice not to conform (i.e., to rebel instead). There is no requirement of blood from any previous command or expectation, so we assume their sacrifices for to express gratitude to God for the abundance of blessing. There is no explanation, but only hints as to why Cain's offering was not accepted.

• Cain brought "some of the fruits"; Abel brought the fat portions. Abel's was a genuine expression of gratitude; Cain skimped and didn't bring the best or the first fruits.
• Abel has the right attitude; Cain was arrogant (Gn. 4.5b). The text indicates he was wrongfully angry, unrepentant, and eventually murderous.
• Cain's offering lacked any sacrificial spirit, and therefore was not a true gift of love (true love is sacrificial).
• Since the ancient world is governed largely by a worldview of order, we can observe that Cain doesn't have God's order in mind when he rejects God's offer as a way to regain favor. Instead, he chooses to seek himself as the center of order (as Adam & Eve had done), but in this case he'll kill his brother to satisfy his own jealousy and pride.
• Notice God warns him of what not to do, the consequences of disobedience, God's willingness to forgive, and God's willingness to restore him to relationship. God can't interfere with Cain's free will, but He can show him the right path, warn him of the consequences, and offer forgiveness and restoration.

Whatever it was he did wrong, the text is more interested in his response to it than it is in delineating the details. Eventually the offense under scrutiny is the murder, not the offering. The offering scenario is recounted only as far as is necessary to set the stage for the murder.

[Book Mitten]

> Hell is the absence of God and of good, of life and of grace. If you have no desire to turn to God and share in His life and goodness, then being separated from Him, his life and his goodness are what you choose.

This seems to be saying, "God is goodness itself, therefore if you argue against God, you argue against good". With all due respect, this seems to me dangerously close to being dismissive of anybody's experience that goes against Christian doctrine. What if my experience of Goodness does not lead me to Christianity? You could say that I'm following God's values without knowing it (some people have said this to me in the past) but that again seems like a simplification. Why wouldn't people want "goodness itself"? Isn't it possible that their idea of goodness (mistaken or not) is honestly pointed somewhere else, without consciously knowing that they are in fact going against real goodness?

[jimwalton]

> This seems to be saying, "God is goodness itself, therefore if you argue against God, you argue against good".

No, that's not quite it. But I would say it is true that any good in the world has its source in God (as a common grace, available to all life), and if people separate from God in eternity, they may be cutting off even that. It's not that "if you argue against God you argue against good," but more that in the afterlife, common-grace goodness may not be available.

> You could say that I'm following God's values without knowing it (some people have said this to me in the past) but that again seems like a simplification.

For instance, there is a lot of good in our western cultures that is the result of the Christian foundation on which western civilization was founded. Much of the values we recognize as a society have a Christian base. (A contrast with Islamic cultures, for instance, shows the differences.) So to some extent many westerns are following God's values without knowing it.

On another front, the whole idea of meaning in life, moral, values, integrity, kindness, etc., are Christian ideals rather than secular ones. When a secularist says we're just evolved chemicals, as I think we've discussed, there is no basis to attribute value to life except "because I chose to" (while someone else may choose not to, and that position has just as much merit as yours). There is a lot of "borrowing" of Christian "capital" in claiming that there is such a thing as good, that life has meaning, that people have value, etc. In a secular viewpoint, these are all social constructs with precarious rationale, and still mostly based on Christian ideals. Again, we can contrast the West with other indigenous cultures and even Islamic and Buddhist cultures and find a very different worldview.

[Book Mitten]

> Also, to be clear, God isn't damning "undesirables," but only those who want nothing to do with life. If they want no association with life and grace (God's person), then they choose non-life and non-grace. There's nothing vengeful about it; it's justice.

Why doesn't God simply end their consciousness then, rather than create conscious torment (eternal or not)?

[jimwalton]

Some Christians (annihilationists) believe that's exactly what will happen, but I don't consider annihilationism to be a biblical position. The problem with annihilation, in my mind, is that it invalidates justice. People who did evil things simply die, and there is no accounting for anything they did. To me that's not justice—they got away with it.

[Book Mitten]

> Right now the people in California have a choice. They can obey the mandates to get out of town while there's a chance, or they choose the fire and its consequences.

The fact is that they know for sure that the fire is occuring, (as well as the fact that the fire fighters actively try to prevent the fire rather than standing by). People who are unsure about God don't have as much clarity.