Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 04:07:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1172 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > In article <GJoA9E.IzC@lugnet.com>, "Bill Farkas" <wolfe65@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> > > > can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did.
> > >
> > > Then how can anyone say that God has been merciful. Mercy implies
> > > participation. If God isn't participating, then he couldn't have been
> > > merciful.
> >
> > My point was that He never obligated Himself to intervene in every
> > circumstance. But He is very active.
>
> I thought he was supposed to be good, and love us all. I wouldn't let one of
> my loved ones be hurt or killed if I could prevent it, and since God is
> omnipotent, he CAN prevent such tragedies. So why does he not? I can only
> think of two possible reasons: Either He does not exist or He does not care.
But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
>
> > As some have said, it could have been much worse. Two planes were prevented
> > from hitting their targets. The Pentagon was hit in it's least populated
> > spot. The WTC could have collapsed sooner. Those are not very consoling, I
> > realize, but true none-the-less.
> >
> > Such actions prove the existence of evil,
>
> Ah, but does it? What is evil? It is not a tangible object, but an idea, and
> everyone has different views on it. So who is right?
Theologically, evil is rebellion against God and God's created order. Our
entire moral value system is defined by God. From humanity's point of view,
we do indeed have an objective standard of good and evil.
I can anticipate the argument that comes next: "But this merely redefines
where the idea comes from; good and bad are merely God's whim." Well, yes,
you can put it that way. But consider: God invested a huge amount of time
and resources into creating the universe. Not only that, but He still loves
us even after we rebelled against him and continue to rebel against him in
the most heinous ways. Surely he has our best interests at heart.
> The terrorists certainly didn't think they themselves were evil, in fact,
> they felt we Americans were evil.
Since our fellowship with God was lost as a result of original sin, man's
judgement has become clouded. The terrorists come from a culture that
redefines good and evil in conflict with God's will.
>
> > Evil exists for a purpose.
>
> No it doesn't. Evil is just a word cultures use to define what is
> unnaceptable to them.
Yes it does. Otherwise, God would have eradicated evil immediately. Evil
enhances God's goodness by its contrast. Our suffering at the hand of
sinful man only underscores our need for God.
> By the same token, good is a word that defines what *is* acceptable. I do
> want to note, however, that I am glad that most modern cultures view
> targeting civilians as evil.
Definitions of good and evil come from God; see above.
>
> > > > I like how people
> > > > expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> > > > interfere with their "fun."
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with anything I've talked about? I thought the
> > > discussion was about mercy?
> >
> > As you said, His mercy implies active intervention. I was asserting that if
> > God was active to that extent some would accuse Him of being too
> > controlling.
>
> So what if they do? Some people accuse the Government of being too
> controlling. Personally, I'd rather have more control than anarchy. Anyway,
> he is omnipotent, he could just make us not think it was too controlling.
But God doesn't want to relate to us like that. He wants us to seek Him
because we want to, not because we are forced to.
>
> > After all, we can't just expect Him to intervene when it's convenient for us.
>
> So you're saying we shouldn't inconvenience him?
You're misapplying man's convenience to God. Everything is convenient for
God. But *our* convenience doesn't always align with His will.
> He is omnipotent, isn't he? How would it be an inconvenience to help us by
> preventing tragedy?
Again, it's not inconvenient for God. God has a reason for not intervening.
>
> > Enjoying His presence comes with certain expectations as well. We are to show
> > our appreciation to Him by obeying Him - not whimsically or arbitrarily, but
> > because we trust His love and believe that His ways are best.
>
> How are we supposed to know what to obey? There are so many versions and
> translations of the Bible (which was written by men anyway) that his original
> messages have long been lost. And don't even get me started on the Pope and
> priests...
>
> Please let me know when God writes the definitive text so I'll know what to
> obey.
I heard somewhere that there are probably five surviving accounts of
Caesar's military campaigns, all rife with inconsistencies; yet no one
argues that they happened. The Bible has much more internal agreement than
those accounts. The Dead Sea Scrolls further reaffirm that the Bible has
been copied accurately for thousands of years.
Not only that, but we have external evidence as well. We know that Rome
conquered Europe because of the evidence it left behind. Likewise, we can
find out about God from the universe He created.
>
> > > > If God were to intervene in such ways, some would accuse Him of being too
> > > > controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> > > > Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise
> > > > obligating Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us*
> > > > freedom to choose.
> > > > This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation
> > > > by our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills.
> > >
> > > My question is a cop-out of what? I'm not following you here.
> >
> > Your question is a reflection of an accusation. It implies that God does
> > exist but not as He represents Himself to be, that He is unfair.
>
> Being merciful to some but not others when they have no control over their
> circumstances IS being unfair. For example, why did God allow Jane Doe's
> husband to survive the WTC, but Joan Dee's husband didn't?
Life's not fair :). I can't say why God allows different things for
different people. I can only have faith that He has a reason.
>
> > Men have been levelling this accusation for millennia. It totally denies the
> > human root of the problem.
>
> What "human root of the problem"?
That humans are the ones spreading evil, not God. "Pain and suffering are
man's fault, not God's."
>
> > > > Pain and suffering are man's fault not God's.
> > >
> > > I agree. And by the same token, the rescue efforts are man's mercy and
> > > not God's.
> >
> > Why is it not the evidence that we have come from God, evidence of His
> > essence within us?
>
> Because other creatures can go out of their way to help others, too. Dogs
> being the best example, but dolphins and apes can be included. They must then
> have God's essence, as well, but my understanding was that only we are
> supposed to have it.
Every creature on earth is created by God, therefore every creature reflects
God in some way. Man is created in the *image* of God, which means that he
is intelligent and can understand the concept of God.
> But again, it ultimately means that we are not responsible for our good
> deeds, and that is something I strongly disagree with.
Every person is responsible for his or her own deeds. But it is God's moral
order that allows us to do good.
>
> > > > > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> > > >
> > > > That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> > > > plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> > > > crashed (the fourth didn't).
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree completely. And God did nothing, therefore he is showing no
> > > mercy, since he's not involved.
> >
> > Did nothing? Preventing two planes from hitting their targets is nothing? I
> > don't know if the people on Capitol Hill would agree.
>
> One plane was foiled by good city planning, if indeed it was supposed to crash
> into the White House
A U.S. representative says that he saw the plane circling the Capitol before
flying off to the Pentagon. For whatever reason, the pilot decided not to
crash there. City planning had nothing to do with it.
> The second was foiled by the brave passengers and crew on board who refused
> to allow themselves be used as a weapon against their fellow citizens.
Yes. But the passengers wouldn't have known if their families on the ground
hadn't told them. I know this is circumstantial, but I'm pretty sure God
was in it.
>
> > Every person who did not die in the tragedy is an act of mercy.
>
> But many more *did* die, which was an act of cruelty. If you attribute the
> mercy to God, how can you not attribute the cruelty to him as well?
No, many more did not die. The World Trade Center had a capacity of 50,000.
The current missing tally is hovering around 5,000. Even if they were not
filled to capacity, they had expected 30,000+ to die.
>
> > > > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > > > >
> > > > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > > > >
> > > > > -All the victims of the crashes
> > > >
> > > > If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is.
> > >
> > > Really? All the victims, or just the Christian ones? How do you know?
> >
> > This goes back to the definition of mercy. Think before you ask.
>
> But under Christianity, only those who believe in Christian Doctrine will go
> to Heaven. How can one call being denied entrance to Heaven merciful for any
> victims of non-Christian faiths?
On the other hand, God's mercy allowed them to live an entire life with
every chance to turn to Him. They made the choice not to. God would have
been entirely within His rights to destroy all humanity immediately after
its first rebellion.
>
> > > > > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > > > > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > > > > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> > > >
> > > > Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new
> > > > happening?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't think so.
> > > >
> > > > So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> > > > Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
> > > >
> > > > It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> > > > the deeper issues.
> > >
> > > I'm thoroughly confused by your last paragraph. It sounds kind of like
> > > you're attacking my integrity because I don't agree with you. I met you
> > > when you were out here in Seattle, and you seemed like a much nicer
> > > person than that. I hope I'm misunderstood about your intent here.
> >
> > Not at all, no attacks. This is why I closed with "Respectfully" - hoping
> > you wouldn't misconstrue my remarks. I apologize if I was careless. I happen
> > to think I'm nice. :~) Thanx, by the way.
> >
> > I was referring to some of the deeper, tougher stuff mentioned above. We all
> > allow evil deeds to transpire, sometimes at our own hands. Why? Questions
> > for introspection only. No accusations.
>
> I do my best to prevent deeds I feel are wrong when and where I can. I'm not
> omnipotent or infallible, only human, so I can't do it everytime I wish I
> could, and I make mistakes. God, hoever, is NOT human, nor is he supposed to
> be fallible (looking at the human race as a whole has changed more than one
> mind on that, though!). He should be held to a higher standard, and prevent
> evil where and when he can. And since he is omnipotent, that would be
> everywhere and everytime. ;)
>
> Jeff
--Ian
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
