Does God Set us UP to Fail? My answer to a reader
Deu 32:11 "As an eagle stirs up her nest, and hovers over her young, and spreads her wings, takes them up,
and bears them on her wings.
Deu 32 :18 "Of the Rock that bore you, you were unmindful, and have forgotten God that formed you." (that one may be hard to get, baring children--female image).
Job 38:8 "Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb."
Job 38:29 "From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of heaven."
Isa 45 9-10 Woe to you who strive with your Maker,
earthen vessels with the potter. Does the clay say to the one who
fashions it: What are you making, or Your work has no handles? Woe to
anyone who says to a father: What are you begetting? or to a woman: With what are you in labour?
Isa 49:15 "Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb?
Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. (comparing God's
attitude toward Israel with a woman's attitude toward her children).
Isa 66:13 As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Hosea 13:8 "I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of
her cubs, and will tear open the covering of their heart";
Mat 23:37 and Luk 13:34 Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, the city that
kills its prophets and stones those who are sent to it. How often have I
desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing."
6 comments:
Furthermore, this idea of god being limited by logical necessity and such is nothing more than philosophy that's developed out of the need to defend an illogical god construct. The image posited in the Bible is not that of a limited god. It's the image of an angry sovereign who favors who he likes and smacks around those he doesn't like along with anyone who happens to get uppity about themselves. Theologians can dream up these new concepts of god that are more reasonable to the modern mind, but it's just conjecture that has no authority behind it. Furthermore, the more you divorce god from the sacred writings that describe him, the less effective divine intervention as proof ties back to the original precepts and worldview. When you posit that the god of the bible isn't how he's described there (because it's just a record of god experiences), there's no reason to believe that allegiance with god is a good thing. After all, if his plague-wielding exploits are just myths, who's to say his promises are not just as mythological?
But suppose we dispense with mythology and return to the idea that god is not a big man in the sky holding court in white temples over winged men in white robes. If I understand your theology, you see god more as a foundation of being and the point of our existence is not to end up on golden streets with harps at the end of time overlooking the burning faithless, but to somehow tap into the divine nature during our lifetimes so that we can join with it once the mortal coil is shuffled off - is that an accurate statement?
In either situation, the determining factor we come back to is faith. Personally, I don't see the big attraction in faith as a determination - I'd be more inclined to see people demonstrating the behavior I want them to eventually emulate instead of a trait that will be useless once they make that post-death transition. But I will take for granted that faith is indeed the trait most conducive to absorbing godliness. If this is the situation, why would a loving god make faith so difficult to attain for so many people when it is obviously within his power and modus operandi to make it evident to others? Why should some gain the benefit of burning bushes, parting seas and hole-y hands and not the rest of us if he cares about us all? How are obstinate skeptics like Thomas or Gideon rewarded with divine intervention and not the rest of us? If we step back again (per your previous posts) and say the stories are not literal, you are still faced with the obvious impression that god pursues some while letting others find their own way. Why are they special? Am I not worth a burning bush to reclaim me? If we liberalize the texts, we're still left with the definite impression that god goes to great lengths for some, but not all. You can abstract that text as much as you like, but if there is a clear lesson there, it is that god enforces faith on chosen vessels in order to serve his purposes. Are those men robbed of their self-transcendence by enforcing faith on them? So why are we different?
Faith to me is simply an ecumenical word for gullibility.
Same poster, again. I always post as Anonymous when available to avoid spam. My name is Bill.
Forgive me if I oversimplify, but as best I can determine, your premise is basically that the world is what it is (or perhaps is to be considered the best of all possible worlds) and God is handling things as mercifully and lovingly as is possible given the situation. Is that correct? I don't want to straw man you here.
My problem with that premise is accepting that the nature of things is beyond god's control. If you accept the mythology of heaven and heavenly hosts and whatnot, god obviously is capable of creating a climate (heavenly realms) in which beings are brought into a perfect reality with direct proof of god's existence and sovereignty while still maintaining free will (those rebellious angels). Furthermore, a situation has supposedly existed since near the beginning of time in which god tolerates sin without allowing it to offend him to the point of resolution, so I don't see any reason why it couldn't continue in such a state.
What you call entitlement, I call common decency. If I have the capability to lay my newborn down to sleep in a clean, safe crib and instead lay him down on a bed of nails, what does that say about me? If I place that child in a wagon and roll it down an incline toward a ravine, will the DHS applaud me for giving him a fun ride?
I can't really jibe with the Niebuhr thesis because by this logic, self-transcendence should only lead to sin when the subject's needs aren't being met. Per your example, sin wouldn't have occurred if you weren't hungry and cold to begin with, or if you were given adequate ability/resources to pay your rent honestly. If you hadn't been put into a hostile climate that demands shelter, or if you'd been given the means to provide for your basic needs, or if god had zapped the rent money into your account, or if god had inspired the landlord to mercy, or any number of alternate scenarios would have made sin unnecessary. If god is aware that sin is the result of need and sets you in an environment of need, who's responsible for the sin?
I dont' think it's the best of all possible worlds. It's a possible word that we would choose not ot sin then we would have a perfect world. we choose to screw it not God. we choose to blame god.
you argument is merely rationalization for your choices. you choose to blame God becuase it wont do it your way.
The idea that God cold just zap everyone becuase hes' so perfect evades responsibility.
the propaganda that "I call it decency" is just a balme God game.
Adam says "they woman the one YOU GAVE ME!" you say "If you were decent god,..."
No self transcendence is not limited to needs being met. It's about anxiety and we feel anxious all the time becasue everything leads to pain we can speculate any number of senerios that lead there. we choose to jump the gun because we feel anxious.
"Furthermore, this idea of god being limited by logical necessity and such is nothing more than philosophy that's developed out of the need to defend an illogical god construct."
you ever read the bible? I sure hell doesn't say God can zap everyone.the God of the Bible is quite limited. He has to go to Sodom and Gamaroa to find some good people who doesn't know who they are. Doesn't even know if there are any.
He has to get Noah to build a boat because he can't whip one up out of dust. The word omnipotent is only used one time in the while Bible it does not mean all powerful.
Greek is Pantocator. It means that he has authority in all place but it does not mean he has all power. It's about jurisdiction not power.
Hey Meta
Happy New Year. I'm enjoying your interchange with Bill here.
And Meta, hope you don't mind if I put two cents' worth into the conversation. If you'd rather I didn't or think it would muddy the waters, feel free to delete this comment & I'll let you guys have fun with it.
Anyway, here's my two cents' worth for Bill.
Bill, if you read this, keep in mind I'm a little more conservative than Meta when it comes to theology.
Big picture: If God is going to create a being out of nothing (like us), to create a being that didn't have to exist, there's one thing we can be sure of: that being is at risk of non-existence. Anything that used to be nothing, it's possible for it to be undone and become nothing all over again. (It's also possible to become permanent, which I'll take in turn, but one thing at a time.) Anyway, that risk of non-existence -- heck, that looming reality like the waterfall there -- it scares the crud out of us. And we resent it. That's natural. We want the permanence. We resent God again for his permanence when we're just flashes in the pan. We resent him for calling the shots when we don't want to die. So logically [logic of psychology here], we want to be God, to replace God, to call the shots about what's right and wrong, to live forever. That's just what it means to be some creature besides God, one who is aware and can think.
God actually wants to transform us into something permanent, something like him. The Bible (if you take that as any indication) makes that plain from Chapter 1. But first we have to _stop fighting him tooth and nail_. If we all showed up in Kingdom Come acting like we do here and now, then we'd turn heaven itself into hell. (Have you ever read the sci-fi stories where we find a perfect world and we're the alien monsters who destroy it? I expect that's what would happen to some hypothetical heaven, if God just transplanted all of us there, the way we are.) So back to where I started this paragraph: God wants to _transform_ us into something more permanent. But it does take transforming us. That takes trust. That's what "faith" is. [Here Meta might disagree with me.] It's not that "faith" is some excellent indicator or basis of determination for our eternal fates. It's that "faith" is the first part of that transformation, the change from thinking that God is evil and out to get us, to realizing that God loves us and is trying to help with that 'transformation to permanent' thing.
For myself, (tongue-in-cheek here), I decided never to take any religion seriously -- I mean, how do you know which one's right, with similarities here and differences there? -- so not to take any religion seriously until God gave an unmistakable sign that he was actually involved in one of them, and that he was real. So unless God did something to set apart one religion -- like raising one religion's founder from the dead, while leaving the rest of the founders pushing daisies -- unless he did something like that, I guess I'd have to stay an agnostic.
So all kidding aside, that nasty waterfall scenario -- I've heard something nearly like that preached by some [really bad] preachers as if it were the good news. But the more I read the Bible, the more I can smell out a bad preacher. You can read Jesus' teachings all day long without getting that "waterfall" feeling. Like, try the beatitudes [in Matthew 5]. Jesus is proclaiming God as "the God who blesses".
Take care & God bless
WF
Hey Fisher would I mind your two cents? You make more sense than any other conservative I know, more than most liberals I know. I like what you say, thanks for your comments.
All atheists accept the notion of dying and becoming nothing forever. I figure that's the way they want it. When I was an atheist I used to think that might be best, might not but it's all we have.
It's not all we have.
Post a Comment