Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: QUESTIONS FROM A FRIEND Message-ID: <1281@shark.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 06:23:12 EST Article-I.D.: shark.1281 Posted: Sat Mar 9 06:23:12 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 08:10:53 EST References: <347@oakhill.UUCP> Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Distribution: net Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 98 Xref: watmath net.religion:6115 net.religion.christian:459 Summary: In article <347@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >In article <109@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: >> >>.......................................... God is upset by sin, and would >>be so if Christ died or not. God is angry at the killing of Jesus >>because it was murder, regardless of what good resulted. >> > >I find it odd that a God which a) knows everything beforehand, b) had the >patience to create the entire universe and c) has unbounded love does >something as primitive as getting angry. One would expect such a God to >at least be slightly emotionally more mature than us mortal humans which are >merely creations. > >This seems to be a perfect example of where man creates God in his own image. >"Well, God gets angry so when I'm angry its certainly excusable." It seems to me that it is a perfect example of man attributing motives to God which may not be even remotely accurate. There are several traits which seem to be properties of God as He has revealed Himself. One of these is a sort of unbounded love (though the word "love" may be an inexact description) but another is an absolute justice. I eventually reconciled this conflict as being a sort of tradeoff. He knew that His creations would eventually rebel and severely damage not only themselves, but the whole world, which He had given them. He chose to do this because He wanted to do it this way, and at the risk of seeming to compress the Eternal God into a merely human framework, I suspect that the dignity which was part of the Image of Himself which He gave His creatures, was inconsistent with His denial of their choice. I prefer this because it seems to be a more elegant theory than the one which postulates a God whose interaction with man is in the form of tantrums. Anger is a legitimate emotion. There is nothing about anger that makes it evil of itself. However, like all emotions, it must be balanced by reason, and it must not be allowed to fester itself into hatred. >Another notable Biblical passage refers to God regretting that man was ever >made. Its hard to think that an intelligent God that knows the future would >regret the consequences of their own doing. OR couldn't think of a better >way to run the world than to say "believe this or be doomed." Don't you think >that even a third-grader with an inventive mind could come up with a better >scenario? > >If there is such a universal entity such as God I would think that such >Biblical passages would be blasphemous, or at least highly amusing. I believe you are referring to the Genesis account of Noah, where God is said to "Repent that He had made mankind". My assertion again is that (I assume the existance of God here) the PERCEPTION of God is at fault. It is consistent with the model of a merciful and loving God, who is at the same time a just God. He draws a line at which point He decided that man has gotten to the point where the demands of Justice outweigh the demands of Mercy. As for third graders coming up with "better ways", well, perhaps some inventive third grader could come up with a scheme that might appear to be better on the surface, but it would lack sophistication. >As one who grew up a dedicated Christian I certainly agree with this point. >As I learned to evaulate my belief system (something definitely discouraged >in the church) ... Really?! Which version of "church" do you mean here? If you mean, in the church you grew up in, I grant you that they might discourage inquiry. But I haven't found that the many different churches which I have gone to showed any uniform readiness to supress thoughtful evaluation of beliefs. Most wouldn't let you become a Christian through them WITHOUT thoughful evaluation. Overall, I haven't noticed any greater popular anti-intellectual sentiment inside the church than outside it. Not that there isn't any, just that it seems to be a more global thing. >What did God do wrong? Was it a bad decision on His/Her part? Just how >intelligent is a God that can create the universe but not oversee its >perfect functioning? This falls under the heading of "tradeoffs". And incidentally, it wasn't that God did anything wrong, but rather that man, having been created with the capacity for choosing, chose to rebel. >If you insist that God wanted to create the universe >in a non-perfect manner doesn't this show an imperfection? Couldn't God >as smart as He/She is figure out a way of obtaining the same result with >a perfect universe? It appears that God loses either way. Either God >was incapable of creating a perfect universe or was incapable of figuring >out how to do so to achieve His/Her/its ends. >Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet If God set out to create the PERFECT universe and failed to do so, it might show an imperfection. However, this argument fell into disuse around the time of Voltaire. God apparently chose to create the universe which we see around us. Since this is clearly not "the best of all possible worlds" then all we have shown is that God MAY have failed. There is still the possibility that He set out to create a Universe which would not remain perfect, since He would get more of what He wanted from it. Since He has not clearly demonstrated His goals in the creation of this universe, we can only speculate about them. Hutch