Friday, January 6, 2012

You Deserve to Die!

You.  Me.  Everyone.  All of us sin and fall short of the Glory of God, and the wages of sin is death.  The next time you go to a funeral, from a Biblical perspective, you could walk around telling people how the deceased deserved to die, but I wouldn't recommend it.  And when you read the Bible, and find the countless passages where God slays, destroys, and annihilates people, or directs others to do so in His name, you are to think:

"Thank you God!  Thank you for killing them.  They deserved it."

But don't we all deserve the same treatment, from that perspective?

My longtime friend and Christian sparring partner, Ollie Wallflower, and I were in a recent debate regarding whether or not God caused a worldwide famine to enslave the Jews in Egypt.  One of the collateral points I discussed was how, through this famine, God caused the suffering and death of an untold number of people worldwide, especially those who were without practical means to get to Egypt.  In defense, he said this of his perception of my viewpoint:

"In your view, people are, generally speaking, innocent and undeserving of punishment. *That* is an irreconcilable difference of opinion [between us], and one that will cause you to look unfavorable upon nearly chapter of the Bible. Which is, of course, what you've done on [The Wise Fool] blog."

I've run into Mr. Wallflower's thoughts here before from the mouths and the typing fingers of other Christians defending God's mass killings.  They assume, and perhaps sometimes correctly, that the doubter/objector presumes everyone is innocent, or mostly good, such that there could never be justification for God to paint His wrath in such broad strokes.  Such a position is not without merit, but it is not necessarily Biblically based, and, thus, folds like origami in the mind of the Christian.  Contrary to the thoughts of Mr. Wallflower, I try to avoid positions like that at all cost precisely because they are easily circumnavigated.

The Bible is my perspective.  To quote Shakespeare's Hamlet:

"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon."

What the heck does that mean?  Well, my sport is to use God's Self-ascribed characteristics to prove the incongruous, non sequitur nature of the Bible.  That is what I've done on The Wise Fool blog, but apparently I haven't done that well enough, as Mr. Wallflower missed this perspective.  Let's see if I can do a little better, right here, for this issue of God-directed slaughter:

Given:
  • God has perfect justice.
  • God has perfect mercy.
  • God has perfect love.
  • Everyone sins.
  • Sin is repaid by death.

Based on the Givens:
  • The first time any person sins, or perhaps the first time a person sins after they reach the age of culpability, God is entitled to kill that person.
  • It is a question of when they will sin, not if they will sin.
  • Ergo, at any given time, God is entitled to kill nearly everybody on the face of the planet.
  • If death is the payment for sin, then justice demands death.
  • However, mercy and love promote betterment and preservation, which is contrary to the justice of death.
  • There is no clear resolution to this conflict of mercy and justice, but love, spread to everyone, would suggest that the really bad people would be killed off early for the betterment and preservation of the others.
  • If everyone deserves death at the moment they sin, then every moment they live beyond that point is a gift of mercy.
  • With perfect justice and perfect mercy, there must be a perfection to the distribution of mercy, because otherwise it would be unjust.
  • Ergo, all similar sinners should have a similar life expectancy.
  • From the above conclusions, the worst sinners should always die young, while those who live relatively sin-free should expect to live relatively long.
  • On the other hand, if mercy or justice, or both, were unequally distributed with regard to merit, then God would appear arbitrary and capricious, and therefore justice and mercy would be imperfect.
  • Nobody can die before they sin, because otherwise justice is imperfect.
Reality Check:  I haven't even begun to speak about a disaster caused by God yet, and, already, the implications of perfections of justice, mercy, and love are proving to be problematic when you look what happens on earth.  People die with no sense of cause regarding sin.  Some wicked people live long.  Some good people die young.  Some kids die before they are old enough to even conceptualize sin.  This is already pretty good proof that the God of the Bible does not exist, at least not a God with the aforementioned attributes.  Arbitrary, capricious behavior is far from what we would consider perfect in any sense.  However, God does say in Exodus 33:19 "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," which pretty much tells you God is going to help out who He wants to help, not necessarily who deserves the help, and thus solidly refutes the principles of perfect justice and perfect mercy right there.

Enter Calamity:
Let's go with everyone's favorite God-cause disaster: The Flood of Noah.  The Flood is covered in Genesis 6-7, for reference.

Imagine, if you will, one thousand dice.  Just regular, six-sided dice.  The "one" represents the state (with regard to sin) in which you were born.  If you are a true Catholic, it sucks to be you, because you inherited sin, so God has license to kill you from the moment of birth.  For Protestants, or anyone else with better sense, "one" represents a sinless state.  The "two" represents when you commit your first sin.  Additional increments on the dice represent degrees of wickedness, so to speak.  So a "six" is someone who kicks puppies, makes burn sacrifices of his own children, and your children, defrauds your grandparents out of their life savings, and actively plots out and participates in genocide; you know, the scum of the earth.

Time to roll the dice...  Wow!  What a racket!

Now that the dice have settled down before you, you are gazing on one thousand souls, representing the much larger population of the earth at the time of the flood.  You've got innocent "ones" in the midst of sinners, including a fairly good distribution of the worst of the worst, and everything in between.  What a surprise!  And they will be surprised, too, when that wave of destruction of the Flood comes their way.

Take the dice and roll them again.  This time, the rolled numbers correspond to ages.  "Ones" are five years old and under.  "Twos" are six to ten years old.  Continue on in increments of five years to where "sixes" represent people above the age of twenty five, because, hey, this is several thousand years before Christ, and the life expectancy was not very high back then.

Undoubtedly, some of the "sixes" from the first roll remained "sixes" on the second roll.  These lucky bastards were as despicable as any one you'd never want to meet, and yet they lived long lives up until the Flood.  And some of the "ones" and "twos" from the first roll, well, surely they made it up to a relatively long lifespan on the second roll too.  However, others got a low roll again, being mere youths at the time when they got to experience what breathing water felt like.

Evaluation:  Just like in the Reality Check up above, based on age and status, what we see is a whole bunch arbitrary justice, only this time it is doled out on an epic scale.  God shed His mercy on some truly despicable people for a relatively long time, and, on the hand, stomped out thousands of budding lives before they had a chance to bloom.  God is also killing people who have never sinned, an act that He has no right to do so if constrained to justice.  You could also call it capricious, given that many prior generations existed, with all of their evils, which eventually gave birth to the people living at the time of the Flood.

These are the Bible-based issues I have with the Biblical, God-caused, epic exterminations of peoples.  It's not that I think everybody is innocent, or that nobody deserved punishment, although clearly a subset of those kind of people would be victims of God's wrath as well.  It's that these Acts of God make a mockery of justice and mercy, and love for that matter.

16 comments:

  1. Oh come on TWF, God put us on this earth, He can take us off! And do what He pleases with us when He does....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly D'ma! It is the Potter's right! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let me begin with a point that you might take as harsh and offensive, but it's unavoidable in a discussion such as this: Physical death is not a big deal, from God's perspective. That's the impression I get from reading the Bible, anyway. From *your* perspective, in contrast, the importance of this life is immeasurable, because it's all you have, and so physical death is a *very* big deal. I'm not sure it's even possible for you to not have a visceral reaction to reading about physical death as a result of that. I may be totally wrong. In any case, I'll give you what I think God's perspective is in all the loss of life that sometimes seems to pervade the Old Testament. Let me examine some of the challenging statements you've made above:

    "People die with no sense of cause regarding sin. Some wicked people live long. Some good people die young. Some kids die before they are old enough to even conceptualize sin. This is already pretty good proof that the God of the Bible does not exist, at least not a God with the aforementioned attributes."

    The aforementioned attributes are justice, mercy, and love. Let's look at each. From God's perspective, everyone who has knowledge of good and evil and chooses evil is guilty. To be merciful would mean to either exonerate all such people of their sins "just because," or to pay the price for them and thereby make atonement (just as a lawyer might ask for a certain amount of money to atone for injuries a person sustained in a car accident). To exonerate all people of their sins, whether they wanted it or not, and without any payment for their sins, would be a merciful act, and a loving one, but not a just one. To offer to pay the price himself, as God has done, fulfills all three attributes. I understand that we're only discussing physical death here, but I wanted to look at the big picture for a moment. Regarding physical death, you wrote, "death is the payment for sin." From a Biblical perspective, this is only correct if you're referring to *spiritual* death. As one whose sins have been forgiven, I will not need to pay for my sins at all. And yet I'm gonna die physically just like you. Hopefully less painfully. (I jest.) Seriously, I hope the fact that even *Jesus* died physically makes the point that physical death is *not* the punishment for sin. Spiritual death--i.e., eternal separation from God--is. And for those who had a knowledge of good and evil, chose to do evil, and refused God's offer of forgiveness, it appears that spiritual death is indeed their punishment.

    [end of part 1 -- continued below]

    ReplyDelete
  4. But I know, you want to focus here on physical death--the taking away of one's years. Why do some wicked people get to live long lives, while some good people only get a few years on this Earth? Is it just, loving, and merciful to allow this discrepancy? I would say two things here: 1) I don't think God's mercy and love extend beyond his offer of forgiveness. In other words, if you ultimately refuse his offer of payment for your sins, you have exhausted his mercy--and perhaps even his love (that's debatable)--toward you. 2) I think that God, who seems to focus exclusively on the afterlife, has little regard for the number of one's years on this Earth. That's my impression, anyway.

    "Arbitrary, capricious behavior is far from what we would consider perfect in any sense."

    See above. Is it arbitrary to allow one person to live 80 years, and cause another to perish in the Flood at age 25? Maybe, maybe not, but in view of the afterlife, which is eternal, this life is insignificant, just as 80 dollars is insignificant when compared to infinite wealth.

    I'll save the "capricious" charge for another blog post, as that could be a very lengthy debate.

    "God shed His mercy on some truly despicable people for a relatively long time, and, on the [other] hand, stomped out thousands of budding lives before they had a chance to bloom."

    If in view here are people who ended up eternally separated from God, then I would again refer to points #1 and #2 above. The "heathen" guy who lived longer might, or might *not*(!), have had a more enjoyable life, but in the big picture it's insignificant, and I don't think God's mercy or lack thereof is a factor here, because I think his mercy ends at his offer of forgiveness.

    "God is also killing people who have never sinned, an act that He has no right to do so if constrained to justice."

    Looking at 2 Sam 12, God "killed" David's son in the womb as punishment for *David's* sins. Who suffered, in God's view? David did, presumably by losing the enjoyment of watching this child grow up, etc. Note that God evidently does *not* consider the fact that this child "missed out" on life here on Earth to be any sort of punishment. (Also note that this child is in Heaven, which reinforces the fact that he is innocent and undeserving of punishment.) That doesn't surprise me, because God knows what Heaven is like, and he fully grasps the concept of eternity and eternal bliss. We, as mortals, do not and can not.

    I hope my comments weren't entirely off the mark, from your perspective. At the very least, I've given you lots of proverbial cannon fodder. My grammar is starting to fall apart, so I know it must be late. I have a bone to pick with you via e-mail, but I'll wait until tomorrow. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for taking the time to respond, Mr. Wallflower. I understand you have some extra obligations as of late, so I appreciate your reply even more.

    As you are well aware, the views you have do not reflect the mainstream Christian opinion, and, as I believe I have expressed to you in the past, I generally favor your view conceptually over that of many Christians. However, it is heretical. But don't worry. I have come to realize that, due the the Bible's construction, any fully defined Christian believe is heretical. So at least you are in good company! :-)

    Briefly, in the big picture, there is nothing we can do as humans to actually hurt or damage God, except possibly His "feelings." Now if I hurt your feelings (perhaps the bone you need to pick with me?), what stands in the way of us having a good relationship? It comes down to you. You could choose not to forgive. You can choose to forgive me only if I repent. But what if you forgive me because you know I am just a silly mortal with a plethora of imperfections, is that a breech of justice? Hardly. This is the situation between a god and a man.

    You said: Regarding physical death, you wrote, "death is the payment for sin." From a Biblical perspective, this is only correct if you're referring to *spiritual* death.
    That is a minority position you hold, as you may know. There is actually quite a bit in the Bible to suggest physical death is what is meant...

    Adam and Eve were told that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:16-17). God's promise for their sin was that they would die, not instantaneously, just that their lives would someday come to an end. That promise is carried out in Genesis 3:22, where God forbids them from eating from the tree of life. This is physical death, not spiritual.

    Add to that the tens, if not hundreds of commandments in God's Law which carry a death sentence for specific sins, and all those times God physically killed people for their sins against Him.

    Add to that Jesus. All that Christian rhetoric about Jesus conquering death, yeah, that's not spiritual death they are talking about. Jesus did not die spiritually. He died physically. And if the wages for sins is instead spiritual death and an eternal separation from God, it is impossible for Jesus to render payment.

    It's really a poor model of morality, if you think about it. God's feelings are hurt, so someone's got to die?

    On to part 2...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replying to Mr. Wallflower's part 2...
    You've started this section off from a post-Jesus perspective, even though the specific event being referenced is the Flood of Noah. At that time, there was no legitimate reason to believe that any information about Divine Salvation or forgiveness. Even so, words from the NT unintentionally illuminate my point quite well: 2 Peter 3:9

    "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." NIV

    Peter gives the reason for the delay in the Second Coming as providing time for more people to come to God. You need to say that Peter was wrong in order to maintain your position. Why? Because, as is indicated by his words, time alive equals time to repent. This is an extension of God's mercy. Yet if one man is slain by God at 20 years old and another at 80 years old, how can you say that they have equally had time to repent? How can you say there has been justice? And, as you keep mentioning, with eternity hanging in the balance based on our living decisions, this life becomes very important. Again, unless you want to call Peter wrong. Unless there really is no good reason for the delay of Jesus' Second Coming. ;-)

    I think that adequately rebuts your first two objections, or, at the very least, more fully explains my Biblical perspective.

    Regarding David's son, it is worthwhile to note that 2 Samuel 12:15 states that the boy got ill, which probably means that he too suffered, in addition to David. No SIDS for him.

    You state that the boy ends up in Heaven, presumably based off of 2 Samuel 12:23 where David says "I will go to him" referring to his dead boy. It does not mention where the boy is, so you (and other Christian scholars before you) have jumped to the conclusion that the boy is in heaven. We should not forget that the Hebrews used the metaphorical collective "Sheol" for the place of the dead. It is very possible David is simply saying metaphorically that he too will go to the grave like his boy before him, but it is impossible for his boy to be resurrected.

    You have said that God seemed focused on the afterlife, but that does not match the Scriptures, such as my own study regarding obeying the Law to gain life life, nor in the other verses in the Bible which seem to imply no afterlife, such as my favorite poetic version in Psalm 78:39:
    [God] remembered that they were but flesh,
    a passing breeze that does not return.


    Of course I know that view of the OT is an irreconcilable difference between us. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Responding to your 3rd paragraph: I understand what you're saying, but there's more at stake than just God's "feelings." Just as an Earthly judge cannot declare a murderer innocent just because she feels like it, neither can God forgive in such a capricious manner.

    Your 4th-7th: We could--and maybe should, in another post--get into whether it truly is a minority position (or more importantly, what the Bible says about it), but let's leave it at this: The next time you find a Christian who believes that physical death is the punishment for sin, give him a puzzled look and say, "But I thought your sins were forgiven?!?" And then ask, "And if death is a man's punishment for sin, then what's Hell?!?" ;-) For the record, I *do* believe Jesus died a spiritual death on the cross. Many Christians do not, primarily because they think that Jesus could not possibly have "gone to Hell," which is a place reserved for the Devil and bad people. Don't get me started on this. . . .

    Your 8th: God's "feelings" have nothing to do with justice. As a simple example, it is clearly not just to allow someone who killed another person to go free without punishment. As a more difficult one, someone who blasphemes, curses, and hates God would not only be rather out-of-place in Heaven, dwelling with him for eternity, but would be guilty of wrongdoing. Such a person has sinned and needs forgiveness--not because God's "feelings" are hurt because someone doesn't like him, but because this person refuses to accept him as Lord and Judge.

    Your 11th: Some say that the verse you quoted indicates that God will wait until all the "elect" are brought to repentance. Others say that God will wait until every "tribe and every nation" (Rev. 5:9) has heard about Jesus. There are other interpretations, but I like the first one because it fits well with the concept of predestination. Likewise, the issue you raise about the 20-year-old versus the 80-year-old is best dealt with by remembering Romans 8:21ff and so many other verses that make clear that the 20-year-old's eternal destiny would not have been changed had he lived another 60 years.

    Your 13th: Physical suffering is *not* a punishment from God, as a rule. But I do see your point that David might not have been the only one who suffered.

    If your interpretation of 2 Samuel 12:23 is correct, then one day I, Fool, will "go to you." ;-) More seriously, I think the fact that David immediately stopped mourning and had sex with his wife is an indication that his son was *not* in Hell.

    And lastly, yes, that is indeed yet another irreconcilable difference between us. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. With regards to (WRT) God's feelings
    I respectfully must say you are both logically wrong and Biblically wrong. An Earthy judge is bound by laws outside of himself, while God is under no such constraint. They are irreconcilably different circumstances. God is bound only by Himself, just as the forgiveness we extend to others, or choose not to extend to others, relies completely in our own control and is not subject to legal judgements. Jesus even speaks to this affect with the messages to turn the other cheek, for each of us to forgive everyone else's transgressions against us, and forgive seventy times seven times. Jesus does not tell us to demand justice.

    WRT Jesus' "spiritual" death
    Given that God is a spiritual being, if Jesus spiritually died, and Jesus is God, that renders Nietzsche's sentiment literally correct: "God is dead." And it's no wonder why there has not yet been a Second Coming! But given that God, the spiritual God, cannot die (Habakkuk 1:12), you are at a logical impasse.

    Your suggestion is funny because I had raised the same objection in a post long ago.

    Here's the trouble though: physical death is not the punishment, it is a punishment, and as Romans 5:15 suggests, it is not necessarily a punishment for something we ourselves did. The full punishment is that sin separates us from God, right? That's why we needed Jesus, to reconcile us, because otherwise that separation would be eternal, which, if I am not mistaken, is your view of what Hell is (which is another minority position, but is swiftly gaining popularity). But given that Jesus did not spend eternity separated from Himself, He didn't really pay the price of our sins, now did He? Remarkably, this inconsistently supports my above conjecture, that it is ultimately and simply a decision wholly in God's power, not relegated to some bastardized notion of justice, because Jesus got a get-out-of-Hell-free card.

    WRT God's Feelings again
    As a simple example, it is clearly not just to allow someone who killed another person to go free without punishment.

    ...ergo, no murderer who evaded the law could ever be Saved, because he would skip God's punishment and that would be unjust? Your king's in check, because we're back to feelings again.

    WRT the BIG wait
    You start off suggesting God was waiting for the elect to repent, and end saying that the fate of people who died in the flood would not change. On one hand, you are waiting for a free will decision. On the other, it's fate. (By the way, I think you made a typo in citing Romans 8:21.) These are two incompatible views. But you raised that same stance previously with David's son, whom you had said went to Heaven long before the babe could have made a choice. Of course now you see how awkward it is to claim God was waiting around for the elect to repent, right? So I guess you are saying 2 Peter 3:9 is wrong after all. :-) By the way, you may want to check out this study of John where I point out that Salvation has nothing to do with free will, Biblically speaking.

    [...continued in the next comment...]

    ReplyDelete
  10. [...continued from the previous comment...]

    WRT David's son
    It's not that David's son was in "Hell" per se, in the Christian perception of the word. it's that David's son was in the grave. Like Job 7:9 says:
    "Just as a cloud dissipates and vanishes, those who go down to Sheol will not come back."

    "Come back" meaning the dead have figuratively gone somewhere. David, was portrayed a realist here, recognizing that he could not bring his child back to life, and someday he too would go to Sheol. This is the sentiment we see in Jacob when he learned (the lie) that Joseph was dead in Genesis 37:35:

    All his sons and daughters came to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. "No," he said, "in mourning will I go down to Sheol to my son." So his father wept for him.

    That is "down to Sheol," not up to Heaven.

    The difference between the mourning of Jacob versus David is that Jacob had a relationship with Joseph, while David's son was just a newborn. That, and David had many other wives and sons to find comfort in!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "God is bound only by Himself"

    Despite God's omnipotence, he does not have the power to declare that evil is now good, or that lies are now the truth, etc. Indeed, no such power exists or could exist.

    "Jesus even speaks to this affect with the messages to turn the other cheek, for each of us to forgive everyone else's transgressions against us, and forgive seventy times seven times."

    As we (Christians) are forgiven, so we must forgive others.

    "Jesus does not tell us to demand justice."

    It's not our role to act as judge, but we all recognize and desire justice, and we expect it from our government, our spouse, our employer, etc.

    "But given that Jesus did not spend eternity separated from Himself, He didn't really pay the price of our sins, now did He?"

    *My* punishment, as a sinful mortal, would be eternal separation from God. I would never be able to pay the price for my own sins, much less anyone else's. I would die a spiritual death from which I would not be resurrected. Jesus, as sinless and immortal, was punished spiritually (what I referred to as "spiritual death"), and successfully paid the price. You might argue that he didn't spend enough time there, but of course he doesn't even exist within the space-time continuum, as we do.

    Note that spiritual death is not like physical death in the sense that it's a cessation of life. No one ever dies spiritually in that sense.

    "no murderer who evaded the law could ever be Saved, because he would skip God's punishment and that would be unjust?"

    In such a case, the punishment *would* be meted out--just not to the murderer. The murderer's proxy would be Jesus.

    "You start off suggesting God was waiting for the elect to repent, and end saying that the fate of people who died in the flood would not change."

    I see your confusion and I'll admit that I'm guilty of creating it. Let me attempt to clarify my position. By saying that I liked that first interpretation, I did not mean to imply that I think 2 Peter 3:9 means that God must wait until these predestined people repent before the Second Coming or else they won't be saved. In my view, at least, God doesn't need to "wait" until a person repents--their fate was sealed before time. Again, God doesn't even *exist* in time, so he can't actually wait. But we do, and therefore God chooses to allow certain things (such as the repentance of these people) to occur, either for his pleasure, or ours, or both. BTW, some interpret the verse to indicate that God's plan is for believers to be spared from the tribulation.

    "I think you made a typo in citing Romans 8:21"

    In a way I did, because the relevant part isn't until verses 29 and 30.

    Regarding David's son, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Despite God's omnipotence, he does not have the power to declare that evil is now good, or that lies are now the truth, etc. Indeed, no such power exists or could exist."

      You are conflating two completely different kinds of arguments here. What I am suggesting is not impossible, as opposed to what you are saying, which falls into the "can God make a rock so big that He can't pick it up" category.

      In fact, even the Bible itself, in Jesus' own words, shows that God can and does forgive people without Jesus being dead. Do you have to kill something before you forgive someone? That is the essence of the argument. Clearly, the answer is no. Maybe you can help me out here: What's that verse about God not wanting sacrifices again? ;-)

      "he doesn't even exist within the space-time continuum"
      As we've discussed before... By definition, time is a measure of how long things exist. Ergo, if God is outside of time, He does not exist. God may function somewhat irrelevant relative to our time, but time is relative. If God's actions do not all take place instantaneously, then some time elapses between actions. Remember that verse in Revelation about the half hour of time passing in Heaven?

      "Note that spiritual death is not like physical death in the sense that it's a cessation of life. No one ever dies spiritually in that sense."

      My error. I didn't realize that death didn't mean death. Funny that. ;-)

      It just does not add up that you would not have been spiritually resurrected for your sins, yet Jesus, paying the price for you, was spiritually resurrected (according to your logic). And not only for you, but for you and all of the elect. Using chemistry, physics, or mathematics, there's no way you can balance that equation.

      In the end, it is God deciding "that is good enough." And when it comes down to that, an arbitrary decision, there is no reason to throw a death in the middle of it.

      "Regarding David's son, I think we'll have to agree to disagree."
      OK, but I think you owe an answer to the relevant Genesis 37:35 quote. You don't have to answer to me, but you should at least completely resolve the matter in your own mind. Of course, if you are willing, I would love to read your explanation. :-)

      Delete
  12. "Do you have to kill something before you forgive someone? That is the essence of the argument. Clearly, the answer is no. Maybe you can help me out here: What's that verse about God not wanting sacrifices again? ;-)"

    Sarcasm aside, I can only guess you're referring to Psalm 40:6 or 51:16. Does something or someone have to die as punishment for evil? That's a good question. Our justice system seems to think so (at least in the case of murder). Generally speaking, humans have an idea of what it would take to pay for a certain sin/crime. Most would agree, for example, that spending 30 years in prison for reckless driving leading to manslaughter is way too strong of a punishment, yet 3 days in prison is way too little. How we humans have developed such a sense of the cost of a certain crime is interesting. But I digress. In Leviticus 17:11 we read, "It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible." Was this an arbitrary decision by God, or something else? Did this only apply under the old covenant? Clearly God's plan was for Jesus to shed his blood for our sins, but was his physical death merely symbolic of the spiritual punishment that he endured, which was invisible? I can't say for sure--only God knows--but these are interesting questions for me to think about.

    Along those lines, here's a verse to consider: "But Jesus answered, "You don't know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of sorrow I am about to drink? Are you able to be baptized with the baptism of suffering I must be baptized with?"" (Mark 10:38, NLT). If Jesus's punishment (the "bitter cup of sorrow") was physical only, the answer to these questions would have been an emphatic "yes!," because the twelve apostles *could* have endured--and in several cases, evidently *did* endure--physical torture and death commensurate with Jesus's torture and death.

    "Ergo, if God is outside of time, He does not exist."

    [Pulls hair out] I give up!

    "My error. I didn't realize that death didn't mean death. Funny that."

    Sarcasm aside (again), in the case of spiritual death, it quite plainly *doesn't* mean the cessation of something, as is the case with physical death.

    "I think you owe an answer to the relevant Genesis 37:35 quote"

    In saying, "in mourning will I go down to the grave to my son," I think Jacob is simply saying that he's so devastated by the loss of his son that he'll grieve for the rest of his life. Note that Jacob, who almost certainly believed that his son was now in Heaven, mourned severely. David, whose infant son HAD NOT REPENTED, didn't mourn at all when he learned of his death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I apologize if I was overly sarcastic last time! It seems that I may have been.

      "Was this an arbitrary decision by God, or something else?"

      Now we are on the same page of the argument, although probably not in agreement. ;-) It comes down to a decision made by God. God is not answering to a higher power. God is not subject to the laws of the universe. Fundamentally, it comes down to what He decided. That is the angle I have been trying to communicate.

      You know, I somehow take comfort in getting you to this point, and I can truly respect that you "can't say for sure--only God knows--but these are interesting questions for [you] to think about." I think this can at least provide some additional insight to the skeptical position.

      WRT your Mark 10:38 quote, I seem to be a little slow this evening, and I am not understanding the point you are making. You seem to be saying that the answer would have been "yes" if it was all physical, but was actually "no" because it was spiritual. But if I am correct that such is the point you are making, in Mark 10:39 Jesus tells them that they will, indeed, drink from that same cup.

      Sorry about the hair loss! ;-)

      Finally, WRT David's son, I don't want to push the point any further, because you were ready to agree to disagree already, but I was wondering if you would be so kind as to elaborate on why you wrote "HAD NOT REPENTED" in all caps.

      Delete
  13. "God is not subject to the laws of the universe."

    It would appear that this is a correct, and even obvious, statement. After all, God *created* the universe. But what I think you're trying to say is that God is not subject to *any* law--whether it's in this universe or outside it--and the validity of that statement is entirely unknown, because 1) the Bible, to my knowledge, says almost nothing about the matter, and 2) human logic, while helpful, only goes so far here. For what it's worth, I've heard it taught by several Christian teachers that God *is* subject to several laws. It's commonly taught that God cannot lie, for example, and verses such as Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 support this view. If that's the case, then there's at least one example in which God is subject to at least one law. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this, because it's problem of logic, which is, of course, your forte.

    With regard to Mark 10:38, that was indeed the point I was trying to make, and you are, of course, correct in pointing out that the very next verse smashes my argument to pieces. That'll teach me to read the verse in context next time, won't it? ;-)

    "... I was wondering if you would be so kind as to elaborate on why you wrote "HAD NOT REPENTED" in all caps."

    Simply because 2 Peter 3:9, which we had been debating above, is about the salvation (either from Hell or from the Tribulation) of people who have not yet repented. In the case of David and his infant son, we see David at peace with the fact that his son, who had not repented of his sins (obviously), was dead. If David believed that the unrepentant go to Hell, without exceptions, then he would have certainly mourned even more than he had over the boy's sickness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Ollie, welcome to the club of mistake makers! It's a rich brotherhood extending back thousands of years. I think you'll like it here! :-)

      I have heard similar laws for God, and the Bible mentions more, such as God does not change His mind, God can't break a promise, etc.

      I would think that god, in its fully abstract concept, would not be subject to any rules, even about lying, and it would not have any inherent characteristics either; good, bad, purple, man-shaped, etc. That kind of a god establishes the system, but is not at all constrained by the system it created.

      God (capitol G, Christian) is a defined god, which indeed possibly limits what He can do, just by the nature of definitions.

      If He can do no evil, or if He can't lie, then we would have to at least consider the possibility that our "reality" would be altered by His actions. That is to say, if He does something we would think is evil, it actually becomes good. And if He lies, then it becomes truth. So if God were to say that the grass is pink, *pop*, all grass would become instantaneously pink so that God would not be lying.

      Or, on the other hand, God may simply be unable to lie. At that point, it almost becomes akin to the "can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it."

      We also have to consider the definition of a lie. A lie is something which is not true, not real, not actual. Strictly speaking, metaphors are illustrative lies, as are parables. Clearly God has no problem with this. The Bible calls human righteousness like filthy rags, yet praises several humans for their righteousness, which would also seem to be at odds.

      Personally, I would think that a god who is not subject to any laws, who can lie, who can be "evil," yet chooses to act righteously, would be a better god to worship. Free will works both ways. :-) But that also opens the door to mistakes and regrets, qualities inconsistent with God.

      That's my two cents anyway.

      Delete