quote:

---

To me this is like saying that we can not know when the doctor is setting our broken bone and when Osama Bin is breaking it

---

Putting that aside for the moment (I'm not to worried about whether God sends people beforehand, the argument doesn't seem to hinge on it) :

A) Icon still has not dealt effectively with God OVERRIDING freewill. In effect he says, "God overrode freewill at 9/11 and what we are left with is almost 3300 dead people instead of 25 000 dead people." What Meph Man is saying is, "If God overrode freewill (and nobody disputes, "to the extent that He does this He compromises His gift of us being able to choose to become loving beings"...actually, this can work in favor of Meph's argument and is a part of it), more would have been accomplished as a result, like, not one person would have DIED except maybe the terrorists themselves!! Why? Because God hates to lose a rook soooo much. He would have said, "Srew the rules, I'm gonna cut to the chase and I'm not gonna lose one rook!" In principle, you are affirming this.

Digression: With respect to the terrorists, I say "maybe", because God is so merciful, to Pharoahs, Hitlers and Osama bin Doofuses.

But then, here is my question for all, but especially for Meph. It would seem to me that what we see is not all there is, hence Greg's "rules" that we are not even aware of. For an examle, there are rules that God can break, (Hell, the resurrection is the biggest rule breaker in the book. God's sooo cool eh?) and then there is the "mysterious" rules that we are not aware of, that God can't break so that if God could break them, what we end up with is no dead people instead of 3300.

Second Digression: This, in some ways seems to me to be meaningless. For if God can do the resurrection, surely he can put a "stop action" on Satan and his co-horts to blow up buildings and kill people)

I say "mysterious" rules because of this:

quote:

---

I can’t specify the rules under which God can and can’t do this, except that insofar as he has GIVEN an agent "say-so," and thus insofar as an agent is morally responsible for their own character and action God can’t determine their character and action.

---

Meph Man, is it not also presumptuous on your part to know creation to the extent that you know that there are no rules that God cannot break? Isn't this as presumptuous as you saying that Semeia and Co are being when they say that God is definetly not involve in 9/11? Just questioning. After all you do seem to have some pride.

quote:

---

Hmmm...Looking at that PBS show website, and all the articles, I'm beginning to wonder if I was more right than even I would have liked.

---

Hee, hee, hee...you're such a daaawg.

B) Listen now.

EVEN GREG ADMITS THAT 9/11 IS A JUDGMENT OF GOD AS A POSSIBILITY, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING!!

In otherwords, he confirmed Meph Man's position as I said before! It's not a question of speculation! It's a question of it being a possibility and even Greg admits as much. Which, to me means, he has conceded his point and Meph Man has won the argument!

Later...



Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War



Edited by - BBBCanada on 09/12/2002 6:55:38 PM

quote:

---

In my opinion, it simply comes down to this: the spiritual warfare motif gives us ONTOLOGICAL ASSURANCE about who God is, but not EXISTENTIAL ASSURANCE about what He does.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

---

quote:

---

quote:
---------------------
I can’t specify the rules under which God can and can’t do this, except that insofar as he has GIVEN an agent "say-so," and thus insofar as an agent is morally responsible for their own character and action God can’t determine their character and action.
----------------------


Meph Man, is it not also presumptuous on your part to know creation to the extent that you know that there are no rules that God cannot break? Isn't this as presumptuous as you saying that Semeia and Co are being when they say that God is definetly not involve in 9/11? Just questioning.

---

First of all, this is DOC'S statement, not mine. Check the post. However I do know where it comes from. The presupposition is from a more process idea that says that there is no "supernaturalism" in that God BREAKS laws. There is a noninterventionist manner in which God ALWAYS goes by set metaphysical principles, but certain exercises of said principles LOOK TO US like laws being broken. The only way that the idea of God "breaking" rules is intelligible is to assume a type of INTERVENTIONISTIC worldview...which I believe Doc doesn't.


*********************************

And about me having pride...can I help it even I'm always right???

Catch the sound of Meph's already BIG crainium getting more swolen...LOL!

Love ya, man!!!!

Blessings,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/12/2002 12:17:01 PM

quote:

---

Isn't the point that some of us are trying to make here that we AREN'T ALWAYS ABLE TO SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE. Sometimes we just won't understand. God participated in the slaughter of women and children on multiple occasions. I doubt that in the midst of any of those OT events, we would be able to see "greater goods" there either, but we trust that God is good and that he is working the best that he can with a world of free-willed beings.

---

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------All we can know is that God is GOOD. He is doing his best with what he has.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I really don't want to get called on this, yet; because I want to wait on Meph and give him time on the other thread.

But here's a preview.


Recently I was reading how we make two different, opposite assumptions about "anthropology" (who/what man is) that -- at least in what I've been wondering about the implications of what I read -- perhaps the "theodocy" has been placing all the burden on God. And maybe that is in error. Hense: "deficient anthropology."

The quote above seems to assume that God is the only being with free will. And it seems to assume that the best-He-can of the "doing his best" rests on non-willing beings. That it rests on beings who do not have to participate. And that non-participation is both normative AND that not participating actually can, in some/at-least-some circumstances be part of something good.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................

quote:

---

Knowing if a specific evil comes from God’s judgement or from evildoers is called Wisdom. If we cannot discern the difference then how are we to behave in the face of evil? If we know that some evil is coming from God’s judgement should we stand against it? I say no. “Evil” coming from God’s judgement is NOT evil. It is love. God alone can both love and judge at the same time. To stand against God’s judgement is to stand against His love. Jesus told Peter to “get behind me Satan.”

---

I would like to see a little more on this from the Meph Man. I believe he has addressed this before. Something 'bout responding to evil regardless of the ambiguity. Meph?

Iconoclast said:

quote:

---

Sodom and Gomorrah DID suffer evil because of God’s judgement AND HE TOLD US WHY.

---

OK. I wanted to address this. This goes back to God "preparing people for judgment." Again, I don't think the argument hinges on this and here's why. To me, there is something askew with the way we do theology sometimes. That is, sometimes we interpret (do our hermeneutics) according to the letter of the law and sometimes we interpret according to the Spirit of the text. What Icon is doing here is more of the former. That is, he thinks that the way it was done in the O.T. is exactly the same way we should do it today.

For sure, there is a continuity, (God letting us know about impending judgment) but it doesn't have to follow the exact same mode of operation as in the O.T. To do so, is to follow one line of hermeneutical application which tends to be frought with exegetical and hermeneutical problems i.e., we look at situations today and see how close we are to the Bible and then we follow suit. Not cool. Evangelicals really need to do their homework in this area.

Anyhoo, ultimately, what this means is this.

Is the Bible God's revelation to us? Yes. Does it let us know his will? Yes. Can you think of any situations and passages in the Bible where God judged a nation and why he did it? If there was any reason why God would bring judgment on a people, it was because of oppression and injustice. One nation's downfall, is another nation's blessing. Scripture is uniform on this.

You see where I'm going with this don't you?

God has not left us without a witness. His Word is good enough to let us know why God would judge a nation. Besides, one could possibly argue that God has provided prophets to the N.T. church and they proclaim this word from the scriptures. And that word is that God would judge a nation because of oppression and injustice. Now, I don't know about you, but I for one can think of over 30 000 000 injustices in the U.S. I can think of other forms of oppression and injustice as well. Just pick one. Again, with Meph and others, I am not in the position to speculate whether this was even a judgment from God or whether it was Satanic and so I don't align myself with Robertson and Falwell. However, this doesn't mean I can't see injustice and oppression in the land.

quote:

---

I firmly believe that God powerfully acted to prevent more death and destruction on September 11, as much as He possibly could without compromising His gift of free-will and all that it entails.

---

This, to me is beating around the bush. Here's how I see 9/11 as a possible act of mercy. It is possible, that if this was an act of judgment, MORE could have perished. But because of God's mercy, only as few as 3300 perished that day.

Secondly, who gave Icon the right to speculate on God's involvement? He is doing the same thing that he is accusing Meph, BJS and myself of doing! How does he know that more will not perish in the future? This is the problem of trying to speculate on this event. At any rate, what have we been hearing for the last 365 days? My paper reported yesterday that analysts question, not "If," but "When" the next attack will take place on the U.S.

Is this good enough for your God sending you a word in advance? My only concern is that we don't stone the "Prophets."

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War



Edited by - BBBCanada on 09/12/2002 9:21:01 PM

quote:

---

Is it possible that Sept 11 was God acting unilaterally?

---

quote:

---

We keep asking why, but we don't need to know why something happened; we can't use that knowledge to go back in time and stop it. And the terrifying truth is that we can't gather enough clues to know how to prevent it happening next time. That's our real reason for so desperately asking why; we hope to gather enough clues to be able to protect ourselves from suffering again. But God does not give us such power. He reserves it to himself and challenges us to trust in him. At times like this, that trust is very hard.

Theodicy nettles us, but the bottom line is that it's irrelevant.

The only useful question in such a time is not, "Why?" but "What next?" What should I do next? What should be my response to this ugly event? How can I bring the best out of it? How can God bring Resurrection out of it?

That is, of course, what he did when his own Son was bleeding and crying out to him. He did not prevent the suffering and did not cut it short, but he completed it with Resurrection.

If this is true, it changes everything; if it is not true, Christians are pathetic fools, because it is on this that we have staked all our hopes. "If Christ is not raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins... If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" (I Corinthians 15:17, 19).

So, there you are. All we can do is persevere and trust, that if Jesus was raised we too will be raised, and all our suffering will be made right. All we can do is cast ourselves more completely into the arms of God. Stephen concludes the psalm, repeating three times a cry of trust that I hope he would make at such an awful time: "Forsake me not, O Lord: O my God, be not far from me. Make haste to help me, O Lord of my salvation."

---

DAG, this sounds familiar...hmmmm...I wonder where I've heard it...


Bottom line: It's AMBIGUOUS. Let's combat evil where we see it. Let's rely on the Spirit as well as our friggin common sense. And let's trust God while we do it.


Outtie,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/13/2002 08:21:15 AM

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------
Knowing if a specific evil comes from God’s judgement or from evildoers is called Wisdom. If we cannot discern the difference then how are we to behave in the face of evil? If we know that some evil is coming from God’s judgement should we stand against it? I say no. “Evil” coming from God’s judgement is NOT evil. It is love. God alone can both love and judge at the same time. To stand against God’s judgement is to stand against His love. Jesus told Peter to “get behind me Satan.”
---------------------------------------------------


I would like to see a little more on this from the Meph Man. I believe he has addressed this before. Something 'bout responding to evil regardless of the ambiguity. Meph?

---

I gotcha back, man. Cool enough. The principle is simple. And the ironic thing is that Doc and I, on this point, are not THAT far off.

Doc says that we are to assume that all evil is from NON-God sources unless we have reason to believe otherwise. This would basically God TELLING US that it was God and NOT anything else. This whole position assumes that one's true focus of COMBATTING evil is necessarily linked to the complete understanding that said "evil" does NOT come from God.

Meph says that we shouldn't give two peas in a friggin BUCKET about where pain, suffering, and death-filled situations come from...and concentrate on RESPONDING to the "evil" in the Spirit and faith in God. This position's chief presupposition of the FACT of "evil" situations is more important than the REASON for said situations. Moreover, it assumes that the Spirit (along with the reality of the situation) will STOP US if, for some reason, we are NOT supposed to be working against the "evil"! Kinda like how Paul was constrained from going to Bithynia in Acts...

Acts 16:6-8
Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas.

Now follow the logic closely. Paul and his companions were under the GENERAL ASSUMPTION that they were to spread the Gospel everywhere, right? So it made SENSE to them to try to hit all the spots they could. There was no reason that THEY saw to NOt go to Bithynia. But guess what? The SPIRIT OF JESUS had different plans. Was Paul well within his right to think that it would have been ok to preach in Bithynia. Heck, yeah. ALL people needed the Gospel, right? BUT Paul was attentive enough to the Spirit to take this "constraint" as a DIVINELY UNDERSTOOD reason that amended Paul's USUALLY CATEGORICALLY UNDERSTOOD IMPERATIVE to preach the Gospel to all nations.

Let's take the thought here. Wherever we see death, destruction, mayhem, and whatever, we clothe ourselves in the love of God and RESPOND to those times in God-centered faith WHILE keeping a listening ear for the Spirit. Who knows what God may constrain US from doing? But are we well within our rights to believe that AS A DEFAULT MODE, we should always RESPOND to "evil" situations in life-affirming ways? Heck, yeah!

Does this sit well with everyone? It does with me. What do you think, Brandon?

Holla,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/13/2002 08:44:56 AM

quote:

---

If not, is there some other possibility? If so, can you identify any other specific possibility for why God would author this in order to gain a greater good?

---

My response is this.

quote:

---

Ok. Now it seems like we are kicking around the same rock over and over.

---

You are miss'n the point again. Let's not speculate as to any of the "greater goods," or whether this was a judgment or not. I can't tell what God was up to in the heavenlies.

Also, I will respond to Iconoclast posts concerning God destroying "WHOLE CITIES", etc, later.

quote:

---

Does this sit well with everyone? It does with me. What do you think, Brandon?

Holla,

---

Love it Meph man! Why?

A) Because it can help us locate evil and "evil" addressing Iconoclast's concerns. It does this by centering (focusing) not on where evil came from (origins), but on our RESPONSE to evil. That is, we should respond to all evil (BY DEFAULT), unless of course the Spirit indicates otherwise. Why should this be? Could it be that we are aiding and abetting the enemy? I don't know, I AM NOT GOING TO SPECULATE!

B) It is totally charismatic! It leaves room for Spirit involvement! Praise God! Awesome!

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

quote:

---

The main point, Icon (and others), is that you can NOT definitively say that Sept. 11th was DEFINITELY not a product of a "greater good" motif. You cannot. Period. You have no absolute frame of reference from whence to do so. You have no frame of reference from whence to see the ALL THE INTERACTIONS AND RAMIFICATIONS of ANY particular event to tell whether or not a particular "means" is justifiable. You can give all the reasons in the world why you THINK or BELIEVE that it's not but you cannot 1) remove the POSSIBILITY and 2) justify your claim with your FINITE understanding of all the factors.

It's just really THAT simple.

---

quote:

---

When God announces to Abraham the possibility of wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham objects...yes, objects, "Shall not the judge of the earth do right?" Now, Mephi would have us believe that Abraham's reasoning was wrong, that he had no frame of reference from which he could justifiably believe God incapable of wipping out the innocent along with the guilty.

---

Hmmm. Tell you what. I see your Abraham and raise you a Job. Check it, just because Abraham objected does NOT mean that his objection was justifiable on the highest level. We dealt with this before and came to the conclusion that BECAUSE of who God is, God would NOT have done something unjust JUST BECAUSE Abraham failed to "object". As if the epitome of goodness had to be REMINDED to be good. God always operates according to factors that we don't see. (Isn't that what Job tells us??) So what does Abraham "objecting" to God's proposition have anything to do with the purported ACCURACY of Abe's perception...which YOU seem to be assuming is the case?

And as far as "objections" how about this one?

Habakkuk 1

Habakkuk:
How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, "Violence!" but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.

God:
"Look at the nations and watch-- and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told. I am raising up the Babylonians, that ruthless and impetuous people, who sweep across the whole earth to seize dwelling places not their own. They are a feared and dreaded people; they are a law to themselves and promote their own honor. Their horses are swifter than leopards, fiercer than wolves at dusk. Their cavalry gallops headlong; their horsemen come from afar. They fly like a vulture swooping to devour; they all come bent on violence. Their hordes advance like a desert wind and gather prisoners like sand. They deride kings and scoff at rulers. They laugh at all fortified cities; they build earthen ramps and capture them. Then they sweep past like the wind and go on-- guilty men, whose own strength is their god."

Habakkuk's OBJECTION:
O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves? You have made men like fish in the sea, like sea creatures that have no ruler. The wicked foe pulls all of them up with hooks, he catches them in his net, he gathers them up in his dragnet; and so he rejoices and is glad. Therefore he sacrifices to his net and burns incense to his dragnet, for by his net he lives in luxury and enjoys the choicest food.

Hmmm...it seems to me that Habakkuk FROM HIS LIMITED UNDERSTANDING could not see the holy, good God using vicious barbarians like the Babylonians...EVEN AS MEANS OF JUSTIFIED DIVINE CHASTISEMENT. Are we willing to say that Habakkuk's analysis was correct JUST because he objected? Whoowee..


Holla,


PS: I'm catchin up on the email. I'll hit you back today sometime.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/13/2002 2:54:58 PM

quote:

---

Mephi, would you say that ambiguity is a result of our epistemological limitations or of the character of God? I assume you would say the former. And, because of the former: 1) our belief in the goodness of God’s character is a matter of faith 2) offense at God is a real and reasonable alternative.

Although, as you have reminded us, Scripture records morally ambiguous results of God’s activity in the world, I think that Scripture is pretty clear that, nevertheless, we are to confess that God is just and merciful and loving and good.

I think it’s hard to deny the ambiguity of God’s activity in history--even within sacred history! However, this does not mean that therefore God’s character is ambiguous and I don’t think this is what you’re saying. I think that you are emphasizing the extent to which the Christian witness to God’s justice, mercy, love, and goodness is a matter of radical faith--so radical that it may contradict our own understanding of what would constitute good or evil actions.

Maybe?

---

Not maybe. YES! EXACTLY!!! This is what Brett meant by his statement:

quote:

---

In my opinion, it simply comes down to this: the spiritual warfare motif gives us ONTOLOGICAL ASSURANCE about who God is, but not EXISTENTIAL ASSURANCE about what He does.

---

The fact of God being good, just, and merciful IS INDEED a matter of radical faith, a faith that is centered...NOT in the interpretations of divine providence given certain evil occurances...but IN the HISTORICAL birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Faith, like hope, works best when it has a basis...and the Christ Work is the SOURCE of the basis for our faith, hope, and love.

The only problem is that many people (not just Doc) have a problem with God's actions potentially CONTRADICTING what they believe to be good on a fundamental level. Ala "If 'love' can do X, then what the @#$# does 'love' mean??") it's a hard thing to deal with, to be certain. Thus, it is understandable. However, it is at THIS point that our faith MUST become MOST RADICAL. We have to say:

Despite EVERYTHING I see around me and EVERYTHING I feel right now, I know the Jesus Christ is the SUPREME DEMONSTATION of God's love for EACH human being. Therefore, I have NO DOUBT that WHATEVER is going on, God is good and God loves me.

This, I believe, makes the Christ Work COMPLETELY central to one's theodicy, while not failing to recognize the immense amount of ambiguity in this world.

Very...very...very...VERY well said, Electra. Words cannot express my thanks for your concise, yet POWERFUL way of putting it.

Grateful,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/13/2002 3:45:05 PM

quote:

---

...BECAUSE of who God is, God would NOT have done something unjust...

---