Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The best I can say is that evil serves God's purposes (Ro 9:22-23).Does God intend all the evil that occurs in the world? By "intend" I mean our usual meaning of the word, i.e., the desire or want behind an action.
There are many things that I don’t understand about the God of the Old TestamentNo, I think in Saul's case, an evil spirit was "sent" upon him. He wasn't merely being moody. But our modern political sensibilities won't "allow" us to read it that way. Personally, I don't like the idea that God may do this, but I try to put myself into the place of the Ancient Near Eastern mindset and grapple with it the best I can.
I recognize that sometimes, God shows Himself to be "STRONG," even if my recognition of this aspect of His Being leaves me befuddled and shaking my head.
The best I can say is that evil serves God's purposes (Ro 9:22-23).
I definitely agree with that. The cross/resurrection being the prime example.
I'll add, in Acts 2, Peter says his crucifixion was both fore-known by God and part of the plan of God and those who killed him were culpable of murder. I take it two agents can desire the same act but with different ends in mind. Does that mean God caused the crucifixion? I don't think it has to mean that, but the water gets muddy when trying to carve the difference between "cause" and "allow" at the joint, particularly when it comes to an omni- God.
It may not matter, practically speaking.
For instance, it's become known that when a person is mentally and/or physically stressed, the body produces hormones to prepare for "fight or flight." But if that person, instead of either fleeing or fighting, sits down and eats a donut, that releases a different set of hormones that should only be released when the person is relaxed. The resulting hormonal "collision" eventually results in a chronic metabolic imbalance.
No evil spirits in the Biblical sense are involved, but the effective response is the same. Medical science says that instead of eating in response to stress, the person should skip eating for a time and meditate. Jesus said when fighting our demons we need to pray and fast.
When we realize that a person should be relaxed while eating, then the 23rd Psalm gains another layer of meaning.
Chalk it up to mystery, and leave the Gordian knot intact.I'll add, in Acts 2, Peter says his crucifixion was both fore-known by God and part of the plan of God and those who killed him were culpable of murder. I take it two agents can desire the same act but with different ends in mind. Does that mean God caused the crucifixion? I don't think it has to mean that, but the water gets muddy when trying to carve the difference between "cause" and "allow" at the joint, particularly when it comes to an omni- God.
Right. There is a game people like to play with the Bible where they take a phrase like, "an evil spirit came upon him," and they say, "Well obviously that never happened. So what diagnosis out of the DSM V really occurred?"Of course, I get it---------this doesn't necessarily mean it was a demon causing him to be psychotic. But it also doesn't mean it wasn't.
I'd have to say that we are so unlike God, that the word, "intend" (or most other words we use to imply human concepts), don't really work the same way as we think of them. For example, when in Scripture something is translated "want", or when what-to-us-human emoting is expressed, "...how I wish that you would have...", (it is usually an anthropomorphism, which is ok for God to do, but when we do it, very questionable; we see everything backwards (but I digress).), we would probably do well to say something along the lines of, "God did what he did on purpose.", since logically if he is first cause, nothing can happen by accident.Does God intend all the evil that occurs in the world? By "intend" I mean our usual meaning of the word, i.e., the desire or want behind an action.
Hmmm! So THAT'S why law enforcement like donuts! How many YEARS, I've been wondering about that...It may not matter, practically speaking.
For instance, it's become known that when a person is mentally and/or physically stressed, the body produces hormones to prepare for "fight or flight." But if that person, instead of either fleeing or fighting, sits down and eats a donut, that releases a different set of hormones that should only be released when the person is relaxed. The resulting hormonal "collision" eventually results in a chronic metabolic imbalance.
No evil spirits in the Biblical sense are involved, but the effective response is the same. Medical science says that instead of eating in response to stress, the person should skip eating for a time and meditate. Jesus said when fighting our demons we need to pray and fast.
When we realize that a person should be relaxed while eating, then the 23rd Psalm gains another layer of meaning.
Congratulations, you've rendered God entirely unknowable in your avoidance of applying ordinary language to Him. No matter what we say about Him, we can only speak about it using terms that we understand. So if God cannot be approximated with ordinary concepts like "intent" then He is entirely unknowable and we can speak no truth about Him.I'd have to say that we are so unlike God, that the word, "intend" (or most other words we use to imply human concepts), don't really work the same way as we think of them. For example, when in Scripture something is translated "want", or when what-to-us-human emoting is expressed, "...how I wish that you would have...", (it is usually an anthropomorphism, which is ok for God to do, but when we do it, very questionable; we see everything backwards (but I digress).), we would probably do well to say something along the lines of, "God did what he did on purpose.", since logically if he is first cause, nothing can happen by accident.
So, yes and no, as I see it. The word, "intend", can still be taken to mean something that does not necessarily come about. But when God "intended" all the evil that occurs, there is no question as to whether or not every detail specifically was planned and caused, and sure to come about. (Every detail, after all, is part of what goes into makeup, or 'flavor', of the members and the whole of the Bride of Christ.)
Also, most often misconstrued by those of a philosophically self-deterministic mindset, to say that something negative was "intended" by God, the lack of the positive in the human meaning of it is taken way extreme. For example, to say, "Not only were the Elect predestined to believe and be saved, but the reprobate were predestined to 'destruction'" is inferred as implicative of that end predetermined for them in and of itself for its own reason--that God created them for that mere purpose, which is, of course, ridiculous. He has a reason for every detail that results of his creating.
And it may mean that the proper response for a Christian is the same either way.I like what you're saying here, RD, but somehow in Saul's case, I think he had something of a deep seated psychopathology come upon him that a yummy donut wouldn't alleviate.
Of course, I get it---------this doesn't necessarily mean it was a demon causing him to be psychotic. But it also doesn't mean it wasn't.
We also have to remember that the OT was written by men seeing through Bronze Age goggles.I'd have to say that we are so unlike God, that the word, "intend" (or most other words we use to imply human concepts), don't really work the same way as we think of them. For example, when in Scripture something is translated "want", or when what-to-us-human emoting is expressed, "...how I wish that you would have...", (it is usually an anthropomorphism, which is ok for God to do, but when we do it, very questionable; we see everything backwards (but I digress).), we would probably do well to say something along the lines of, "God did what he did on purpose.", since logically if he is first cause, nothing can happen by accident.
So, yes and no, as I see it. The word, "intend", can still be taken to mean something that does not necessarily come about. But when God "intended" all the evil that occurs, there is no question as to whether or not every detail specifically was planned and caused, and sure to come about. (Every detail, after all, is part of what goes into makeup, or 'flavor', of the members and the whole of the Bride of Christ.)
Also, most often misconstrued by those of a philosophically self-deterministic mindset, to say that something negative was "intended" by God, the lack of the positive in the human meaning of it is taken way extreme. For example, to say, "Not only were the Elect predestined to believe and be saved, but the reprobate were predestined to 'destruction'" is inferred as implicative of that end predetermined for them in and of itself for its own reason--that God created them for that mere purpose, which is, of course, ridiculous. He has a reason for every detail that results of his creating.
Congratulations, you've rendered God entirely unknowable in your avoidance of applying ordinary language to Him. No matter what we say about Him, we can only speak about it using terms that we understand. So if God cannot be approximated with ordinary concepts like "intent" then He is entirely unknowable and we can speak no truth about Him.
"Intended" refers to something planned or purposed, while "allowed" means something is permitted or given permission. I will stick to "allowed" mainly for the reason that God does not partner with evil. He "allows" testing, deception or torment to not only build character in a human being, but also to separate the wheat from the tares. We are told over and over that persecution will come our way and we are to stay on course. Jesus Christ of Nazareth also said that. " few" will find their way. Free will is always at play.Judging by the text, and by reason (in which God being creator of all that is, INTENDED all that is), I'd say that God more than simply "allowed" this 'evil' spirit to do as it did, but INTENDED it to do so.
Our whole modern understanding of who/what God is, and of language, needs a considerable cleaning and upgrade. It has become corrupted, not to mention the corruption of our worldview.
The issue is his reliance on rendering terms fundamentally different from their ordinary usage, which is what renders God unknowable. Because if we can't rely on the ordinary use of words to describe Him we may as well be using entirely meaningless words and talk about stuff like the gulfititudinous of God or other terms that have no bearing on reality. It's not that I am saying God is unknowble, but that approach to theology leads to language being useless because no matter what we say it fundamentally misses its target.Not entirely unknowable.
Of course that depends on what you really mean by "know."
Look at how wrong were the religious experts of Jesus' time...and they were closer chronologically and much closer culturally to the original writers.
I mean, I often wonder how well I really know my wife, and I've been sleeping beside her for over 40 years.
I suspect that if she overheard me trying to describe to someone else how she thinks and feels about many things, she'd correct me many times.
The next question: when David slew Goliath why did Saul ask who's son he was?
Surely he was acquainted by then
And it may mean that the proper response for a Christian is the same either way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?