How do Christians...

[Wiccan_Child]

Just to get this out o the way, that's not His punishment for us.
Let me put it this way. God is Love. He is the essence of life, He gives life. Doing His will means facing Him (with all the implications He has because of what He is) throughout life. The consequence of this is joy.
Turning from God is a way of rejecting God. This means rejecting Love (as it should be, as He mde it to be) and rejecting the essence of Life. It is choosing our will, which has no direction, because we dont know fully where the paths of our choices lead to, above His will, the path He has set for us with a direction for our best because He knows all paths, so He knows where He is leading us to.The consequence of this is suffering.

Why, exactly? Why is the consequence of disobeying or rejecting God, suffering?

So what Im saying is, there is no punishment - only choices, our choices. And because we affect each other, knowing it or not, some are simply more affected than others.

Then if it isn't a punishment, why does God allow it to happen? We could easily have a world without suffering and the human species with free will.

To answer about the inconsistancy of sufering: Think of it as God being the parent. And we are all His children. God's got his back turned to us, and rather naturally, as children without guidance, without discipline, without complete knowledge, with selfishness, some may choose to inflict pain in some weaker ones, same will do nothing, some will help others. But everything we choose to do will affect someone in some way - for worse than others, some for worse, some for better. It's the whole 'teacher's got her back to the classroom scenario' - chaos.

Which begs the question: why does God have his back to us? What parent would turn a blind eye to his older children bullying his younger ones?

Again, because God wants us to choose to Love Him. He wants us to Love Him because we Love Him, not because He has told us to.
Becaues if we Love Him because of his commnd rather than our choice, we'll be like robots - it wont really be a two-way relationship. There will be no willingness to love Him - just obedience by command. but no will.

But where does suffering come into all of this? Why does our choosing not to love him mean that he can't magically heal the child with the broken leg, or cure African drought?

 

[Opti]

Becaues if we Love Him because of his commnd rather than our choice, we'll be like robots - it wont really be a two-way relationship. There will be no willingness to love Him - just obedience by command. but no will.

So we can choose to believe in Him or not.

Except if we don't we will suffer now and after this life. It isn't a brilliant choice is it. There is quite an incentive to believe and I wonder if this is why Christianity is as popular a religion as it is.

As an agnostic I do pity myself somewhat and hope that I do come to believe as if what is written is true then I have serious problems.

What do Christians feel towards those who genuinely have no belief. We aren't actively rejecting anything but have no positive feelings towards religion. I suppose I could practise as a Christian 'just in case' but that wouldn't be right either... would it?

 

[vespasia]

I disagree: God, being all-powerful, can enact any goal he desires without having to use suffering. The only exception is if suffering is his goal, which flies in the face of usual theism.

Omipotent is one thing but what if it is combined with others such as omniscience, omnipresence and so forth.
I also question what suffering is and how much is perceived and how much may be real for what is unbearable to one is not merely survivable for another but becomes a source of life. I am happy to fly in the face of 'traditional' assumptions some of those assumptions should be challenged to find out just how much human construction has gone into their making.

It's not that we can't imagine why suffering is necessary for some greater good, it's that we can refute the notion that it is, simply by invoking the omnipotence of God.

I contend that we cannot truly imagine for our minds are friable and limited and even the best mind can only go so far. If we do begin to seriously imagine the concept of a necessity of suffering then we risk being folded in upon ourselves which is perhaps the reason that we ask 'Why?' instead.

Which is why I find the Irenaean theodicy so puzzling: it can only work by arbitrarily stripping God of his powers.

Ireaneus is but one concept amongst very many and for him it was not something he seems to have focussed solely upon for he was circa 130-200 and he was rather busy refuting gnostic concepts in his 'Against heresies', contributing to understanding of the trinity and considering ideas of salvation being progressively realized over time.

I think our biggest gripe is that we have to suffer, and we aren't told why.

Yet.
[See 1 Corinthians 13 vs 12 I think]

 

[ebia]

Which is rather worrying, since God was the one who created us all.

Scripture doesn't really say where evil 'comes from'.

And why can't it be wiped out? Is God willing, but unable? Able, but unwilling? Neither willing nor able?

To wipe it out would be to wipe us out with it, and he's committed to not doing that but to putting us and creation right.

But why is he taking his time? What, exactly, is he waiting for?

Scripture doesn't say, so any response I gave would be speculation.

And why hasn't suffering let up since the time of Jesus? What, exactly, happen there?

The root causes of sin and suffering were dealt with and New Creation began. John 20 has two metaphors for what happened at Easter - New Creation and New Exodus. In terms of the first we are still living in day one. It has begun and there is no looking back, but there is still all that chaos to be brought into order. In terms of New Exodus, we have passed through the Red Sea and Jordan, into the promised land, but haven't yet taken possession of it.

Unless, of course, you're an omnipotent deity .

Naieve concepts of the infinite are always self-defeating.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I disagree: God, being all-powerful, can enact any goal he desires without having to use suffering. The only exception is if suffering is his goal, which flies in the face of usual theism.

Omipotent is one thing but what if it is combined with others such as omniscience, omnipresence and so forth.
I also question what suffering is and how much is perceived and how much may be real for what is unbearable to one is not merely survivable for another but becomes a source of life. I am happy to fly in the face of 'traditional' assumptions some of those assumptions should be challenged to find out just how much human construction has gone into their making.

Agreed. However, are you really willing to concede that God lets us suffer because suffering is his ultimate goal? Remember, I'm asking how Christians reconcile the existence of suffering with an all-loving, all-powerful deity. Is your solution to reject the 'all-loving' qualifier?

It's not that we can't imagine why suffering is necessary for some greater good, it's that we can refute the notion that it is, simply by invoking the omnipotence of God.

I contend that we cannot truly imagine for our minds are friable and limited and even the best mind can only go so far. If we do begin to seriously imagine the concept of a necessity of suffering then we risk being folded in upon ourselves which is perhaps the reason that we ask 'Why?' instead.

I don't think our minds are too limited: are minds have some capabilities, and we can conceive some things well enough to know to refute them (invisible pink unicorns, for instance). If we can logically disprove something, then that shows we are sufficiently capable of understanding it.

To put it another way, the problem I have with the Irenaean theodicy is that it makes God callous and/or impotent. Is that the God of Christianity?

Which is why I find the Irenaean theodicy so puzzling: it can only work by arbitrarily stripping God of his powers.

Ireaneus is but one concept amongst very many and for him it was not something he seems to have focussed solely upon for he was circa 130-200 and he was rather busy refuting gnostic concepts in his 'Against heresies', contributing to understanding of the trinity and considering ideas of salvation being progressively realized over time.

Which is why I mentioned the Irenaean theodicy, not Irenaeus' theology. One's a proposed solution to the problem of evil, the other's concerns the more general nature of the divine.

I think our biggest gripe is that we have to suffer, and we aren't told why.

Yet.
[See 1 Corinthians 13 vs 12 I think]

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." - 1 Corinthians 13:12.

That is, our view of reality is flawed. Are you saying that what we see as suffering is not, in fact, suffering?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scripture doesn't really say where evil 'comes from'.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7.

This isn't a context thing either: God is describing himself to Cyrus.

Just saying .

To wipe it out would be to wipe us out with it,

Then the question becomes: why create us with it in the first place?

and he's committed to not doing that but to putting us and creation right.

What is wrong with us, exactly?

Scripture doesn't say, so any response I gave would be speculation.

Yes, but it is this speculation I am after. The point of this thread is to understand how Christian reconcile suffering with their view of God.

The root causes of sin and suffering were dealt with and New Creation began. John 20 has two metaphors for what happened at Easter - New Creation and New Exodus. In terms of the first we are still living in day one. It has begun and there is no looking back, but there is still all that chaos to be brought into order. In terms of New Exodus, we have passed through the Red Sea and Jordan, into the promised land, but haven't yet taken possession of it.

So, if your solution to the problem is that "God doesn't let us suffer, he's sorting it out" (my apologies if I've misunderstood you), what is he waiting for? I asked that question before, but I don't think you answered it.

Naieve concepts of the infinite are always self-defeating.

I'm quite familiar with the divine. A bigger problem would be the nebulous definition of the word 'omnipotent': to what degree is 'all-powerful', all-powerful?

Typically, people limit omnipotence to that which is logically possible (i.e., excluding the logically impossible). But that doesn't solve our problem here: excluding particular acts or groups of acts from Gods arsenal doesn't detract from the fact that he does, in fact, have the magic wand.

My comment was meant to illustrate that fact: whereas human parents and teachers don't have a magic wand, God does.

 

[Sketcher]

But why does God punish us for disobeying him? Why punish us for exercising the free will he himself gave us? And why punish us so inconsistently (the suffering I have experienced in my 20 years is far less than that experienced by, say, a starving and disease-ridden infant in devout country)?

God deserves our obedience. And he does not punish the exercise of free will. After all, with free will, we can choose to do the right thing, which he rewards. But when we abuse our free will to do the wrong thing, that will bring punishment. Also, what you have to accept if you also accept free will is that when people do disobey God, that naturally has negative consequences for others. So that's not punishment necessarily, but a consequence of wrong action. Say a robber chooses to rob you. It's not necessarily a cosmic punishment on you that you got robbed, it is a consequence of the robber choosing to rob you and having the ability to do so.

 

[Sketcher]

Then if it isn't a punishment, why does God allow it to happen? We could easily have a world without suffering and the human species with free will.

It's the consequence of Adam and Eve's abuse of free will.

But where does suffering come into all of this? Why does our choosing not to love him mean that he can't magically heal the child with the broken leg, or cure African drought?

Why bring the accusation against God, when it is our responsibility to help our fellowman? There are doctors for the child with the broken leg. There are surpluses of food already being harvested and yet more food could be harvested if not for corrupt governments and misplaced faith in economic regulation in some of these areas.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God deserves our obedience. And he does not punish the exercise of free will. After all, with free will, we can choose to do the right thing, which he rewards. But when we abuse our free will to do the wrong thing, that will bring punishment. Also, what you have to accept if you also accept free will is that when people do disobey God, that naturally has negative consequences for others. So that's not punishment necessarily, but a consequence of wrong action. Say a robber chooses to rob you. It's not necessarily a cosmic punishment on you that you got robbed, it is a consequence of the robber choosing to rob you and having the ability to do so.

A good point. But it raises another (there's always another ): when God sees a robber exiting a house with a pocketful of stolen goods, why doesn't he poof them back into the house, where they belong? No one's free will has been meddled with, and everything is as it should be.

Moreover, this doesn't explain natural evil: to whom do we lay blame for tornadoes, volcanoes, disease, famine, and drought?

It's the consequence of Adam and Eve's abuse of free will.

I take it you mean their eating of the forbidden fruit? If so, how did that lead to the myriad of natural and man-made evils we see today? How did that stop God from interfering there and then to stop it all from going wrong? You don't have to interfere with free will to eliminate disease or stop volcanoes, after all .

I
Why bring the accusation against God, when it is our responsibility to help our fellowman? There are doctors for the child with the broken leg. There are surpluses of food already being harvested and yet more food could be harvested if not for corrupt governments and misplaced faith in economic regulation in some of these areas.

I bring the accusation against God, as it were, because he is fully capable of solving these problems, yet they remain obstinately extant. To me, this is the biggest sign that God doesn't, in fact, exist. Hence the thread: how do Christians get around this apparent dilemma?

 

[Sketcher]

A good point. But it raises another (there's always another ): when God sees a robber exiting a house with a pocketful of stolen goods, why doesn't he poof them back into the house, where they belong? No one's free will has been meddled with, and everything is as it should be.

No, not everything is as it should be, since you still have an unrepentant robber.

As for why he doesn't always do that, I don't know. But I believe God is a fan of kuzushi. If you're unfamiliar with that, it's a term in Judo which refers to using your opponent's momentum against him so that you can throw him. Evil deeds are done. This is terrible. However, those are just small skirmishes in the greater war against good and evil. Many times, we only see the one step forward evil takes, but God knows it's just going to result in several steps back by the time he's done with his "throw," if you will. The ultimate example of this is Christ on the cross. Jesus didn't deserve one lash, one nail, or one minute on that cross or in the agony of death. But what did that bring? Redemption of mankind. Christ taking the keys to death and hell in victory.

I take it you mean their eating of the forbidden fruit? If so, how did that lead to the myriad of natural and man-made evils we see today? How did that stop God from interfering there and then to stop it all from going wrong? You don't have to interfere with free will to eliminate disease or stop volcanoes, after all .

Well, volcanoes and hurricanes and what we call natural disasters are actually regulating factors in this earth that God created. The way weather some of this other stuff works is just incredible.

There is some level of pain that existed before the fall, and we do know that pain serves a positive purpose. If you touch a hot plate, you experience pain in order to minimize the damage to your flesh. Some of this natural stuff would have happened anyway. But if mankind hadn't alienated itself from God the way it did - the way Adam and Eve arrogantly decided that their opinions were better than God's instructions, and the way we sin today - I don't think we'd see people on the bad end of volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and so forth. After all, finally in Heaven, Revelation 21:3 tells us that "[t]hey will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."

I bring the accusation against God, as it were, because he is fully capable of solving these problems, yet they remain obstinately extant. To me, this is the biggest sign that God doesn't, in fact, exist. Hence the thread: how do Christians get around this apparent dilemma?

God doesn't owe us Heaven.

 

[ebia]

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7.

This isn't a context thing either: God is describing himself to Cyrus.

It's a misleading translation, as the failure to be complements should show. It should make "Light and darkness... peace and calamity". In context "I bring blessing and judgement".

What is wrong with us, exactly?

That which Genesis 2-6 describes in a story. Trying to reduce it to prepositions does a less good job.

Yes, but it is this speculation I am after. The point of this thread is to understand how Christian reconcile suffering with their view of God.

It's not an aspect of the question that I've spent much time on. If it took 1500 years or whatever to get the story from Abraham to Jesus, it doesn't strike me as implausible that it might take a considerable time to advance the next part of the plan. It's clearly a plan that needs to be right, rather than rushed.

The church, the world, the mission, the plan - needs to get to some point that I can't understand in advance, for the next big event - the final consumation of the Kingdom of God, to happen in a fresh act of New Creation.

Paul seems to have thought that mission needed to spread the Gospel to the world - by some definition - first.

I've been much more interested in what God has done so far and what God calls us to do now, than in at what point God will bring that final completing act to bear.

I'm quite familiar with the divine.

You are? How? Ideas like divine, god, etc are not univocal.

A bigger problem would be the nebulous definition of the word 'omnipotent': to what degree is 'all-powerful', all-powerful?

It's not a word I have much time for.

We understand God not by looking concepts like omnipotent (however you want to fudge its paradoxes), we understand God by looking at Jesus of Nazareth.

Typically, people limit omnipotence to that which is logically possible (i.e., excluding the logically impossible). But that doesn't solve our problem here: excluding particular acts or groups of acts from Gods arsenal doesn't detract from the fact that he does, in fact, have the magic wand.

I don't think the idea of a "magic wand" (as you choose to call it) is compatible with the God I see in Jesus. So I think the metaphor of a messed up kid is exactly the right metaphor.

You seem to be rejecting the idea of a God that can put the world right by waving a magic want because he doesn't. And I would agree with you. But that isn't the God I see in Jesus of Nazareth anyway.

 

[Suggestion Box]

heheyy i think i'll poke my nose in for no apparent reason.

this is long, dangit. i hate making long posts but i get into it and just start going. whatevs try to stick with me. the conclusion, so you know, is that God allows suffering, even encourages it sometimes, in order to improve our understanding to the point where we are able to overcome our suffering.

storytime!

so i used to suffer. i would go to church and expect preacher to tell me how to overcome my suffering, but all he always said was 'just trust in the Lord!'. "Poppycock!" i would think (but not in such nice words). 'I pray about this every single day and the Lord sits idly by and does nothing!'

Annnd one day i considered that God may be real (had something to do with finding a church that made sense and had less fluff), and the implications. if there is an eternal afterlife, then what is earthly suffering in relation? even if i am physically tortured every day of my 'life', if there's eternity afterwards, then that's all that really matters. Life has not even begun! And so i began trying to think of ways to devote my current state of being to God in light of this. I soon realized that the thing causing me all this suffering is nothing but an earthly device, stuck here for an earthly purpose. despite the fact that never before had anything truly lessened the pain for the last 10 years, it turns out that my wholehearted belief in Him has caused a chain reaction of reasoning that has left my suffering impotent. the source of my suffering is still there, but i no longer regard it as suffering. (btw i don't mention what my suffering is because it would take too long to give it the credit it deserves as suffering).

the point is: in my experience, suffering is purely subjective in the face of God. and if, anywhere, suffering is truly unavoidable, one may realize that pain is very temporary and small in relation to eternity. this is not just my experience, either. I work in low-income housing repair for some of the poorest people in the nation. They have what we would see as terrible lives, purely based on their living condition. Yet they are some of the most faithful people I have ever met, and their condition seems not to bother them in the least.

i would quote the bible on this trend, but it is such a prevalent theme throughout Paul's letters that it would take hours to compile all the verses. Check out 2 Corinthians 1-9 for starters. look at Paul's life as well. he's a pretty miserable guy by human standards, but he seems not to mind. Timothy even brings suffering upon himself (in Phillipians maybe... can't remember) by getting circumcized. Very painful! why would he do that, it's jewish!? but he does it because the jews won't listen to anyone who's not circumcized. he does it to spread God's word, because he literally sees that as far outweighing any amount of earthly suffering.

 

[Opti]

if there is an eternal afterlife, then what is earthly suffering in relation? even if i am physically tortured every day of my 'life', if there's eternity afterwards, then that's all that really matters. Life has not even begun!

And that's where I worry. If the above is correct then those who are suffering have little to worry about.
If the above is wrong then this life of suffering is all they will get and then Christian beliefs are what might be in the way of people helping them more.

 

[HoseaWife]

Why, exactly? Why is the consequence of disobeying or rejecting God, suffering?

look at it from another angle: God's will is our best bet for living. Because God knows best - He actually knows whats gonna happen if we do this and this - so when He tells you to do that, its not 'just because'. In the end, for Christians, it comes down to faith because at the time it might not even look like the best thing to do. But the thing is, who will we trust -- The God of the Universe that has made all, knows all, and LOVES us - or our own measely judgement that doesnt get past what we can reach and see.

Then if it isn't a punishment, why does God allow it to happen? We could easily have a world without suffering and the human species with free will.

no. we couldnt. because its a 50 - 50 chance of choosing God's will and not choosing God's will for every human. The ball is in our court. You work it out.

Which begs the question: why does God have his back to us? What parent would turn a blind eye to his older children bullying his younger ones?

sorry. that was just an analogy. i just thought it would give a clearer picture if the parent had the back to the kids, rather than the kids having their back to the parernt AND being crazy naughty. Its really the kids who have their back to the parent.

But where does suffering come into all of this? Why does our choosing not to love him mean that he can't magically heal the child with the broken leg, or cure African drought?

Like I said, the ball is in our court. That's what free-will means. It means we get to make choices for ourselves.
Does that mean God is not here? That He is distant? No. God's still around, He's coaching us, giving advice, whispering tactics in our ears. But the choice is still ours constantly to listen to Him or not. And that doesnt mean He wont take the ball sometimess - He'll do as He pleases.

 

[HoseaWife]

And that's where I worry. If the above is correct then those who are suffering have little to worry about.
If the above is wrong then this life of suffering is all they will get and then Christian beliefs are what might be in the way of people helping them more.

How do you figure that?

 

[HoseaWife]

What do Christians feel towards those who genuinely have no belief. We aren't actively rejecting anything but have no positive feelings towards religion. I suppose I could practise as a Christian 'just in case' but that wouldn't be right either... would it?

No. You couldnt. To be a Christian, is to be active. And no, you cant just 'fake' belief. Its not about the people around, watching. Ultimately, its about you and God. THe judgement of other people, be it Chstians, or non Christians matter absolute zilch, nothing, beside the judgement of God.

And its not easy to follow Christ. Its not something one can do as side thing in their life. Its not ticking off boxes. Its living it. Many Chritians forget that the path of the Lord is a straight path - its not wide and easy. It takes endurance, strength and a LOT of faith. Having the label of 'Christian' means nothing. Thats just a label. Christians struggle SO MUCH to follow Christ. It doesnt just take a bit of our time, a bit of our life - it takes a LIFETIME. God wants all of you. Its not about being called a Christian, its about BEING one.

and 'doing nothing' is an activity. it is an active form of rejection.

 

[Opti]

How do you figure that?

Well take the millions starving in Africa. If they are with God then everything will be OK. While we believe this we are less likely to help. If we didn't believe this then maybe we would go to more effort to spare them the mess they are in, let's be honest, we could all do a lot more.

One of the problems I have with Christianity is that when people subscribe to it they will put up with (and allow others to) just about anything.

Also have you any feelings on my other point 'What do Christians feel towards those who genuinely have no belief'?

 

[HoseaWife]

Well take the millions starving in Africa. If they are with God then everything will be OK. While we believe this we are less likely to help. If we didn't believe this then maybe we would go to more effort to spare them the mess they are in, let's be honest, we could all do a lot more.

You see, this is the Christian challenge. Muslims have to work for their salvation, every action is crucial for their life, their salvation. Christians were given their salvation in a gold plater while we still rejected Him. God gave us a second chance at living while we wantetd Him dead. So then our obedience to God is not for our benefit - to get to heaven - its all for God. Its the way of telling God daily that we Love Him and we are SO greateful for all He's done.
So you see, as Christians, because we love God, we take initiative to show our love for Him. So just because 'God is with them' or they may have salvation, it doesnt mean we should be less inclined to help. God's Love (for giving us salvation) is not to make us lazy or let us off easy - its to make us MORE active for the right reasons (for HIM), its to challenge us in a greater cause, for a greater reason than ourselves.
If we were really honest about the hunger, lack of medical aid and other tings in Africa - its all our fault. And Christian or not-Christian -- as HUMANS we should be moved to do something about it. Not just because its our fault (even if it wasnt), but because they are humans, (made of bone, flesh, capable as yourselves, emotional as ourselves) we should not be still. And from a Christian perspective, God doesnt let us off the hook - He gives us a bigger reason, more initiative to do something about it. Not just because they are humans like our selves, but because they are BROTHERS, because that could be us, because God loves us all, because they are worth a lot more than they are getting, because He gives us strength and endurance to be a 'man' about it and put ourselves into it, and do not just 'something' but al that we can do.
And Im not derailiing - i gt what youre saying - we're not doing enough. And we're not. The fact that we have time to sit down and discuss it proves that. And I can go on and tell you what that says about us, but it wont change a thing, because Ill still be here typing about it and not really be acting out on it.

One of the problems I have with Christianity is that when people subscribe to it they will put up with (and allow others to) just about anything.

I know what you mean, we're not perfect. I beat myself about it sometimes. We try to be tolerant - but we're to tolerant sometimes. But dont judge christianty by those who just carry the label - if you wont just it by Christ, at least judge it by those who do and only say when really necessary.
But the thing about it, is that Christians can only change amongst Christians - like, we should only point out and not tolerate some things other Christians do (in a loving way), because we cant force our beliefs on others. Its not that we're ot concerned about them, its that it would be foolish to impose our morals to their lives when they obviously dont care about the same things we do.

Also have you any feelings on my other point 'What do Christians feel towards those who genuinely have no belief'?

I dont see your point here. The difference between those who have accepted Christ and those who havent, is that those who have are saved. That's it. But that shouldnt affect at ALL the way we treat each other - there shouldnt be any distinction in the way a Christian treats his peers, other people - Christian or non-Christian. 'With belief, or without belief.' We regard Christians as our brothers and sisters, just as we regard Muslims, Pagans, atheists, and whatever else ylou wanna call it. We are all brothers and sisters regardless. there are no priviliged, or favorites. We are to love one another as God loves us. But that doesnt mean we cant have our opinion about people - lets be honest, we're humans. We get along with some better than others, regardless of beliefs. But we must love all.
Personally, my view on 'no belief' is taht its bollocks. Everyone has a belief, regardless of what they call it. You can believe in a deity, in nature, in people or in yourself.


but lets not get this thread off-track. if you wanna make specific questions, make another topic - or you can PM me if you wanna know what I think...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

look at it from another angle: God's will is our best bet for living. Because God knows best - He actually knows whats gonna happen if we do this and this - so when He tells you to do that, its not 'just because'. In the end, for Christians, it comes down to faith because at the time it might not even look like the best thing to do. But the thing is, who will we trust -- The God of the Universe that has made all, knows all, and LOVES us - or our own measely judgement that doesnt get past what we can reach and see.

I don't think I can answer that question in the spirit of this board . But thinking about it, that's the point of this thread: I personally can't just put my faith in God and hope for the best. As far as I can see, there is no best

Like I said, the ball is in our court. That's what free-will means. It means we get to make choices for ourselves.
Does that mean God is not here? That He is distant? No. God's still around, He's coaching us, giving advice, whispering tactics in our ears. But the choice is still ours constantly to listen to Him or not. And that doesnt mean He wont take the ball sometimess - He'll do as He pleases.

I'm not saying we don't have a choice, I'm saying God doesn't help us when we make the wrong choice. Yes, we're tiny, fallible creatures, we make bad decisions. But how does that justify God's absence in the many disasters around the world? If God is a loving parent, where is his guiding hand?

Like I've said before, that's the main reason I'm not a Christian: it would be nice if the Christian god exists, but the world we see around us doesn't seem to match up with the world that contains this god.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not an aspect of the question that I've spent much time on. If it took 1500 years or whatever to get the story from Abraham to Jesus, it doesn't strike me as implausible that it might take a considerable time to advance the next part of the plan. It's clearly a plan that needs to be right, rather than rushed.

The church, the world, the mission, the plan - needs to get to some point that I can't understand in advance, for the next big event - the final consumation of the Kingdom of God, to happen in a fresh act of New Creation.

Paul seems to have thought that mission needed to spread the Gospel to the world - by some definition - first.

I've been much more interested in what God has done so far and what God calls us to do now, than in at what point God will bring that final completing act to bear.

Which begs the question: what's he waiting for? I might have asked you this before; there are a lot of people to respond to in this thread .

You are? How? Ideas like divine, god, etc are not univocal.

My apologies, I meant to right "I'm quite familiar with the concept of infinity" . Too much going on in my head for my own good, I think.

We understand God not by looking concepts like omnipotent (however you want to fudge its paradoxes), we understand God by looking at Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't think the idea of a "magic wand" (as you choose to call it) is compatible with the God I see in Jesus. So I think the metaphor of a messed up kid is exactly the right metaphor.

You seem to be rejecting the idea of a God that can put the world right by waving a magic want because he doesn't. And I would agree with you. But that isn't the God I see in Jesus of Nazareth anyway.

So what God do you see?