Theological Opinions

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Very interesting thoughts Lief. I'm glad I asked.

In the author analogy, I think it would be fine if the evil character dies in old age and is never punished. I think that's realistic to life on Earth. There is a genocidal tyrant that died in his sleep, of old age and was never brought to human punishment. I forget who he was, someone else can fill that in if they wish. But certainly people must be held responsible for their actions.

I agree with you . I often find the books that contain the tyrant dying in his sleep the more interesting ones, also. They certainly have their useful purpose. I was talking about justice, though. It would be just for me to punish a character in a book for his actions, and you couldn't argue that the justice is flawed. There's no point in my continuing in this vein, though, for we're in agreement.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think of the corrupt people, though.

If I understand you correctly, a person can be born here on Earth incomplete. This person can therefore commit a sin. Let us say God predestines that this person does commit very horrible sins, and the person in question becomes evil. When he dies, he will go to Hell for all eternity. And he will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he cannot control. Let me rephrase that. He will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he did not control. This would be just, you would say, to show the Elect his glory. Yet it still remains that the corrupt live horrible existences, doomed to kill and rape, and suffer "eternal destruction" as you put it. I can only say that this seems very sad.

It is my view that hell is actually not a place of eternal torture. There's only one scripture in the whole Bible that refers to eternal torture, and that was in a vision, and I am fully capable of debating that one's being taken literally. Eternal fire yes, eternal destruction yes, but eternal torture is only to be found in one place in the Bible, and I can debate on that one.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

It also seems true that God showing his wrath upon the evil persons (who become evil according to his own design) could easily be mistaken for God showing his wrath upon guilty and innocent alike, for the necessary effect of evil acts being destined to be is the suffering and deaths of innocent victims of the evil. The evil people suffer for all eternity after life, and many of the innocent people suffer great pains in their lives and at the ends of them. On the other side of the coin those innocent people, provided they have accepted Christ, do go to Heaven for eternity.

Good people do gain massive benefits from suffering, though. Just look at RÃ*an. She's got chronic back pain, and she is one of the most loving people on Entmoot. I'd look at the persecuted church. As it says in the scripture, "suffering leads to perseverence, perseverence to character, and character to hope." I believe it's in that order. Yes, one sometimes can mistake something terrible that happens to someone as God's wrath. I think that's a wrong thing to do. Jesus said clearly in the scripture that not everything that happens is done because of guilt. The eternal destruction (or as I'd put it, destruction in eternity, or destruction for eternity, so that for eternity we no longer exist) and punishment in the End Times is clearly shown for what it is. Sometimes a punishment is a clear judgment. For example, in the Old Testament the Lord gave prophetic warnings of punishments to come for sins. Those were direct sin/punishment relationships. However, there are plenty of times when suffering and death are dealt out for totally different reasons. Like Jesus said in the New Testament, "were those people that were killed recently when the Tower of Siloam fell any more guilty then the people in Jerusalem? I tell you, no!" He said something to that effect. Anyway, he was very clear on the point that not all suffering comes directly because of sin.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

In my opinion, it seems to me that under such a model, the real "criminal" is God. I put "criminal" in quotes because these ideas make God seem, to me, more human (broken) than criminal. It seems to me very much like an author of a book indeed, or a child playing with his army men. God creates the conflict, and God wills the evil to be done against the good, and the evil to be punished for actions that were ordained by God, so that He might show the glory of Himself to the good, and deliver them from the suffering which He has caused to be. It is almost as though God should be punishing Himself. It is like a trapper who lays a trap for a specific traveler. The innocent traveler walks by, steps in the trap, and experiences extreme pain. The trapper emerges from the trees, and pries the traveler out from the trap. "Thank you!" the traveler says.

God was argued against on the issue of pain in Romans and Job. Both times he answered, "I am God. Who are you to argue with what I do?" And he has awesome purposes planned for everything.

One fact that you ought to know about Christianity, is that we do actually believe that God experiences all the suffering that happens in the world. Every sin that occurs is done against him, and every pain that is felt is felt by him. He says that quite clearly in the scripture.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

So my own disagreement with the idea comes down to what I would call the "seeming unfairness" of it all. But I don't suppose any answer aimed to tackle the problem of evil would be wholly satisfactory. It's quite a vexing problem in any faith.

Thanks for the long and interesting reply.

I certainly enjoyed answering your post.

[Nurvingiel]

Don't let me forget to respond to your other post Lief, it was very interesting. I just wanted to get these points across from GLB before I run to class:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think that I'm qualified to answer that. I'm sorry.

No need to apologize, it is a very deep and personal statement.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In the scripture it says that for those whom God has come into, he will enlighten their minds when they read the scripture, to grant them understanding as to its meaning. So I'd advise that you pray that the Holy Spirit will do this for you, when you read the Bible. It's a common practice among Christians. I do it sometimes. God will steadily lead the believers that are in touch with his life into deeper and deeper understanding.

Thank you for the advice. It seems a right thing to do when reading a holy book, and I am going to need all the help I can get to understand it!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You could just read it a little at a time. I was advised when I started reading the scripture seriously to start with the Book of John. It's a book of the Bible that is for people that are just coming into a deeper faith in Jesus, or don't have faith in him yet. The writer wrote about it that the contents were written so that others might believe. It's a marvelous book of the Bible.

Good plan, reading a bit at a time. Then I can reflect on it. I'm going to stick with my original plan though - start to finish.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Jeeeeeepers! I wouldn't laugh at you for asking that! I'm not even positive . The New Testament was written within the very same generation that witnessed the events they describe. The Old Testament books were written at many different points in history. They weren't all written at the same time, and they had to fulfill a LOT of qualifications before they were accepted as the Word of God by Jewish religious leaders.

(Starts checking sources) Let's see . . . the first five books of the Bible were written between 1446 BC and 1406 BC. Moses was the author, and he very likely wrote it during the Israelite wanderings in the desert, before they reached Canaan. The first five books of the Bible were called the Pentateuch. Those were the oldest Old Testament books. The others were written at many different points in history. People from all different walks in life wrote different books. It's really amazing what different kinds of people wrote these books. So those were the earliest dated books. I don't want to check all of them, though . Are there any specific ones you want to know about, in particular?

I am so very late for class. More later!

[Lief Erikson]

Goodnight. Or good morning, for you . Good luck with school. (Starts repeating the same thing to self, much more dryly ) I'll be going now. Au revoir!

[Rían]

Re : Free Will

OK, Lief ... *gets out the heavy artillery*

Why don't we look at what God Himself says about the matter (thru the divinely inspired Word of God)

(i.e., the Bible)

Here is your assignment -

Please give me at least 5 different analogies that God Himself, thru the Bible, uses to describe the relationship between Himself and humans (including author/character, if you can find it). Rate them according to (rough) percentage of usage, and please include references. For each one, describe the relationship involved in the analogy, and important "events" in the relationship, and how these "events" impacted those in the relationship.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Very interesting thoughts Lief. I'm glad I asked.

In the author analogy ... Let us say God predestines that this person does commit very horrible sins, and the person in question becomes evil. When he dies, he will go to Hell for all eternity. And he will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he cannot control. Let me rephrase that. He will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he did not control. This would be just, you would say, to show the Elect his glory. Yet it still remains that the corrupt live horrible existences, doomed to kill and rape, and suffer "eternal destruction" as you put it. I can only say that this seems very sad. ...

In my opinion, it seems to me that under such a model, the real "criminal" is God. I put "criminal" in quotes because these ideas make God seem, to me, more human (broken) than criminal. It seems to me very much like an author of a book indeed, or a child playing with his army men. God creates the conflict, and God wills the evil to be done against the good, and the evil to be punished for actions that were ordained by God, so that He might show the glory of Himself to the good, and deliver them from the suffering which He has caused to be. It is almost as though God should be punishing Himself. It is like a trapper who lays a trap for a specific traveler. The innocent traveler walks by, steps in the trap, and experiences extreme pain. The trapper emerges from the trees, and pries the traveler out from the trap. "Thank you!" the traveler says.

So my own disagreement with the idea comes down to what I would call the "seeming unfairness" of it all.

I totally agree with you here, Ñólendil.

The only thing I didn't quite understand was your statement that "It is almost as though God should be punishing Himself." Could you please explain?

[Ñólendil]

The only thing I didn't quite understand was your statement that "It is almost as though God should be punishing Himself." Could you please explain?

I meant that, under Lief's view, God seems largely responsible if not entirely responsible for the evil that is done by the evil human beings. Yet God sends those evil people, who are evil by His own design, to Hell. But isn't it His fault? That's all I meant by that.

[Rían]

Yes, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that it's His "fault" in that case, but I just didn't understand why you wrote that God was punishing "Himself". And I still don't quite understand - but if it's just that it's unjust, or that God is punishing those that He Himself made act in an evil way, then I understand that.

[Ñólendil]

I said that it's as though God should be punishing Himself, not that he was punishing Himself. I mean, God predestined the crimes to be commited, and therefore is responsible for them, and therefore should hold Himself accountable.

[Rían]

Oh, I see now. Sorry I was so dense!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Goodnight. Or good morning, for you . Good luck with school. (Starts repeating the same thing to self, much more dryly ) I'll be going now. Au revoir!

Oh my goodness! Things actually went well enough in school that I was able to get online. With a little prodding from RÃ*an, too . That helped, getting that incentive.

I hear your assignment, RÃ*an. I'll give it some thought. I can point you to some of those analogies right now, including the author one (which is actually in there! ), but percentage of use would be much harder to come by. If there are specific passages that seem to counter a predestination standpoint, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would look them up and post the references. Then this can be a real discussion, rather then a discussion of only the predestination scriptures. If I were to look for Free Will scriptures, I wouldn't know where to turn, for I don't think there are any. Bring it on!

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I meant that, under Lief's view, God seems largely responsible if not entirely responsible for the evil that is done by the evil human beings. Yet God sends those evil people, who are evil by His own design, to Hell. But isn't it His fault? That's all I meant by that.

I'm still looking forward to reading your response to my response to these points. I'm not the only Christian annihilationist out there either, by the way. And God does experience everything everyone does, so your point about it being right for him to punish himself also is answered. So I'm looking forward to your response .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

... but percentage of use would be much harder to come by.

I'm just looking for a VERY rough figure, here, like "I saw this analogy many times, and the other only a few."

Then this can be a real discussion, rather then a discussion of only the predestination scriptures.

Lief, my question has NOTHING to do with predestination scriptures. You know my round-about rabbity-trail ways! Please re-read the "assignment" - you might want to run a few quick ideas by me first, before you write a lot, so you can make sure you know what I'm asking for.

[Ñólendil]

I'm still looking forward to reading your response to my response to these points. I'm not the only Christian annihilationist out there either, by the way. And God does experience everything everyone does, so your point about it being right for him to punish himself also is answered. So I'm looking forward to your response

I think I would just end up being rather redundant, but I'll give it a go.

It is my view that hell is actually not a place of eternal torture. There's only one scripture in the whole Bible that refers to eternal torture, and that was in a vision, and I am fully capable of debating that one's being taken literally. Eternal fire yes, eternal destruction yes, but eternal torture is only to be found in one place in the Bible, and I can debate on that one.

What is your opinion about hell? You said "eternal destruction", do you then believe that hell is complete annhiliation? I think that if it's hell, and it's really bad, and eternal in nature, I would still think of the damned in question, who did not control what they did, and suffer or are punished for it.

Good people do gain massive benefits from suffering, though.

I agree. Through suffering one can come to know life and love much better than one did before the suffering occured.

God was argued against on the issue of pain in Romans and Job. Both times he answered, "I am God. Who are you to argue with what I do?" And he has awesome purposes planned for everything.

I think, and you have not argued against this point, I know, that it is rather healthy to question God's intentions, and to question in general. I would question the awesomeness of his purposes for the damned.

One fact that you ought to know about Christianity, is that we do actually believe that God experiences all the suffering that happens in the world. Every sin that occurs is done against him, and every pain that is felt is felt by him.

I had heard this before, but I had forgotten. I am not sure that, in my mind, it makes up for the suffering inflicted upon others.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

What is your opinion about hell? You said "eternal destruction", do you then believe that hell is complete annhiliation? I think that if it's hell, and it's really bad, and eternal in nature, I would still think of the damned in question, who did not control what they did, and suffer or are punished for it.

I think eternal destruction refers to "destruction for eternity" or "destruction in eternity", which would mean that you don't have an eternal life. You just get stopped, blown away, and there's nothing left to you. Then everyone else proceeds with eternal life, but you just don't exist anymore. So your destruction was an eternal destruction, just as their life is an eternal life. They go on living in eternity, you are dead in eternity. Sorry for using the personal pronoun "you" so often! Nothing is meant in that.

I think, and you have not argued against this point, I know, that it is rather healthy to question God's intentions, and to question in general. I would question the awesomeness of his purposes for the damned.

Let's look once more at the premise for the beliefs about hell. God is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God. That includes ALL KNOWLEDGE. When I refer to "question" I refer to seeking answers. If one is seeking answers, there's nothing wrong with that. When one refuses to accept the doctrine though, because they cannot fathom a God who acts in this way, then I begin to have a problem with it. You see, God is a God of IMMENSE resources. I don't how one could say, "he's an evil god because he does this," (not that anyone right now is saying that) because we should be able somewhat to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, honestly. If my Dad possessed all knowledge, I bet his behavior patterns would change drastically, and I would question why he's behaving in these new ways. However, if I'm aware that he's got all knowledge, I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of those things. It doesn't make sense to say that because from our very limited reference frame, we can't see a purpose, THERE IS NO PURPOSE, or at least not a good one.

I had heard this before, but I had forgotten. I am not sure that, in my mind, it makes up for the suffering inflicted upon others.

We consider it worthwhile to raise and kill a chicken so that we can receive a good meal.

[Rían]

Lief, any response on the "homework"?

[Nurvingiel]

People are getting homework in here?

Did you want to keep talking about sin Ri? But no homework assignments, I have too many already.

[Rían]

Well, it was kind of a fun thing - I was teasing Lief about being wrong about something, so to illustrate my point, I gave him some "homework" (which he hasn't turned in yet, btw!)

Nurvi, I'm going to post on the "why you believe" thread now, and I want to give that top priority. So we can either wait here, or you can work it in over there

[Nurvingiel]

Okay, maybe I will just ask you about sin in there. I just posted and forgot to ask you, but I may sitll bring it up later.

But no homework... pleeeease!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, it was kind of a fun thing - I was teasing Lief about being wrong about something, so to illustrate my point, I gave him some "homework" (which he hasn't turned in yet, btw!)

I don't think I will be turning in this specific item of homework.

[Nurvingiel]

Lief Erikson - rebel of the Theology thread.

Hey Rian, as you can see I put all the questions on sin that I had over in the "Why you believe..." thread. Ooh, I just thought of more! *runs off to WYBWYB*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

They obviously decided to leave out Thomas. So far there have been no real complaints among biblical scholars regarding Thomas.

Yes there have been. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says, "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there." That's pantheism, saying that he is coterminous with the substance of the world. Then in Thomas, "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Jesus apparently said, "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."

The Gospel of Thomas was excluded from the Bible not because of a church political decision, but because it did not harmonize with what was known of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And then there's "Q". How do we know they didn't leave that out, too? How do we know it wasn't just lost but that some anti-Arian chose to burn it because of politics?

Firstly, "Q" is only a hypothesis. There's not much real evidence at all that it ever existed. Secondly, if it did ever exist, it was merely a group of Jesus' sayings. Recent scholars have argued that if "Q" ever existed, we would still have gotten the same picture from it of Jesus as we have in the canonical Gospels.

Now I have a couple questions, for one thing you said I need you to support, and the other I didn't understand.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I just don't trust humanity. My inner skeptic says that the Bible is framed the way it is from sheer politics. For instance, why not put Mark first?

Put Mark before what? When you say "first" you mean before something else. I don't understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I think they will find "Q" someday. And maybe someday they will put Thomas and "Q" back in it. Of course, they will certainly claim to be divinely inspired.

For the record, books in the OT have been removed. For instance, the Book of Enoch.

The reason I just spent so much time in responding to you is that I was looking around google for any information on this. I didn't find any. What are your sources?