You no doubt know the story whose punchline is, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter!”
IMO, God continues to work in the world. Most if not all of what He does, He does through people. The life-changing miracle that turned my life around, I could retell the story here in detail and there would be not one thing that directly presupposes God healing injuries, turning water into wine, or any other skeptics’-definition “miracle” – just a series of highly improbable coincidences falling together to enable a group of people to heal each others’ wounded hearts, when any reasonable logic would suggest they probably would never meet. I suspect in actuality, a lot of recorded “miracles” were similar in origin.
And yet yes, I believe that His hand was at work in causing things to fall together the way they did.
Irrational? No doubt – Der Trihs and Diogenes would shred any attempt at ‘proof’ of His intervention.
But in the last analysis, it fits with Scripture: He told us how to act towards each other, with love and compassion. And if we’re doing that, He can sit back and let it play out, simply ensuring that X is at the right place to meet and help Y, and in so doing receive the help he himself needs from Z.
There are people who avoid disaster, and give God the credit, but then, if he works that way, that is, if he saved those who deserved it, I think it would imply that others who perished didn’t deserve to be saved, and when you look at the number of people who have died in natural disasters, 9/11, and countries where genocide is going on, I have a hard time believing that they deserve it.
I don’t know. Yes, given the luxury of a free choice, people will probably more often choose not act to harm others but given constraints, fear, self-interest…it’s much more difficult to do the will of God and not your own.
I hope Nobody won’t mind me posing another question for his/her fellow Christians? This has probably been answered elsewhere, but I’ve yet to see it, so try and forgive my ignorance, or religious naivety.
If Eden was a place of paradisical perfection, prior to Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit( Which immediately sounds odd - forbidden fruit…in paradise? What was that about?), where did the snake alleged to have tempted Eve, come from? ( I might have already heard the answer to this, but I need a refresher.) Also, if Eve’s actions were deemed to be The Original Sin, ( in God’s entire Creation catalogue.), what was it that got Satan( Lucifer, the bad seed, whatever you want to call him/it.) “cast down” in the first place? Isn’t it apparent that there was already a few cracks showing in his Creation model?
If the lesson God( Our Father, Dad, whatever you want to call him/it.) is trying to teach, is “Reach for positivity, avoid negativity.”, where does he get off telling us we are ‘born sinners’, when he was already having ‘homelife problems’ - ie. Mom nowhere to be seen, and his only son( I take it there was just Satan?) turning to the darkside?
I realise this might be a question for a biblical scholar, but I’d appreciate any response if it is in a laymans terms. In other words, don’t ask me to read the bible to get an answer.
What follows are pretty basic answers. If you want more the Catholic Catechism does a pretty good job answering these in more detail.
The snake was Satan. This brings us to the next point. I’ve heard many terms for Satan’s sin and I’ve heard a lot of speculation on why, but the basics are that Satan wanted to put himself on par or higher than God and so rebelled against Him.
Also the term original sin refers to the Original Human Sin. There had been sin but not in the realm of physical creation.
There’s a lot of misconceptions about Christian doctrine here.
First, I’m not sure that “Reach for positivity, avoid negativity” is at all an accurate description of Christian or Jewish teaching. “Reach for God, avoid sin” might come closer, but that requires an understanding of what sin is if it’s to be an effective teaching.
Secondly, I don’t think God has ever told us directly that we’re “born sinners.” That’s an idea that was deduced from various Biblical passages, but it isn’t clearly explicated by Scripture, much less by God. (Not all Christians consider Scripture to be synonymous with “words spoken by God.”) And if it is true that we are born sinners, then surely that is something worth knowing, isn’t it?
Thirdly, Satan is not described as the son of God in any mainstream Christian source. I believe Mormonism does hold that Satan is the son of God and brother of Jesus, but that is a unique doctrine not found outside of that tradition, AFAIK. On the other hand, the Son is clearly said to exist before the creation, and is regarded by all trinitarian sects to be co-existant and co-eternal with the Father. So Christ was present, according to Christianity, when Satan rebelled. It is usually assumed or stated that other angels were present at this time as well, and that some of them sided with Satan. It is worth noting that scholars today recognize that this story is largely the result of a misreading of some Bible passages and owes more to Milton than to Scripture. Most mainline denominations regard the fall of Satan as allegorical, not literal.
Finally, I’m not sure what you meant by a reference to a “Mother.” I assume it was a joke, but Mormon theology does make mention of a spiritual mother who is the female counterpart to God the Father. Mainstream Christianity has no such teaching and almost universally recognizes the term “Father” as an analogy to describe the relationship of God the Father to God the Son, not a statement of malesness or masculinity. Some theologians have suggested that Parent or Mother might more accurately convey the intended sense, given our current understanding of biology and parenting, while others argue either that “Father” conveys the appropriate understanding or that it would if people were taught how it was intended and understood in pre-modern society.
Note: I am an atheist, but I studied theology at a graduate level, and it still offends my sense of aesthics to see carefully crafted doctrines misrepresented, in much the same way thay I would hate to see Hamlet re-done as a Disney movie.
As a layman, I’m sure there were snakes in the garden of Eden. Snakes are not in and of themselves evil. So Satan had a model to go on. On Satan, he is mentioned elsewhere (specifically Job) as either working for or chumming around with God (I believe Satan actually means Accuser, but I could be wrong). So, if God is trying to temp us to see if we listen or not (of course we don’t) it would be natural to establish the Tree of Life and send Satan down to see how strong our ability to follow instructions is (it’s not).
As to being Born Sinners it makes pretty good sense to me that we are Born Sinners, we should seek salvation and avoid anything that might lead to damnation. We have a starting point and a goal, what else do we need? Sure, we wouldn’t be Born Sinners if not for the fruit thing but I’m sure God knew how that was going to turn out (note temporal reference below).
As for the existance of The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit and The Accuser (and The Messanger, and the guy with the flaming swords et.al.) at the beginning and at the end, the only thing that makes sense to me (checks to make sure we are in GD before wittnessing) is that from a temporal standpoint our perspective is different from His.
God said “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” I take that to mean that, as of right now, and at any other point in past and future history, God is the beginning and the end. The creation and destruction occur on a completely different time scale with a different concept of time itself. So yeah, Jesus and Satan were both there at the beginning and will both be there at the end. The same goes with everyone else: I was there in some form or another in the beginning and will be there in some form or another in the end. Ok, so at the beginning I scattered fairly quickly. For the first billion or so years I was probably just some random dust. After getting sucked into this whole planet thing I imagine I spent time as a rock, possibly a Pterodactly’s left front finger, the sheep that was shaved around 20 AD to make Paul’s woolen robes. Nowadays I sit in front of this PC but I’m sure at some point that which is just N8 will lie down and dissolve into something else. Always have been here, always will be here.
Of course I believe there is more to N8 than an animated pile of dust, but the critter that calls itself ^N8 has a whole different reality to face and will most likely do it on a whole different level of time.
Yeah, my beliefs don’t really resemble anything from any organized group. If they did I’d probably join but I’d still be a little spotty on the whole tithing thing because I’m poor and cheap.
Note: I bolded part of the quote above to make it clearer what I am talking about.
What exactly are you talking about here? That there was a fall? That there is a Satan? Which part is allegorical? I’m not trying to be accusatory but just seeking clarification.
Regardless, one should also recall that most denominitions recognize miracles even today, and that the bible records instances which occurred hundreds of years apart. The Hebrwes had prophets, we have saints.
“The Fall” usually refers to The Fall of Man, also called The Fall of Adam. (Adam is the Hebrew word for human or [generic] man.) This is the story in Genesis chapter 3 with Adam and Eve and the snake and the Tree of Knowledge. This story is clearly biblical, and nearly all Christians accept it as “true,” whether literally or allegorically, though some discount the interpretation of the story that makes it a generic Fall that affects all of humanity and marks the origin of sin in the world.
“The fall of Satan” (or “The fall of Lucifer”) refers to the non-biblical story of how Lucifer, a cup-bearer for God and member of the angelic host, rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven and into hell along with his fellow rebellious angels. This story is probably pre-Christian in origin, but never became part of mainstream Jewish belief. It is based largely on a misreading of Isaiah, in which a prophecy describing the future downfall of a Babylonian king was thought to be about Satan. (The king is addressed in Isaiah as the morning star, literally “light-bearer” or in Latin lucifer.) This story was made popular by Milton’s Paradise Lost and Dante’s Inferno, but was obviously around much, much earlier. Some Christian’s still hold it to be true and to be implied by various passages in the Bible, but most modern scholars regard it as extra-biblical and helpful only as a possible explanation for various passages of Scripture. You can see more detail in the Wikipedia article on Lucifer.
IME, many modern Christian scholars and theologians regard the whole idea of Satan as more mythical or allegorical than factual to begin with, and give the story of his alleged fall correspondingly less credence, regarding it more as pious fiction than theology worthy of serious thought.
I know you (the OP) specified “Christians”, of which I am not one. But I am Baha’i, and one of the core beliefs of the Baha’i principles is that mankind is progressing, and as we do, God is amending the way in which He deals with us. As mankind progresses and matures, God sends us different Messengers. He sent us Buddha when we were ready for Buddha’s teachings, Christ when we were ready for Christ’s teachings, Mohammad when we were ready for His teachings, etc. The last Messenger He (God) sent was Baha’u’llah, the Prophet/Founder of the Baha’i faith. There is no difference, according to my faith, in the Divinity of these Messengers, only in the teachings they brought. There is no difference, fundamentally, in the basic messages they have brought, only differences in how they were presented, as was appropriate for the time in which They came.
If you want an analogy of this, think of math. Multiplication is really nothing more than a complex form of addition. Yet we don’t teach multiplication to first-graders because they are not ready to learn it in that way. Same with the messages the Prophets of God bring us.
Just in case you are interested in knowing, Baha’u’llah also said that He is not the last in the line of what we call “progressive revelation”. There will be another, and He will tell of yet another, etc. until the world according to the Lord’s Prayer (“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”) is not just a platitude but a reality.
Hope you don’t mind me butting in on a “Christian” conversation, just thought I’d give my POV.
If we are assuming that god created the universe with human beings in mind, do you not think it seems wrong to expect them to strive for perfection ( Arriving sin-free at the Pearly Gates is definitely a tall order imo.), when you as their creator had to enlist hordes of angelic hosts to assist you, and you couldn’t even keep them on the straight and narrow?
What are you attempting to do with this explanation? Reconcile the differences of the ‘Bible’-world God with your perception of reality today and God’s role in it?
ETA - And a couple of follow ups: Why are you ascribing human characteristics and traits to a supernatural being? and If God is perfect, why would he need to change?
First, I’m a he :).
Second, not all Christians take all of the bible literally. So we don’t believe that Adam, Eve, and the garden literally existed. However, the point of Jesus dying was to release us from sin, so how we actually got into that state in the first place…I don’t know. Maybe that’s how we were from the very beginning
I’m just taking note of what was written in the Bible, taking a look at the world around us today, making an observation and seeing who agrees and who doesn’t.
I don’t get your question. I didn’t say God himself is changing, just how he relates to us is changing.
You can be the same, but react in different ways based on different situations. A human father is more involved with his children when they are younger because they don’t have the physical, emotional, intellectual ability to fend for themselves or make their own decisions. As they mature, and are more capable of making their own decisions then the father (usually) gives them more freedom in running their own lives, until they reach maturity and are ready to go out on their own and run their own lives completely.
None of that means that the father has changed, it just means that circumstances have changed, and treating a 20 the same as a 15 year old, or a 5 year old won’t work.
Well Nobody just because the Garden is not seen to be literally true doesn’t mean a fall didn’t happen. In fact the Catholic Church official teaching holds that there was an Adam an Eve and there was a fall. Some of the relevant paragraphs from the Catechism are:
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.
*
and
*
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
There is a more though.
As fellow Catholic I encourage you to read the Catechism. It can seem scary, but its really not and does a good job of laying out the beliefs and doctrines of the Church.
(Note: This post is from a Roman Catholic perspective. I can not speak for any other denomination. In fact I could well screw up my church’s teachings as I’ve had only limited formal training. So keep in mind my user name)
The last first. God, according to most Christian teaching I have encountered, doesn’t need anything. He may chose to create creatures but that is because He wants to, but He is just as complete without them.
Second, if He chose He could have kept them “on the straight and narrow” but the would have required creating them without free will. However He wanted creatures that could choose to love and obey Him and this requires that they be able to choose not to. Some of the angels chose the latter.
And now the first part. I don’t think it is wrong that God expects us to strive for perfection. Heck I expect people, myself included, to strive for perfection. We may not make it, but we are expected to strive for it.
Remember Adam and Eve were created with a preternatural grace that allowed them to be in harmony with several things including, most importantly in this case, themselves and God. By this I mean that they were internally in harmony (Not having to argue against yourself not to do something) and they wished to do God’s will.
This made it very easy not to sin. However, humans did sin (whatever that first original sin exactly was) and so lost this grace and therefore this harmony. This made it much harder not to sin.
Okay so now humans sin. They sin a lot and are very inventive at it. God knows this and so He gives us aid. There are the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, Reconciliation, etc) that give us graces that help us to avoid sin. We can also have our sins forgiven. The ancient Jews had their sacrifices and we have Reconciliation (Confession). We also had the sacrifice of Christ to redeem us from our sins and provide a model for us. Finally, we are even given the opportunity to finish our perfection after death though purgatory.
So to sum. No I don’t consider it wrong to expect us to strive for perfection given the opportunities that we are given to redeem ourselves when we fall.
{Note to Nobody as I can’t edit my post above this one: I misread the OP as saying your are Catholic. I still recommend the Catechism though as it still does a good job of laying out many generally Christian beliefs.}
