Fallen and Flawed

This post reminds me of an old CS Lewis essay called “God in the Dock”.

The problem I have with this judgement caper is how to fairly assign blame. Don’t most abusive people get that way as a result of abuse they suffered as a child? It’s easy to point at a person who’s mistreating someone and say that they deserve punishment. But I wonder if we could watch on replay what that offender has been through themselves whether anger would turn into pity.

Got the essay on a shelf. Will have to pull it down cause I can’t remember if I read it or not. Will have to see what you mean.

I have no doubt WE would be sympathetic, maybe even feel pity, but even humanly speaking that doesn’t excuse a person from doing wrong. Not sure where you’re going with this, though, so if I miss read you, let me know.

Not sure where you’re going with this

Nowhere in particular, I’m just questioning the notion that people volunteer themselves to go down the path of hurting others. It seems as though people are a product of their environment and as much as punishment has value for correcting that anti-social behaviour for the future, I’m not sure that blame can always be assigned to them.

What qualifies God as mankind’s judge? Is it not that God is mankind’s designer and maker? The simplest logic dictates that if I design and make a piece of art, a tool, an edifice, or technology, I am entitled to judge its worth.
Yes, there are all sorts of variables one can argue, as this is not a perfect analogy, but the basic is true: designer/maker=judge.

In the case of God as judge of individual humans, this relieves us of any “problem” in fairly assigning blame. God bears that responsibility, is singularly able and prepared to make such judgment, and will do so in such clear manner that none will have any doubt or complaint.

Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved means that, regardless of our personal history, God is able to deliver us from slavery to sinful behavior, and to liberate us to follow Him in righteous and holy behavior when we submit to His Lordship in and over our lives. Thus He delivers us from our painful pasts, also rendering us without excuse for repeating against others that which was foisted upon us.

Because He lived as a man, tempted in every manner and yet without sin, Jesus Christ is uniquely suited to judge us justly. Because He is God, He cannot do otherwise. If we have trusted in Him as Savior, submitted to Him as Lord, we have nothing to fear from Him as Judge.

Al
I really like your comments of God as a just judge. Here’s another twitst. From the earlier comments it sounds like we are discussing generational sins. Everybody in agreement with that. When we accept Jesus as savior, forgiven, justified and sanctified we are also adopted into the family of believers. The lord god has adopted us into his family, with all the family heritage bestowed upon us. With adoption the chains of generational sins are broken and we no longer have to have the weights or chains attached to us. Praise God for breaking the chains, adopting us into his family. We do have a loving God and we praise him for it.

al,

The simplest logic dictates that if I design and make a piece of art, a tool, an edifice, or technology, I am entitled to judge its worth.

The simplest logic would also dictate that you’d be responsible for any flaws you discovered during the judging process.

The rest of what you said are assertions that I can’t really respond to as a non-bible believer.

Hi James. I agree with your statement, but don’t know what point you mean to make by it.
I did say the analogy is less than perfect… just meant to show that in a perfect world the designer/maker would have the right to approve or condemn his own product.

Al,

The impact of the point I make depends on whether you believe in free will, but I was trying to highlight what a bizarre scene it is: A designer creates something, evaluates the design and finds it lacking, and then blames the object for its shortcomings.

We recognize that parents have a right to raise their children in a variety of manners; however, there have been established guidelines of abusive behavior.

There are boundaries set aside – even those who have created children are not 100% allowed to do whatever they want – society recognizes that the interests of children is also important enough to be protected.

If you torture one of your children, the excuse “I made it, so I can do what I want to do with it” does not exactly hold much water in a court of law these days.

Neither does the excuse “they really deserved it” nor “but they rejected me anyway” permit parents to be negligent or to engage in abuse.

We all largely agree that parents have some responsibilities to their offspring even as creators of them. But what do I know? That’s just a human standard, isn’t it?

God’s standards are higher. God can drown children and dash them against rocks, because they must have deserved it, or lived in a civilization that was especially sinful. Yes, God’s ways must be above our own – and God is said to move in mysterious ways.

Teleprompter, sometimes when you wax sarcastic, you actually state things quite well. I could easily think you are beginning to see things from God’s perspective and to recognize the inferiority of the creature to the Creator…

But it’s really just your attempt at clever irony, innit?

al,

I am moving closer and closer to the Poe-level threshold.

Occasionally I wish I could go back and delete a comment I posted. My last was just an uncharitable dig at you, Tele. But you are a great sport, and I genuinely appreciate you.

The bottome line on my comment of July 14th is that it was simply meant to point out that no comparison between God and man is adequate to explain in terms of human motivation and behavior why God is entitled to do what He does.

The invention of an object or the siring of a child is light years and eons away from anything done by the omniscient, omnipotent God and Lord of all; and the “rights” of a man [as adjudged by men] is so far removed from the rights of God as to broach no correlation whatever.

So, James, what would certainly be “bizarre” in man’s case is not so with God, for reasons that are clearly explainable to those who have been born again, but impossible to communicate effectively to those who have not.

al,

Don’t worry about it – I do try to be a good sport. I know I have said some things which you or Demian probably think are insane or condescending, so if you’re willing to go along with me, I’ll try not to be too thin-skinned in return.

A question: If God is omnipotent and omniscient, wouldn’t it logically follow that he should have more responsibility toward his creation than someone who is less powerful?

Even if the rights of humanity are so far removed from the rights of God, wouldn’t the responsibilities of God increase proportionally at the same time?

Please understand this: I do not have any enmity toward you or toward any other Christians for your beliefs. I am trying to understand. I know that you believe that this is impossible, and I am willing to keep trying in spite of that. Our mutual patience is continually tested, but I do believe that this is an important matter. If you are correct, than it is truly of momentous importance. I also believe that if I am correct, it is nearly as momentous. However, since there is much that I either do not or cannot know, the attitude I should display is one of humility – even though I largely fail.

If, with God, all things are possible, then why does it appear to us that only the things that would still be possible without God are actually possible?

Thanks, my friend.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, wouldn’t it logically follow that he should have more responsibility toward his creation than someone who is less powerful?

Absolutely, and that’s exactly the case. It is the godless standard by which men judge God that makes it appear otherwise. I could go into seemingly endless detail in explaining why and how God IS responsible in His judgment of every human of every age, but without seeing His perspective on His creation there will always seem to be disparity between His acts and mankind’s version of justice. Genuine justice is the Lord’s own nature displayed through His works, but mankind, being separated from God and yet still sensing inherently the need for justice, has devised a lesser form of it that can be exercised without acknowledging the existence of the One true Judge.

If, with God, all things are possible, then why does it appear to us that only the things that would still be possible without God are actually possible?

I think I understand this question, but I don’t want to answer presumptuously… Could you site an example or two of the “things” to which you refer?

al,

You claim that God is responsible in judgment. You also claim that God is responsible for creation.

Furthermore, you claim that “genuine justice is the Lord’s own nature displayed through His works”. You add that “mankind, being separated from God and yet still sensing inherently the need for justice, has devised a lesser form of it that can be exercised without acknowledging the existence of the One true Judge”.

Each of these points is intimately related to my question, “If, with God, all things are possible, then why does it appear to us that only the things that would still be possible without God are actually possible?”

Why do we have a godless standard? By godless, I mean, “without direct divine intervention”.

Through my observation, history indicates that the moral standards of humanity have changed and been revised continually by fallible humans through natural, material processes.

There have been many messy and untidy instances in the development of religion and society. On this fact, I am sure that Demian and I agree…so it is my starting point.

If God’s works are his creation, and if his creation has been forced to continually revise its own standards of justice in messy and untidy ways, via mechanisms that are entirely indistinguishable from natural, material causes, then why should we superimpose some divine standard of justice onto human ideas about morality? Further, where does this divine standard exist? How can we confirm what this divine standard may be, and how can we be assured of its validity?

When one further examines the history and development of religion, as it occurs through natural, material, human causes, where does this divine standard exist? It becomes even more stranded in obscurity. There is no solid evidence for its existence.

Once these circumstances are acknowledged, how do we determine where God is either responsible for creation OR responsible for justice? If genuine justice is the Lord’s own nature displayed through his works…and his works are the creation…and the creation appears to be shaped almost exclusively by natural, material processes…then where is God’s genuine justice?

You believe that humanity sensed a need for justice…being apart from God. I believe that being apart from gods, we sensed a need for justice.

Those are my main examples: the development of societies, our notions of justice, and the development of the world’s religions.

God’s standards are higher. God can drown children and dash them against rocks, because they must have deserved it, or lived in a civilization that was especially sinful. Yes, God’s ways must be above our own – and God is said to move in mysterious ways.

Teleprompter, although I kidded you about it, your statements, above, are key to understanding God. I’m not sure that’s what you are really trying to do, even though you may think it is.

Before I go on, please understand that I am NOT talking down to you. I am the least worthy creature on earth to possess any special, advanced, or higher form of knowledge, and am unspeakably humbled that the God of all creation should have anything to do with me, much less that He should reveal truth to me.

Yet, here I am questioning your goal and motive. I can’t help thinking that your real aim is to understand why Christians think and believe as we do, without your ever considering that what we profess may actually be true– that you might actually be dead in sins and trespasses, and thereby unable to receive the truth unless and until you are born again. I think you suppose our position to be ridiculous, and that you only hope to discover what makes us think in this strange way, and perhaps to enlighten us to the error of our ways.

Perhaps I think that because in years past I have held such thoughts toward and perspectives on Christians. I don’t know.

But, proceeding on the premise that you are earnestly seeking to understand God (should there be such a being), I propose that you are requesting the impossible of me (although I would gladly provide it were I able). What you seem to seek is a rosetta stone– a common ground of communication upon which our minds might meet and hammer out a language that makes sense to both of us. This can never be, and I’ll try to explain why…

You ARE dead. I WAS dead, but have been made alive, through no effort of my own, by the gift of life given me by God via the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus, the Christ. Therefore, I understand where you are coming from in trying to grasp spiritual truth while not yourself in possession of spiritual life, because I’ve been there & done that.

But spiritual reality CANNOT be comprehended by the spiritually dead. There is no rosetta stone because the language of God is incomprehensible to sinful, fallen mankind.

God actually uses words. He spoke creation into existence. In Eden He conversed with His first image-bearers in a language spoken by heavenly beings– God’s own language. Even after mankind had rebelled, the people of the earth continued to use that one language– they corrupted it, but they also maintained it to the point that they all understood each other. Then in their rebelliousness, they plotted together to assault heaven– to breach that which was forbidden to them. So God confused their languages, so that the people were divided into language groups, which became tribes as they emigrated away from the other groups with which they could no longer communicate. From that time on, only God’s chosen were capable of understanding Him, and even that was not possible without the help of His Holy Spirit.

Humanity is at very best a feeble race, incapable of justice, love, mercy, patience, holiness, without the help of our Creator. That help is available and is offered freely, but only on His terms (which is right and just and fair, because He wrote the rulebook). By our fallen nature we hate that last part– Who does He think He is?!! I didn’t ask to be born! Where does God get off telling me what I can & can’t/should & shouldn’t do?!!

Man, if I could give you a spiritual lens by which to see things as they really are, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I suppose that’s why there isn’t one– because God has His own plan for each of us & has no intention of letting the likes of me run ahead of Him in my ignorant zeal, and mess up His perfect scheme.

There is nothing I can explain that would make a bit of sense to you, Tele, until you lay hold on this one reality: God is real and He must be sought with the whole heart, mind, soul, and strength. Only in this way of complete and utter submission to Him can a person be born again by His Spirit, thus entering into the beginning of receiving and understanding the truth of all reality. Until then it’s all supposition and guesswork.

al,

You’re correct. I have fallen to the state where most Christian beliefs appear to be extremely implausible, if not outright ridiculous. You’ve got me pegged.

However, I think that motive has been clear all along. I’ve spent my entire life parroting religion; now I am trying to understand why I practiced it. You’re telling me that I must above all understand your version of God — and my purpose for being here, my ultimate questions for you are — why? how?

How do we know that your god spoke creation into existence? How do we know that Eden is a real place? How do we know that humanity had one original language that your God corrupted? How do we know any of these things? I can’t just believe them on faith, al, when there’s no evidence I can find which validates these statements. Do you understand that?

You’re also telling me that humanity is incapable of mercy, justice, love, and patience without the direct aid of your particular divine being. Yet there are many non-Christians from past and present who are or have been great examples of these qualities. So how I can trust what you’re saying on faith, if the evidence I’ve got contradicts it?

It doesn’t make a bit of sense to me because you’re asking me to assent to a story which has not only has little evidence, but in many places actively contradicts the evidence that we have. How am I supposed to do that? Of course these beliefs appear ridiculous to me — they flatly contradict many things which are largely indisputable to me.

I believe that supposition and guesswork is all we have — when has a God ever made things obvious to us? First we had God’s supposed Mother Church which putzed around for a thousand years, and then we had Martin Luther and John Calvin? And what about all the religions that are older than either Judaism or Christianity?

To me, it looks like the OT is the cultural narrative of one tribe of people out of my tribes of people who composed their own cultural narratives. If the only thing which can possibly separate these stories is the evidence, and the evidence is lacking, then what or how am I supposed to believe you?

Where’s the beef?

You’re correct. I have fallen to the state where most Christian beliefs appear to be extremely implausible, if not outright ridiculous. You’ve got me pegged.

Thanks, Tele. It’s always gratifying to be right about something…

However, I think that motive has been clear all along. I’ve spent my entire life parroting religion; now I am trying to understand why I practiced it.

I must ask your forgiveness for not clearly remembering the details of your experiences. When what I’m trying to say seems crystaline to me, I tend to presume anyone who doesn’t “get it” is deficient. Perhaps you view me the same way… It’s more than I can manage to comprehend my own motivations, far less keep everyone else’s straight in my mind.

You’re telling me that I must above all understand your version of God — and my purpose for being here, my ultimate questions for you are — why? how?

Here you have misinterpreted me. First, I have told you not that you must, but that you cannot understand God until you have been born again by the working of the Holy Spirit. Second, I find the whole prospect of “my version” of God to be appaling, and would never recommend such a concept to you.
Rather, what I propose is that you presuppose (on contingency if you wish) that there is a single, real, personal Creator-being and that you address Him (It if you prefer) with your questions, including whether I or anyone truly believes in Him. State your arguments, doubts, objections, complaints, whatever– but state them, directly to the person of God (no matter how simplistic and hopeless it may seem to you). By all means voice your doubts of my words and those of any others with which you doubt or disagree. Until you have out the whole matter with God personally, all conversation between you and His believers is wasted.

How do we know…? How do we know…? How do we know…? How do we know any of these things? I can’t just believe them on faith, al, when there’s no evidence I can find which validates these statements. Do you understand that?

Yes I do, my friend, having faced similar doubts myself. This is the point at which we demand the rosetta stone of which I spoke in my previous post. We demand evidence. We demand proof. We demand clarity. We demand that God communicate with us our way! Just because He is (allegedly) almighty, what gives Him the right to dictate terms to us! I wish you could realize how ludicrous such arguments from us are… He has every right, and yet He initially requires of us so little. But, deep down in the secret recesses of our being, we know (or at least suspect, that we will actually find Him by seeking wholeheartedly, and that prospect frightens us beyond reason, because that would mean that He IS who we have been told He is, and that we DO owe Him our full obedience.

You’re also telling me that humanity is incapable of mercy, justice, love, and patience without the direct aid of your particular divine being.

I tell you that no human being is capable of drawing breath apart from the merciful ministrations of the God of heaven and earth. Every breath, word, step, and thought takes place because of His enablement, and would be impossible without it.

Yet there are many non-Christians from past and present who are or have been great examples of these qualities. So how I can trust what you’re saying on faith, if the evidence I’ve got contradicts it?

Obviously you cannot. Therefore, I implore you to confront God with your “evidence” and explain to Him why His involvement was not required in the works of men. Do NOT trust me! Engage God!

It doesn’t make a bit of sense to me because you’re asking me to assent to a story which has not only has little evidence, but in many places actively contradicts the evidence that we have…

I hope that by now you can see and will accept that the ONLY thing I urge you to do is to air you views– all of them– before God alone. Not argue them with men. Not seek to prove or disprove them by “evidence.” God IS the evidence.

Of course these beliefs appear ridiculous to me — they flatly contradict many things which are largely indisputable to me.

What is indisputable to you is what you refuse to dispute with God.

I believe that supposition and guesswork is all we have…

Those surely are all you have, in accordance with your choice to argue and complain with men, while refusing to engage God in conversation over what you claim to be the issues you have with faith and belief.

To me, it looks like…

Here is precisely why you cannot believe: you are hung up on what it “looks like” to you…

…If the only thing which can possibly separate these stories is the evidence, and the evidence is lacking…

As I said earlier, God is the evidence, and the evidence is not lacking– the evidence has gone unapproached and untested. You have quarantined the evidence and placed it off limits. You have chosen to investigate, assess, and draw your conclusions in theory only. Not very scientific, hmmm? :0

…how am I supposed to believe you?

You most certainly are not to do so. Not under ANY circumstances. God Himself is present to be consulted and tested. You will be without excuse if you blame your doubts upon me, because I have repeatedly told you that I cannot help you, and if you blame your doubts upon God, because I have told you He can help you, but you have not sought Him.

Praying for your success in searching for your backbone, to approach the living God who answers the prayers of earnest, honest seekers…

your friend,
al

al,

I’ll ask God and stop pestering you about it.

But God hasn’t exactly accumulated a sparkling record of responding to queries and questions…ever read or seen “Waiting for Godot”?

I’ll try it, but I can’t promise that it will end well.

I’ll ask God and stop pestering you about it.

My friend, I have learned to appreciate your comments, probably more than I let on. I admit that sometimes I have become very frustrated in responding to you, but that frustration is based in my inability to “do” anything to assist your quest, and resonates with my own search for truth in years past. It is not frustration with you personally, but has to do with my learning to trust my Lord who does all things well, and to stop trying to manipulate Him into doing things my way (which is not so well).

But God hasn’t exactly accumulated a sparkling record of responding to queries and questions…ever read or seen “Waiting for Godot”?

No. I have read enough about it to have chosen to not read or see it. I am a lifelong sufferer of clinical depression, and I am certain that, while a brilliant play, “Godot” would likely affect me detrimentally. I do not say I will never see or read it, but I haven’t dared it to date.

But I do know this about the work: It is fiction, and it proposes a decidedly anti-Christian perspective. I say this only to caution you that such a piece should not be made the basis of expectation for one’s approach to God, regardless of its pretensions to religious purpose. While the play is filled with religious dialogue and symbolism, it contains equal or greater measure of the irreligious or secular. It is literature. It is art. It is entertainment.

It is NOT grounds upon which to expect any help in establishing or disproving a possible relationship with the God of heaven and earth, the Lord of glory.

I’ll try it, but I can’t promise that it will end well.

Nor can I. Having no knowledge of your deep inner thoughts as you approach God, nor any control of them, I don’t know what you will say or how you will say it. What I do know is that the Bible makes very clear that [1] God is, and [2] He rewards those who diligently seek Him. The first point is eternal; i.e. unvarying in time or space. The latter is unqualified as to time or space, which is to say that God does not promise when, where, or how He will respond to the prayer of the earnest seeker, but only THAT He will.

I am greatly encouraged for your sake by your openness and honesty, and shall continue to pray God will help you sift through the clutter of ungodly thinking inherent to us all, by shining into your mind and heart the light of the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your friend by the grace of God,
al