Interesting essay by Gert Korthof - The Link It's mostly a response to the writings of Richard Weikart in 'From Darwin to Hitler' that made the case (unsuccessfully, I think) that Darwin's theory influenced Hitler and was, in part, responsible for the attrocities committed by the Third Reich. Kortof:
Who are those people and why do I care what they think? The actual thread seems like a gigantic let-down given the title. Is there something of interest that I am missing here?
I read it. The authors logic is good using the information he has. Unfortunately, for logic to truly work you have to have all the information and start with the correct assumptions. There is one huge thing missing from his understanding of the world. It fell. Genesis 1-2 describes a world where there is no evil, no sickness, no death. None at all. But in Genesis 3, sin enters the world through Adam and death, sickness, evil enters the world in general through sin. I think all of the problems brought up by the author are resolved if understanding that God created a good world without sin, death, sickness, but all those things entered the creation through mankind's rebellion. It answers the design issue. It answers the free will vs sanctity of life issue. All you have to do is think through the issues with that in mind.
I guess I don't see a problem. God created something good. Mankind ruined it. The responsibility is on man not God. Yes, God allowed it. Was He obligated not to? If so, why?
It wasn't a 'talking snake' It was Satan who had taken the form of a snake, but you probably don't believe in Satan either...
If you are questioning why God would create an imperfect world, where evil and pain exists, I guess I can only conject. It seems to me, however, that in a perfect world, there would be very little emotion. God gave man free will, and gave him choices - some good, some not. If He wanted a place where there weren’t any bad choices, he could have just used Legos. The same goes for allowing His children to live in a place where there is pain and suffering. If God wanted children that could not make bad choices, and HAD to love Him, he could have just gotten himself a Cabbage Patch Kid. No pain. No risk. But also no fulfillment. My wife and I chose to have children, knowing that this world will, at times cause them pain. We knew well before we had children that there was a chance that they might go away from us and/or away from God – maybe permanently - but we chose to have kids despite those risks. The reason is love. Where there is no pain, no risk, and no evil, free will is worthless. But with the free will, the spectrum of emotions, and all the possibilities (good as well as bad), the risks are worth it, because all of those things are essential to love and fulfillment. I consider myself an extremely loving father. I don’t consider that because I chose to have children, knowing fully the risks of pain and separation, I am any less loving. On the contrary, it takes a whole lot more love to bring children up in a society like this, and the love you get in return is way better than what you can get from a Cabbage Patch Kid.
E Man, again to be clear God did not create a world with pain. Pain entered the world through man's sin. Dion and the rest, the talking snake/Satan also was not created evil. There are passages which describe Satan at the point of creation as perfect and beautiful. He was not evil, but in the passage it describes Satan as falling too, due to his pride. So a fallen angel tempted mankind into falling too. Death, pain, sickness followed not as a part of God's creation. So God created good things which had the potential of being corrupted. Was that wrong of God? Did he have to make things which had no ability to rebel from Him just so that they would not experience pain? You say God knew that "we" would turn away. Is that his fault? He gave Satan and mankind life, purpose, roles, abundant provision to sustain life, and relationships to enjoy. In the beginning, He gave "us" all enough reasons to choose to follow Him didn't He? All Satan and man had to do was accept it and continue life as God intended. Is it God's fault that "we" chose not to? I agree it is a sad fact that sin, death, pain occurs. I wish mankind had never chosen that path. But I recognize that man in fact chose the path.
Regarding the second set of your questions, it’s true that the Bible, while inerrant, is also not a complete blueprint for all of God’s plan. In my view, you don't have to believe that every story in the Bible is a literal account of actual events in order to believe in the God of that Bible. These stories are ancient, and may have been used as metaphor, may have been changed in translation, or simply may have been true in a different context. There are many things that we have today that seemed ludicrous and impossible 100 years ago. The ability to send sound and pictures around the world in essentially no time would have been seen as stuff of make believe not too long ago. My point? That a God that can create the unbelievable physical system with universal laws in which we live (with so much that we still have yet to discover and/or understand) could help a man survive in a fish if He wished to. As for the question as to whether a loving God would create a world where billions of people could not have salvation simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, I can offer that I too would be troubled by that notion. Again, the Bible, while inerrant, does not provide the entire blueprint. You can, however, see examples in the Bible of men who were not Christians, but have gone to Heaven. The examples I can cite include Moses, Abraham, David, and Daniel. As per your example, none of these men knew of Jesus Christ, but they all had one thing in common – they were men of great faith. God knew their hearts. The just and loving God that I know will certainly be able to see in the hearts of all of His children, and will, I believe, be just in his actions.
E-Man ... i would think that the doctrine of the neccessity of scripture would probably dictate that people reject God by rejecting his one and only Son. During the O.T. times, they don't reject the savior, as they did not yet know him, and thus don't reject God. They are not neccessarily denied salvation. (I say this without too much research at this point in time) I would also venture to say that with the existence of free will and all of the negative circumstance in this world, how would we find glory and satisfaction in God if we weren't constantly choosing him over the world? Would you be satisfied if your child was a brainless drone and loved you as a drone, or would you find greater satisfaction when your child chooses to love you and respect and seek you? (closest analogy i can think of)
Bayerithe, Regarding your first point, I believe that there are cultures in the world today that are not too different than the Hebrews, in that they don't have an opportunity to know Christ. Those cultures don't necessarily reject the Son of God, they simply have no way of knowing of Him. I believe that the just God that I follow will apply a standard of faithfulness to those people as he did in the Old Testament for Moses et al. God punishing a culture, or even a specific child, because they have not heard the Gospel (through no fault of their own), would be inconsistent with the loving and just God that I know. As for your second point, I believe that is exactly the point I was making a few posts above.
If the question is, 'After chortling a bit, what did I mutter in disbelief?' Then the answer is 'Jesus ******* Christ.' The OP is asking for a fight that cannot be resolved. Sweet.
freewill. God loves you so much that He gives it to you. "I don't believe in Satan" well, he believes in you.
GT_WT ... you do realize I'm referring to "God's solution" as providing Christ as a perfect sacrifice and salvation? I fail to see how this is complicit in evildoing. Given the situation I laid out, I don't think it's baloney to propose such a thing.
Who said Eve was predestined to sin? That was never the case. God never intended for mankind to sin. You can't make a Biblical case for it. God gave, gave, gave, and said go, be fruitful and multiply. Just because sin was a possibility does not mean God cause it. Put it like this. My youngest daughter (my oldest too) loves candy. In order to keep candy away from her, we put it on top of the refrigerator and told her not to try to get it because she doesn't much candy and it would be dangerous for her to try. Being 2, she moved a chair and stacked stuff on it until she could reach the candy. What if she would have fallen down and hurt herself seriously? Whose fault would it be? The parents who set up the situation but instructed her not to do because of the danger? Or the child who decided despite the warning that the candy was just too important to leave be? That is essentially the situation you read about in the garden of Eden.
Do all Christians take a literal reading of Genesis - specifically, the Garden of Eden story - or do some believe it literally while others see it as allegory?
Aside from a debate over predestination, yes. Salvation from sin and death. Scripture has a lot to say about temptation. If you read James 1:12-18, it makes a few points (as well as some wisdom from other parts of scripture): God produces good, not evil - But he does allow evil to exist, as freedom demands it God can't be tempted and does not tempt God does not set us up for guaranteed failure, we're not tempted past our limits We are God's prized possession Luke 10:18/19, 1 Peter 5:8-9, and James 4:7 all refer to God giving us the ability to resist temptation and Satan. Eve had all the power in the world to overcome temptation, but she gave in. (and so did Adam) Sin comes out of the rejection of God. Every moment of sin is a result of choosing something other than God. God provided everything in Eden to Adam and Eve that they would ever need, but they rejected his one command, giving into Satan (the snake), and allows sin into the world. There is no glorification of God if there isn't an aspect of us choosing him over all else. (see previous post about not being a drone)
