Christians: Where do you draw the line? (Jesus, Creator, Moses)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by stephenw

I cannot answer this question properly because I don't know the answer.
This is my view now, I am unsure when it became my view, maybe it was always my view ? I don't know.

Let me help you out here. God becomes trapped by scripture when scripture is elevated to a place it does not belong, and becomes the only way in which God is revealed. A literalistic treatment of scripture seems to be cogent to this process. We trap God into being revealed only where we want God to be revealed.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by sojourner

So let's just let people hang on their crosses, to serve as an example of perseverance. No, wait! Let's go further and find ways to hang others on crosses, like, oh, I don't know...German Jews, blacks, women, homosexuals, desperate women who have abortions, substance abusers, indians, Haitians, Hispanics who come to us for work and food, South Africans, etc. ad nauseum, in order to help bring about God's will of human suffering.

None of this follows from "It was God's will to bruise the suffering servant." The crucifixion was a unique event that had a particular importance in salvation history.

I guess Jesus healed people and fed people so that he could be the "rebellious child" of God, eliminating the suffering he saw around him. I suppose battered wives should stay in their marriages and "suffer for Jesus."

Again, none of this follows.

Yes. We suffer. but I think it's a mistake to provide an easy answer for a difficult problem by just saying that "it's God's will." I don't think we should expect to suffer, just because we're believers. Plenty of non-believers suffer, too. That doesn't seem to be a defining paradigm, unique to Christians. What does seem to be a paradigm unique to Christians, is that, when we suffer, God stands with us and can be found within our suffering, not as a cause, but as an Advocate of our diginity and our humanity and our divinity.

There's nothing "easy" about affirming suffering as part of God's will for his people. It is also true that God stands with us in our suffering.

The point, my dear Theophilus, of the crucifixion, is that human beings can be horribly cruel, especially when their own ego is at stake. So cruel, in fact, that our cruelty spills over out of humanity and affects God. Why? Because God loves us and has dared to enter into a relationship with us, and remain steadfast to us in spite of our cruelty. The point is not that the cruelty was necessary in order to effect salvation. The point is that salvation was effected in spite of cruelty. We don't have hope of escaping suffering, but we have the hope that God will not abandon us when we suffer.

Can't argue with that.

[sojourner]

None of this follows from "It was God's will to bruise the suffering servant." The crucifixion was a unique event that had a particular importance in salvation history.

O course it does. if it was "God's will to bruise the suffering servant," because he suffered, then it must be God's will to bruise us, because we are bruised.

It was not God's will for Jesus to suffer. Nor is it God's will for any of us to suffer. My examples serve as absurd ways of thinking that can arise from this kind of warped theology.

There's nothing "easy" about affirming suffering as part of God's will for his people. It is also true that God stands with us in our suffering.

It's an easy answer because it circumvents the whole problem of why we suffer. "We suffer simply because it's God's will for us to suffer." It doesn't answer the question of theodicy at all, though, which is the real issue here.

[peaceful]

How can it be nothing added, nothing omitted? It has been rewritten by christians to cover up their evil. the bible as we know it today is not the real teachings. perhaps you need to travel and discover the old testaments and scrolls for enlightenment.

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

Christians are people who follow Christ's teachings in tHe bible, NOTHING ADDED ... NOTHING OMITTED.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by sojourner

O course it does. if it was "God's will to bruise the suffering servant," because he suffered, then it must be God's will to bruise us, because we are bruised.

All that follows is that in order to save the world, the servant had to suffer. God appoints the ends and the means. We as Christians suffer because we continue to play a role in redemptive history. As we play that role, the world lashes out at us and we suffer. The world as a whole suffers because it is enslaved to sin. The fact that the suffering of Christ was God's will does not entail that God wants us to inflict suffering on anyone. Just the opposite. Christ is our model of patient redemptive suffering. We are to endure suffering for the sake of the world. We are not to lash out or return evil for evil. Instead, we are to work for good, and when we are punished by the world for it, rejoice. And this is the will of God for his people.

It was not God's will for Jesus to suffer. Nor is it God's will for any of us to suffer. My examples serve as absurd ways of thinking that can arise from this kind of warped theology.

Yep. Isiaiah's pretty warped. As is Jesus. "If it be your will, let this cup pass for me. But if not, let your will be done."

It's an easy answer because it circumvents the whole problem of why we suffer. "We suffer simply because it's God's will for us to suffer." It doesn't answer the question of theodicy at all, though, which is the real issue here.

I think it does answer the theodicy question. The purpose of suffering (in general) is redemptive. This does not answer a particular person's question about their particular suffering. But then, nobody can answer that. The bible only gives us the big picture about suffering. The main point of the New Testament is that God stands with his people in their suffering and provides them the means to endure it. He also "rewards" some suffering now (providing a good issue out of the affliction) or later (rewards in heaven).

[sojourner]

All that follows is that in order to save the world, the servant had to suffer. God appoints the ends and the means. We as Christians suffer because we continue to play a role in redemptive history. As we play that role, the world lashes out at us and we suffer. The world as a whole suffers because it is enslaved to sin. The fact that the suffering of Christ was God's will does not entail that God wants us to inflict suffering on anyone. Just the opposite. Christ is our model of patient redemptive suffering. We are to endure suffering for the sake of the world. We are not to lash out or return evil for evil. Instead, we are to work for good, and when we are punished by the world for it, rejoice. And this is the will of God for his people.

And how does this speak to the kind of suffering that happens by way of natural causes -- disease, starvation, loss from storm, volcano, earthquake, flood? Or are those kinds of suffering not "real" suffering? what do those kinds of suffering have to do with "being punished by the world?" Please tell me you're not one of those "this is God's divine retribution" people. Your theory does not address suffering, except in a limited way.

Yep. Isiaiah's pretty warped. As is Jesus. "If it be your will, let this cup pass for me. But if not, let your will be done."

Isaiah didn't say that it had to be that way. He said that it would be that way. Big difference.
You're misinterpreting the words from Gethsemane. Of course Jesus didn't want to suffer. had he thought that it was necessary, he wouldn't have asked. the question is: Necessary, or inevitable? it was not necessary in that the suffering, itself, played an indispensible role in salvation. It was inevitable, though, because human beings abhor a change in power. Jesus represented that change. Because he could not back off from the gospel ministry, he suffered as a result. The suffering is regrettable and unnecessary, but unavoidable, because humans are who humans are.

I think it does answer the theodicy question. The purpose of suffering (in general) is redemptive. This does not answer a particular person's question about their particular suffering. But then, nobody can answer that. The bible only gives us the big picture about suffering. The main point of the New Testament is that God stands with his people in their suffering and provides them the means to endure it. He also "rewards" some suffering now (providing a good issue out of the affliction) or later (rewards in heaven).

Theodicy does seek to answer the individuals' questions. This quotation is simply cheap, superficial theology. You would do well to bone up on some of the liberation theologians.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by sojourner

And how does this speak to the kind of suffering that happens by way of natural causes -- disease, starvation, loss from storm, volcano, earthquake, flood? Or are those kinds of suffering not "real" suffering? what do those kinds of suffering have to do with "being punished by the world?" Please tell me you're not one of those "this is God's divine retribution" people. Your theory does not address suffering, except in a limited way.

I recognize the problem my perspective has in addressing these sorts of ills. But Romans 8 tells us that the cosmos "groans and travails in birth pangs awaiting the revelation of the sons of God." Traditionally, this has been understood as implying that natural disasters are a consequence of sin -- again, writ large. This is not to say that a particular person or a particular nation is responsible for the floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or what-have-you. Rather, the phenomenon of natural disasters occurs because the whole natural order, including that of humankind's natural, joyful submission to God, has been upended by humankind's original and continual rebellion. Humans are God's representatives on earth, called to bring his loving dominion to all of creation. The cosmos was created with that order in mind. Having rebelled against that order, the universe is "subject to futility" (Rom 8 again) until such time as humankind is fully redeemed (a guaranteed eventuality).

Of course, this broad picture needs filling out, and I am aware of some of the problems that attend it. But its greatest virtue is that it is informed by scripture.

And what does scripture have to say about our response to those who mourn? It says we are to act in compassion -- identify with and help those who suffer.

Isaiah didn't say that it had to be that way. He said that it would be that way. Big difference.
You're misinterpreting the words from Gethsemane. Of course Jesus didn't want to suffer. had he thought that it was necessary, he wouldn't have asked. the question is: Necessary, or inevitable? it was not necessary in that the suffering, itself, played an indispensible role in salvation. It was inevitable, though, because human beings abhor a change in power. Jesus represented that change. Because he could not back off from the gospel ministry, he suffered as a result. The suffering is regrettable and unnecessary, but unavoidable, because humans are who humans are.

Isiaiah said it was God's will. If that doesn't mean it had to happen that way, then there's no way in English to say that it must happen that way.

I'm not misinterpreting Gethsemane, at least if words haven't lost their meaning. You are imposing your theology on the text, not letting the text inform your theology. Put your theology aside and simply read the text in context, and you can't help but be impressed with how Jesus is wrestling with the will of God. This will of God for Jesus was terrible and terrifying, and Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to enable him to endure the suffering. He didn't want it, and he asked for a way around it. But if there was no other way, then "thy will be done."

Theodicy does seek to answer the individuals' questions. This quotation is simply cheap, superficial theology. You would do well to bone up on some of the liberation theologians.

Yes, theodicy does seek to answer these questions, but sometimes there simply isn't any. And the response of the Christian is to identify with the sufferer. Take compassion and mourn with those who mourn. If that's cheap and superficial, so be it.

[sojourner]

I recognize the problem my perspective has in addressing these sorts of ills. But Romans 8 tells us that the cosmos "groans and travails in birth pangs awaiting the revelation of the sons of God." Traditionally, this has been understood as implying that natural disasters are a consequence of sin -- again, writ large. This is not to say that a particular person or a particular nation is responsible for the floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or what-have-you. Rather, the phenomenon of natural disasters occurs because the whole natural order, including that of humankind's natural, joyful submission to God, has been upended by humankind's original and continual rebellion. Humans are God's representatives on earth, called to bring his loving dominion to all of creation. The cosmos was created with that order in mind. Having rebelled against that order, the universe is "subject to futility" (Rom 8 again) until such time as humankind is fully redeemed (a guaranteed eventuality).

Of course, this broad picture needs filling out, and I am aware of some of the problems that attend it. But its greatest virtue is that it is informed by scripture.

That natural disasters can be blamed on human sin is preposterous. It is not informed by scripture, but by a flawed understanding of scripture.

Isiaiah said it was God's will. If that doesn't mean it had to happen that way, then there's no way in English to say that it must happen that way.

OK. God's will that it would happen that way, because God wanted Jesus to be steadfast in his message, in spite of the known consequences of human sin: crucifixion. Not in order to effect creucifixion.

I'm not misinterpreting Gethsemane, at least if words haven't lost their meaning. You are imposing your theology on the text, not letting the text inform your theology. Put your theology aside and simply read the text in context, and you can't help but be impressed with how Jesus is wrestling with the will of God. This will of God for Jesus was terrible and terrifying, and Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to enable him to endure the suffering. He didn't want it, and he asked for a way around it. But if there was no other way, then "thy will be done."

Of course Jesus didn't want to die. And he knew that fulfilling God's will would lead to his being crucified. But there's nothing about the text that assumes that God's will was for Jesus to die -- only to follow through, by remaining true to his ministry.

Yes, theodicy does seek to answer these questions, but sometimes there simply isn't any. And the response of the Christian is to identify with the sufferer. Take compassion and mourn with those who mourn. If that's cheap and superficial, so be it.

Theodicy doesn't always seek to provide answers. Theodicy does always seek to enter into a process of asking where God is found in suffering. By providing an easy of answer of "It's God's will for us to suffer" is to provide an answer that theodicy doesn't ask for. It curtails the very process of seeking that theodicy was designed to facilitate.