Re: [asa] Ravi Z. delivers

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Mar 04 2009 - 01:33:13 EST

Merv,

> I was impressed with how they handled one question of how could a
gracious, forgiving, and loving God plan eternal punishment for most of
humankind.

Makes me curious!

I have often wondered at such concerns or questions. I think it is not a
serious question.

There are only two possibilities:

1) One believes there is no such thing as eternal punishment.

In which case the question is nonsense and moot

2) One believes there is an eternal punishment or condition

In which there are the following possibilities

3) The punishment is just the natural state of being

or

4) The punishment is not the natural outcome but is invoked on purpose by
God.

Only when one gets to #4 does it make sense to ask the question.

Maybe its because I am inclined to deistic thinking (its tuesday and on
tuesdays I am a deist) or maybe its because I am a pragmatist, but the way
I see it is, if I were a person who was naturalistic, that is coming from
the viewpoint of one who is naturalistic, then the most natural thing
would be that it is obvious that people die and thats it *poof* there is
no more. Its just the way the world is.

And that is the very best anybody can hope for. That is very gloomy. It
leads to despair and hopelessness.

But perhaps it is actually worse and there is some sort punishment by God
(so there can be justice in the universe). So the best we could hope for
via naturalistic thinking is if God keeps hands off!!! And doesnt get
involved. And everybody just perishes. And there is no punishment. Can one
then blame God and at the same time claim to not believe in God? Would that
be irrational?

-OR-

it gets better....

God can get involved and actually RESCUE. Isnt that a good thing...that
God would care and help? Why is this then even questioned?

And if the question is serious, but a person doesn't like the answer, what
are they going to do, go back to answers 1,2 and 3?

Truly the question is not really serious.

Think about it, what is rescue without justice? Rescue means choosing.
Purpose. But somehow people seem to be demanding that God doesnt get any
choice and must rescue everyone equally regardless of how wicked or evil
they have been. That He doesnt get to even consider justice. And if God
wont go along with that then He is somehow unfair and unjust Himself.
And this demand surely must stem from some form of morality. One makes up a
set of rules and demands that God must comply with the rules or else one
will reject Him. Is this not sheer hubris? Surely the thinking comes
from the blinded and carnal mind. But to me it is also irrational.

Does the carnal mind really think any God is worth worshiping if He isnt in
charge, doesnt get to choose any of the rules, completely discards justice,
and lets people push Him around?
Really?

Not even my wife lets me boss her around. Is she somehow better than God?

Will Rogers once said something to the effect, "If you think you are in
charge just trying ordering somebody elses dog around."

The question puts God beneath a dog.

So how could it be a serious question? Isnt it more like a self deception
or an excuse? Or is it asked because those asking it think it makes
true believers look bad? Is that the real point of the question? One
wonders.

-Dave
armchair theologist ;)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 4 01:33:40 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 04 2009 - 01:33:40 EST