Universalism and the Open Wound of Life

One of the struggles in subscribing to universal reconciliation are the constant misunderstandings. Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding involves the distinctions between soteriology and theodicy.

If you are new here, let me define those terms. Soteriology has to do with salvation. Theodicy has to do with the problem of horrific suffering (sometimes called "the problem of evil" or "the problem of pain").

When I say I believe in universalism 99% of the time people think I'm attracted to the position because I have soft heart, soteriologically speaking. I want a happy ending where "everyone gets to go to heaven." For some reason, it is believed, probably because I'm a theological flower child, I just can't stomach the Judgment and Sovereignty of God.

So the debate that typically ensues is all about soteriological issues: sin, forgiveness, judgment, justice, heaven, and hell.

To be clear, those issues are of interest to me. But what most people fail to understand is that my universalism, and most of the universalism I encounter within Christianity, isn't motivated by soteriological issues. The doctrine isn't attractive because it solves the problem of hell. The doctrine is attractive because it solves (or at least addresses) the problem of pain.

(And this, incidentally, is why I don't think annihilationism is of any real help here. Annihilationism is still trying to fix the problem of hell rather than the real problem. Which, for me, is a sign of its theological cluelessness.)

In short, universalism, for me and many others, is about theodicy. Not soteriology. The issue isn't about salvation (traditionally understood). It's about suffering. Universalism, as best I can tell, is the only Christian doctrine that takes the problem of suffering seriously. As evidence for this, just note that when a theologian starts taking suffering seriously he or she starts moving toward universalism. Examples include Jürgen Moltmann, Marilyn McCord Adams, and John Hick. Take suffering seriously and the doctrine soon follows.

I gravitated to universalism in college because the problem of horrific suffering became (and remains) the defining theological predicament of my faith experience. It is the obsessio of my theological world. And while I find the doctrine of hell distasteful, this is due, again, to my theodicy concerns. Is God really loving if he tortures people for eternity? More, isn't "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior" largely contingent upon where you were born in the world, a manifestation of what philosophers call moral luck? In every case it all goes back to theodicy.

Here's a test you can try on people. Whenever you find a person who doesn't "get" universalism (not that they have to believe it, they just have to "get" it) you'll have person who doesn't "get" the problem of horrific suffering. The two, in my experience, are of a piece.

Even on my own campus, where there are some very sharp theological minds, I am often frustrated by how often people just don't get it. Not the universalism. I'm talking about the problem of suffering. Because if they get the latter they get the former.

I was reminded of this association this week while reading Moltmann's Trinity and Kingdom. In it he writes:

It is in suffering that the whole human question about God arises; for incomprehensible suffering calls the God of men and women in question. The suffering of a single innocent child is an irrefutable rebuttal of the notion of the almighty and kindly God in heaven. For a God who lets the innocent suffer and who permits senseless death is not worthy to be called God at all...The theism of the almighty and kindly God comes to an end on the rock of suffering...

The question of theodicy is not a speculative question; it is a critical one. It is the all-embracing eschatological question. It is not purely theoretical, for it cannot be answered with any new theory about the existing world. It is a practical question which will only be answered through experience of the new world in which 'God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.' It is not really a question at all, in the sense of something we can ask or not ask, like other questions. It is the open wound of life in this world. It is the real task of faith and theology to make it possible for us to survive, to go on living, with this open wound. The person who believes will not rest content with any slickly explanatory answer to the theodicy question. And he will also resist any attempts to soften the question down. The more a person believes, the more deeply he experiences pain over the suffering in the world, and the more passionately he asks about God and the new creation.
Innocent suffering is the open wound of life and the real task of faith and theology is "to make it possible for us to survive, to go on living, with this open wound."

Now here's the deal. You either get that, or you don't.

And if you don't, well, I'm sure you're a very nice and devout person.

But you'll never understand why I believe in universalism.

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

48 thoughts on “Universalism and the Open Wound of Life”

  1. Amen. The pain of this life is such that its only satisfactory answer in my opinion is the vision of revelations - every tear wiped away, all hunger ended, all suffering addressed, all people home.

  2. That's funny, I claimed it as my obsessio too.

    I agree, I agree, I agree.

    But of course, I disagree a little bit too. =)

    I haven't encountered a formulation of universalism that is sufficient to the task. I think that instead of just overhauling our understanding of salvation, we have to overhaul our understanding of God. I think suffering requires us to jettison our ideas of God as a God of power, and all the Resurrection Magic that they entail, and instead accept that we will have to make do with a god of love.

  3. Believe me, David, if you hadn't warned us about the sarcasm, qb would never have detected it in your magnificently subtle post. You are a master rhetorician, and a fabulously pleasant one.

    qb

  4. >It's almost as if atheism is half a second west of Greenwich and universalism half a second east of it

    Maybe it's because honesty regarding power and human suffering sits at Greenwich, and everybody else is trying to run as far away from them as possible.

  5. Hi Josh,
    I just think there are a lot of us out there walking the same walk.

    Also, keep posting links. I don't think it's tacky at all. I want to encourage everyone to do it, a lot. I don't keep a blogroll as I can't keep it updated. So I like it when readers hyperlink (either their names or posts) so we all can chase after the best comments and reactions.

  6. yes.

    yes yes and more yes.

    we sing this song in church, one of the lines repeated is "you hold me now, you hold me now..." I can't sing it without singing "you hold US now". I can't. I have to sing that. I know too much, I feel too much - I have to believe in all made new. I have to. And I do. It's called hope and I cling to it like a madman.

  7. qb is being way too humble; I knew he would have gotten it. And, thanks for the ideas on how to improve my resume.

  8. In Luke 12:5 Jesus is quoted as having said: "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!" Now the word 'hell' there is a translation of γεεννα. If qb thinks that He was referring to the valley of Hinnom, have at it.

  9. Thank you, I will. As an artist (painting, fiction, poetry, screenwriting, photography), I tend to take a much more freewheeling, creative approach to my theology. Regardless, I find myself informed more and more by a thought-wave that most of my more loving, thinking friends seem to be riding. It's fascinating.

  10. Thank you for such a wonderful post. Anytime I try and explain my universalism for someone, I have the same problems. They are so focused on salvation, sin and judgment. Trying to put into words how human suffering is why I came to universalism is so difficult, especially when facing the type of conservative Christians I grew up around. The enormity of the pain I see all over the world, from children starving in Africa, war refugees in the Middle East, to my own friends and family, is absolutely overwhelming. The only God I could respect or even believe in, had to be a God who would destroy this pain.

    You quoted Revelations 21- "God will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away". This is my absolute favorite Bible verse. I wish I could make people understand why I believe in universalism, but when I try and point out this devastating suffering, either they don't see it or they dismiss it. I've even heard that those people would not be suffering so horribly if they were Christian, an explanation I find sickening.

  11. Many thanks for your response, that's very helpful. I hadn't really thought about the idea of 'giving people time to accept Jesus' as being a way in which death is running the show. I suppose that means the evangelist's pleas to 'decide before it's too late' is, ironically, an acknowledgement that death has not been defeated and we're still working to death's timetable. Quite different to 1 Corinthians 15, where o death is your victory etc..

  12. Hello, long time reader first time responding...

    If "universalism" means as in "everyone will get saved in the end", I would have a bit of a personal problem with that. Not that I am one to offer some kind of authoritative end-time Judgement like God, but I would just be a bit of disappointment (not that it would really matter when Last Days are over and Eternal Life begins).

    My personal issue against "universalism" is evil, actual tangible evil manifested in people/persons. Or more precise, the evil people do to cause (deliberately or inadvertently) pain and suffering in others. So my focus on soteriology/theodicy would be the yearning for justice on Earth or thereafter for victims of genocide, rape, murder, etc. at global and personal levels... It would suck for the victim to think that some evil people might "get away with murder" (wordplay intended) because they paid lip-service to accepting Christ, be it serving for soteriological or theodicial arguments.

    But I'm speaking from personal bias and experiences, not some ideal philosophy.

    But off-topic, I do wonder at times whether psychopaths could actually receive salvation if they're predisposed biologically or neurologically not able to show genuine contrition or conscience as diagnosed by earlier DSM or a psychiatrist.

    This post was written in a bit of haste. I'm sorry if my writing is not grammatically correct, or even coherent. Also, I'm not trolling and I don't have the energy to engage in theological arguments.

    But I am looking forward to hearing some general feedback and thoughts from some people. Particularly in regards to whether "all people go to heaven"...

    Thanks for your time in reading,
    j.

  13. I read an article once (I think written by Gregory Boyd) in which he listed all of the verses that seemed to advocate 1) Eternal torment 2) Death as final judgment (annihilationism) 3) Universal salvation. All three positions have support from biblical texts and all three seem to contradict with other biblical texts (or biblical ideas about God's character and mission). I once taught a three-part Bible study on this in an adult Sunday morning class. I tried to, like a museum docent, stroll through as many texts as I could, addressing basic features. What struck me is that eternal torment people also WANT the permanence of Hell to be true. Universal salvation does solve an existential/intellectual problem for a group of people. But, for another group (when asked to explain themselves) it becomes clear that a Hell without end brings them a dose of existential satisfaction and intellectual ease.
    I suppose when you have an entire theological system propped up on the avoidance of Hell as the basis of conversion, and escape from Hell as the modus operandi of Christ's death, you have to preserve its place. Lest, the entire structure ruptures.
    Or, some people are deeply satiated by the idea of people they loathe meeting (in their eyes) the most definitive punishment, and probably prefer to witness it themselves. There are people in Church quite open with this as well.

  14. I appreciate you clarifying the theological grid in this way. This an important distinction for furthering the conversation. But, I do have a few questions. First, would it be fair to say that your (and many others) conviction of humanity's weak volition contributes heavily, along with the problem of suffering, to claiming that universalism is the obvious outcome when wrestling with theodicy? In other words, could someone honestly and coherently, while residing in the harsh reality of human suffering, argue theologically for a different outcome if they have a higher view human volition?
    Second, could it be helpful to not collapse the problem of suffering and the problem of evil into the exact same meaning? Obviously they are intricately related, but I do think they have slightly different starting points. Thus, could someone who has a higher view of human volition, and tries to honestly wrestle with suffering in light of the problem of evil, adhere to annihilationism as the best answer to the problem of suffering and the problem of evil without being "theologically clueless"? Or, more simply, (recognizing your desire to be provocative by speaking in extremes) couldn't it be feasible to adhere to annihilationism because someone is passionate about dealing with suffering and evil, hell or no hell.
    Finally, in light of your claim that God's love will have the final word (thus, universalism), how do you interact with Miroslav Volf's view that a loving "embrace" can only be "opening and extending arms," it cannot be forced or coerced, thus there has to be a real possibility for rejection?

  15. Professor Beck, I hope you will be pleased to know that there is a strong biblical case for universalism (http://wp.me/PNthc-i6), even though it is not yet widely understood.

    The warnings in the Bible that are often assumed to be referring to a hell in a future life are actually warnings about the evil we allow to prevail in this life when we are not humble and repentant before God.

  16. Hello, long time reader first time responding...

    If "universalism" means as in "everyone will get saved in the end", I would have a bit of a personal problem with that. Not that I am one to offer some kind of authoritative end-time Judgement like God, but I would just be a bit of disappointment (not that it would really matter when Last Days are over and Eternal Life begins).

    My personal issue against "universalism" is evil, actual tangible evil manifested in people/persons. Or more precise, the evil people do to cause (deliberately or inadvertently) pain and suffering in others. So my focus on soteriology/theodicy would be the yearning for justice on Earth or thereafter for victims of genocide, rape, murder, etc. at global and personal levels... It would suck for the victim to think that some evil people might "get away with murder" (wordplay intended) because they paid lip-service to accepting Christ, be it serving for soteriological or theodicial arguments.

    But I'm speaking from personal bias and experiences, not some ideal philosophy.

    But off-topic, I do wonder at times whether psychopaths could actually receive salvation if they're predisposed biologically or neurologically not able to show genuine contrition or conscience as diagnosed by earlier DSM or a psychiatrist.

    This post was written in a bit of haste. I'm sorry if my writing is not grammatically correct, or even coherent. Also, I'm not trolling and I don't have the energy to engage in theological arguments.

    But I am looking forward to hearing some general feedback and thoughts from some people. Particularly in regards to whether "all people go to heaven"...

    Thanks for your time in reading,
    j.

  17. Jesus spent quite a bit of time on soterioligical issues, but kept them inseparably joined with "uiversals" (innocent suffering, 26,000 children a day dying of hunger, etc.). No, he never gave stats, but he healed and he taught and modeled compassion and sacrifice. If I read it right, "Getting Saved" means allowing the Spirit of Jesus to touch my heart in such a way that these numbers start getting faces and I do something about it, even if it's throwing one starfish at a time back into the vast universal sea. And I'll read The Cost of Discipleship once more and keep on repenting and being humbled at the task.

  18. I periodically try a thought experiment- particularly after a massive natural evil event involving terrible loss of life. If God does not exist, does the evidence fit better? Which direction do the observable facts leads us?

    And inevitably it sits more comfortably with at least a distant, if not non-existent God.

    This leads me to a more Deist/intermittent Theist position. And I feel less angry with God if I don't hold him to account for the natural events of this world.

  19. That's ..... interesting. Can't say I've had that experience! LOL
    I think what you mean by "really sound theology" is really "thinks their logical system is the only right one," no? Really sound theology, on the other hand, ought to be about really knowing and understanding God. Which of course everyone is trying to do intellectually, but scripture teaches us that really knowing God means behaving according to God's will.

    (Just trying to make it thinner!)

  20. The key to your thought is in the desciptors 'puny' and 'incomplete' I have struggled with the Book of Job all my life. Being raised in an alcoholic home I live with 'waiting for the other shoe to fall' mentality, however God is not as my Dad was,...

  21. I don't 'get it.' And if I understand you correctly, since I don't now 'get it,' I will NEVER get it - and that troubles me. I went back to your old post (summary defense) to see what you meant by this term and idea. I can't find where you once mentioned theodicy in that article - it seems to me (apparently I'm a moron) that you didn't discuss theodicy at all, but pure soteriology. And you further seemed to have overly simplified some pretty major views, and completely disregarded the context of scriptures (1 tim 2 & Gal 3). Plucking them out of their context and then pretending that they're somehow contradictory to the point that one has to chose between the two ... it's kookytalk.

    But then the tone of this whole thing is awash in arrogance that those of us who don't buy in to your way of seeing things - are idiots who just don't "get it."

    I'm new to this blog, but nothing else I've seen of yours allows me to believe that you have the attitude as I've described it above... but I simply cannot connect the dots.

    "Even on my own campus, where there are some very sharp theological minds ... people just don't get it."

    Really? is there just no hope for those of us who don't 'get it'? Are we to understand ourselves to be irreperably inferior?

    I mean, come on. Can you not see how it's just remotely possible that YOU are the one that doesn't get it?

    I understand pain.

    I do not understand God, nor do I expect to, nor does He ask me to. He asks me to TRUST Him - to OBEY Him ... not to understand Him, and work out all the quirks of the trinity or justice or the problem of pain. If I make my trust conditional upon my understanding - then I'm doomed, and so are you. I'm not talking about trusting a church, or a way of looking at the world - I'm talking about trusting HIM - w/o being so arrogant that I believe myself capable of explaining Him (like Job's friends tried to do w/o success).

    And I definately don't understand what you seem to claim here. It sounds alot like only the cool kids can "see" the emperor's clothes, and the rest of us are without hope, because we just don't understand suffering or are simpletons who think we have all the answers (that later turn out to be inadequate when examined by your great mind). And furthermore, we never WILL understand it, if we don't automatically 'get it.'

    now I know this is a bit caustic, but dang. I really do not get it, and I hope you'll give some of us the benefit of more of your education, instead of just writing us off as insensitive imbeciles.

    I hope it doesn't hurt your feelings to read this - really. But I confess that 1) I don't get it, and 2) I don't know how to express my concerns any better than this.

  22. Richard, you might be interested in this short video on two views of "salvation". http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WosgwLekgn8 It opens the doors to a more universal salvation but leaves the possibility of an "Elder Brother".

  23. Spot on Mark. I think posing this question to a person will distinguish one's heart up front:

    "If I could show you that without a doubt, Jesus' atonement covers the world in God's eyes, and not just Christians, would you buy into it?"

    You can see two lines forming can't you? those who would be excited at such a prospect, and those who like you point out would fight such a proposition tooth and nail.....

  24. i don't follow the hypocrisy charge. If i parent tells their underage child not to drink alcohol, is that parent a hypocrite for drinking? There can be circumstances that make a difference in behavior entirely what one would expect.

  25. i'm a little confused--a lot to wade through. Is a personal sense of fairness or inability to get one's conscience to approve otherwise the basis for the acceptance of the doctrine? i guess i'm mulling over a question about ultimate authority. i'm trying hard not to confuse motivation and justification, which is easy to do when debating any position. But if i understand the post right, you're saying that your personal motivation is the ultimate justification for the adoption of the position.

    Just hypothetically, what would you do if all the biblical evidence were against it? Or suppose someone came to you tomorrow and very clearly and even persuasively argued that the biblical evidence was against universalism (in other words, after hearing their case, you genuinely took their interpretation to be the most likely). In such an event, would you give up the universalism or trust in the Bible?

    --guy

  26. I do think that's a fascinating question to pose. Not, "Do you think Universalism is true or supported by the scriptures?" but "Would you want universalism to be true?" "Would universalism be good news to you?"
    I think that how one answers those questions is pretty revealing (i.e. Though we can't ultimately know the scope, how merciful do you want God to end up being?).

  27. i'm not sure you understood my post at all. i never claimed no one could believe in universalism on biblical authority. i also never claimed one's desire for the doctrine had to be true for the doctrine to be true.

    The terms of my comment were addressed specifically to the author of this post. i questioned whether this was an accurate understanding of what he wrote--whether he adopted the doctrine more on the basis of motivation or biblical evidence. And in my hypothetical i stipulated that someone persuaded him that the Bible taught against universalism. i never claimed that it, in fact, does. In the event that he was so persuaded, which would he be more inclined to give up? The Bible or universalism?

    --guy

  28. Thanks for the reply. What I meant by "problem" is simply that there is suffering in the world, and that the world is ruled by an omnipotent God. I'm talking about the psychic dissonance many of the folks here are feeling reconciling these ideas.

    If I follow you correctly, you are saying that humans are very limited mortals, and don't have the faculties to judge or evaluate God's deeds - and since the omnipotent God asks us to trust him, that's the best way to go. Faith.

    That is a coherent position to take. It might even be the most literally scripturally sound position to take (I simply don't know enough of the Bible to say). But I can sympathise with people of faith who find it very hard to swallow.

    In any case, you should all keep this blog a secret. It's the only place I've seen civil and intelligent discussion on serious issues. :)

  29. Yes, Gehenna, as in national judgment. Judgment that occurred for Israel in life, never post-mortem.

  30. If God can love His enemies by eternally torturing them with no purpose for restoration in view, why can't I? If I exhibited the same behavior, wouldn't I be exhibiting the perfection of God? Bring on the inquisition...

  31. Hi Mike,
    No worries. Posts like this rarely lead to a consensus. Plus, the tone of the post was provocative.

    The communion of the saints hasn't agreed on this, or any other soteriological system, for over 2,000 years. Disagreement and a diversity of views is the norm for the church.

  32. I admit to being in the theodicy obsessio subset as well. If the wrongs in this life never get addressed, merely swept aside "by the blood of Christ," I don't know that that creates a right scenario, anymore than in this life when people (even claiming Christians) pretend things they've done didn't happen, or play the amnesia card, or posture that a statute of limitations has run out on unresolved things mattering anymore at all. If the Gospel is a lifelong practice, rather than a one-time nod-along, it all matters until it is acknowledged and resolved. A pastor friend talked about this a few weeks ago, about how it takes only one to forgive; but it takes two to reconcile.

  33. Exactly as CPM said—I am charged with being like God, with carrying the image of God, with being God's representative on the earth.

    If that "likeness" is with a God whose idea of justice is irredeemable, irreconcilable, unending torture, I'm not interested.

  34. Would you say that there is some objective concept of justice apart from God to which even God must answer (and humans)? Or would you say that God is the source or foundation by which justice is determined? Or some third alternative?

  35. Something interesting in the story of Jacob I saw a while back. In the process of returning to his family land, he is faced with the prospect of a meet-up with Esau. He is sure that he will be met with vengeance (after all, he dealt deceptively in the past). Esau would surely be out for justice. Instead, he is met with an embrace. Jacob expresses that meeting as likened to seeing the face of God.

  36. "The problem is not the suffering per se, it is how one feels about the situation."

    I feel you are too quick to wrap up the problem and put it out of sight. Ask the person suffering if there is a problem. Even if there may be a promise of a future with no pain, does it negate the reality of the pain or injustice?

    Agreed it may be more bearable if it is moral evil inflicted by fellow man. At least she can look to God for eventual deliverance.

    But if it is natural evil, inflicted by God himself (assuming He is in omnipotent), then where is the hope? "Sorry your children died- I will make it up to you" doesn't exactly ooze comfort.

    Natural evil and suffering remains a problem.

  37. Many thanks, Richard. I've caught up with a few of your historical blogs on this subject and am copying across one of my responses to this current thread, if that's OK.

    A 'self-organised learning' treatment of universalism might run thus:

    People are very good at mixing up purposes and outcomes. One example of this is seen in target-setting cultures. In such cultures, (good/appropriate) outcomes are taken and changed into (bad/inappropriate) purposes. This can result in unintended consequences, disconnection from core values, loss of ownership etc.

    An example from (UK) education: School league tables and wider government policy create a system in which raising SAT scores is turned from a desirable outcome into an over-bearing target. As a result, children with difficulties accessing the curriculum are marginalised, young people with behavioural problems are excluded, teachers forget why they ever went into their supposed 'vocation' and start to chase pay awards instead of their own core values.

    What's this got to do with hell, I hear you ask? (You've obviously never worked in a target-driven school! @-;¦)

    Could it be that when salvation becomes a target - "How many times have you shared your testimony this week?"; "How many responded to the appeal last Sunday?" - it results in unintended consequences in otherwise loving people:

    Judgemental attitudes
    Holier than thou religion
    Preservation/prioritisation of in-group (Christian) values
    etc etc etc.

    Could it be that our PURPOSE as Christ's body is to love God and our neighbour - respectfully, humbly, unprejudicially, justly, self-sacrificially - and that the OUTCOME of all this on-going work of Christ is salvation?

  38. Fair enough--"THE good" talk can be misleading. But if i understand you, the property of goodness is contingent upon social interaction. Would you say social interaction determines the *content* of that property?

    If there were only God and no creation, would the property of goodness fail to be instantiated?

    Ultimately i guess i'm wondering, if there's some measure for goodness back of God, why not just cut out the middle man? What purpose is God serving in the mix? Especially if you think human beings do have epistemic access to goodness--what do we need God for?

    --guy

  39. Interesting. I agree that once one takes suffering seriously, you then have to take universalism seriously. I consider myself a universalist, but not because I take suffering seriously. It is because I assume a major premise in the theological "suffering is bad" thesis - life and existence is good and God intends life. I think the Eastern Orthodox view is grounded in the idea that God is the author of life and is opposed to nonexistence.

    In other words, saying suffering is a bad state of affairs assumes that creation is good and life is good and that death is bad. I would step back from the problem of suffering and ask what view or interpretation of life and death are assumed in the view that says suffering is bad (rather than just a natural cycle that reproduces more life). The more basic question is Why is creation good? The answer, and foundational premise that suffering is bad, is "Creation is good because it is the free gift of God's own life (God is source of existence)." If this is true then nonexistence is bad. I think this is the logic operating in Athanasius's On the Incarnation. For God to be "for death" and nonexistence in any way is for God to contradict God's own being, which is life and existence.

  40. To restate the question: if there was God but nothing else (no creation), does that mean there'd be no goodness? i took that as a possible consequence from your claim that goodness is only a property of social interaction.

    i guess if atheists have as must access to goodness as Christians, that is, there is nothing about Christianity that makes that access better or more likely or more certain (let alone categorically possible), then why acknowledge God? i suppose you could still make a sort of utilitarian case: "Be that as it may, there might still be a being that is superior to me, which means whether i like it or not, that being will be able to do things to me i mind fight pleasurable or painful and i won't be able to resist. So i suppose i should choose Christianity in the case of that eventuality." But other than that sort of rationale, i don't see why one should choose Christianity over non-Christianity, given these parameters.

    What do i think? i think that if there is a God of the sort Christianity teaches, then He is clearly my superior in the area of knowledge, wisdom, justice, goodness, etc. If that is the case, then when i find something He does or says morally suspect, it's far more likely this indicates a flaw in *my* judgment rather than His. If God has to answer to my sense of fairness, then He's hardly my superior. --in which case, who's really the "god" of that relationship?

    --guy

  41. To restate the question: if there was God but nothing else (no creation),
    does that mean there'd be no goodness?


    What I was trying to say is that if "goodness" is as I've described it, a
    property of social interaction, then without not-God, there could be
    "goodness" in God's relationship to Godsownself (whatever that may look
    like).

    when i find something He does or says morally suspect, it's far more
    likely this indicates a flaw in *my* judgment rather than His


    Stuart answered that pretty well, as far as I'm concerned. I have this to
    add, though: what do you make of the scriptures showing examples of people
    of faith arguing with God, appealing to God's better nature, if you will?
    From Abraham in the Sodom situation, to Moses on Sinai, to Amos in
    Bethel—there are times when the praiseworthy response of the people of God
    is to oppose God's announced plan—not out of a lack of faith, or of claiming
    superiority over God, but flowing directly out of one's commitment to God
    and the Good and the Just.

  42. These are interesting cases! i definitely don't presume to understand them totally. But my general take on them is not that people are appealing to "God's better nature" as you put it, as though the other option was somehow morally inadequate or inconsistent with His character or any of that. --just that they petitioned God and got what they asked for.

    But i don't deny the way they are presented, they are puzzling conversations.

    --guy

Leave a Reply