Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: God and suffering Message-ID: <2138@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 00:18:41 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2138 Posted: Thu Nov 7 00:18:41 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 01:59:15 EST References: <2028@umcp-cs.UUCP> <153@sdcc7.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 93 In article <153@sdcc7.UUCP> ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >Charli, Don't confuse me with Charli. That is another person. Anyway... >>> Part 1 - Where does evil come from. While Genesis uses the word death, >>> the Bible speaks of death (and I feel consequently evil) resulting from >>> man's original choice to disobey God. Not to make this sound like >>> beginning Sunday school, but that is traditional Christian doctrine. >> And anyway, this is an erroneous statement of "traditional" christian >> doctrine (and I'll repeat for the n-teenth time that there has been a >> plurality of doctrines since about AD 200). >Tradition can mean pertaining to old customs and cultures but according to >American Heritage Dictionary it also means a coherant body of precedents. >The coherant body of precedent on the issue of the origin of sin says just >what I said above. See any Bible dictionary if you still disagree. I'm not >arguing that there haven't been many other views that are part of the past >history and can therefor be considered 'traditional', but traditional has a >more accepted meaning of a standard over time, and the standard over time is >the paragraph above. You missed the point. Since 1054, if that late, there has not been A tradition; there have been multiple traditions. Protestant and Roman churches hold quite different views on this issue, a point we'll get back to in a moment. >>> As hard as it is to understand, I feel that both God and man are >>> responsible for evil. Man's part we've already looked at, but just to >>> add one point, not only does the Bible say that Adam sinned, but Paul, >>> in Romans, says that as Adam sinned, so do all men. To me this >>> means that I'm not suffering unjustly for something Adam did, I'm a joint >>> instigator and cause of the problem. >> Well, that is again a misstatement of any of the doctrines. The doctrines >> generally have in common the theme that we have created human nature so >> that we inevitably choose to sin. The fact that temptations enter into >> this is irrelevant, as it is in shoplifting. If I remember correctly this referred more to what Mike had to say. But in any case, I sort of agree with Rick on his point; my reply is essentially an elaboration on the same point. Bringing us to the following: >I'll assume the doctrines you were referring to are those concerning original >sin. I am not a Roman Catholic, and I don't believe in Original Sin along those lines. I'm not sure that my beliefs could be identified with O.S. in ANY form. The classical Anglican form of O.S. states that each of us, *by our own nature*, is corrupt and tends inevitably toward sin. On this point in particular, there is no christian conscensus; thus one can only speak of this in terms of traditions in the plural. Anyway... > What do you mean by saying that 'we have created human nature so that we > inevitably choose to sin'? Did we create something? Is John 1:1-3 not > true? Second things first: I don't take John that way. Creative powers come of God, but the choice of how they are used is man's. For the first question, let me emphasize first that this is an existential-ish way of stating things. Human nature is, after all, simply the way in which humans are inclined to act. Rather than being some sort of divine or natural law, it is simply what we choose to do within the bounds of our conditioning. To put the statement in more conventional terms, we have altered the conditioning of the human race so that we compell our actions in the direction of divine disobedience. >will go to jail. The assassin, even though he was paid and wouldn't have >done it if the other person hadn't of hired him is still responsible. >The person who hired the assassin has the moral responsibility of being >part of the cause of the action that took place since it would not have >taken place if he hadn't have offered to pay money. To apply this to God, >God is the hirer, but instead of offering us something simply wrong, He >has put us in a world where evil can be chosen. This analogy is quite defective. What is the charge against the hirer and the assassin? Conspiracy to commit murder. The assassin is guilty for the obvious reason; the hirer is guilty because he had a will to murder which was converted into action. It's as thought the assassin-with-gun were the murder weapon. Ignoring the Israelites for the moment, that connection is completely lacking between the LORD and men. He does not go around asking us to kill people (in fact, he does quite the opposite). It's as though I said that I didn't like X, so you went out and killed him. Where did the will to kill come from? Not from me. Charley Wingate