Why isn't he subject to the same evaluation. Hell he should be set to a more rigorous evaluation after all he is allegedly perfect and we aren't: Our excuse is we aren't perfect and we can't look ahead one hour let alone thousands of years. What's his excuse?
"Friendship with the world"
by Schizm 108 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Schizm
So what you're saying is that God is responsible for YOUR carelessness?
No. I'm responsible for my carelessness, and willingly so....--onacruse.First you say that whatever God "allows" becomes that for which He himself is responsible, for the sheer reason that He allowed it in the first place. Now that's what YOU said! And if what YOU said is the case, then since He allowed you to be careless with your pit bull then it's God that's to be blamed for the child being mauled by your dog.
But now you say differently; now you say that it's you yourself that has to assume the responsibility for your carelessness. Which way do you want it, onacruse? You can't have it both ways!
Here's a reminder of what you first said:
If God allows the world to be as it is (as, ostensibly, God has), then God is responsible for the way the world is, and he can't get off that hook.
.
-
Happy Guy :)
It's quite obvious that you did not grasp his point schizm. He is suggesting that God plays a part and is therefor subject to an amount of blame. He is asking the question If he is accountable surely God must be as well.
-
Schizm
Happy,
Why are you trying to rescue onacruse out of the dilemma he's in, Happy. He wants it both ways. His words are there in black and white for all to see. He needs to make up his mind which way he's going to argue the point.
He is asking the question If he is accountable surely God must be as well.
God is "accountable" for what, in your opinion?
If a woman consumes alcholic beverages while pregnant and her child is born with a defect as a result, is God to blame for that? You would probably say "No, of course not. That's the mother's fault"--and I would agree with you. Neon tells us that the world's governments exist because God put them into place. Of course Hitler's Nazi regime would've been one of those rulerships that God put into place then. Since Neon interpretates Romans 13 this way, will he blame God for the atrocious things that Hitler did? If not, then why not?
.
-
Happy Guy :)
I am not quite sure why you are bringing Neon into this as I made absolutely no comment on his posts nor would I care to. I only commented on your misunderstanding of ona(whateverhisnameis) post which, after reading your recent comment schizm, you still misunderstand.
I appears to me from his post that he is suggesting God has a share in the blame (i.e. some sort of measure of blame). I recognize your analogy of the alcoholic mother in so far as it surely an emotional point designed to get a strong reaction from the reader of anger focused solely at the mother for her stupidity. Problem is your analogy is designed to lose sight of the issue at hand (whether that was intentional or not): Does God share in the responsibility or does he have absolutely no accountability for that which he has created.
-
Schizm
Happy,
I am not quite sure why you are bringing Neon into this as I made absolutely no comment on his posts nor would I care to.
Since you obviously haven't noticed, I will alert you to the fact that it was one of my comments to Neon that onacruse picked up on in order to pose his question
the issue at hand... Does God share in the responsibility or does he have absolutely no accountability for that which he has created..
That's a good question ... a question that I'd like for Neon to express his opinion about. Neon says that the world's governments are God's doing, that He put them into place ... that they are, to use your words, "that which he has created".
You see, Happy, what you'd like to do is to derail the discussion that I and Neon were having about the meaning of Romans 13 and redirect the attention onto something that you'd rather discuss. I'll discuss whatever it is that you want to discuss as long as you remain civil and reasonable. But don't you think that that which you prefer to talk about is a mite off topic? But that's okay. I'll hear you out, and reply as best I can. What is it exactly that you think that God should be held accountable for? Please be specific. So far, all you've said is "for that which he has created". What exactly do you mean by that?
.
-
Happy Guy :)
I was simply adding some clarity with regard to your comment to onacruse. Sorry for making you feel that I was trying to derail your discussion with Neon. Since others have posted in this thread besides yourself and Neon with interjections here and there I was under the impression it was an open thread for commenting.
-
Schizm
Happy,
Thank you, and please continue to participate.
.
-
Kenneson
I find it interesting that Paul would speak favorably of governments at all in Romans 13, especially in view of the fact that he knew that it was the Roman procurator Pilate who had put Jesus to death at the insistence of the Jewish leaders and inhabitants of Jerusalem (Acts 13:28) It also was the Roman authorities who arrested Paul and brought him to Rome as a prisoner (Acts 21:30-33 and 28:14, 30-31)
-
NeonMadman
It STILL seems like a perfectly legitimate & reasonable understanding of the text of Romans 13 to me, but you don't agree of course.
Yes, it surely looks as if we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Frankly, it doesn't strike me as such a major issue anyway. But it's interesting to hash it out and clarify our thoughts on it.
I personally have no difficulty in seeing that the world's governments rule solely by God's permission, and THAT is how they stand "placed" in their positions by God.
I can understand why you would feel that way, but I have to stick to what the Scriptures actually say. There is nothing in the language of the text that implies the idea of permission. Now, having said that, I would add that my belief does not imply that everything any government does is necessarily in accord with God's will. Human governments, in a general sense, derive their authority from God. As Nebuchadnezzar was forced to understand, " the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes." (Daniel 4:32) This seems clearly to leave no room for the Watchtower's teaching that Satan is in charge of all human governments, along with their derivative doctrine of neutrality.
However, individuals in governmental positions can still exercise their free will in the discharge of those positions, and can and do carry out actions that are in no way approved by God. God does, as you suggest, permit them to operate in such a way. Does God then become "responsible" for such actions? The first question I would ask in response is, responsible to whom? God is under no obligation to answer to any of His creations for what He does or permits. Notice how Paul addresses this issue using the example of Pharoah:
Rom 9:14
What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." Rom 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." Rom 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" Rom 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Rom 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? So it is really not for us to question God as to his handling of matters. What He does or allows is his own concern, and He may choose not to reveal his reasons to us (as He never told Job the reasons for Job's sufferings). Nonetheless, we can be confident that "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)In the above cited text from Romans, it is also acknowledged that it was God who raised up (it doesn't say "permitted") a human leader (Pharoah) in fulfillment of His greater purpose. Pharoah could certainly not be said to have been a benicifent leader, given his treatment of the Jews before the Exodus. Was God therefore "responsible" for the terrible persecutions brought upon the Jews at that time? In a sense, yes. As He is responsible in a sense for all the evil that exists in the world by dint of His creation of the world. Had He not created the universe, no evil would have ever come to be - but no good would have come to be, either. And that's the point. We can't always see what good is being worked out, because we are not in a position to know all things. God, however is - and He can see what ultimate good He will bring though some may suffer temporarily.
I might also add that, if we are attempting to hold God responsible for evil perpetrated by governments, saying that He merely allowed them to exist as opposed to setting them in their respective positions doesn't get Him "off the hook." To go back to onacruse's illustration about his pit bull, let's say that the pit bull gets loose in front of onacruse's house and begins to maul a child. While this is happening, onacruse sits on his porch, fully aware of what is happening, and makes no attempt to stop the dog. Would you than hold onacruse unaccountable for the child's injuries because he simply permitted them to happen rather than directly causing them? If we hold that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, as the Bible tells us, then He knows the evils that any particular government will perpetrate, and He clearly has the power to prevent evil from happening. That He fails in some cases to prevent evil from happening merely indicates that He is working out a purpose that is greater in scope, that will ultimately lead to a greater good, and that He may choose not to reveal to us.
Perhaps you would like to explain the reason why you think Daniel 4 disproves my take on Revelation 13.
I quoted above Nebuchadnezzar's words that " the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes." (Daniel 4:32) This is yet another explicit statement that God grants human authority. As in Romans 13, nothing in the context carries the idea of permitting. That is a thought that must be inserted by the interpreter if it is to be seen there at all. And as I explained, human governments, which are explicitly said to derive their authority from God, cannot be the same entity as the beast of Revelation 13, which is explicitly said to draw its authority from Satan.I wonder how it's possible for anyone who is acquainted with the 7th chapter of Daniel to fail to associate the 4 beasts there with the beast of Revelation 13. The connection is undeniable, and that the wild beast of Revelation 13 is a political entity can't be disproved.
Well, first, I never said that the beast wasn't a political entity. There's a difference between saying that the beast is a political entity and saying that it is the entire system of human governments throughout history. Some of our Seventh-day Adventist friends might disagree with you even about that (though I personally think they are mistaken), in that they identify the beast as the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church. As far as Daniel 7, most Christian commentators identify the "little horn" mentioned in Daniel 7:8 with the beast of Revelation 13, not the entire sequence of beasts. This is usually seen as the Antichrist, an individual or political power (interpretations vary) that will arise shortly before the return of Christ. As far as I know, only Jehovah's Witnesses identify the entire sequence of beasts with the wild beast of Revelation 13.