Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Wrandom Musings On God

UPDATED! Scroll to the bottom of the post for more Godly Goodness.

Original post:

Capt. eucalyptus is a frequent commenter here at Codemorse, and we’ve decided to try doing a few cross-postings on whatever happens to interest us. In talking about homosexuality, I argued that since it exists in the animal kingdom, it’s not limited to human beings. Existing outside the realm of the "Original Sin" carried by Adam, Eve, and all their children (including you! And me!), wouldn't that then prove homosexuality to be a natural, and Original-Sin-free part of God's creation?

Cap’s response was as follows:

In the Christian worldview man wasn't the only thing corrupted by the Fall. All of creation suffers as intimated in Romans 8:21.

"because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God"

So disease, death, suffering, sin, was in fact not in God's original design (with a literal or even figurative reading of the Bible). The logic that homosexuality is in nature so therefore okay is a flawed argument. Consider how many other things that exist in nature are not emulated by man, in a perfect world. Animals kill each other with impunity even engaging in cannibalism. It is a dog eat dog world, but in human society in it's best form we look out for one another and not just because it suits or betters us personally.

This seems inherently un-just to me. God’s all-powerful, right? And he’s Good? Then why would God intentionally allow a flawed creation (asking this with full awareness that these sorts of questions have been batted about for millenia by philosophers and college philosophy majors)?

You can read Cap’s response to that question HERE.

What it comes down to for me, it seems, is that the idea of a loving God is powerfully difficult to reconcile with the idea of a God who would take away free-will from the human race, or who would extend the stain of the original sin to Adam and Eve’s ancestors.

Why is this necessary? If, in a flawed and sinful world, people are still trying to do the right thing, then doesn’t that show an innate and willful desire to rise above our anger, our sin, our base humanity, and be better than?

What purpose does it serve, to stain a person at birth? Why tie weights to a runner’s legs before he begins the race?

Is it because God is training us? Forging us into better people through suffering?

Or is it because God is whimsical, and capricious?


Cap responds to my sub-Philosophy 101 musings HERE.

Well the way I see it, God didn't take away free will (by enslaving man to sin) or extend that sin to his offspring. It was a natural consequence of Adam's (and Eve's) actions. They opened the floodgates of sin. As a result of their sins, we all now live in a tainted world.

But there's nothing "natural" about that to me. God created Eden, and placed Adam, Eve, The Tree of Knowledge, and the snake in it.

Without the prodding of a third, serpentine, party, would Eve have eaten from the tree? Maybe, but it seems doubtful. So, either God created the snake with full knowledge that it would tempt the first humans (and with awareness that he'd built into both people a curiousity and an innate disobediance that would cause them to go against his wishes), or he didn't foresee the snake, and didn't realize he'd made those naked people so darn curious.

Either way, how were Adam or Eve's actions in any real sense their own? If creation was perfect before Eve got all uppity, then why would she have the urge to disobey God in the first place? It seems to me that she'd have to have been imperfectly made to begin with.

God didn't put the sin on people. It's like being born in a post apocolyptic world full of harmful radiation. It's a natural consequence of being born into the world. God has given us the cure for it though.

In a similar vein to the above argument, and using Cap's radiation example, isn't this like saying "Well, those people brought radiation sickness on themselves, because they were born into the world," while ignoring the fact that, no, they probably got radiation sickness because of the people who set the bombs off?

Imagine putting a child in a room, unsupervised, with a big vat of boiling water. If some candy-bearing stranger manages to slip in and persuade the child that, in fact, the big vat of boiling water is being purposefully kept from them, would it be a surprise to come home and find your child scalded?

And having discovered their misbehavior, would it lead you to decide that your child, their children, their children's children, and on into infinity, were inherently sinful people?

Or would you decide not to leave children unsupervised, and to check for strangers before you leave the house?

(note: we aren't all God's children)

We aren't? Why not?


At 8:28 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

Back at ya big daddy.

At 10:43 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

Ten-four, good buddy. We got a lil' ol' Convoy.

At 12:01 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

Uh, yeah, that's a big 10-4 Pig-Pen,
Yeah, we definitely got us the front door good buddy

At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Post a Comment

<< Home