8 Listen, my son, to your father's instruction
and do not forsake your mother's teaching.
9 They will be a garland to grace your head
and a chain to adorn your neck.
10 My son, if sinners entice you,
do not give in to them.
11 If they say, "Come along with us;
let's lie in wait for someone's blood,
let's waylay some harmless soul;
12 let's swallow them alive, like the grave,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
13 we will get all sorts of valuable things
and fill our houses with plunder;
14 throw in your lot with us,
and we will share a common purse"-
15 my son, do not go along with them,
do not set foot on their paths;
16 for their feet rush into sin,
they are swift to shed blood.
17 How useless to spread a net
in full view of all the birds!
18 These men lie in wait for their own blood;
they waylay only themselves!
19 Such is the end of all who go after ill-gotten gain;
it takes away the lives of those who get it.
I have been struck recently (again) of how the suffering of this world validates God's word and truth. The bible speaks of how the earth will groan, falling apart under the grips of sin, and we see it, don't we? As christians we feel as though we need to sell the bible in tricky ways, knowing it's power, but doubting its relevance or appeal to those who are not yet saved. As non believers we assume the bible has nothing for us, it is old and big, relevant only to years gone by. But when we look at the big picture of the bible we can see it's all happening...now. We do seek valuable things (forsaking others if need be) and our feet rush to sin. We see lives swallowed by ill-gotten gain. The bible speaks of the creator, the world he created, and the creation who turned away. We are that creation, in that world, there could be no book more relevant than the bible.
Let's see how this blog-commenting thing goes:
ReplyDelete"I have been struck recently (again) of how the suffering of this world validates God's word and truth."
By extension, does this invalidate any given opposing proposition?
An opposing proposition to the validity of God's word and truth or opposing proposition to my statement? if the later, there is always room for an opposing proposition to my statements...do go on
ReplyDeleteIf the former, i would suggest, i many ways, yes. From the simplest of tasks (such as men/everyone nowadays having to work for their food) to the larger, more "earth groaning" type events, the bible remains consistent with the way things are going...despite the thousands of years between now and when it was written. I guess this idea of suffering would invalidate to varying degrees depending on the given opposing proposition. I think it shows us that man was never cut out to rule the world, in so many instances the world rules over us, so i guess to some degree it throws humanism out the window. Humans are clearly not great, all one has to do is look around.
I'll stop my thoughts on the former option there since im not even sure thats what you were saying. Clarification?
Thanks for your comment either way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"I have been struck recently (again) of how the suffering of this world validates God's word and truth. The bible speaks of how the earth will groan, falling apart under the grips of sin, and we see it, don't we?"
ReplyDeleteYes we do. I was wondering whether you meant (the obvious) that "Humans are clearly not great, all one has to do is look around" which is what the Bible narrates, or extend this to the extent that by looking around the only explanation is what is narrated in the Bible, not any form of naturalism.
If the suffering how of this world validates God's word and truth, does this entail that Christians can point to suffering and evil and pain then hold the Bible up as the sole explanatory model?
This was the type of thinking behind the post, yes. We (as the larger group of the body) spend time trying to find ways around pain,suffering and evil when explaining christianity, we see it as a stumbling block in holding up the bible as truth. In actual fact i think pain,suffering and evil would be the most evident connection between real life and what the bible says to be true - therefore strengthening its credibility.
ReplyDeleteI would have to think some more about wether this link wipes out other ways of explaining existence - i would imagine that if someone believed that creation occurred by a collision of atoms (accidently) then there's no reason pain and suffering (not so sure about evil) could exist within this accidental kind of world? It certainly, as you said, deals with humanistic explanatory models but im not sure about the others. Thoughts?
My initial point was just the latter; whether or not other views could account for suffering adequately. Presenting a non-believer with the assertion that suffering validates God's word might be ambiguous in that - at least how I took it - it infers that some other model does not explain sufficiently, or not as well. This may indeed be the case, but requires further burdens of proof. For instance, belief in Jesus contradicts belief in Vishna - whereas many modes of thought account for suffering. It was this specific use that I was considering.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the idea of "i would imagine that if someone believed that creation occurred by a collision of atoms (accidently) then there's no reason pain and suffering (not so sure about evil) could exist within this accidental kind of world?" Not because it does not resemble any contemporary scientific theory (no criticism, just pointing that out) but how does a 'mere' collision of atoms (or what is really the point, the random purposeless of creation) result in no pain and suffering? Perhaps I am reading you wrong. You're either talking about a different possible state of the world, a state in which, perhaps, there exists no life forms; so, therefore, no suffering could be felt. The other thought of what you could mean (or are sort of getting at) is that objective evil would not exist, so suffering would have no moral value.
Oh, also, humanism? I meant naturalism. For instance, a naturalist would (although not necessarily, but very likely) deny that 'evil' exists in any sort of transcendent way, but that it is used by us as in some subjective semantic role to denote what is a social wrong. As far as I am aware, humanism has nothing to do with these sorts of positions. Correct me if I am wrong, but by you saying 'humanism' it sounds as if that you are focussing on the basis for morality (something associated with humanism); in particular, objective evil.
I believe my typo is one of the main culprits here. i meant to say "i would imagine that if someone believed that creation occurred by a collision of atoms (accidently) then there's no reason pain and suffering (not so sure about evil) could NOT exist within this accidental kind of world?"
ReplyDeletemeaning it seems reasonable for pain and suffering to exist in this model of creation.
Humanism was just an example of other beliefs (one that is sometimes connected with this collision of atoms idea.