God allows birth defects. God allows abortion. God allows torture, child molestation......what about God's nature in cases like that?
The you've reduced allows to a general state of the world and given we all experience that state why use the term at all? It must signify something. I'd say God allowed sin because sin comes with our imperfection and will. No way around it really. The moment we were made the cross was inevitable. Doesn't mean God desires our suffering, only that he values our existence more.
I don't care what Job's friends thought, and the fact that what I'm saying can lead to some "mistaken assumption" matters not a whit.
You should and it does. I've set out why. I'll touch on it again in a moment.
I'm not talking about what people think.
You're talking about what you think. You're a person. I'm talking about the sort of error they made and I think it dovetails nicely into your assertion about God using the unjust to punish. It invites us to judge as Job's friends did. It invites error and serves no real purpose else.
Job was NOT being punished for his transgressions.
Exactly.
...just as most victims of rape are not being punished for their transgressions.
No victim of rape is being punished for their transgressions when they're raped. That's not how God works. Christ said it. I believe it. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Evil will not do good and good will not do evil.
I'm talking about those who are suffering the consequences of their own wrong behavior. Job shouldn't even be brought into this...no matter how much you want to worry about how it might appear to some.
Job is appropriate for the reasons given above and prior.
Because it does smack of humanism.
Then set out how, in particular. Anyone can slap a word on something. Point out the humanism in it. Don't tell me is feels or smacks or seems. If it's reasonable and true you should sustain it in particulars. If you find you can't then you'll know you're mistaken on the point (hopefully happily).
You don't get to decide what God would or would not allow as we reap what we sow.
But you get to judge who is raped for their transgressions? Else, where did I do that again? I'm advising against approaching suffering in that fashion at all.
You don't get to set the parameters, and just saying God would never do thus and so is not based on any scripture that I've seen.
You'll have to point out, particularly, where you think I've done that because that's not my methodology. I prefer to examine, conclude and illustrate and if I've left out support I'll happily set it right. What parameters have I set and where? Let's look at it together.
Hey, that's what I accused you of first....your wording is just fancier than mine. You've done nothing but project your ideas onto me. What I've argued and illustrated are ignored....twisted to suit your own understanding.
That's a silly thing to say. I'm not invested in twisting anything other than a nose or two when warranted. And I'm not accusing you, only noting that what you said there was contrary to any reasonable reading of me. I'd be happy to go back and quote me answering you with a good deal more than declaration on any point you like. But, again, you'll have to make a particular criticism with particular support for me to answer it.
Which would be a fine example if it even came close to fitting. God isn't condoning rape when He allows it to be the consequences of what one has sown.
It fits like a glove. The discussion here is about rape. I'm noting what Christ said and what that says about how God views it, what it is and what it can never be seen as, supra.
I'm not doing that, so you shouldn't be having a problem. I'm not saying the woman is responsible for the act of rape. I'm saying she's responsible for her own behavior that resulted in her being raped. .
I'm answering that "resulted" is wrong-headed. A woman lives alone. She goes to work in a department store and comes home every evening. Someone watches her, notes her pattern and her solitary life and uses that knowledge to rape her. You might find her life more appropriate, but someone else could easily say that were she married or living at home it wouldn't have happened. Her own selfish insistence on a life apart "resulted" in her rape.
And they'd be just as wrong as you are, only more obviously so.
A man capable of reason and reflection on God's word. Who are you to say otherwise? See how easy that sort of thing is?
That's humanistic thinking at it's most subtle.
No, it isn't. It's rational, which humanism tends to be, but faith is no enemy of reason else we'd never have exegesis of any sort. We'd simply recite without wonder.
True, and just because there are exceptions to the rule does not mean the rule doesn't exist. It does exist and pretending that it doesn't is willful blindness.
Rules are established, not assumed.
Town, please show me where I said anyone deserves to be raped when they lie.
Look, you have to understand conventions or we're going to be doing this in crayon and pictograph. A lie was used as an immoral act. I'll flesh it out more. She lied to her mother about money that went missing (she took it, five dollars). Now, there's an immoral act. Someone rapes her. Justice done. Of course not, which is why I explained with, "In fact, if anyone rapes you for any reason it's not justice, which is why God never says to do that and why a rapist isn't treated well by the Bible."
It's always wrong to rape. There is no question about that at all.
Couldn't agree more.
Would you please tell me why David would pray that God would give the workers of iniquity according to their deeds and after the work of their hands?
Would you please explain to me how many a rich and evil ruler died in his sleep? I'll go first. David prayed for the thing he wanted. David isn't perfect. Not even close.
And why would Paul ask that the Lord reward someone according to his works?
Why would he ask that and then tell us that nothing we do merits the only reward that matters? Probably because there's salvation and then there's everything else and the everything else still matters in our day to day and Paul recognizes that too.
Do you think they were asking this out of spite, or could it be that they understood the principle of sowing and reaping better than you seem to.
Supra. Else, people are complicated. I can't read their hearts. But I know you're moving a principle that is broadly true into an area that more closely resembles karma and that's mistaken.
2 Timothy 4:14-15
Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
You could as easily have noted the bears and the prophet narrative. I've never suggested that God doesn't intervene in our affairs. I'm simply resisting a thought that suffering is always that and if, as you appear to earlier, you note that suffering isn't always that it's dangerous for us to suppose when it is...and pointless.
If my daughter was a stripper and she would not listen to reason, I would be praying the Lord would do whatever it took to get her attention....even if it meant she came near to losing her life. Better that than continue on the path to destruction.
I like leaving it to God without the speculation as to how. But I know one thing, the how won't involve God causing or condoning an evil.
