arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) (12/11/89)
After reading the thread on predestination, I started thinking about free will vs. determinism, specifically with regard to sin. The question I have is this: if God knows our actions beforehand, and even further, if He intends for us to commit those actions, then is He not in some sense responsible for our sin? Conversely, if He is not responsible in some sense for our sin, then how is it possible for us to resist His will and do something other than what He intended? (Of course, I mean "He" in the genderless sense of the word.) The easy answer is that by our free will we have the choice to do His will or do something entirely different. But the implication there is that salvation is in our hands through the choices we make. If this were the case, then Christ would be just another prophet with a special message from God, rather than our Saviour. (Note that I am not arguing that one must consciously believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, since Jesus died to save all men, not just Christians. In fact, stating that we must believe to be saved implicitly assumes that salvation is (at least partially) in our hands.) Another answer is that sin has blinded us to God's will, and only by the grace of God are we able to do His will. I think this comes close to the Catholic position, but I am no theologian. Yet to me this position implies that by choosing when to give us grace, God is somehow responsible for the actions we commit without grace (i.e. sins). By analogy (and all the caveats that come with reasoning by analogy), if person A allows person B to walk on what A knows to be thin ice, then isn't A responsible in some way if B falls through the ice and drowns? I remember as an undergrad reading Thomas Aquinas' attempt to deal with this question and not being entirely satisfied with his answers. If I remember correctly, he asserted that God intends every action we commit, and that we should praise God for all the good we do, since we do good only by the grace of God, but we are entirely responsible for all of the evil we do, for how can God be responsible for evil? (I think this position comes closer to the Catholic position.) Yet there is a paradox here that I have not been able to resolve. Here are some thoughts I've had in trying to deal with this paradox. First of all, there is a problem with my definition of free will. So far I have been treating free will as a differential (i.e. a capacity to act different from how God intended me to act). So the paradox was partially due to the problem of how free will can exist when God intends every action. Perhaps free will means free from other people's will, rather than free from God's will? Even if that question is resolved, the problem of evil still remains; namely, how can evil exist in the world if God intends every action? How can God judge us if he intends all of our actions? What am I missing here? Alex Macalalad arm@neon.stanford.edu
MATH1H3@uhvax1.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) (12/15/89)
In article <Dec.11.03.31.50.1989.22956@athos.rutgers.edu>, arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: > After reading the thread on predestination, I started thinking about free > will vs. determinism, specifically with regard to sin. The question I have > is this: if God knows our actions beforehand, and even further, if He > intends for us to commit those actions, then is He not in some sense > responsible for our sin? Conversely, if He is not responsible in > some sense for our sin, then how is it possible for us to resist His > will and do something other than what He intended? (Of course, I mean > "He" in the genderless sense of the word.) I will try to answer this briefly. It is of course, a hard question. We must begin with the creation and fall. God created Adam and Eve in his image, that is, perfectly holy. They had free will to obey God or to disobey him. They freely chose to disobey him. He foreknew this, but he did not intend it, for they acted against his will. But God, in his grace and foreknowledge, already planned a solution for this sin. He provide for a Savior. Already, as God told Adam, Eve, and the serpent (Satan) the punishment for their sin, he promises the Savior. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Note that this indicates a victory of the woman's offspring (Jesus) over Satan. Since the fall man has no free will. He is a slave to sin and the devil. He is dead in his transgressions and sins (Eph 2:1). He cannot believe of his own accord any more than a dead man can make himself alive. "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -- it is by grace you have been saved." This much is a clear teaching of scripture which no Christian should deny. What is hard is the question, "Why aren't all men brought to faith?" The scriptures teach that Jesus's redemption is for all humanity, but only those who believe in Jesus receive this redemption. Even though God "wants all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the truth", it is apparent that not all believe. Aside from those who do not hear the Gospel and remain "objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3), some hear the message and reject it. See the parable of the sower, and its explanation. Also Stephen says: "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute." Thus we must conclude that it is possible to resist the Holy Spirit -- and, incidentally, that the Holy Spirit spoke to the Jews through the prophets before Jesus. Beyond this, the rest is a mystery which we cannot understand with our reason. It is useless to pursue it any further. Besides, I have to exit now. David H. Wagner My opinions and beliefs are completely separated from my employer's lack thereof. [David is writing from a position (Lutheran) that is traditionally somewhat "softer" on predestination than mine. I am a supra-lapsarian, which means that I believe God intended the Fall. (Actually, I believe in evolution, so I don't believe that the Fall is to be located in a single pair of humans, but that has no real impact on these discussions.) Thus I would have to say that God is in some sense responsible for sin. His plan is that all would sin so that he can show mercy to all (ca. Rom 11:32 -- sorry for not being more precise, but I don't have a Bible here). However the statement that his plan involved all in sin is misleading unless the other half is taken into account: that this state is the first stage in God's plan, which also includes redemption from sin. Why God chose for people to go through sin, rather than creating them immune from it, is not a question that I'm qualified to answer. "responsible" becomes a very tricky concept in this context. I'd say that there are two levels of responsibility here. We are responsible for our own sin. They're our actions, not God's. They reflect our character and motivations, not his. However God is responsible for the overall situation, including the fact that we sin. So while our individual sins don't reflect his character, the fact that he has chosen to create the kind of world that has sin in it, rather than what we might consider a utopia, does reflect God's character in some way. This is a responsibility that as far as I can see, Scripture makes no attempt to duck. Job is primarily about the problem of evil. In it, Job's friends attempt in one way or the other to deflect responsibility from God. Job holds God responsible. It is Job who is declared to be in the right. --clh]
joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) (12/15/89)
In article <Dec.11.03.31.50.1989.22956@athos.rutgers.edu> arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: >Even if that question is resolved, the problem of evil still remains; >namely, how can evil exist in the world if God intends every action? >How can God judge us if he intends all of our actions? > >What am I missing here? > Simple. What you are missing can be said in one word: the devil. All evil comes from him, and man must choose to follow God or Satan. Jochen Fritz ("Noah")
cash@uunet.uu.net (Peter Cash) (12/15/89)
In article <Dec.11.03.31.50.1989.22956@athos.rutgers.edu> arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: >After reading the thread on predestination, I started thinking about free >will vs. determinism, specifically with regard to sin. The question I have >is this: if God knows our actions beforehand, and even further, if He >intends for us to commit those actions, then is He not in some sense >responsible for our sin? Are you saying that God's foreknowledge implies that God willed for things to happen the way that they did? I certainly don't see why it should be so. Just because God foresaw Adam's fall does not imply that God wanted Adam to fall. In any case, why do you think that God wanted Adam to fall? This certainly seems false to me. >Conversely, if He is not responsible in >some sense for our sin, then how is it possible for us to resist His >will and do something other than what He intended? God intended for Adam *not* to fall. But because God made a man and not a puppet, the door was open for Adam to sin if he wished. >The easy answer is that by our free will we have the choice to do His >will or do something entirely different. But the implication there is >that salvation is in our hands through the choices we make. If this >were the case, then Christ would be just another prophet with a special >message from God, rather than our Saviour. Why is that? I do think that we make choices, but without Christ's sacrifice, we would be powerless to attain salvation. Christ opened the door so that we can walk through it--or not. ("I am the door...") >Another answer is that sin has blinded us to God's will, and only by the >grace of God are we able to do His will. I think this comes close to >the Catholic position, but I am no theologian. Yet to me this position >implies that by choosing when to give us grace, God is somehow responsible >for the actions we commit without grace (i.e. sins). By analogy (and all >the caveats that come with reasoning by analogy), if person A allows person >B to walk on what A knows to be thin ice, then isn't A responsible in some >way if B falls through the ice and drowns? Not if B is an adult, and A warned him! > >Here are some thoughts I've had in trying to deal with this paradox. First >of all, there is a problem with my definition of free will. So far I have >been treating free will as a differential (i.e. a capacity to act >different from how God intended me to act). So the paradox was partially >due to the problem of how free will can exist when God intends every >action. I am not compelled to act in a certain way just because God wills me to act in that way--any more than children are compelled to act according to the will of their parents. I can disobey God's will. That I can do so does not imply that God's power is limited--it's not that he *can't* compel me; he *refrains* from compelling me. He made me a sentient being, a being with (some) intelligence and a will--and he has given me the freedom to exercise that intelligence and that will. If God made men and then ran them like puppets, his creation would be rather pointless, don't you think? >Even if that question is resolved, the problem of evil >still remains; >namely, how can evil exist in the world if God intends >every action? This is the age-old "problem of evil", and there are no easy answers to it. Though there are partial answers, they all ultimately fail. Those who love God must take the position that we simply don't understand God nor God's plan well enough to answer the question satisfactorily. We have to trust him. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | | cash@convex ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
garyf@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Gary Faulkner) (12/17/89)
I really don't intend on starting a long arguement, but I wonder if some of this could be clarified (it is a response by the moderator to an article. > ... I am a > supra-lapsarian, which means that I believe God intended the Fall. First, this is the first time I have ever heard the term "supra-lapsarian." What is the source for the word (specific word origins if possible), and how does it relate to a belief in the intention by God of the Fall of man? Second, I have seen (and enjoyed) the thinking and biblical support which you typically use in your responses and comments on s.r.c articles. I don't see the biblical support for this one. > (Actually, I believe in evolution, so I don't believe that the Fall is > to be located in a single pair of humans, but that has no real impact > on these discussions.) Thus I would have to say that God is in some > sense responsible for sin. His plan is that all would sin so that he > can show mercy to all (ca. Rom 11:32 -- sorry for not being more > precise, but I don't have a Bible here). ... Ok, I looked up Rom 11:32. I can see how a loose interpretation would support PART of a position such as is described, but I'd be more interested in a contextual supporting passage, especially in the OT. > ... However the statement that > his plan involved all in sin is misleading unless the other half is > taken into account: that this state is the first stage in God's plan, > which also includes redemption from sin. ... --clh] I would also like to see support for this position as well. I am not stating that your beliefs are wrong. More, I'd like to understand them, understand where (and more important why) they differ from mine, and what lead you to them. If this is better handled off-line, feel free to use email directly (I realize that to some people their beliefs are a very personal thing). Gary Faulkner National Center for Supercomputing Applications - University of Illinois Internet: garyf@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu Disclaimer: I've only stated my opinion, not anyone elses. ---------- From: hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Actually, I should have done that response as a separate posting rather than a moderatorial comment, though I doubt that it makes much difference except to those with an illusion that the moderator is unbiased. Anyway, supra-lapsarian is one of a zillion technical terms used to separate various varieties of Calvinism. Calvinism tended to fragment, because many Christians are uncomfortable with predestination in its full glory. Supra-lapsarian refers to the question of whether God was responsible for the Fall. (Lapsarian is from the Latin that is behind "lapse".) The Supra-lapsarian position says that God intends everything that happens, even the Fall. The infra-lapsarian position says that humans are responsible for the Fall. Presumably it didn't exactly catch God by surprise, but it wasn't something he specifically intended. In response to it, God has chosen to save some people, but not others. This seems to some to present less of a challenge to God's love and/or his justice than the image of a God who intended the introduction of sin into human life. My own view is that it's a mistake to try compromises like this. The whole point of predestination, at least for me, is that it allows us to think of life as a gift from God. He is responsible for everything that happens to us, and does not just scurry around figuring out how to recover from what people do. To exempt the existence of sin from his plan seems to me to leave us straining out gnats and swallowing camels. The point I was trying to make is that I think we need to see predestination as being something done by God for our benefit. It is not entirely clear to me how far Paul intended to go in Romans. It is very tempting to read Rom 11:32 as saying that God will save everyone. But that may not be what he means. "all" may be limited. However what I think is clear from Rom. is that to the extent that something like predestination is true, it should only be seen as part of God's redemptive plan. In Rom 9, Paul talks about the fact that not all are being saved, indicates that this is part of God's plan, and defends God as having every right to make pots for different purposes. Taken alone, this sounds like God has arbitrarily decided to damn part of his people. However in Rom 11, we see that God's hardening is temporary. It is done for the purpose of saving the Gentiles. Once that has happened, God will save those who he had previously hardened. I have some serious questions about how widely Paul means some of the comments in Rom 11 to apply. Does 11:26 really mean that every Jew, no matter when he lived, will be saved? I don't know. However I think it is clear at least that God's hardening was temporary, and will be replaced with a desire to save. I do not see anything in Rom. to suggest that God has a secret plan to damn anyone. I would say what I take from Rom is (1) to the extent that God hardens anyone, he does it as part of a plan that is ultimately intended for salvation (2) that he intends the existence of sin in the world to act as an opportunity for his mercy. How you work these ideas into a systematic theological position is less clear to me. The simplest approach is to say that God intends to save everyone, but that for some reason rather than simply creating us all as perfect beings, he chose to have us start out as sinners and then save us from that. The primary problem with this is the implication that everyone is saved. In other letters, Paul (not to mention the rest of the Bible) certainly seems to say that many people reject God's gift and end up being condemned for doing so. I'll comment a bit more on this below. I'm willing to talk about the implication that all are saved. However I think that sin being part of God's plan is part of the essential message of Rom., and I don't see any way to get rid of that without ejecting Rom. from the NT. Before talking a bit more about universal salvation, let's look at what one might get by taking Rom. seriously, but still accepting a fairly traditional concept of judgement. The Christian tradition generally has tried to do justice both to the concept of God having ultimate control and to human responsibility. So it is by no means novel to suggest that God has an intention for how things should go, but that he allows people to reject it. One interesting way to deal with Rom. would be the following: The Fall and the existence of sin are part of God's plan. He intends for us to be first prisoners of disobedience, so that he can show mercy to us all. We have no choice about the first part. But we can reject the second. The result of this would be a position that I've never heard of before: supra-lapsarian Arminianism. (Arminianism is yet another offshoot of Calvinism. It tones down predestination in order to allow for "free will". It is probably the position typically taken by those who believe that our salvation is entirely a gift from God, but one that we can turn down.) I have toyed with going further than this, and saying that everyone is eventually saved. This allows us to take Rom 11 at face value. However such an option is open to us only if we are willing to take a rather "liberal" view of Scripture. I am certainly not a believer in inerrancy, but I'm not sure I'm willing to go quite as far as this view would require. Let's look at what is involved. First, it's pretty obvious that there is no single, precise account in the Bible of the final judgement. In the earlier strata of the OT (e.g. Ps. 6:5) we seem to have a view much like the early Greek view. In Sheol existence is rather shadowy: no one praises God there. There's no sign of judgement. By NT times, the concept of judgement with eternal reward and punishment had entered Judaism (perhaps from the Persians). Jesus' view varies from a rather conventional last judgement (e.g. Lk 16:20, with the rich man in Hades in torment), to annihilationism (Luke 14:14 talks about the resurrection of the just, and 16:20 of those worthy to be resurrected. This implies -- at least to me -- that those who are not worthy simply stay dead). Generally he simply refers to Gehenna. As someone commented in a recent posting, Gehenna was at that time being used as a garbage dump. However the term had implications of eschatological judgement in 1st Cent. Jewish writings. But certainly the reference is far more ambiguous as to what Jesus was actually thinking of than the English "hell". Outside of Rom, Paul certainly seems to think of a fairly conventional judgement (e.g. I Thes 1:8-9, which talks about the punishment of fire and eternal destruction). It's fairly easy to make out a case for annihilation of sinners, rather than their eternal torture. But it's very hard to believe that the NT writers believed in universal salvation. In order to support universal salvation, you pretty much have to do the same thing we do with women in the church, or the abolition of slavery: you have to say that there are implications of the Gospel that are present in the NT, but that the NT writers had not drawn out all of their consequences. E.g. with slavery, Paul seemed to allow it. Yet if you think about the kind of relationship he had in mind for masters and slaves, it's hard to see how slavery could ultimately survive. We can no longer think of slaves as property. They are now our brothers in Christ. If we really try to operate that way, in the end we are going to be led to challenge slavery itself. Similarly with the concept of judgement. There are some arguments in Paul that if we follow them out cast serious doubt on the conventional view of judgement. Consider I Cor 15:20 ff. This talks about Adam and Christ. As Adam's sin spread to all mankind, the second Adam's salvation spread to us all. "For just as all people die because of their union with Adam, in the same way all will be raised to life because of their union with Christ." Does this passage explicit teach universal salvation? If we didn't have I Thes and similar passages, I think we would say that it does. Certainly the logic of his argument would imply it. I Cor 15:22-24 talks about death being defeated and everything coming under Christ's headship. Col 1:20 and Eph 1:9-10 also talk about God's secret plan that eventually everything will come under Christ's headship. Rom 5:12ff also gives the Adam/Christ parallel. Like I Cor, it suggests that Christ undid what Adam did. In 5:18, Paul says that Christ sets all mankind free. The arguments from Paul seem very strong: Christ will eventually defeat sin and death and unite all mankind under his headship. Presumably this will happen at the second coming. There may still be punishment for those who reject God now, but eventually God will find a way to incorporate them in Christ. While these ideas can be gotten from Paul, in all honesty I have to say that passages such as I Thes 1 suggest that they are not conclusions that he himself drew. Either that, or he changed his mind. While we may be willing to say that Paul didn't have a chance to draw out all the implications of his thought, it's much harder for a Christian to argue this way about Jesus. On the other hand, whatever we may believe about Jesus' unity with the Father, it is clear that during his life he didn't teach about many of the themes that appear in Paul's letters. This may mean that Paul invented Christianity, and Jesus would be horrified. But the conventional explanation is that Jesus was unable during his life to speak about many of the things that appear in Paul's letters, because they can only be understood in the light of the resurrection. The arguments for universal salvation depend upon a concept of Christ's role that probably couldn't have been explained during his life. Note that universal salvation is not necessarily antithetical to judgement. I Cor. 15 suggests a distinction between those who have accepted Christ and others. While the others may be judged, they are not abandoned. Eventually God defeats death, and bring them all under Christ's headship. As I said above, I know how to construct this argument, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to follow it. However the point I was making in my response to you was not quite so far-reaching. It was that God had intended the Fall, but that it was part of his plan for salvation.
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (12/17/89)
In article <Dec.15.01.40.05.1989.17460@athos.rutgers.edu>, joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) writes: > In article <Dec.11.03.31.50.1989.22956@athos.rutgers.edu> arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: > >Even if that question is resolved, the problem of evil still remains; > >namely, how can evil exist in the world if God intends every action? > >How can God judge us if he intends all of our actions? > Simple. What you are missing can be said in one word: the devil. > All evil comes from him, and man must choose to follow God or Satan. James, writing to the twelve Jewish tribes scattered abroad, writes about the nature of evil and sin. James was concerned due to reports he must have heard considering the fighting and warring that was going on amongst these professing Christians (James 4:1). Much of what James writes has the ring of Paul's statement "Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith". One of the things James points out to his readers is that they have no one to blame for their sin but themselves. "Let no one who is tempted say, 'I am tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own desire. Then when the desire has conceived it gives birth to sin, and sin, when it reaches maturity, produces death." (James 1:13-15) The above passage I believe teaches us two things pertinent to recent discussions in this group. The first is that we alone are responsible for our sins, and secondly God can never be responsible for sin. Incidentally, the birth metaphor is very pratical teaching, one that has helped me obstain from many sins. I believe, when applied in our lives, this means we should stop sin where it starts -- in our thoughts. What we fill our minds with will dictate whether a sinful thought has anything to mate with. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
nunes@ai.toronto.edu (Joe Nunes) (12/19/89)
In article <Dec.15.01.40.05.1989.17460@athos.rutgers.edu> joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) writes: >In article <Dec.11.03.31.50.1989.22956@athos.rutgers.edu> arm@neon.stanford.edu (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: >>Even if that question is resolved, the problem of evil still remains; >>namely, how can evil exist in the world if God intends every action? >>How can God judge us if he intends all of our actions? >> >>What am I missing here? >> >Simple. What you are missing can be said in one word: the devil. >All evil comes from him, and man must choose to follow God or Satan. God is infinitely powerful --- Satan is not. It would be totally within God's power to prevent Satan from doing anything God did not wish and to force him to do anything God wished. Therefore, by deciding not to act, God is responsible for all the evil that comes from Satan. But that's not all. God created Satan. Since God is omniscient, He was fully aware of all the evil that would come from Satan. Since God is omnipotent, it would have been possible for Him to create a universe without Satan (or with a benevolent Satan). Therefore, it was God's *choice* to create a universe in which all the evil caused by Satan would occur. His responsibility for Satan's evil is thus inescapable. In other words: Omnipotence + Omniscience = Responsibility.
nunes@ai.toronto.edu (Joe Nunes) (12/19/89)
[Alexander Macalalad proposed that predestination implies God is responsible for our sin. Peter Cash responded that the fact that God knows what we are going to do does not imply he is responsible for it. >Just because God foresaw Adam's fall does not imply that God wanted >Adam to fall. In any case, why do you think that God wanted Adam to fall? >This certainly seems false to me. --clh] Yes, but God created Adam *knowing* that he would fall. Let us call our present universe, universe A. Since God is omnipotent he could have created a slightly different universe (call it B), which would differ from A in one respect: Adam would have a more obedient character, and would not fall from grace. Note that in both A and B, Adam has *exactly* the same "amount" of free will -- he is not a puppet. If God could not have created a universe such as B, then He is not omnipotent. If He could have created such a universe, but didn't, then he *chose* A over B. Therefore, he must have wanted Adam to fall. >>Conversely, if He is not responsible in >>some sense for our sin, then how is it possible for us to resist His >>will and do something other than what He intended? > >God intended for Adam *not* to fall. But because God made a man and not a >puppet, the door was open for Adam to sin if he wished. Again: God is omniscient; He *knew* Adam would fall. God is omnipotent; He could have created Adam so that he still had free will, but would not fall.
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (12/19/89)
The moderator (clh) made some interesting thoughts on the topic of who is responsible for sin in a message earlier in this thread. While I don't believe that God necessarily intended sin to happen, a vital point was raised on the responsibility of God. If you look, you will see that the devil is not mentioned in the Bible between Genesis and Chronicles. Whenever any plague happens, or any wickedness is punished, invariably the Bible says "the LORD smote them with a plague...etc." Suffering was not part of God's original plan. We know that God can overrule suffering if He chooses to. If we believe that God is the supreme Being of the universe, and yet suffering still occurs, we see that the buck stops with God. My idea is that sometimes God is willing to take the blame for suffering He did not cause in order to avoid giving the devil any more press than necessary. Furthermore, God, unlike other people, grieves with us when disaster happens, and is willing to help us fix things up afterwards. Do we dare deny him our forgiveness and hold a grudge against Him, thus shutting out our one sure source of help? Just a thought.
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (12/21/89)
In article <Dec.19.02.44.59.1989.14936@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: >The moderator (clh) made some interesting thoughts on the topic of who >is responsible for sin in a message earlier in this thread. While I don't >believe that God necessarily intended sin to happen, a vital point was raised >on the responsibility of God. > >Suffering was not part of God's original plan. We know that God can overrule >suffering if He chooses to. If we believe that God is the supreme Being of >the universe, and yet suffering still occurs, we see that the buck stops with >God. We need to become clear regarding the gift of free will we have received from the Creator, and the absolute responsibility we thus have for everything we think and say and do. GOD is PERFECT, and therefore HIS Creation must also be perfect!!! So what does this tell us? That the responsibility for suffering *must* lie completely and entirely with *man himself* and not with GOD. To take a small, but perhaps useful example: When we are careless, and burn our hand on something very hot, should we blame GOD for creating us careless? Or blame HIM for creating heat? No! We have to recognize that the suffering is due to our own fault, and the suffering actually contains a lesson for us, whereby we can learn and grow as human beings and which helps us to learn to recognize GOD's WILL in Creation. Surely we have heard of the person who asked: "Where was GOD at Auschwitz?" The simple (and true) reply: "Where was *man* at Auschwitz?" We are still to ready to place blame and responsibility always outside ourselves, on anyone else, even on GOD. However, to mature as human beings means to learn to accept full responsibility for all we experience in life, and not to first want to blame the others. I am a reader of the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", by Abd-ru-shin. Best Wishes! Mark Sandrock UIUC School of Chemical Sciences