tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post606878520846654787..comments2024-03-28T13:07:51.025-07:00Comments on Winging It: Fatal SovereigntyStanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-29334420241546806872012-06-18T11:49:18.166-07:002012-06-18T11:49:18.166-07:00Of course, I can often guess that Anonymous = Lee,...Of course, I can often guess that Anonymous = Lee, but not always. Sometimes, in fact, I know better.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-80730162335177779012012-06-18T11:23:28.709-07:002012-06-18T11:23:28.709-07:00As always, much obliged that you take time to resp...As always, much obliged that you take time to respond.<br /><br />In response to a comment of yours days ago: Anonymous = Lee = male = Maricopa County. (Go Scottsdale Beavers!)<br /><br />http://www.scottsdalehighalumni.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-19887501389328196722012-06-18T09:50:56.744-07:002012-06-18T09:50:56.744-07:00Jim: "See, it's like this: Stan doesn'...Jim: "See, it's like this: Stan doesn't actually agree with most of what I've said so far.<br /><br />"Stan does not understand the 'dominion' granted by God to mean 'Sovereign Authority' in the same sense that God has. It is human dominion. It is limited sovereignty. Man is in charge of harnessing the planet, controlling nature as necessary, maintaining the image of God found in nature, but more importantly reflecting the character of God <i>to</i> the world around us. This is done by God's command and with God's help. (Stan, silly man that he is, doesn't believe that humans can do <i>any</i> good thing on their own. In Stan's view, the only genuine 'good' is that accomplished by God's power for God's purposes aimed ultimately at God's glory.) The notion that God will not intervene on our behalf goes against Stan's large view of God's Sovereignty.<br /><br />Stan <i>does</i> agree that animals are not agents of free will and, thus, cannot violate God's moral code. At least he would agree with me on <i>that</i> point. But the Bible is abundantly clear that God is Absolutely Sovereign in the final analysis. Thus, when Daniel was in the lion's den, no animal attacked Daniel because 'My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths' (Dan 6:22). When Balaam tried to go to curse Israel for a price, God used the donkey to redirect and reinform Balaam. When Israel sinned, 'the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people' as a punishment (Num 21:6). And over and over. God <i>uses</i> animals (and the rest of nature) to accomplish His plans. Sometimes it is found in Man's dominion over nature and sometimes it is found in nature's backlash against Man and other times in other ways.<br /><br />God is <i>always</i> Sovereign. Nature is <i>not</i> a moral agent. And Man, made in the image of God, reflects (albeit imperfectly) God's Sovereignty in the dominion of nature.<br /><br />But, as I said, that's Stan's view ... that wacky guy."<br /><br />How's that? :)Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-80539566985412446092012-06-18T09:21:26.197-07:002012-06-18T09:21:26.197-07:00I spent some time this weekend trying to understan...I spent some time this weekend trying to understand Stan’s bafflement in his comment above. I worked out this imaginary dialogue between two Christians.<br /><br />Linda: What is your take on Genesis 1:26? There, God gives humans dominion over wild animals.<br /><br />Jim: I think what that verse is really saying is that He gives us permission to go ahead and TRY to control them, not that He makes them compliant.<br /><br />Linda: Are you a biblical inerrantist?<br /><br />Jim: Yes. The original text was inerrant. Nowhere does God promise us that the copies and translations will be the very best they can possibly be. A better translation than the King James would go maybe something like this: “I give you the go-ahead to subjugate animals for hide, meat, milk, and toil in your fields. I foresee that some of you will suffer from teeth, claws, venom, and horns—even strangulation in the case of the boa constrictor. It is up to you to evaluate the risk/reward ratio based on experience, so proceed at your own risk. Do not expect supernatural intervention.”<br /><br />Linda: So the Creator gave animals an instinct for self-preservation, and He does not promise that He will intervene on our behalf when we humans encounter animals?<br /><br />Jim: Correct. Animals are not agents of free will. They do not, and cannot, violate God’s moral code.<br /><br />Linda: What you’re saying then is that when it comes to animals, the Creator “wound them up and let them go.” Are you a deist rather than a theist?<br /><br />Jim: No, not at all. Someone who is a deist should not even call himself a Christian, because such a person really can’t be a Christian in a meaningful sense.<br /><br />Linda: Yet it seems like you are part way to deism. Otherwise, wouldn’t you say that God’s sovereignty over each of the trillions of animals is absolute and is in operation around the clock?<br /><br />Jim. See, it’s like this,__________<br /><br />Stan, how would you finish Jim’s sentence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-5968817166006352512012-06-15T16:50:44.131-07:002012-06-15T16:50:44.131-07:00I saw this and couldn't help but think of the ...I saw this and couldn't help but think of the above comment. Someone should try and reason to this cat that it really ought to be nice.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-WnQsXR7Jg&feature=player_embeddedDanny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-2945140414226223482012-06-14T10:18:05.991-07:002012-06-14T10:18:05.991-07:00You are starting, quite obviously, with a differen...You are starting, quite obviously, with a different premise. "We don't know anything at all about this 'god' of whom you speak. We'll just pick out what we can." My starting point is "God is who He says He is in Scripture, so we'll interpret the implicit from the explicit."<br /><br />1. With that in mind, the explicit references tell us that God is Sovereign and implications from Judges 1:19 <i>might</i> indicate that the appearance was that God couldn't overcome the hill people, but the explicit denies it. All commentators on the text assume, then, that Judah couldn't take the hill people either because of sin or some lack of faith. That is, "the iron chariots" frightened them into not doing battle. Either implication is reasonable. It would depend, then, on your premise. Yours is "There is no such Being."<br /><br />As for 2 and 3, I'm baffled ... truly baffled. You appear to be operating on the idea that, "Cats are people too, you know." Your premise appears to be that all creatures are equal. The Bible, of course, disagrees. (Atheism would require it, which would put you in a difficult quandary, but ...) So the concept of "free will" isn't merely "the ability to choose", but "the ability to make <i>moral choices</i>." One key difference between humans and animals is morality. Animals don't sin. They don't violate God's moral code. Nor are they "godly". They don't make moral choices. As such, the concept of "animal free will" isn't even in view here.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-41116581882227824252012-06-14T09:37:15.211-07:002012-06-14T09:37:15.211-07:00A few days worth of posts obviously cannot cover t...A few days worth of posts obviously cannot cover the problem of sovereignty in a comprehensive way, so I am guilty of stating the obvious when I point out that there are some avenues that have not been explored here.<br /><br />1. Judges 1:19: “And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” A believer may say that the “he” is a reference to Judah, so it was the Judah’s men who “could not…” It would be interesting to know the pre-English version well enough to understand if there was any ambiguity in the “he” reference. Be that as it may, it looks like the Lord’s help WAS sufficient to overcome the mountain dwellers, so one has to wonder why it was not sufficient to overcome the valley dwellers. <br /><br />2. The alley cats where I work are provided with bowls of water, canned food and dry food pellets. Yet they still stalk the pigeons that can be found in the alley. One day I noticed a small drift of feathers and a pigeon body with both wings torn off and the head most of the way off. It didn’t look like any pigeon meat had been consumed, but rather that a cat had just ripped the bird up. If a believer claims that God allows in at least a limited way some free will for humans, is that a slippery slope leading to the claim that God allows some free will in cats (“God Himself didn’t want the pigeon to be torn apart…”), and maybe in bark beetles (“God Himself didn’t want the forested slope to be killed off by the beetles…”)?<br /><br />3. When a human’s free will is in opposition to some wild animal’s free will, would you expect God’s sovereignty to manifest itself such that the human’s will always wins out over the animal’s will? Genesis 1:26 may be relevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com