![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Not so long ago, I asked God a 'why' question - 'why did You kill Ananias and Sapphira, for what seems like a piece of bookkeeping?'. And, as is very apparent from Job, God doesn't tend to answer 'why' questions directly. At the time, the answers were 'you don't understand', 'remember My holiness' and 'this is a *very* important point, shown by how this kind of thing (economic dodginess) gets glossed over in today's church in favour of condemning more comfortably 'wrong' sins, like sexual sin'. But more than all of those, 'trust Me'. So I did.
And now, I have another one to add to that list.
Once upon a time, a girl asked a question of God. The question was, 'why don't You just kill us all right now?'. You see, this girl thought she was pretty good at maths, and she had worked out that in the long term (i.e. over eternity), the suffering of the new people who would be born, not become Christians, die and go to Hell came to an awful lot more, however you quantified 'suffering', than the suffering that would occur if everyone on Earth was suddenly wiped out. However, this theory did not take into account the joy of those people who *did* become Christians, and there were many other flaws as well. Eventually, she was satisfied by the answer that it was like a research project that had developed spin-offs unwanted by the scientist, but also some very good and promising leads, and so the scientist (which is, in this case, God) didn't want to end the project until the good and promising leads were all followed up, despite the bad spin-offs that made Him sad.
And then, she asked, 'why did You kill two people', when she had advocated the killing of billions, without the kind of eternal perspective and perfect knowledge that God has of the consequences. And God asked her, if she had been prepared to ask Him to destroy all of the people He had created, from her imperfect, mortal perspective, how could she condemn Him for destroying these two, with all His knowledge of the effects that would follow, and so truly being able to weigh up the costs and the benefits as she had attempted to? Can you catch Leviathan with a fish-hook? Are you better at quantifying 'suffering' and 'joy' and summing them over infinities than I am?
No, Lord, I admit I'm not, and I'm sorry for doubting You.
And now, I have another one to add to that list.
Once upon a time, a girl asked a question of God. The question was, 'why don't You just kill us all right now?'. You see, this girl thought she was pretty good at maths, and she had worked out that in the long term (i.e. over eternity), the suffering of the new people who would be born, not become Christians, die and go to Hell came to an awful lot more, however you quantified 'suffering', than the suffering that would occur if everyone on Earth was suddenly wiped out. However, this theory did not take into account the joy of those people who *did* become Christians, and there were many other flaws as well. Eventually, she was satisfied by the answer that it was like a research project that had developed spin-offs unwanted by the scientist, but also some very good and promising leads, and so the scientist (which is, in this case, God) didn't want to end the project until the good and promising leads were all followed up, despite the bad spin-offs that made Him sad.
And then, she asked, 'why did You kill two people', when she had advocated the killing of billions, without the kind of eternal perspective and perfect knowledge that God has of the consequences. And God asked her, if she had been prepared to ask Him to destroy all of the people He had created, from her imperfect, mortal perspective, how could she condemn Him for destroying these two, with all His knowledge of the effects that would follow, and so truly being able to weigh up the costs and the benefits as she had attempted to? Can you catch Leviathan with a fish-hook? Are you better at quantifying 'suffering' and 'joy' and summing them over infinities than I am?
No, Lord, I admit I'm not, and I'm sorry for doubting You.
A song I think is relavent
Have I come too casually?
Because it seems to me there's something I've neglected
How does one approach a Diety with informality
And still protect the Sacred?
'Cause You came and chose to wear the skin of all of us
And it's easy to forget You left a throne
And the line gets blurry all the time
Between daily and Divine
And it's hard to know the difference
Oh, let me not forget to tremble
Oh, let me not forget to tremble
Face down on the ground do I dare
To take the liberty to stare at You?
Oh, let me not forget to tremble
What a shame to think that I'd appear even slightly cavalier
In the matter of salvation
Do I claim this gift You freely gave
As if it were mine to take with such little hesitation?
'Cause You came and stood among the very least of us
And it's easy to forget You left a throne
The cradle and the grave could not contain Your Divinity
Neither can I oversimplify this love
For some commentary on this song there's a page I came across, someones journal perhaps? Still, it said some relavent things:
Thoughts on Tremble
For anyone wanting to chase up the bible verses, Ananias and Sophia get killed in Acts 5v1-11.
But this is really only exceptional in the sense that Evangelical churches have a nasasty habbit of talking about God's love till he looks flffy cute and harmless and missing out his holiness (for another example take Leviticus 10v1-4 where two of Arrons Son's, appointed priests, get killed for offering 'strange fire that was not commanded' (for some context to that passage read levitucs 8 and 9).
Can you guess what the sermon this morning was on?
Neil