Replies

I was merely responding to a post, that inferred that God may have used the good doctor’s illness for the purpose of revealing God’s glory.

The response in question was this:

Well then God must be very dramatic... to give someone Ebola, just to reveal his glory...

That reaction is rather like the reactions we've seen from many an atheist on this topic. It is possible you had some other meaning than what appears to be the case. I am curious, then, as to what exactly you did mean by it. The problem of theodicy (how can there be evil on God's creation) has been with us for millenia. Serious theists, I think, tend to see God's interaction with humanity as complex and sometimes inscrutable, but never arbitrary, and certainly not reflecting defective human traits such as the need for drama.

I'm guessing you know this drill, but it bears repeating. To have man be a genuinely responsible moral agent, there had to be the possibility of dissent from God's will. If the universe is constructed to favor God's design objectives, such dissent (sin) must necessarily have adverse consequences (the curse). One of these consequences is disease. But God is also love, and would, as we understand love, desire reconciliation with His morally responsible creatures. To effect this, it seems perfectly reasonable that along with the adverse consequences He would provide us with clues of His love and tokens of His supernatural reality, both of which would be admirably demonstrated by miraculous healings deliberately pointing back to Him as the source of this power to reconcile (His glory). The language is a bit awkward for someone who is by mental habit a "freethinker," as it is sometimes called, but it is perfectly logical, given the premise of the reality of a sentient Supreme Being.

As for whether it is deficient to cite to texts originating from this Supreme Being, versus using "original thought," again, the question hangs on whether or not He really exists and has communicated with us. Because if He has spoken on a topic, that's probably a good place to start, versus making things up out of our own deficient speculations (aka "original thinking"). Beside, most of what passes for original thinking isn't. Solomon said it. Nothing new under the sun.

Peace,

SR