Replies

First time I have been ever called an atheist or superficial, 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.

And, regarding my son in the proverbial jungle... I would want him to follow me, but I would solicit his advice and encourage his questions; just in case I might be on the wrong path.

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote scripture, as a substitute, for original thought.

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

First time I have been ever called an atheist or superficial, 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.

But which expressed a superficial understanding typical of atheists seen in their scorning.

And, regarding my son in the proverbial jungle... I would want him to follow me, but I would solicit his advice and encourage his questions; just in case I might be on the wrong path.

The Lord asked many questions of His disciples, encouraging logical conclusions, honesty and communication, but not due to the possibility that He might be on the wrong path, as that was as clear as the sun is bright.

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote scripture, as a substitute, for original thought.

My quote was not as a substitute for my own reasoned argumentation, but for support in a theological context. By the reasoning behind your censure, it would be intellectually dishonest to quote founding fathers for support as one greater than thyself, or the Constitution as authoritative in the context of what it means to be constitutional.

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote scripture, as a substitute, for original thought.

Three is no word that gets used that wasn't thought of by someone else. So, applying a quotation (from anything) is simply a shorthand communication acknowledging the origin of an idea.