[size=200]GOD’S WRATH AGAINST HUMAN SIN:[/size] [size=200]IS HE BEING FAIR? DOES IT EVEN MAKE SENSE?[/size]
An Excerpt from the upcoming topic:
[b]A logical concept is that God wishes for all men to be saved (from imprisonment to their sinful and predatory nature as well as “hell”) and to come to a knowledge of the truth, yet God is emotionally impervious to human nature as a natural consequence of his omniscient foreknowledge and comprehension of the full nature of reality.
Given this emotional invulnerability, is the very notion of God’s hostility and “wrath” toward sin a[/b] logical contradiction?
[b]Reading biblical texts that describe the “wrath of God” conceptually evokes these mannerisms in God in terms of God’s conceivable reaction to human sin. However, one can propose that God’s “hostility” and “hatred” for sin is ultimately a calm and collected disfavor for the existence of sin, with the intent to destroy or “weed out” the existence of sin through a future or ongoing psychological and moral evolution (as opposed to the concept of “goodness by fiat”).
However, the law of non-contradiction is satisfied if one asserts that God felt a true “anger” and “rage” toward human sin,[/b] if [b]one proposes that God’s anger and wrath toward human sin occurred as an unconditional Pavlovian response to the ‘sin’ of imaginary beings contained within God’s (pre-universe) prevision of the past, present, and future of a possible future world—a logical expression of God’s omniscience.
Job’s observation of God’s emotional invulnerability to human sin (Job 35: 5-8), then, would apply to God’s reaction to sin[/b] after his previous felt wrath to the “original sin” of man within his omniscient (pre-universe) imagination.
“There are situations in the world that arouse strong emotions in us. Some of these arouse the emotion unconditionally, or from our very first encounter with them: a loud clap of thunder startles us the very first time that we hear it. Pavlovian conditioning provides a powerful account of how objects take on emotional significance. According to the behavioral account, the basic mechanism for all acquired emotional states is the pairing of a neutral object with an unconditioned emotional state.”
(Seligman, Martin E.P. and Rosenhan, David L: Abnormal Psychology (pg. 107), Second Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London, 1984, 1989)
AND…
The civil wars between the “faith with works” v.s. “faith only” and the “once saved, always saved” v.s. “conditional salvation” armies of Christian thought can be arguably resolved through the abandonment of reliance upon human conscience and altruism to please God, as these fail to qualify for eternal life within an omnibenevolent future world. The reason human conscience and altruism fails is explained below:
[b]Rule of Thumb: It is vitally important to intellectually examine the intentions, motivations, and preferences of God toward humans within the context of God’s omniscience and the God-imposed supremacy of Jesus Christ. For example, the law of non-contradiction (if it applies to the bible at all) demands that human goodness independent of Christ (given that human goodness apart from the goodness of Christ seems to exist) is nevertheless considered an example or symbol of Christ’s goodness.
The reason God does not allow human goodness to simply stand upon it’s own two feet lies in (and satisfies the law of non-contradiction through) this biblical verse:[/b]
[b]“For he ‘has put everything under his feet’. Now, when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”*
(1 Corinthians 15: 27 NIV)[/b]
[*Thus, when God “put everything under Christ”, this includes human conscience and altruism—such that a human social worker or hard-working member of the Peace Corp is considered by God to be symbols of Christ—placing the goodness of the individual “under Christ”—rather than allow that goodness to stand in it’s own right as an independent “God-less” or “Christ-less” virtue— in the absence of any real splicing between the psyche of the human and Jesus himself.].”
Further, is the law of non-contradiction violated by the bible—in light of the real existence of human goodness despite the following biblical verse?
[b]“There is no one righteous, not even one. All have turned away; they have together become worthless. There is no one who does good, not even one.”
(Romans 3: 11, 12 NIV)[/b]
It would seem that the biblical verse above fails to account for real human love, sentiment, and altruism. Many have interpreted the above to imply that God possesses an arguably dangerous perception (to humans, in terms of God’s possible intentions toward fallible human beings due to that dangerous perception) of goodness that causes God to equate even genuine human conscience and altruism with malice itself:
[b]“How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? If even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot—a son of man, who is only a worm?”
(Job 25: 4-6 NIV)[/b]
[b]The relevant “contradiction” is resolved, once again, by peering at God’s omniscience. As stated before, it is vitally important, if one wishes for the bible to continually obey the law of non-contradiction, to weigh everything within the context of God’s infallible omniscient foreknowledge of all possible worlds and the God-imposed supremacy of Jesus. If one does this, all seeming contradictions between different biblical verses (save the problem of eternal hell) are resolved with the proper “spin”.
[All other seeming “contradictions” in the ‘physical’ sense, such as the miracles of Jesus and Elijah, etc., and their seeming “contradiction” to established laws of physics, can be resolved by an appeal to the Matrix Hypothesis.]
In the relevant case above, one can hold that God’s statement: “There is no one who does good, not even one….” applies to the imaginary beings within God’s pre-universe prevision of past, present, and future. One can hold that there is no redeeming value to the imaginary beings within the Grand Primordial Nihilism, or that aspect of God’s omniscient mind that accidentally (rather than deliberately) gave rise to the existence of evil (through the mental computation of possible worlds—in which evil is an inherent variable).
This same “impurity” of man expressed in Job 25: 4-6 above can be argued to also apply to these pre-universe “characters” (and controversially to “impurity” of human goodness compared to the goodness of Christ—in terms of an absence of the internal sinful impulses and desires in the latter, compared to the helplessness of the former in the possession of internal sin).[/b]
[b]Thus, any seeming biblical contradiction between the bible’s statements of the “worthlessness” of man (despite the existence of real human goodness) is solved by humans “together becoming worthless” in the sense of the incorrigible nature of their pre-universe imaginary counterparts (and ‘real world’ counterparts that are sociopathic).
God saves man from this pre-universe incorrigible state by causing certain ‘real world’ counterparts of the pre-universe imaginary characters to become non-sociopathic (and thus “erstwhile” symbols or examples of Christ, with their human goodness placed “under Christ”)—and through the effecting a global psychological and moral evolution of man through future splicing of the psyche of Jesus with the psyches of all human beings in time.
In this view, God transplants “the real thing” within the “example”, such that human goodness is replaced with the righteousness that is in Christ himself, through a “hand-me-down” psychic relation. [/b]
The remainder of the article coming soon!
Jay M. Brewer
blog.myspace.com/superchristianity
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com