Heroes, sin and the Knight’s dark doctrine
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 19. 2008 and is filed under Posts by E. Stephen Burnett,Theology,The Unbeliever,Learning from the Secular.
(Also posted today on FaithFusion.)
The Dark Knight is gripping. And very deep. Its evil is powerfully and horribly represented, especially on the part of The Joker, whom apparently you cannot even hurt. If he’s tortured or in pain, he just laughs. He lives to “watch the world burn.” He kills without a hint of remorse, and in fact, while he takes a life he merely jokes and (dare I say it) “cuts up.”
In the future, if I’ve ever encountered anyone, whether non-Christian or professing Christian, who claims total evil isn’t real or that people are basically good, I’ll likely refer to The Joker in The Dark Knight. His is an especially insidious evil.
But the film’s representation of goodness is even deeper. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the moral quandary at the end, which — a hint of spoiler may be impossible to avoid here, so I hope you’ve already seen the film — Batman himself resolves by deciding to become, in effect, a penal substitution for one man’s sins. This skewed and backward-heroic act, becoming the villain but really the hero, the total unfairness of it all, is riveting. But it’s a choice that we ultimately know Batman must make for the Joker’s evil plan to be thwarted.
As Plugged In reviewer Paul Asay wrote, “Batman takes [the man’s] sin on his own shoulders, leaving [him], in Gotham’s eyes, pure and spotless and clean. Sound familiar?”
Even as I write that, tears come to my eyes. It’s so unfair. It seems so unjust. But it is “an echo of the sacrifice Christ—utterly innocent, yet humiliated and judged on our behalf—made for us,” Asay continues. That’s what I though I saw then, and what I see now even more clearly: Christ becoming the “villain” to save human rebels, just as Batman needed to be.
But apparently several movie reviewers just aren’t getting it.
The Joker’s total depravity
Secular movie critic Roger Ebert didn’t get it about the Joker. In his Dark Knight review, he wrote that with The Joker’s “cackle betraying deep wounds, he seeks revenge, he claims, for the horrible punishment his father exacted on him when he was a child.”
But Ebert misses the whole point about the supposed father-torture motivation: the Joker is lying about how he got his scars! Later, for example, he begins telling another victim that his scars were self-inflicted, when he was supposedly trying to make his wife feel better about her disfigurement. And at least twice more he’s about to tell his “backstory” again — and though we don’t hear further versions of whatever happened, we know he’ll just lie again.
(Was Ebert out getting popcorn during those film portions?)
The late actor Heath Ledger himself confirmed that the Joker is a “psychopathic, mass-murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy,” he told The New York Times. The Joker doesn’t even want money or even simply power. He wants to wreak havoc simply because he is truly and totally depraved. That’s it. And paradoxically, that makes his character more complex than anyone who’s portrayed as evil partly because of childhood abuse.
Batman’s ‘lying’ substitution for sin
Meanwhile, Christian reviewer Ted Beahr’s MovieGuide site didn’t get it about Batman. Their take on the film? “Very confused and eclectic, or mixed pagan, philosophical perspectives ending on a relativistic, deconstructionist ‘truth does not matter’ sentiment.”
Seriously, were they watching the same movie? (I’m still utterly confused by them since they gave Pirates 3 such high marks for supposedly containing so many Christian metaphors!)
Oh, and MovieGuide also got the Joker wrong as well. “Joker is psychotic and mean from the beginning,” the site writes. “He’s shown to be psychotic and mean several times. A little character growth would have helped him a great deal.”
Mm-mmm, not at all. That would have defeated the whole point. The Joker has no character growth. He is evil, through and through. Wrap your heads around it, and while you’re at it, consider that according to Scripture, that is how God, because of His absolutely perfect moral standards, sees us without any intervention from Christ.
But back to Batman: MovieGuide goes on, finding fault especially with Batman’s decision to take on one man’s sin as his own, and thus keep the Joker’s corruption of the man’s posthumous reputation from succeeding. In response: “[H]ero decides to lie to solve plot problem and police commissioner agrees with him,” the site writes. “It suggests a hero can be a liar without tarnishing his heroic qualities.”
Let’s see. Christ, the God-man, lay down His life on the Cross, suffering physical and even worse spiritual torment from God’s wrath, in place of rebel sinners. He takes blame for sins he hasn’t committed, and God “agrees with Him,” and punishes Him — all part of the plan.
That, it’s very clear, makes Christ a “liar.” He becomes the villain in our place, and in that way, He is the true hero — but a hero on a level much deeper than many would think.
Even some professing Christians don’t understand that. They decide that the idea of Christ laying down his life and in effect “lying” about the sins He’s claiming as His own is “cosmic child abuse.” God wouldn’t do that! such writers insist. He’s all about love and He could never be a villain! But apparently God Himself, in actual Scripture, didn’t see the need for such sugar-coating propaganda. As author/pastor CJ Mahaney says, “He crushed His Son.”
It’s a terrible truth, even an “unfair” truth. But it’s unfair to the glorious benefit of rebel sinners. And thus Christ is truly heroic, even though many now try to hunt Him, hate Him, loathe Him as a villain. The reaction of many to Him now is just like the angry mob’s reaction to Him then. And ultimately it’s very similar to the fate chosen by the Dark Knight as well.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
| Page: 1 of 5 |  |
-
Sunday, July 20. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
Brilliant review. I've seen the film twice and am still sorting out my thoughts. My son and I talked about it all the way there and all the way home. I suspect this film and its implications will stay with me for a very long time.
Yours is the first review to note the Joker's duplicitiy. I thought it was odd that he gave us two stories about the origins of his scarred face, but your explanation not only makes more sense, it's also completely faithful to the Joker's diabolical character.
Reply to this -
Sunday, July 20. 2008
Tim Frankovich wrote:
Absolutely excellent commentary. I may have been the only one in the entire theater like this, but I had tears in my eyes during the final five minutes. Stunningly beautiful.
Reply to this -
Sunday, July 20. 2008
E Stephen Burnett wrote:
Johne Cooke wrote:
Yours is the first review to note the Joker's duplicitiy. I thought it was odd that he gave us two stories about the origins of his scarred face, but your explanation not only makes more sense, it's also completely faithful to the Joker's diabolical character.
Since writing that, though, I've come across the director's own comments on the Joker -- and he would know best -- and it turns out that interpretation is indeed following his intention.
This is from Christopher Nolan, quoted in an MTV interview from December of last year:
"To me, the Joker is an absolute. ... There are no shades of gray to him — maybe shades of purple. He's unbelievably dark. He bursts in just as he did in the comics."
However -- it just seems some people don't want to contemplate truly "absolute" evil. They want a reason. They want "shades of gray."
Reply to this -
Monday, July 21. 2008
Bill wrote:
Batman is the anti christ trying to "become" the "Joker" aka. "Forest Gump" aka. MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL... Be ye not decieved!
Reply to this -
Monday, July 21. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
Bill. Dude. Have you /seen/ the film? The idea that the Batman is trying to become the Joker just isn't possible. They stand for diametrically-opposing things. Be ye not a troll.
Reply to this -
Monday, July 21. 2008
E Stephen Burnett wrote:
Bill ... "why -- so -- serious?"
Bill, actually, is making some kind of satirical commentary against professing Christians who are undiscerning and legalistic.
Bill, ordinarily this would be comical, Bill. :-) But my critique, Bill, is twofold: first, because targeting and spoofing these types is too easy, Bill; and secondly, because it's way overdone.
Bill, there are many other un-Biblical and silly things that professing Christians claim they believe and then go rant about. Let's spoof them instead, Bill. Ha! ha! ha!
(P.S.: This is also actually the incredible little secret behind this site! ;-) )
Reply to this -
Saturday, July 26. 2008
Keanan Brand wrote:
Awesome review. I haven't seen the film yet, but have every intention of doing so, and reading this review makes me wish I could hit the theater this instant.
Though I own all three, I enjoyed the first Spider-man movie most for its message about power and responsibility, and I was impressed by [i]Batman Begins[i] for its strong moral themes, as well. As a fan and a Christian, I am glad to know the excellence continues.
(FYI: More great movie reviews over at Carmen Andres' blog, In the Open Space: God & Culture.)
Reply to this -
Thursday, July 31. 2008
Xdpaul wrote:
Joker IS an absolute. Absolute evil - total chaos (except that he never accidentally does anything good.)
This review nails it. Another important element of the film is when Alfred tells Batman how, in his younger days, his crew dealt with an evil that couldn't be reasoned with:
"We burned down the forest."
Reply to this -
Thursday, July 31. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
The weird thing about that is that burning things is the Joker's MO. It just struck me as odd that one would fight fire with fire in a story that is primarily moral in character. One does not fight sin with greater sin. So while I get the anecdote, the parallel it suggests just struck me weird.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
"Batman himself resolves by deciding to become, in effect, a penal substitution for one man’s sins. This skewed and backward-heroic act, becoming the villain but really the hero, the total unfairness of it all, is riveting. But it’s a choice that we ultimately know Batman must make for the Joker’s evil plan to be thwarted."
Must he?
I think it betrays a lack of confidence in the people of Gotham. All through the movie part of the debate between Batman and The Joker was the issue of what is human nature. Batman, throughout, defended the position that humanity has goodness within it (though not total goodness) and is not, at heart, like the Joker.
And the people of Gotham then demonstrate their ability to make the right choice in not blowing up either ship.
Should this not have given Batman further confidence that Gotham could handle the truth and make the right choices?
Instead, Batman decides "you can't handle the truth"---to echo an old Joker in a different role---and hides the truth.
Showing, in action if not in words, that he apparently agrees with the Joker as to how precarious is the hold of Gothamites on goodness and decency.
Really, though, this change of position is, I think, really just a choice made for plot over characterization---as if the creators of the film were thinking "wouldn't it be cool to have Batman being chased by the cops as a murderer in the next movie?" and forgetting how this would affect the themes expressed in the rest of the film.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
I think you're forgetting one complexity, however. The filmmakers would have us believe that they chose wisely in part because they believed in their white knight, that his example of selflessness rubbed off on them just enough to persuade them to do the right and noble thing.
If it is revealed that their faith has been misplaced, the resulting depression could kickback and plunge the city into chaos and nihilism, which is, I believe, exactly what the Joker intended. I think Batman's decision was more one of timing and a knowledge of how fragile people can be when emotional. I half expect the truth to come out eventually, but they then, one would hope they would have matured enough to realize 'hey, we really didn't need the crutch of faith in Harvey Dent in order to do right.'
Of course, all of this leaves out the role of God in any true right-doing, but I concede that a worldview that allows for God isn't apparent in this storyline.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
"If it is revealed that their faith has been misplaced, the resulting depression could kickback and plunge the city into chaos and nihilism, which is, I believe, exactly what the Joker intended."
Don't you see, though, that if this is the case then the Joker wins the ongoing debate with Batman:
If the mere fall of a single individual could kick the entire city into a nihilistic chaos then, in fact, the Joker is right. Humanity has only the most precarious hold on goodness and decency.
Sadly, I think the Joker is quite right in that claim....I just think he's wrong in how we should react to this fact. Not with nihilism but alert, diligent and self-aware effort to strengthen our hold on the right.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
On a related note I would like to recommend the novel FARTHING by Jo Walton.
It is an alternate history novel set in England a few years after a version of WWII in which Germany took over all of Europe except England because England signed an nonaggression treaty with Hitler (who is still currently in power).
It presents a chillingly plausible story in the background of which are a few events whick alter the entire course of history to make antisemitism and racism become more ingrained in western culture instead of gradually weakening as was actually the case.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
This is where the discussion gets difficult. Are we talking about the people of Gotham City in the film, or are we talking about real people? Because there is no God in the worldview of the film as far as I can tell, but there is in ours. That matters. In fact, my answer changes on the basis of that answer to that question.
First, if Lord of the Flies (to use a dated text) or Survivor (to use a current one) shows us anything, it is that people in this world are selfish, self-centered people without God. They would have pulled the trigger to protect themselves. But people who have been transformed by God play by different rules. Despite our inherent selfishness, we serve a Lord who is selfless, and that impacts our thinking.
If the message of the film is that civilization trumps anarchy, I disagree. I think it is only the image of God, sometimes the barest hint of a reflection of God, in humans that keeps us from tearing each other apart.
In short, I don't believe in order as a civil nicety, I believe order is a direct result of a tie back to the author of order, God himself. And when we turn our backs on God, anarchy lurks right around the corner.
In the film, order is upheld by a lie. In life, order is upheld by a truth, the we can serve each other because God told us to, knowing that He will take care of us because He promised to. The answer to the problem of anarchy is not a horizontal answer, but a vertical one. We have to have outside help to survive and to thrive. In the film, that savior is Batman, with the cape of his persona. In real life, that savior is Jesus Christ, with the robe of his crown as king.
When he voluntarily fell to save his community, Batman's life became more difficult. However, when Jesus allowed himself to fall to save all of humanity, his life went to Hell.
Thank God it did not remain there.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
I dont think it can be said that there is no God in the Batman universe. The question isn't addressed in the film.
But as to your contention that people are basically selfish and self-centered except where they are "transformed by God" I'd have to say that is demonstrably false. Atheists can and do act in ways that are selfless. There are atheist soldiers at this moment putting their lives on the line every day out of devotion to country and their fellow citizens. Unless, of course, you are contending that one can be "transformed by God" without believing in God. But, even then, that is no more than an unsupported assertion.
Do you honestly think that if no God existed that we would necessarily be selfish and self-centered creatures who will only think of our own well-being over than of others?
If so, do you have any argument for this claim or is it, again, merely an unsupported assertion?
Reply to this-
Sunday, August 03. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
I would answer the noble Atheist question by saying that, in my worldview as a Christian, all nobility is a affirmation of the Biblical notion that we are all created in the image of a God whose hallmark is love. I agree that there are many people who do noble, selfless things who don't claim to be Christian, and I laud those things. However, I see that as a proof of God, not a denial of Him. I believe God created everything and is the author of order and good. Everything that we do that is ordered and good is in harmony with the creation in which we exist whether we go the extra step to acknowledge or worship God or not. Every good act is an act of worship in my view. Worship is no phony posturing done in a group on a certain day in a certain place to be seen by one's neighbors. It is simply the act of agreeing with the 'worth-ship' of the God who created this place and its rules. When one knows the ground rules and employs them for his own benefit, he is -- however deliberate -- complicit with the creator of those rules. This is not a bad thing. This cooperation is something that transcends mere religion (or, one might say, mere christianity, heh).
I honestly have no idea what to tell you life would be like without God, because it isn't a notion that makes any sense to me. Complex people and an even more complex universe all shout to me as evidence of a creator subtle and powerful and imaginative enough to account for the will and complexity to explain their very existence. But that's just me. ;)
I honestly think if no God existed, we wouldn't exist. ;) The idea of a fallen humanity assumes there was a standard to fall /from/. These are my opinions as one who has read scripture and agrees with the assertions contained therein, however, not an apologetical proof.
Reply to this
-
Sunday, August 03. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
-
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
Anyone know what Batman's religion is in the comic?
I've heard that he's been depicted, at least in some stories, as Catholic. But I've never been much into the Batman comics and couldn't say if this is correct.
Not that this says anything about Nolan's version of the Batman universe---which, again, simply doesn't address the question so far as I can recall.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
However I may disagree on some points I agree, though, that the confrontation with nihilism (of which the Joker is an especially powerful personification) is the central theme of the film. Its good that this essay seems to recognize that fact. Some others I've read seemed more interested in political interpretations in terms of contemporary issues of terrorism and government response to it---which, while certainly themes the film touches on, are not the most fundamental of topics the film deals with.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
I find it interesting that Batman himself is not a Nihilist. Makes me all the more curious just what he does believe, and how that may change for worse or better after this film has concluded. Just like the space between Star Wars episodes 3 and 4, I'm very curious to see what happens in the gap between The Dark Knight and whatever comes next and how that will affect Batman.
As a final note, I'm astonished and delighted that there is so much to think about and ponder and engage in lively debate over from what is ostensibly a 'superhero' film. This is fun.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
I've always found that its in talking about science fiction and fantasy films (not to mention prose fiction) that the most profound philosophical and religious issues get raised.
Whether its debating the treatment of droids in Star Wars (sentient beings bought and sold as property---slavery, and by the "good guys" in the film), or the ethical issues surrounding destroying an entire species in ALIEN (I find myself agreeing more with the company's position, though not its ruthlessness), you can always find very fundamental questions to discuss even in apparently "light" entertainment.
You really don't much get that sort of thing as much in mysteries, westerns, and other types of films.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
I would answer the noble Atheist question by saying that, in my worldview as a Christian, all nobility is a affirmation of the Biblical notion that we are all created in the image of a God whose hallmark is love.
This is, of course, a mere assertion. No argument has been presented for the claim.
I honestly have no idea what to tell you life would be like without God, because it isn't a notion that makes any sense to me.
Complex people and an even more complex universe all shout to me as evidence of a creator subtle and powerful and imaginative enough to account for the will and complexity to explain their very existence. But that's just me.
If an intelligent being designed human beings and our cosmos he is a clearly incompetent one. There are countless flaws in the design of living organisms---something entirely consistent with unguided natural processes (nondirected evolution) but quite problematic for an explanation in terms of an omnipotent and omniscient designer.
Given the amount of sheer terrible suffering made inevitable to living beings in our cosmos if a designer were known to be responsible it would be most sensible to conclude, on the evidence, that he is either horribly incompetent, malevolent, or both.
These are my opinions as one who has read scripture and agrees with the assertions contained therein, however, not an apologetical proof.
Yes, this blog is not an apologetics blog so I certainly don't see any obligation on your part to present arguments for your position---but the issues raised by the literature discussing on this blog does tend to raise these very fundamental issues---especially when not all visitors here share your religious beliefs.
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
Ooh, aah.
So are superhero movies sci-fi or fantasy? (I'd argue they do apply to speculative fiction, which is the overarching umbrella that includes both sci-fi and fantasy.) In that sense, it is perhaps not surprising to be wrestling with thorny philosophical / theological questions, although I'll note that with most normal superhero films, we usually don't, at least as much. I think The Dark Knight succeeds so well for me because it veritably dives into those deep waters to deliver its entertainments, which make the battles less about adventure action than issues of relevance and -- indeed -- some meaning for our lives. I know I'm thinking again about the necessity / propriety of torture in new ways, and am unsettled by the topic before I even get to any conclusions.
I think that any story can wrestle with these things if they can get past the studios' demands on what they think will result in big box office numbers. I don't ever again need to hear another manufactured film quip, much preferring the sort of humor from situations. 3:10 to Yuma is a great example of a film that is about something and transcended its genre. Of course, as a sometimes confused father of a 14 year old, I am the ideal target audience for that story, and cheerfully admit my bias. ;)
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
Johne Cook wrote:
re: all that - exactly, my comments reveal my opinion and no attempt at a proof. There are other places and other people better equipped for logical apologetic debate. I own my opinions just as they are presented, face value impressions that I hold, personally, which explain how I received and process the meaning of The Dark Knight. I cheerfully acknowledge that your mileage may vary, check local listings. ;)
Reply to this -
Sunday, August 03. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
"So are superhero movies sci-fi or fantasy?"
Well, of course, that varies from movie to movie. HELLBOY 2, clearly fantasy. THE DARK KNIGHT, science fiction (if not exactly hard science fiction).
Some others are probably a bit harder to pin down. THE HULK probably falls into that category---it explains the fantastical phenomena in terms of science---but science sufficiently implausible as to be little different from magic.
Reply to this -
Wednesday, August 06. 2008
XDPaul wrote:
"If an intelligent being designed human beings and our cosmos he is a clearly incompetent one."
I'm sorry, but that statement just cracked me up. "Clearly?" As in, "Pfft. I could do better?" Incompetent? Really? Even a staunch atheist like Carl Sagan was able to acknowledge the undisputable intricacy, beauty, and amazing structure of the Cosmos.
The debate isn't whether creation is spectacular. It quite, ahem, "clearly" is. It is whether it has become corrupted by sin. Strangely, I think we agree on the assessment of the symptom, and disagree on cause.
Reply to this -
Wednesday, August 06. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
OK. If I understand you correctly, your theory is:
People, at some time in the past, sinned.
So God altered the nature of the cosmos, making humans have a powerful impulse to sin (a strange thing to do for someone who dislikes sin), and altering the cosmos so that children are born with terrible genetic defects, natural forces wreak immeasurable harm and disease causes untold suffering (this both for humans and sinless animals).
Why would a loving God who dislikes sin do this. It makes no sense at all.
Reply to this -
Monday, August 11. 2008
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
DB, I missed this entire discussion and have no way of knowing whether you'll be back to read this, but there's an important error in your understanding. God didn't "make humans have a powerful impulse to sin." Once they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that changed them.
What exactly changed? Hard to explain. The best way I can understand it is, something inside broke. And when anything is broken it may be hard to imagine what it was like "fixed."
What would it be like if we didn't have the well-understood phrase in our language, "Nobody's perfect"? What if some people actually were perfect? Never hurt someone else, never made any mistakes, never slacked off? It's nearly impossible to imagine because it is so foreign to our experience.
The truth is, we were created to relate perfectly with God and perfectly with each other. That thing that broke in us ruined both. Yet we long for what is not. We strive to achieve what we know we need and cannot obtain. This is not God's doing. It's Man's.
Becky
Reply to this -
Tuesday, August 12. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
"but there's an important error in your understanding. God didn't "make humans have a powerful impulse to sin." Once they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that changed them."
If eating the fruit resulted in humanity as a whole being "broken" is this because God chose for this to be how his created universe works (in which case, the explanation of human depravity suffers from the problems I describe) or is he powerless to prevent it from having this effect (in which case he is a rather impotent diety)?
Basically, what I'm asking is why the fundamental psychological nature of all humans would be "broken" because one human committed a sin? Both the options I describe above seem highly problematic. Do you have a third option?
Reply to this -
Tuesday, August 12. 2008
XDPaul wrote:
DB -
You are missing a critical component in your logic: a God so loving that he humbly participates with, doesn't bully, humanity, even one that is fallen.
The point is that, setting aside a genetic inheritance for the moment, you and I, as individuals, both sin, even today, through no fault, except our own.
God doesn't "dislike" sin. He hates it. Even in what we would call "small doses" it is noxious, poisonous and unholy. Cutting off a person in traffic out of rage may not physically harm them, but it is a "small" sin that spreads, at the very least to the cut off person, who may stew about it and take it out on someone else (thereby extending the sin) who may then pass it on.
Everyone involved is responsible for the "small sin" that they commit, even if they claim justification.
So the sin, inherited or not, is on us, as individuals. It just so happens that every individual ever alive is born not only capable of sin, but committing it, too.
We take sin lightly. God doesn't. He knows that sin is the thing that distances people from each other and from Him. Sin separates. Sin dooms. Sin, untreated, grows like a virus.
Is he incompetent because he allowed sin? No. He is loving because he allowed us to participate in his world. Is it is his "fault" that we, you and I both, have done wrong things to others in our past?
No. You and I are responsible. God gave us the freedom to NOT sin, and, at least at times in our past, you and I have both taken that freedom to commit sin: we've spoken cruelly in anger, we've looked after someone's possessions with jealousy, we've overlooked someone's suffering.
In short, we, you and I both, have taken God's opportunity to sin.
Could he have rigged the system so that we had no responsibility? Sure. But he wanted more from us. He wants relationship. And that is messy. And that has to address (not uncreate) sin.
It may not make sense that God loves you specifically. It may not make sense that someone as powerful as our God would allow both sin and pain to cloud your world. But he can't authentically love you (which he does) while simultaneously robbing you of the freedom to love him back, can he? That freedom to love him involves the option to hate him, and the best way we humans show our hatred for God is to propagate little seeds of sin, the one thing that can draw a dark veil between our God and us.
We don't have to plant those seeds. But when the seeds are planted, it isn't God's fault for not making a more perfect cosmos, its ours for not taking advantage of it.
Reply to this -
Tuesday, August 12. 2008
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
xdpaul, you've given a much more complete answer than I ever would have.
Your characterization of God wanting relationship with us and therefore refraining from creating servants without a will of our own is spot on.
Does He have the power to MAKE us love Him (which is what obeying Him translates to)? What an odd question. Is it love if someone forces you?
That's like the old question, can God create something too big for Him to lift. Either way you answer, it makes God look less than He is.
DB, the bottom line is trust. God wants us to trust Him even when we don't see how it all works. Not that I believe for a second there's a lack of evidence to varify what He has said about Himself or about us.
I know people are hungry for real purpose and genuine security. God promises those things.
I know people suffer and die. God tells us why.
I know people fear the future. God promises to go with us.
He wants to engage with us about the things that are most important to us.
Becky
Reply to this -
Tuesday, August 12. 2008
DB Ellis wrote:
"You are missing a critical component in your logic: a God so loving that he humbly participates with, doesn't bully, humanity, even one that is fallen."
What is at issue is why humanity would be fallen in the first place.
"The point is that, setting aside a genetic inheritance for the moment, you and I, as individuals, both sin, even today, through no fault, except our own."
According to the doctrine of the Fall, as usually stated by christians, humans now have an inherent propensity to sin. A sinful nature.
The perplexing question, so often overlooked by christians, is WHY this should be the case especially when, as you say, God hates sin so much.
"We take sin lightly. God doesn't. He knows that sin is the thing that distances people from each other and from Him. Sin separates. Sin dooms. Sin, untreated, grows like a virus."
That's exactly the problem. Since sin is, according to christian theology, so horrible why would God decide that since the first humans sinned subsequent humans would have a sinful nature.
Surely God, being omnipotent, doesnt HAVE to set up his creation in such a way that humanity inherits a sinful nature.
So why did he? It makes no sense whatsoever.
"Could he have rigged the system so that we had no responsibility? "
Comments such as this indicate that you aren't understanding what I'm saying----since you're addressing positions I've neither stated nor hold.
The issue I'm raising isn't that we should not be responsible for it if we sin. Its why we are made to be born with a sinful nature.
And nothing you've said so far is remotely responsive to that question.
"Does He have the power to MAKE us love Him (which is what obeying Him translates to)? What an odd question. Is it love if someone forces you?"
You too, Rebecca, are, in this comment, responding to a position I don't hold and not addressing the question I am raising:
why, if God hates sin, are we born with a sinful nature?
Again, nothing you've said addresses that question.
Reply to this
| Page: 1 of 5 | |