News1 min ago
How can God get angry?
(Yes, this is a spin-off from another thread)
There are many references in the OT to God being angry. How can that be when you consider that:
1. God created everything and is therefore responsible for the nature of everything, including man.
2. God gave man free will and knew the consequences of doing that.
Therefore, God knows exactly what man is like and it's God's doing that man is the way he is.
3. God is present simultaneously in the past present and future. That is how he can make prophecies and at the same time we can have free will. So he knows exactly what every person will do before he does it.
So how can God's anger be explained when he is responsible for the way a man is and in any case knows what any man will do?
It's like watching a film 10 times, then being surprised when, on the 11th viewing, you see exactly the same ending!
There are many references in the OT to God being angry. How can that be when you consider that:
1. God created everything and is therefore responsible for the nature of everything, including man.
2. God gave man free will and knew the consequences of doing that.
Therefore, God knows exactly what man is like and it's God's doing that man is the way he is.
3. God is present simultaneously in the past present and future. That is how he can make prophecies and at the same time we can have free will. So he knows exactly what every person will do before he does it.
So how can God's anger be explained when he is responsible for the way a man is and in any case knows what any man will do?
It's like watching a film 10 times, then being surprised when, on the 11th viewing, you see exactly the same ending!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Merlin. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Clanad - I've been out of action for a bit. Still am, really. You have made an assumption and jumped to a conclusion re Lauren Bacall. HB did get the girl - the girl he got was Lauren Bacall (they were married, doncha know?) even though she wasn't in Casablanca. Ingrid Bergmann was also a doll, of course. It was quite logical of me to go from Humphrey Bogart through 'getting the girl' to Lauren Bacall. There's the point of arguing.
While being laid up I had the opportunity to watch Zulu and I am ashamed to call myself a fan - I got the scenes wrong and ascribed dialogue to the wrong characters. I was surprised, on the 1259th viewing, to see that it was Chard and not Bromhead that chased the farmers and that Bromhead was played true to Victorian character. My nomination for the best bit was the start of the climax, so it would be.
But the fact that I forgot what was going to happen can be ascribed to my human memory. God does not have that option.
On review, it seems to be as near a perfect piece of cinema that I have seen (apart from the magic bayonet - and that may, strangely, add to the folm's appeal).
Clanad
I'm back up and running now, thanks. I've had a blanket-for-a-brain for a week and not been allowed to hold sharp instruments or use the stairs (:-)), but I'm in possession of my faculties again and ready for your view on God's anger in the context of the question.
And I do confess to a little sophistry re Bergmann/Bacall. I had Bergmann in mind when I was writing (being much more of a doll, of course) but had recently seen Bacall on TV talking about Bogey. So you were right to question it, but I still claim to be logical in ending up with Bacall on the page (so to speak).
Still waiting for a proper answer - I would like someone to answer the question or take it apart and show me where it's wrong. Otherwise I'll just get all big-headed and smug about it.
So Zulu is up there as one of my all-time favourites. I saw it on the big screen when it was first released and been watching ever since (not non-stop, you understand, just "so to speak"). Also like Disney's Jungle Book and The Matrix. I'm talking amongst myself while I wait. "Give me the power of man's red flower, I'm tired of monkeying around!!"
What am I to conclude from the responses and the lack of them? I could concede, just for argument's sake, that premisses 1 and 2 could still be valid: God created everything and is responsible for the nature of man and God gave man free will and knew the consequences of doing that.
To enable God's anger to be righteous and justified, though, it would mean that he does not know what the future holds. Isn't that scarey!!!
Or is it that he didn't create man?
