Ed Babinski Is Right About the Timing of the Second Coming

Ed  Babinski writes the blog Edward T. Babinski.

Ed has written an essay titled The Lowdown on God’s Showdown.  I learned about this essay in a comment exchange he and I had on this post at Randal Rauser’s blog.

In his essay, Ed correctly demonstrates how Jesus and the New Testament writers believed and taught that the Second Coming would occur within the generation in which they lived.  In other words, Christ did not predict that the coming of the kingdom of God could occur in our lifetime today – or in any other lifetime except the lifetime of the disciples about whom we read in the New Testament.

Ed only goes astray when, at the end, he concludes from this that Jesus must have been wrong.  On the contrary, Jesus was right.  We have simply misunderstood what He was teaching us to expect.  Alas, it isn’t the only case we have misunderstood something Jesus was teaching.

Regarding the nature of the Second Coming (that is, what we were taught to expect), I explain in a page at Jesus Christ Has Already Come Again, and in a book at Whatever Became of Jesus Christ?   For an explanation of intermediate length, see my review of the eighth chapter of Thom Stark’s The Human Faces of God.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Ed Babinski Is Right About the Timing of the Second Coming

  1. Pingback: Babinski and Stark Correctly Describe the New Testament Timeline for the Second Coming of Christ | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God

  2. Ed Babinski says:

    Hi Mike, Ed Babinski here. Glad to hear that you’ve fully realized the eschaton. But I don’t see how your theology can work unless you play up a few kingdom of God passages and PLAY DOWN all the passages related to the “coming of the Son of Man,” and, “coming of the Lord,” found throughout the NT and which are far more numerous and plainer concerning the visibility and timing of such a coming. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls featured such works as the book of Enoch, and, the Melchizadek scroll, that both depict the visible comings of supernatural judges, vice regents sent by God.

    Viewed from a slightly different angle I admire what you’ve done because you’ve out preterized the preterists. But still, you have to place all your emphasis on a few kingdom passages, maybe even only one, compared with all the passages related to the “coming of the Son of Man,” and, “coming of the Lord” found throughout the entire NT, including excuses invented to explain the delay of such a visible coming, as seen in places in the NT.

  3. Mike Gantt says:

    Ed,

    I don’t understand your concern about passages referencing the “coming of the Lord” and the “coming of the Son of Man.”  These phrases are synonymous with the “coming of the kingdom.”  They are also synonymous with the “day of the Lord” and the “day of Christ.”  All these phrases are used interchangeably by the Lord and His apostles.

    I suggest you read the third part of Whatever Became of Jesus Christ? which is The Nature of the Second Coming.  It reviews the relevant passages and demonstrates that the Scriptures call for a spiritual, not a physical, second coming.  I don’t play up selective statements – I look at the totality of the statements, and the single message they give.

    As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I don’t deny that some people in that age looked for a physical appearance.  My focus, however, is on what Jesus and His apostles taught in the New Testament – and how the Old Testament supports them.

    The point is not that I have a theology, but that Jesus has integrity.  He does not need the excuses that institutional Christianity has made for Him.  He has kept His word.

    You were absolutely correct to write that Jesus prophesied His Second Coming for that age.  But this doesn’t demonstrate that Jesus was wrong; it demonstrates that the church is wrong.  Therefore, don’t put your faith in church; put your faith in Christ.

     

     

    • No, the passages are not synonymous. The kingdom was presented as already present in a few verses in the Gospels, but the coming of the Son of Man would be beyond question, seen by all, and involve a final judgment and an earth ruled by God. The “coming of the Lord” passages in the NT letters deserves a reread if you still believe you have immanentized the eschaton. Please reread each passage I mention in “The Lowdown on God’s Showdown” and understand that such passages were addressed to NT churches both before and decades after Jesus’ earthly ministry, and that they were still waiting, and growing impatience over the coming of the Lord. And making excuses as to why the Lord had not already descended with his holy angels to execute judgment. I know you think you already understand such passages, but you don’t. There is a major biblical theological school of thought that defends the apocalyptic Jesus view. Your view is far more idiosyncratic. Give it a reread as I said without the fear you have of admitting that Jesus and the NT letter writers might have been wrong.

  4. Mike Gantt says:

    No, the passages are not synonymous.

    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

    The kingdom was presented as already present in a few verses in the Gospels, but the coming of the Son of Man would be beyond question, seen by all, and involve a final judgment and an earth ruled by God.

    Just repeating your error in more emphatic form doesn’t prove anything.

    The limited kingdom presence you mention was Jesus Himself – that is, the kingdom of God was present in Him and Him alone.  When the kingdom came in its fullness, however, it began reigning over all – for the few that walk the straight and narrow it came to good effect, to the many who chose the broad way it brought destruction.

    As for your belief that it would “seen by all” have you never read the scriptures that He would “come as a thief in the night”?  And have you never read the scriptures that say “while seeing they do not perceive”?

    The “coming of the Lord” passages in the NT letters deserves a reread if you still believe you have immanentized the eschaton.

    I have not “immanentized the eschaton” – Christ has.

    We have merely been given the privilege of recognizing it.  “Joy to the world, the Lord has come!”

    Please reread each passage I mention in “The Lowdown on God’s Showdown” and understand that such passages were addressed to NT churches both before and decades after Jesus’ earthly ministry, and that they were still waiting, and growing impatience over the coming of the Lord.

    Which epistles do you think were “addressed to NT churches…before…Jesus’ earthly ministry”?

    As for “growing impatient over the coming of the Lord,” Jesus predicted this would happen in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21).  He also predicted that the church would fall away at the end and Paul confirmed that this would be a sign of the end (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

    The later epistles bear witness to the advancement of Jesus’ timeline and to the church’s  clinging to a  fleshly orientation.  And that has continued in the church until today.

    And making excuses as to why the Lord had not already descended with his holy angels to execute judgment.

    There are no excuses for the Lord to be found in the epistles, only reminders of what Jesus had promised would be true at the end.

    I know you think you already understand such passages, but you don’t.

    Again, Ed, you’re just banging the table.  I’ve laid out a case.  Show me where it takes a wrong turn.    I read your case and showed you where it took a wrong turn – so I’m not asking you to do something for me that I haven’t done for you.

    There is a major biblical theological school of thought that defends the apocalyptic Jesus view. Your view is far more idiosyncratic.

    This is the sort of argument the Pharisees and Sadducees made to Jesus in the gospels and to His disciples in Acts.  Truth is not determined by majority vote.

    Give it a reread as I said without the fear you have of admitting that Jesus and the NT letter writers might have been wrong.

    It was rereading these passages that opened my eyes to their meaning.  If anything, I think you are afraid of admitting that Jesus and His disciples were right.

    You are completely wedded – as is the evangelical church – to the idea that the Second Coming must be a physical event impossible to be ignored.  However, unlike the evangelical church, you don’t want to say that Jesus is Lord and that the Bible is true.  Therefore, you accumulate all the Bible passages about the timing of the Second Coming and demonstrate that they demand a 1st-century fulfillment.  In doing so, you make your case as an inerrantist.  That is, you accept all the relevant texts at face value without bringing up questions about unreliability of the text, editorial tinkering, and other such arguments as are usually brought up by people who want to debunk Jesus and the Bible.  Using the tools of errancy, you could easily support the position of the evangelical church.  Obviously, it is not your desire to do so.  This is all a delicious irony.

    The good news for you, Ed, is that Jesus is the baby that must be kept as you throw out the bathwater of the church.  Jesus is Lord.  The church is a hypocritical institution because it does not obey Him.  Their failure dishonors Him, but it does not change Him.  He is true and faithful.  We ignore Him at our peril.  However, if we truly and continually embrace Him, it will be to the real and ongoing pleasure of our souls.

  5. Lee says:

    Mike,
    If Jesus’ second coming was meant to be spiritual and not physical and this spiritual second coming already took place, what would distinguish the world we have now from a world in which _no_ second coming of any kind had occurred but Jesus’ followers merely thought it had?

  6. Lee says:

    Mike,
    What evidence can you provide for your response? Why could the same result not have obtained If Jesus’ followers merely _thought_ he had returned spiritually when, in fact, he had not?

    • Mike Gantt says:

      What evidence can you provide for your response?

      I don’t know what you’re looking for.  I presume there’s more than enough evidence to persuade you that the world has transitioned from polytheism to monotheism.  As for the overthrow of heavenly powers and their being cast out of heaven, since all that exists in the spiritual realm it’s invisible to us.  As for the Scriptures which prophesied this, I assume you are familiar with them.  They include Mark 13:25; Romans 16:20; Hebrews 12:16; Revelation 12:9; Isaiah 2:11, 17, and many others.

      Why could the same result not have obtained If Jesus’ followers merely _thought_ he had returned spiritually when, in fact, he had not?

      Human beings thinking something is true wouldn’t make it true, and certainly wouldn’t cast Satan and his host from heaven.  These spirits would continue to seduce mankind to worship them as long as they were there.  The fact that all the false gods mankind now worships are on earth is a sign that the promised cleansing of heaven has occurred.

       

      • Lee says:

        Hi Mike,

        You wrote, “I presume there’s more than enough evidence to persuade you that the world has transitioned from polytheism to monotheism.” Just for the sake of argument, let’s initially limit the “world” to that of Christianity. Here, we have Yahweh, who is made up of three parts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One of them was killed and remained dead for a couple of days. The others remained alive meanwhile, yet they’re all part of the same being (something I don’t think they themselves have ever explained). Then there’s Yahweh’s arch-enemy, Satan, to whom Yahweh has (again, inexplicably) granted considerable power over our planet for some time now. Sure, you can argue that Satan is not a deity, but in light of his supernatural essence, the great power he wields over the world, and the fact that some people claim to worship him, I’d say he fits the bill. Aside from Christianity, we have a major world religion whose holy scriptures praise a variety of gods: Hinduism. Then there are other religions (e.g., Mahayana Buddhism and Wicca) which do not involve worshiping the god of Abraham.

  7. Mike Gantt says:

    Lee,

    As for your reference to “Yahweh, who is made up of three parts,” please see There Is No Trinity; There Is Only Christ.

    As for your reference to Satan, he had much more power in the days of polytheism.  Since the coming of Christ he has been thrown down from heaven to earth.  That was for the purpose of making a place for us (Everyone Is Going to Heaven), and that’s also why it’s gotten harder and harder since the Second Coming to find people who worship other gods in heaven besides the One.

    As for the rest, I’ve known and worked with Hindus.  I heard them mention God, but never gods.  Nevertheless, I’m not trying to say that you can’t go somewhere on the earth and find someone who says that there are multiple gods.  I’m only saying that it is as hard to find such a person now as it was in the days of polytheism to find a person who believed in one God.  That is, monotheism dominates the world now as polytheism once did.

    • Lee says:

      Mike,

      You said, “As for your reference to Satan, he had much more power in the days of polytheism. Since the coming of Christ he has been thrown down from heaven to earth.” What historical documents can you cite to confirm that anyone has been thrown down from heaven to earth? Furthermore, even if this did happen, it doesn’t explain why Satan had to be allowed any power at all. Would you willingly leave a pathological killer or child molester loose on the streets? I wouldn’t. I’d ensure he/she was as far from civilization as possible. Perhaps our morality differs.

  8. Mike Gantt says:

    Lee,

    You said, “As for your reference to Satan, he had much more power in the days of polytheism. Since the coming of Christ he has been thrown down from heaven to earth.” What historical documents can you cite to confirm that anyone has been thrown down from heaven to earth?

    Historical documents cite what has been observed and heard.  Satan exists in the spiritual dimension, which is not accessible by the physical senses.  Likewise, we all have souls but there are no historical documents confirming this.

    The Bible describes for us things that have taken place in the spiritual realm.  If you believe the Bible, you can know about them.  If not, you just have to speculate about what goes on in that dimension, or just deny that it exists.

    Furthermore, even if this did happen, it doesn’t explain why Satan had to be allowed any power at all. Would you willingly leave a pathological killer or child molester loose on the streets? I wouldn’t. I’d ensure he/she was as far from civilization as possible. Perhaps our morality differs.

    I doubt if our morality differs, at least not substantially – we were created by the same God.

    Of course, it’s not Satan that actually does the bad things that you describe – it’s us.  It appears God wants us to refuse Satan’s temptation and trust Him instead.  That is, our Creator has put us in an environment where we are free to either pursue our pleasures or pursue pleasing Him.  A lot of people are making the wrong choices.  Satan may be helping them, but it is people making the wrong choices.

    What will we do about this situation?  We must turn to God and live morally to the utmost of our abilities.  And if we do, He will add to those abilities.  And by this means, good will overcome evil in the world.  For this is the entire purpose of creation, to demonstrate that love is the most powerful force in the world…given enough time.

    In the short term, evil won and Jesus was crucified.  But in the longer view, He was raised from the dead in indestructible life.  He gives us the ability to approach every day of life determined to demonstrate that same pattern again and again and again.

    “Love one another, even as I have loved you,” He said.  That is the way that good overcomes evil.

    • Lee says:

      Mike,

      You said, “The Bible describes for us things that have taken place in the spiritual realm.” What makes it more likely than not that a given collection of writings does this?
      You also said, “Of course, it’s not Satan that actually does the bad things that you describe – it’s us.” So, 1) you in fact don’t believe Satan wields great power over the world? 2) would you argue that ensuring all humans have free will is more important than protecting human life? I would gladly give up any desire I might have to kill, maim, or rape anyone, and I think it would be fair if no living creature had those desires. Perhaps you disagree.

  9. Mike Gantt says:

    Lee,

    You said, “The Bible describes for us things that have taken place in the spiritual realm.” What makes it more likely than not that a given collection of writings does this?

    For me, the answer centers on what you think of Jesus of Nazareth.  I began reading about Him (that is, reading the New Testament) without any belief in the “inspiration” of those documents.  I just read them as documents from antiquity wherein followers described their leader.  I was surprised and amazed by what I read.

    Previously, I had deemed Jesus a good and admirable human being, but not necessarily more than that.  What I encountered was someone who was kinder and wiser than anyone I’d ever met, but who also made astounding personal claims such as “I am the way and the truth and the life.”  No other good human teacher I’d ever encountered or heard about said things like that.  (I elaborate on this point in this brief post.)  I came to realize I’d have to accept Jesus for who He claimed to be or reject Him as a pretender.  The more I read, the more logical seemed the first conclusion and the more illogical seemed the second.  Who could have made this story up?  Unless you read for yourself, however, it’s really hard to appreciate just how different He was from any other human figure in history.

    Once I took Jesus seriously, I saw that He revered what we call the Old Testament.  I explain a little more about this logical progression in this brief post.  This brought me to a conviction about the Bible as “a given collection of writings that I could trust to describe the  spiritual realm.”  If it was a good enough source for Jesus to trust, it was certainly good enough for me to trust.  And since the New Testament had described Jesus to me, I embraced it as well.

    You also said, “Of course, it’s not Satan that actually does the bad things that you describe – it’s us.” So, 1) you in fact don’t believe Satan wields great power over the world? 2) would you argue that ensuring all humans have free will is more important than protecting human life?

    1) I do believe Satan wields great power over the world, but not as much as he did before the coming of the kingdom of God.  Moreover, the more we submit to Jesus Christ, the further Satan’s power is diminished.

    2) Yes, because this life is not all there is.  After this life comes resurrection (Everyone Is Going to Heaven ), and the final judgment (Judgment Is Upon Us).  We will be judged according to how morally we acted here.  Everything that happens on earth is temporary and preliminary to what happens throughout eternity in heaven.  Think of this as our proving ground for bigger and better things.

    I would gladly give up any desire I might have to kill, maim, or rape anyone, and I think it would be fair if no living creature had those desires. Perhaps you disagree.

    We might object to the presence of evil in this world, but isn’t it enough that we should be empowered to resist it ourselves?  In any case, may I ask that you consider reading a series of essays which address the subject of good and evil?  There will be space with each one to question or challenge as you read through.  I hope you will consider that this creation exists the way it does in order to solve a problem that previously existed.  In other words, evil was in the heavens before humanity was created.  And, in fact, humanity, and this short earthly life, were created for the purpose of resolving that evil.  And the good news is that we are succeeding.

    • Lee says:

      Mike,
      You said, “I do believe Satan wields great power over the world, but not as much as he did before the coming of the kingdom of God.” You still haven’t explained why an all-good and all-powerful being would grant any power at all to an evil being.
      Regarding evil, you also said, “[i]sn’t it enough that we should be empowered to resist it ourselves?” Please explain 1) how every person who has ever lived has had the physical power and psychological ability to resist the evil that this all-good deity felt was important to grant to an all-evil being and 2) why an all-good deity would need to conduct this test when no decent human being would purposely subject his/her children to such trials.

  10. Mike Gantt says:

    Lee,

    You said, “I do believe Satan wields great power over the world, but not as much as he did before the coming of the kingdom of God.” You still haven’t explained why an all-good and all-powerful being would grant any power at all to an evil being.

    I did in the essays.  Obviously, you haven’t read them.  Nevertheless, as a gesture of good will I will go ahead and say this much here: Your question assumes that the being had become evil before the power was granted.  You might want to re-think that assumption.

    Regarding evil, you also said, “[i]sn’t it enough that we should be empowered to resist it ourselves?” Please explain 1) how every person who has ever lived has had the physical power and psychological ability to resist the evil that this all-good deity felt was important to grant to an all-evil being and 2) why an all-good deity would need to conduct this test when no decent human being would purposely subject his/her children to such trials.

    With respect to 1) I’ll let my comment above and the essays be my answer.  With respect to 2) I presume you’ve had your children inoculated against smallpox and other diseases.  This is often accomplished with a hypodermic needle.  Did you see your infant wince when the shot was given, as I did with mine.  Did you see the look of pain, and even betrayal – as if, “Why have you done this to me?”  Did you hear the crying and did it break your heart?  In that moment and at that stage of the child’s development, no answer could justify the pain you had just caused to be inflicted.  As a parent, you just have to wait and know that in time the child will grow up and appreciate what you have done.

    • Lee says:

      Thanks for the gesture of good will, Mike. I appreciate the summary you provided. As for point 2) above, of course I’ve had my children inoculated against diseases that are caused by a variety of microbes that, if I understand your position correctly, Yahweh either created or allowed to survive and wreak large-scale suffering and death out of his abundant love. In this regard, I have to ask you a few more questions: 1) At what point was each of us humans expressly offered the choice to participate in this test? That is, since, from your standpoint, we have “free will,” shouldn’t we all have had the chance to exercise it by opting out of the test? I don’t recall having been given that option. 2) In what way is administering a life-saving drug similar to causing/allowing death via tsunamis and tornadoes or causing/allowing suffering and death from diseases like malaria, AIDS, and cancer? 3) If suffering is God’s way of testing us, why should we bother to develop and administer life-saving drugs? In other words, shouldn’t we allow there to be as much suffering as possible so that we are tested as much as possible? 4) If this is how God treats his children in _this_ life (note that the effects of this treatment are obviously something we can all observe by looking at the world around us), what readily observable evidence can you provide that God will treat us any better in the next life?

      As for your comment regarding Satan (“Your question assumes that the being had become evil before the power was granted”), I don’t know how many children you have, but suppose you had a few, and the oldest child was constantly provoking the younger ones to harm each other physically and mentally, sometimes quite seriously. Would you, as their father, just sit back and allow your oldest child to go on doing this indefinitely just to see how your younger kids fared in the end and then reward/punish them accordingly? I would not. I would put an end to it as soon as I found out about it. I would ensure that my oldest child received psychological treatment to correct his grossly appalling behavior and ways of thinking. I would also ensure my younger children received proper treatment. If I failed to do these things, I would be negligent as a parent.

      At the end of the day, when you suggest that our morality probably does not differ much because we were created by the same god, I really have to wonder about that on both counts: first, because you seem not to value human life as much as I do, and second, because I hope the above-mentioned actions I would take demonstrate a morality that surpasses that of the god you describe.

  11. Mike Gantt says:

    Lee,

    As for point 2) above, of course I’ve had my children inoculated against diseases that are caused by a variety of microbes that, if I understand your position correctly, Yahweh either created or allowed to survive and wreak large-scale suffering and death out of his abundant love.

    You seem to speak of God with a great deal of animosity, missing the point of the very analogy you reference.  That is, you do not understand the negatives you see in life and so you think ill of God for it.  No matter how much we learn in life, there will always be things we don’t know – and these points of ignorance are opportunities to either trust God or turn away from Him.  I am confident that He always has our best interest at heart.  If there are things I don’t understand, they are just that:  things I don’t understand.  As part of my trust, I believe that I will one day understand those things – whether in this life or the next – and when I do, I will be thankful to God because the truth, whatever it is, will reveal that my trust in His character was warranted.  That’s what the humble death of Jesus on the cross should demonstrate to us – among other things.

    In this regard, I have to ask you a few more questions: 1) At what point was each of us humans expressly offered the choice to participate in this test? That is, since, from your standpoint, we have “free will,” shouldn’t we all have had the chance to exercise it by opting out of the test? I don’t recall having been given that option.

    I don’t recall having been given that option either – but that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have  been given it.  We were not even conscious when we were conceived in our mother’s wombs.  Could we have had an existence prior to that?  Maybe.  In either case, this is a point of ignorance for us, or at least uncertainty – and it is therefore an opportunity to trust God or to blame Him, giving Him the benefit of the doubt.  Given all that He has done for us, I think it’s much more appropriate – and productive – to trust Him.

    2) In what way is administering a life-saving drug similar to causing/allowing death via tsunamis and tornadoes or causing/allowing suffering and death from diseases like malaria, AIDS, and cancer?

    In both cases you have short-term negative experiences which lead to permanent positive experiences.  You would only think otherwise if you assume there is no life after death.

    3) If suffering is God’s way of testing us, why should we bother to develop and administer life-saving drugs?  In other words, shouldn’t we allow there to be as much suffering as possible so that we are tested as much as possible?

    Not at all.  We should seek to relieve human suffering whenever and wherever we can.  This is what God did when He became a human being.  We should imitate Him.

    Further, His commandments give us a means of avoiding suffering in the first place.  People who disobey Him bring greater suffering on others, and on themselves.

    4) If this is how God treats his children in _this_ life (note that the effects of this treatment are obviously something we can all observe by looking at the world around us), what readily observable evidence can you provide that God will treat us any better in the next life?

    Two sources of such evidence:

    First, I see in the world around me enormous good.  I also see evil.  As I observe the interplay between them, I see evil often prevailing in the short term but I see goodness as more resilient in that process.  I have peace in my heart when I contemplate this dynamic because there is an inner confidence that comes to me, assuring me that goodness is better than, more enduring than, and more important than evil.  Concomitant with that assurance is the fact that everyone dies.  That is, this world with its good and evil does not deserve to be permanent.  It must end so that something only good can arise from it.

    Second, I consider the Bible’s description of Jesus after He was raised from the dead.  No more suffering – enjoying a life that was uninhibited and indestructible.  He was completely redeemed from His enemies and placed where they could no longer touch Him.  That is the value of going to heaven.  It has been cleared of evil (“Satan thrown down”) that life might be infinitely better for us in the world to come.

    As for your comment regarding Satan (“Your question assumes that the being had become evil before the power was granted”), I don’t know how many children you have, but suppose you had a few, and the oldest child was constantly provoking the younger ones to harm each other physically and mentally, sometimes quite seriously. Would you, as their father, just sit back and allow your oldest child to go on doing this indefinitely just to see how your younger kids fared in the end and then reward/punish them accordingly? I would not. I would put an end to it as soon as I found out about it. I would ensure that my oldest child received psychological treatment to correct his grossly appalling behavior and ways of thinking. I would also ensure my younger children received proper treatment. If I failed to do these things, I would be negligent as a parent.

    I think you have perfectly described the kind of parent God is for us:  Jesus coming to the earth, dying on the cross, being raised to a place that evil cannot touch.  God has intervened in our problem.

    Oh, but you say, “God should have done it sooner; He wasn’t prompt enough!”  And I say, your other children might have very well said the same thing:  “Oh, Daddy, you should never had our older brother and you should have known he would be bad to us, and why did you allow him to constantly provoke us to harm each other physically and mentally, sometimes quite seriously, and now we are scarred and disabled and you should have foreseen all this!”  You assume your children would be grateful that you acted, but they could very well blame you for not acting sooner.  You hope, however, that they will trust your judgment.

    At the end of the day, when you suggest that our morality probably does not differ much because we were created by the same god, I really have to wonder about that on both counts: first, because you seem not to value human life as much as I do,

    I do not see human life as a finite experience of 70-80 years but rather as the beginning of something that lasts for eternity.  One way of describing this is that human life is to our total life as time in our mother’s wombs is to our lifetimes on earth outside it – only the analogy fails to convey that the actual discrepancy between the two time periods is infinite.

    and second, because I hope the above-mentioned actions I would take demonstrate a morality that surpasses that of the god you describe.

    The actions that you and I take as fathers pale in comparison to the love that God has shown for us by entering human existence, living as we ought to live, and dying from a cruel and comprehensive rejection He by no means deserved.  You and I can hope to have been ideal fathers – but we fall short.  He is the ideal father.  He has not fallen short.

Comments are closed.