has anyone gotten a hold of and read Martin Zender’s new book yet ? any thoughts
If you’re referring to ‘The First Idiot in Heaven’. then no. I think it’s about the ‘two gospels’ and how there are two different destinies depending on whether you’re part of the body of Christ or the bride of Christ. Have you read it yet?
Zender is apparently writing a book called ‘Shagah’. My daughter managed to find some info on this book. If you read the info on the web site, it does pique your interest but holds you in suspense. Here is what she found out, and it’s quite a shocking discovery if it turns out to be true, so be prepared: man lost his womb to woman, and so he ‘clings’ to his wife in order to get back the missing bits, and be one with the woman ie the two persons become the original man/woman person, who Adam was before Eve was created. 
Eve was made from Adam’s ‘rib’ which in Hebrew can apparently mean something akin to ‘hollow chamber’… 
If we follow this through, wouldn’t that mean that daddy chimp is hankering after his missing bits too…
Apologies if this is not the case and to be honest, I’m hoping it is a load of rubbish, as I’ve always liked much of Zender’s stuff, (especially his ‘Crack of Dawn’ reports, but this sounds very whacky if true.
Edit- Yes, it’s true. Just found the reference: martinzender.com/letter_to_readers2.htm
It’s about two thirds of the way down.
Hi Catherine
Like you I have read and enjoyed quite a bit of Martin Zender’s stuff. He is a brave and genuinely funny apologist for the glorious truth of Christian Universalism, and for that alone I will always hold him in high regard. I wrote to him once, and he was kind enough to write back. So all in all, and in so many ways, a thoroughly good egg.
Unfortunately he’s also a) an inerrantist (see my comments on Sherman’s new thread 
); and b) far too in love with Martin Zender. He has an ego the size of a small South American country, and a mouth to match. Now that’s fine, lots of good folk have big egos (my all-time sporting hero Ian Botham, for a start ). But unfortunately for Martin, his ego gets in the way of his theology. He comes up with some whacky new interpretation of something in the Bible and promotes it like it’s the true gospel. Sometimes he’s just wrong - with his ridiculous notion that sin and suffering are simply God’s way of preventing us from growing too big-headed (that’s the thesis of his booklet *Flawed by Design *), for example. Sometimes he’s plain nuts. As with this Adam’s rib nonsense.
But on balance, the world is a *much *better place with Martin Zender in it.
Cheers
Johnny
I’m glad you appreciate some of Martin Zender’s efforts. What troubles me, is that by being so wrong on certain ‘key’ issues, somewhat undermines his authority when it comes to defending UR. If someone is checking him out because they’re interested in the possibility of UR, and then come across his weird stuff, then they’ll probably throw it all out. Then again, if UR is true, they’ll come to realise it eventually, regardless of Zender’s errors. 
My biggest problem with his teachings, is the point you mention about sin and suffering. Zender believes that God is the author of every single evil act ie the evil acts of men are ‘caused’ by God. Therefore if we follow that through, then the rape and murder of a child is what God intended to happen. Now I can follow this through so far, in that God does cause and allows evil, but I believe not always directly. So by allowing man to have ‘choices’ (admittedly far from free choices) He is allowing the inevitability of acts like rape etc. but I can’t accept that God wants corrupt men to act out every conceivable evil scenario. God is allowing every conceivable scenario, in order for us to learn the hard way what can happen when we do our own thing. Maybe I’m misunderstanding Zender.
Anyway, thank you for your succint thoughts on this matter. Much appreciated.
Hi Catherine
I couldn’t agree more. This is precisely what I wrote to Martin about, and precisely where I part company with him. He maintains that the purpose of sin is contrast (duh?), and indeed he also maintains that everything we do is predestined or ordained by God. I wrote to him questioning why my beautiful step-granddaughter Gracie (the girl in my avatar photo) should have had to suffer a horrible, debilitating neurological disease (she’s now fully recovered, thank God). But all he could offer was his crazy ‘sin is contrast’ line. I too cannot under any circumstances accept that God ever intends evil and suffering to befall us, let alone actually makes such things happen. That’s one reason why I am not a Calvinist, and feel so strongly against Calvinism. For however hard the Calvinists try to wriggle out of it, the logical conclusion of Calvinism is that God is indeed the author of all evil, all suffering. Patently ridiculous!
And I too fear that anybody exploring the world of Zender may well end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and rejecting his UR because of his nutty personal theology.
The Bible does indeed declare, Isaiah 45:7 that "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things (NIV). (The YLT is even stronger - “Forming light, and preparing darkness, making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.”)
What precisely this verse means I’m not sure. But I certainly wouldn’t build a whole theology on it.
Peace and love to you
Johnny
I think he takes the word ‘all’ in Isaiah 45:7 and applies the same logic that we use for the ‘all’ who are saved. Maybe if we don’t think the ‘all’ includes horrible crimes as already mentioned, then the ‘all’ who are saved, doesn’t actually mean every last human.?? Just a thought. Zender can see how the doctrine of ECT is crazy and he rightly highlights this (in a very funny way sometimes) but he can’t see that the idea that God is the author of the worst crimes we can imagine is just as crazy and turns the stomach- well it certainly turns my stomach. He will take that Isaiah verse at face value, just as the burn in hell advocates take the verses that seem to teach it. He strikes me as intelligent and yet he doesn’t seem to be aware of this? Well, if we’re to take certain verses to mean exactly what they say then I’ll content myself with this one:
‘‘And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; ***which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.***’’ Jer 7:31.
I personally find building an entire doctrine upon that one verse, decidedly shaky. I’m becoming more and more like traditional churches in my thinking, in that I think that the scriptures came out of the people of God and need to be interpreted by the church as a whole. This individualised approach to scripture reading seems to result in some peculiar doctrines, which would likely be held in check if all the Body of Christ were adding their own angle of expertise to scripture reading.
The context of this verse is a prophetical, poetic book. To read verses as word for word literal and universal in application, seems like a gross misuse of the text. Almost as though people aren’t really interested in what the text is trying to say. Also the word translated ‘sin’ can be used in a variety of ways. As the verse seems to be taking a poetic stance by comparing opposites, I would say that while the opposite of light is darkness, the opposite of peace is not evil. Thereby, calamity seems a fairer translation within that context. Personally, I have no issue with God creating calamity that serves His purpose. Was the Cross itself not a form of calamity?
But the idea of God creating evil itself has two problems. First, it is utterly repugnant, as bad as eternal torment. Secondly, it has philosophical issues. Is evil a created thing? Is it not an abstract property, such as the number 2? Evil does not have weight or matter, space or time. To talk of its being created seems to me absurd. Surely more than being a created ‘thing’, it is a value judgement that we place upon things.
I suppose that one could argue that God placed in us the capability of doing the wrong thing, gave bacteria the ability to be harmful instead of helpful, made the water that sustains us also able to drown us. Thereby, he was creating the possibility of evil. But surely this just shows that he gave us freedom, within the boundaries of our created order, to choose. And since freedom is something Zender denies, I see why he embraces the idea that God created ‘evil’. For me however, the reasoning is too simple, doesn’t go far enough and misses the intention and genre of the text
Thanks for your input Jaelsister. You make some good points.
If we take that verse in Isaiah where God is saying that he forms ‘evil’ or ‘ra’, and then consider the many examples in the Bible where God uses ‘evil’ to accomplish His purposes, then I have to agree with Zender to a point: God does indeed form evil. If we take the example of the flood in Noah’s day, this clearly shows that God directly caused the mass drowning of men, women, children and babies. Now to me, the suffering and pain these people would have endured is not really different to the suffering of people caused by the hands of other humans e.g a man raping and murdering a woman. Pain is pain. If we take another example of the mass burning of people in Sodom and Gomorrah, again, God is causing events that lead to the mass extinction of people in a very violent and evil way. There is no denying then, that God forms evil. I don’t like this and can’t get my head around it. Why didn’t God just cause all the wicked people in those two examples, to drop down dead instantly, without all the prolonged pain and suffering involved? 
Why does God use violent means that if humans used, we’d call them ‘evil’? So Zender is on to something for sure, but I am careful to not attribute ALL evil to God. As you rightly say, we humans have been created to be able to make choices and certain choices lead to evil acts that God doesn’t want (Jer 7:31).
Which was what I meant Catherine
My issue with Zender is that he treats forming evil as the creation of evil itself. Which is not the same thing. There is also the issue that God is the one from whom morality stems. So the very long drawn out argument (which I can’t type on my iPhone lol) is that all acts from God are ultimately for the good of creation. Yet some acts that we would find ‘evil’ if perpetuated by a human, are necessary in order for a creation to be free, functioning and ultimately pruned.
For me (and I know that others have different views, which I find hugely interesting to think on), “who created evil?” is a meaningless question, like saying who created the number 2. “Who performed/created that ‘thing’ that we deem evil?” is a question that makes sense to me. Just how my mind works at present 
I loved Lewis’s take on it, when he compared God’s permissive nature towards evil to a mother who tells a child they must tidy up their own toys- the mother didn’t cause the messy bedroom but ultimately she did allow/cause it, in order to teach the child.
BTW your avatar is a beautiful picture
Ah, I had not understood you properly. Sorry. Now I see what you’re saying and what Zender is saying, it’s raised some interesting questions that I think I’ll present in a new thread. I’ll look forward to your answers and help on this matter. 
Thank you for the lovely compliment on my wedding photo. It’s three years old now, so I’ll have to update it.
Edit: here’s the new thread: viewtopic.php?f=70&p=49020#p49020
Honestly is this so difficult? Perhaps a devout Jew would contemplate and debate whether God is somehow the author and instigator of evil. The Jewish Tanakh (the OT) would possibly give them grounds for discussing it as an open question. Their long historical experience of national tragedy culminating in the holocaust certainly makes this question of God doing and/or allowing evil to befall them more than just an academic exercise. But then they don’t have the lens of the gospel of Jesus the Healer to give them clarity as to the true character and nature of Yahweh. Christians do, but they approach and debate this question of evil as much as the Jews do. Sometimes I wonder if Christians really base their concept of God on Jesus the Healer of Nazareth or on the Jewish scriptures with the NT as a simple subordinate addendum.
What evil or injustice did Jesus do to others, even his enemies?
Did he berate the sick/sinners that their sickness was from God or did he simply heal them?
Did he heal them by means of a painful procedure or did he take their affliction from them and in exchange gave them the healing balm of his life energy? He dispelled evil and sickness from others and did not afflict them with it. He did what the Father does. If this conflicts with OT perspectives and understanding then so be it. Jesus trumps scriptures every time.
Did Jesus ever inflict sickness on or curse others, even his antagonists the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes?
Sure he gave them a good tongue lashing, but did he wish evil to befall them? No he forgave them.
It is no wonder that we are in a post-christian era as Christianity fades into increasing irrelevance, especially in the western world; except with the USA which is dominated by a virulent and stridently retributive brand of Christianity. Give me atheists with a sense of social justice any time over that.
The world has long suffered terrible injustices and horrific, unspeakable acts of evil. For those who are informed and paying attention to the rapidly developing global trends it is clear we are heading for a world of hurt from the converging crises of climate change, resource depletion, ongoing mass extinction of species and financial collapse fueled by a global debt of hundreds of trillions that can never be repaid. If Christians will not bear witness to this suffering and dying world of the truly good, just and healing creator God then that creator will find a new way to do it.
Dave
Dave
The voice of reason, as always .
Hear, hear. Sadly.
Love that. Love it! The most profound, and profoundly succinct, comment I’ve read since, as they say ‘oop North’ in England, last Preston Guilds. (Don’t ask!)
Top stuff, Dave, keep it up.
J
Thanks for the support Johnny.
Scripture is notoriously problematic for many reasons especially because of dodgy translations. This can be attributed to poor scholarship or to a particularly dogmatic agenda that interprets more than it translates. A good case in point is Isaiah 45:7 that you cited above. Most translations of that passage convey the impression that God creates (and thus causes and allows) evil. This is then used as a proof text to substantiate an erroneous characterization of God that flies in the face of the definitive self-disclosure of God in Jesus the Healer.
G. L. Bartholomew’s translation of Isaiah 45:7 is illuminating indeed: “I form light and [hence] fill darkness. [Likewise], I make good and [hence] fill bad. I, YHWH, do all this.” Notice the word translated as fill from the Hebrew bora/bara which is usually translated as “create” but is more accurately rendered as fatten or “fill” conveys a meaning that counters the false impression that God allows or causes evil, let alone creates it. To the contrary, God overcomes evil and darkness by filling it. Filling it with what? Well look at Jesus who came into the world to bring the light and life of God into all the dark and dead places that produce all of the death derivatives of sickness, dysfunction and evil in the world. He fills it with Life, the **Life **of the creator God who brings new realities into being by filling them with His life giving presence and thereby makes the impossible possible.
It is the creative, filling, healing, self-giving of God into the creation that overcomes evil. Evil is not overcome by evil (retribution) but by good (self-giving). So simple a child can comprehend it. Even animals instinctively respond favorably to kindness and being feed; all the things that Jesus the bread of life and healer is and does. But sophisticated, “realistic” adult humans can’t see it until they to become like little children, that is what the new birth of resurrection is for.
Loving that perspective dave. I always think, Jesus said that if the Pharisees believed Moses, they would believe in Him because Moses wrote of Him. If our interpretation of scripture is contrary to the nature of Jesus, then our interpretation is wrong. The other thing is that Jesus is called the word of God. The bible isn’t.
Well, it is for me Dave. 
It’s been drummed into me from a very early age, that the whole Bible is true and if it says God does ‘evil’ things, then that is true. Many of the points you’ve raised here are being discussed in the new thread in the philosophy section under ‘moral dilemmas’ : Does God cause evil?
Johnny has stated similar points to yourself, and so as not to repeat these things, I’ll see you in the other thread, I hope.
JaeSsister:
Precisely JaelSister, for some odd reason Protestant Christians, probably because Protestant Christianity holds such a high view (sola scriptura) of scripture, have lost perspective as to what the real purpose and intent of the scriptural witness is: to bear witness to the true, living word of God: Jesus the Healer. More often then than not the Word of God, Jesus, has to bend and conform towards the OT conception of God even when there are glaringly obvious tensions and contradictions
(although many of those tensions begin to evaporate with an accurate and true translation). The convoluted, exegetical, contortions used to make it all fit results in a severely over complicated and diluted “gospel” that has made Christianity increasingly irrelevant to the desperate needs and groanings of a suffering and dying world.
Jesus is the radical new of God breaking into the world. It is God acting in a decisively new way, a new covenant that breaks the limits and barriers of the old. There is nothing more new and radical then the unprecedented event of the resurrection of Jesus: the precursor to universal resurrection of all things.
Dave
That’s just insane.
Catherine please don’t take that comment in the slightest way as a criticism of you or any of the countless others who have been victims of bad theology. To the contrary, I am expressing my sadness and indignation on behalf of those who have suffered considerable anguish and grief because of the slanderous characterization of God as a vindictive, celestial Shylock.
The Bible and all scriptures, theology, religion, technology, civilization will all pass away; they have been present for a mere blip in time and will fade away. What abides forever is the living creator God who revealed Himself in Jesus the Healer who by his suffering under the retributive, death-dealing powers of world has guaranteed that forgiveness prevails over vindictiveness; that the empathetic God makes our pain His pain and gives His life to heal all sickness and brokenness; that God has always has been for us and never against us and will freely give away all that He is to all that there is, forever and ever.
Dave
Good points, Dave annd all who have commented. I agree that Zender often takes things too far. I appreciate the thoughts and translational insight on Isaiah 45, but I also think there is more to consider on that passage, and here’s why. In addition to Youngs translation as “preparing” evil (ra=bad, most commonly), I certainly agree with the assessment that God clearly uses evil for his good purposes, as we see demonstrated several ways throughout scripture. Now consider this; in the immediate context of this scripture, God is making it clear that He is not only sovereign, but that there is in fact no other than he. The next verse after 7 is interesting and instructive: He’s talking about why He does all this stuff; so that deliverance and salvation may come forth and grow. Then, God gives a warning in verses 9 and 10, which goes against perhaps some of the softer interpretations of verse 7; “One who argues with his creator is in grave danger, one who is like a mere shard among the other shards on the ground! The clay should not say to the potter, What in the world are you doing? Your work lacks skill! Danger awaits one whosays to his father, what in the world are you fathering? and to his mother, what in the world are you bringing forth? This is what the LORD says, the Holy One of Israel, the one who formed him, concerning things to come: How dare you question me about my children! How dare you tell me what to do with the work of my own hands!”
So it would seem that God is taking responsibility for “evil, calamity” (which is a form of “evil” if you think about it) as well as the good. Because He is God, and He uses it all for his good purposes, we have no right to question Him.
Another point to consider is that He did create satan, who does evil, even if he did not create evil directly.
Some food for thought.
Well Mel if you want to disregard the information that I presented regarding G. L. Bartholomew’s translation of Isaiah 45 so be it. You say that you appreciate it but then make an argument that essentially discounts it. So I don’t quite follow the point you are making.
I also have, until fairly recently, held to a rather radical view of evil as being the polar opposite of good but I am beginning to be swayed by the evidence that such dualism is foreign to Hebrew thought and was introduced much later into Christian thought via Zoroastrianism and other philosophical influences. Christians make much ado about the sovereignty of God yet they have a whole theological structure built around evil and Satan to the extent it begins to sound like a contest between two deities. Whatever understanding of Satan (Lucifer, the devil) is being espoused , it is essentially the accuser that acts as foil between God and man and between humans. That accuser since Golgotha and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus has been cast down from the sight of God. God sees the creation solely through the lens of Jesus. The only place the accuser operates is on planet Earth where we are constantly condemning and scapegoating one another. This is not the doing of God it is a sickness that God will heal by His coming into the creation with His full indwelling presence. He fills the darkness and makes all things new by setting the creation free and making it whole.
And as far as we being clay and not to question the creator otherwise there will be hell to pay. The only thing being questioned is the notion that God acts vindictively with retributive punishment against his creation when everything about Jesus says that he does not. If Jesus is the definitive image of God, in the flesh, presented to this world: the face of God made visible to us mere mortals; then all those who debated with him, who denounced him, who spat upon him and crucified him should expect the gravest of woes to befall them. But no, he forgave them and he will heal them through the resurrection of all things.