|
Post by gadreel on Jan 25, 2018 20:00:56 GMT
Do you or do you not believe that there is a place of eternal torture? of course not. But I do believe in death and death is a perfectly fair & sufficient outcome. Then my statement stands, we both agree that God did not set it up in this way (that there is an eternal hell).
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 25, 2018 20:04:27 GMT
I thought God was our father, Satan is his creation, at best Satan would be our brother surely? Again, I refer to the text, wherein he is referred to as our father. My message is consistent and is purely based on the scriptures. Can you quote me the text where Satan is referred to as our father?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 25, 2018 20:06:27 GMT
of course not. But I do believe in death and death is a perfectly fair & sufficient outcome. Then my statement stands, we both agree that God did not set it up in this way (that there is an eternal hell). Then your statement wasn't addressing what i said, but whatever.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 25, 2018 20:13:39 GMT
Then my statement stands, we both agree that God did not set it up in this way (that there is an eternal hell). Then your statement wasn't addressing what i said, but whatever. Perhaps it is more accurate to say your comment did not address the conversation it was replying to, the conversation was about a benevolent God sending subjects to an eternal hell.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 25, 2018 20:15:34 GMT
Then your statement wasn't addressing what i said, but whatever. Perhaps it is more accurate to say your comment did not address the conversation it was replying to, the conversation was about a benevolent God sending subjects to an eternal hell. That is entirely possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 20:21:41 GMT
Then why argue the point with me? Surely you've sussed this all out before. As for me, I cannot understand why someone doesn't think that the Lake of Fire as described in Revelation is an eternal place of punishment, but that's just me. For the record: I'm not really interested in debating that. I've sussed it out. I've heard the "God is not a benevolent god if he sends people to hell" argument a million times. Also for the record: whereas I don't believe that God "sends people to hell," and whereas I do believe he allows it to happen (while he intervenes and seeks to change their hearts from going into this fate), I will state this, just so we can get away from semantics: I think that if God does send souls to hell for eternal punishment, he is still benevolent. After all, it's what I deserve, it's what you deserve and it's what Mother Theresa deserved. We all deserve eternal punishment in hell and so any god who enforces what is righteous and just is a benevolent god in my opinion. I am 'arguing' the point with you because you made it on a public discussion board and I an here to discuss points of theology. I may not believe what you believe, but I am genuinely interested in what you believe, and you may end up making a point that forces me to examine or even modify a stance I hold. Sorry, if you felt you were being taken for a ride, I was actually interested in your point of view. I must confess I find your acceptance of eternal punishment and characterisation of God as benevolent irreconcilable, and I have not been convinced by your statements, but that is the joy of discussion, sometimes we are just presented with views that we cannot agree with. Again, sorry if you felt you were being taken for a ride. No apology necessary. I'm probably guilty of projecting my overall view of the board onto you and for that I should be the one to apologize. And I'm sorry that I'm a cynic. I don't believe there are too many folks on the internet who really are interested in what someone else has to say. The tone of your questions were clinical, which I in turn judged as "critical," and, as I say, that's probably projection on my part.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 25, 2018 20:24:41 GMT
I am 'arguing' the point with you because you made it on a public discussion board and I an here to discuss points of theology. I may not believe what you believe, but I am genuinely interested in what you believe, and you may end up making a point that forces me to examine or even modify a stance I hold. Sorry, if you felt you were being taken for a ride, I was actually interested in your point of view. I must confess I find your acceptance of eternal punishment and characterisation of God as benevolent irreconcilable, and I have not been convinced by your statements, but that is the joy of discussion, sometimes we are just presented with views that we cannot agree with. Again, sorry if you felt you were being taken for a ride. No apology necessary. I'm probably guilty of projecting my overall view of the board onto you and for that I should be the one to apologize. And I'm sorry that I'm a cynic. I don't believe there are too many folks on the internet who really are interested in what someone else has to say. The tone of your questions were clinical, which I in turn judged as "critical," and, as I say, that's probably projection on my part. I don't mean to be clinical, more like unemotional inquirer, believe me all I want is interesting discussion. I accept that we may not agree on many things, but my desire to know why you believe a certain way is simply curiosity, not criticality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 20:31:17 GMT
Again, I refer to the text, wherein he is referred to as our father. My message is consistent and is purely based on the scriptures. Can you quote me the text where Satan is referred to as our father? John 8:44
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Jan 25, 2018 20:38:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 20:39:40 GMT
No apology necessary. I'm probably guilty of projecting my overall view of the board onto you and for that I should be the one to apologize. And I'm sorry that I'm a cynic. I don't believe there are too many folks on the internet who really are interested in what someone else has to say. The tone of your questions were clinical, which I in turn judged as "critical," and, as I say, that's probably projection on my part. I don't mean to be clinical, more like unemotional inquirer, believe me all I want is interesting discussion. I accept that we may not agree on many things, but my desire to know why you believe a certain way is simply curiosity, not criticality. Then I will assume as such. If you want crazy discussion, I'm the theist to talk to. I've experienced some really weird stuff and I also believe a lot of fringe things. Like the nephilim, for instance. Most Bible believers don't want to believe the more fantastic (or fantasy some would scoff) interpretation of what happened there because then they have to allow for a bunch of things that make them really uncomfortable. Like, for instance, that angels tampered with human genetics.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 22:15:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 26, 2018 5:16:32 GMT
Do you or do you not believe that there is a place of eternal torture? of course not. But I do believe in death and death is a perfectly fair & sufficient outcome. ...an fair because it is universal.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 26, 2018 7:14:01 GMT
Reminds me of the joke that while there's a West Philadelphia, there's no East Philadelphia. Thanks a lot. Now that song is going to be in my head all day. No, seriously, thank you. It's a great song. If you're from Philly, good luck in the big game. You're welcome. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/tek3suwt5/laugh.gif) I'm a Dallas fan so the Eagles are mortal enemies... though I was the only one here to predict they'd win, so I'm conflicted on the matter. He is benevolent to you, but for the thousands of people who break his laws, or even do not believe in him (depending on where you lie in your theology), he will send them to an everlasting hell because they would not make a leap of faith. I cannot reconcile that with benevolence, sorry. That's up to you, but the scriptures say that it's not much of a leap of faith to accept God's truth. The scriptures say that nature itself makes it obvious. The only leaping done in faith is the leap against our own, rebellious nature, a nature we inherited from our father the devil. The scriptures can't speak for everyone's subjective experiences on how difficult the leap is. After studying rationality making any "leaps of faith" (regarding anything) became anathema to my philosophy. Accurately assessing uncertainty means never been making leaps. So it had nothing to do with me being rebellious, and everything to do with the philosophical system I chose for best determining what to believe. Now I only "rebel" against any mode of thinking that's irrational, which would include rebelling against things I don't like/don't want to be true. I'd also take great issue with the notion that nature makes God's existence (much less truth) obvious. There are no atheists for the existence of obvious things that exist like the sun.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 26, 2018 11:41:30 GMT
of course not. But I do believe in death and death is a perfectly fair & sufficient outcome. ...an fair because it is universal. Life is pretty universal too.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 26, 2018 11:56:32 GMT
This world is part of the next world. This part of creation (meaning, the space in which the earth exists and its dimensions) will endure forever, per the text. As to whether God is contained in his true nature, I can only guess. As to whether he can contain himself, this has been exhibited in his other two formats: Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Never the less, evil - and sin, since we are told by your Bible that we are all sinners here, is thus uncontained in this world. And God admits to creating it such, which was my original point. Also, while your comments about the other 'formats' of God is noted, the Bible clearly says that "heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain [Him]" [1 Kings 8:27, echoed twice in 2 Chronicles]. However this atheist would certainly like the idea of god, or of any preferred deliberate supernatural contained at least, for such have created all sorts of problems down through history, and still do. Well then; we have deity who has both created sin and evil. The question then is whether such an entity would ever be worth praising and glorifying, when one can think of another deity who perhaps could do things in a much more pleasant way - and moreover not need special pleading to justify such things. But it is only fair to point out that other views are available and to quote scripture which undermines any notion of a completely free will by way of balance to what you have discovered. Think of it as discovering a bit more. But I would not expect you to change your views; only that it is well you are aware of alternatives. By creating uncontained evil (on earth at least) and sin more generally? Wouldn't a better plan of your deity be to help this process along by, say, creating a perfect world to begin with and then making Himself known unambiguously to all? There'd always be a few obdurates, but He'd get most of us, especially if, by not using deliberate evil and sin as process, your purported god showed itself more worthy of praise and worship. So, then: even with this exegesis, God is responsible for natural evil at the very least. Which, apparently, we now know is "terrific". Once again: coming on top of the sin you admit He already created, and with the awe it arouses in you, does that sound like the work of an all-good God worth praising? And you still haven't answered my question, that: if your deity admits to creating evil and sin, while Timothy assures us that everything created by God is "good", how can sin and/or evil be good? You know I will keep asking. I see. So God curses the world too, along with creating sin and evil? He gets more praiseworthy and responsible the more you explain it, lol. Especially as He, as Psalms tells us, "rejoices" over it all. You can see the problem. (I think we also have to distinguish between a tornado and a bad tornado strike, a shark and a shark attack. )Also despite your claim, calamities, like earthquakes and cancers, are indeed evil - natural evil. The clue is in the name, one widely used by theologians. No need to explain it, looking at a "very good" world allegedly created by a God also responsible for evil it seems perfectly in line with what one might expect of such a purported deity; one moreover who can be jealous or order the rape of women, has an occasional interest in sexual mutilation and is able to kill millions of people. But best not judge Him, eh? Understandably perhaps, He doesn't like that. But then again, you cannot have it both ways - if that text of Isiah "never explicitly defines" things, then how can you also say that it can be defined as only referring to natural evil? I discussed the Bible verse specifically pertaining to the type of free will already, it meant. This and the rest was in response to your "question I actually don't have an answer to is the question of why angels ... were created with free will in the first place." Where I have as much interest in angels as literal entities to be characterised as I do demons, fairies. As a soft atheist I lack belief in the deliberate supernatural too, yes; but then have an abiding interest in the psychologies and doctrines which surround the belief. The surrounding mythologies less so, and it would be illogical to treat them as literally true. Which is why I never bother myself much with the free will or not of angels, neither with how many of them can dance on the head of a pin. I get it: the creation of sin is "marvellous and wonderful", along with it being "terrific" which makes you (and God) "rejoice". Wow. Do these admissions make you feel as plain uncomfortable and awkward as they sound to those who smell special pleading? So tell me: would things be better without evil and sin? If so, why think highly of the worst of two options, chosen deliberate by your god? So childhood cancer. the machinations of the devil and genocides, these being part of 'all things', "bring glory to God"? Quite a few dictators must be congratulated on their efforts then. While scientists, working to cure disease and suffering, presumably ought to be condemned for they thereby reduce the glory of God. But here is the thing: if "all things" bring glory to God, a range which includes evil working and sin, then how come we read "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Rom 3:23] Can one bring God glory in the way you claim and yet also "fall short"? Have you thought this through? And the evidence that souls exists is... I have heard this sort of argument before (roughly speaking that "bad things are sent to make us stronger"). Which is a form of special pleading for why an all-good God might have created and then, by inaction, allowed them to happen. Presumably it means the opposite is true on the same basis - that "good things just make us weaker"...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 26, 2018 13:00:07 GMT
Wrong. I said the creation of Sin was terrific. You keep interchanging "Sin" and "evil," when they are not interchangeable. Never the less, you have said that " all things bring glory to God". And you certainly have told me that God has created sin and evil. Is not God's creation a marvellous and wonderful thing? If not, what is it then, especially if it includes - as He and you say - deliberately created evil and sin? How, exactly, can food 'work correctly'? For food is what, until I showed you the exegesis, you originally assured me Timothy only referred to. It seems to me this "not using the classic definition" of yours, caveats in disputations the like of which set off alarm bells, is more special pleading. One doubts whether Paul's words "Everything created by God is good" is intended in a less praiseworthy sense that you suggest; after all, why would want to go out of one's way to proclaim that things from God are just "working correctly"? Paul is not on a ship, singing out a reassuring "all's well" at eight bells! But then again, we can see God's work today, eating away at children in every cancer hospital, and so presumably just "working correctly". Perhaps you do have the sense right. It's your religion, play it out as you like. As for the example of rocks, well, it is certainly natural evil when a landslide of them kills people. And we know that your deity supposedly admits to creating natural evil, don't we? May the Lord rejoice in his works. But this above is a shame since, until now, you have been able to dispute without personal insults and being judgemental. Ah well. It doesn't take much effort. So in the event you can't quote any unambiguous chapter and verse as I asked? (Evenings and mornings appear in fairy stories and other myths too, btw) And why didn't you address my point that, while I can appreciate that a purported Adam and Eve, being told to go forth and multiply etc might have been made "ready to go" - just as, presumably, were the plants and other animals. But one should not confuse a created functionality - such as the ability to have babies - with a created history, such as making the universe seem older than it presumably is, as judged objectively by the speed of light. Was that omission deliberate? Then you didn't reply to my question as to how old you think the universe is. I notice too that you didn't address the reasons why that modern geneticists tell us that Adam & Eve couldn't have 'literally happened', either. In fact you don't seem to be replying to a lot of stuff, this end of things. I have got you to admit some very uncomfortable and inherently contradictory things, my friend, while for others you apparently have no answer...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 15:51:21 GMT
Thanks a lot. Now that song is going to be in my head all day. No, seriously, thank you. It's a great song. If you're from Philly, good luck in the big game. You're welcome. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/tek3suwt5/laugh.gif) I'm a Dallas fan so the Eagles are mortal enemies... though I was the only one here to predict they'd win, so I'm conflicted on the matter. That's up to you, but the scriptures say that it's not much of a leap of faith to accept God's truth. The scriptures say that nature itself makes it obvious. The only leaping done in faith is the leap against our own, rebellious nature, a nature we inherited from our father the devil. The scriptures can't speak for everyone's subjective experiences on how difficult the leap is. After studying rationality making any "leaps of faith" (regarding anything) became anathema to my philosophy. Accurately assessing uncertainty means never been making leaps. So it had nothing to do with me being rebellious, and everything to do with the philosophical system I chose for best determining what to believe. Now I only "rebel" against any mode of thinking that's irrational, which would include rebelling against things I don't like/don't want to be true. I'd also take great issue with the notion that nature makes God's existence (much less truth) obvious. There are no atheists for the existence of obvious things that exist like the sun. Regarding football...I'm not sure if an apology or a high five is in order. Regarding spirituality, I am only quoting what the scripture says as it pertains to nature making it obvious to every human being that God exists. It's simply a reading from the text. They do speak about everyone's subjective experiences on how difficult the leap is and I am only stating what they say. I am not speaking for everyone else. As for me, personally, I am inspired constantly by things in nature reminding me of God's existence. But that's my personal experience. I also speak to God and he speaks back. But that's my personal experience. Regarding our rebellious nature, again, I am only referencing the scriptures and what they say. Regarding the sun, it is included in one of things in nature that the scriptures say make it obvious that God exists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 16:47:48 GMT
Do you or do you not believe that there is a place of eternal torture? of course not. But I do believe in death and death is a perfectly fair & sufficient outcome. I agree with this statement; but in the face of this, it seems odd that the 'reward' (according to your beliefs) is to be forced to work for the rest of eternity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 16:51:07 GMT
Well then; we have deity who has both created sin and evil. The question then is whether such an entity would ever be worth praising and glorifying, when one can think of another deity who perhaps could do things in a much more pleasant way - and moreover not need special pleading to justify such things. It seems He indeed is worth praising and glorifying, as here I am, glorifying and praising him. And, of course, I am not alone. Of course it's fair. I've considered all other views. I may not be as intimately aware of Catholicism as a Catholic is, but I know that confessing to a priest is something I don't agree with based on my readings of the scripture, for example. He did. He did, assuming you are referring specifically to the inhabitants of said perfect earth. This is pure speculation. And as for what is worthy of praise and worship, that is purely subjective. Lucifer was the highest of all angels and was present with God in God's natural format, praising and worshiping him, until, one day, he was found to have Sin in him and he no longer felt God was worthy of praise. From Sin comes Death, which is destruction, which is the ultimate perversion of everything, including Lucifer's mind. You seem to enjoy massaging my words into something they don't mean. I already answered this once. Keep asking if you like. The answer is that the word "good" in Timothy does not connote "moral good." It connotes "serves it purpose" or "functions correctly." I have also clarified that I did not say God created evil. In my first comment on this subject, I said "God create evil, well, no, more aptly put, God created Sin." I should have just deleted the first part of that sentence and would have if I'd known you were going to incorrectly attribute it to me. Correct and fixed that for you. I'm glad you are getting laughs at something that is meaningful to me. Which is not the same as the evil you keep false attributing to my other statements. a purported deity; one moreover who can be jealous
Jealousy, like anger, is an emotion that can be both good and bad. I'm happy that my wife is jealous of other women. Not true. Just another oversimplification from someone who, per the text, will never understand the text. Do you actually read my posts before you respond. I never once said that Isaiah 45 doesn't define explicitly that God can/can't and does/doesn't create calamity, or the phrase you seem to prefer, "natural evil (which is the lesser used term in most Christian circles, btw, because "natural evil" does not cover all of the results of a cursed world as well as "calamity" does). What I said was that Isaiah 45 does not define God's creation of SIN. SIN. SIN. Three times I have said it and capitalized it so that you will remember. And then I went on to say that Ezekiel is my go-to for exploring the idea of God creating Sin. Sin IS NOT evil. Sin is one thing, "evil" is an entirely different thing. It is actually my belief that Sin is an entity with sentience and that evil is the result of cooperating with her. Like I said several times, I agree with Milton's philosophy on this. But if it is truly your goal to understand the Bible, then you should show a lot more interest in the angelic world. As I've said before, their story started first. The human story was grafted into the story they were already part of. This is ENTIRELY MEANINGFUL to understanding the human story. You cannot even begin to understand the motives behind why God has done things the way he has done them if you don't become cognizant of the angelic and demonic motivations first. The human story is not really a human story at all. It is an angelic story with humans being the surprise plot. The Bible beats its readers over the head with what humans are supposed to do and how to go about it, but it expects some level of obedience to its commands. It is much craftier at revealing the "why" behind everything. But, if what you claim is true, if you truly want to put The God of the Bible under the microscope and examine the depth of his "why"s I would strongly recommend you become more acquainted with the angelic history. I warn you that false information is easy to come by, so if you want the real angelic story, again, I defer to Milton. This kind of thing is tactless. I will begin deleting this type of personal attack stuff from replies going forward. No. And fixed that for you. Things would be better if demons and fallen humans did not partake in Sin, thus creating evil. They are things. So indeed, they bring glory to God. Thus far, you haven't presented a single argument that I haven't dealt with before. In this case, you are conflating two types of glory, much as you have consistently conflated two different types of "good." There is the glory that is bestowed upon God by his subjects, e.g., prayer, thankfulness, praise. Then there is the inherent quality of the glory of God. The second is something he has unto himself. Good things often do make us weaker. Thus, the warnings about riches. This phrase you like, this "special pleading," is insulting to me. Please stop using it. If you would like to have a civil discourse, I'm your Huckleberry, but I'm not interested in having someone patronize me. If you think I'm a fool, why would you bother talking to me in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 26, 2018 16:58:23 GMT
of course not. But I do believe in death and death is a perfectly fair & sufficient outcome. I agree with this statement; but in the face of this, it seems odd that the 'reward' (according to your beliefs) is to be forced to work for the rest of eternity. I think it is human nature to work and want to work.
|
|