|
Post by gadreel on Jan 24, 2018 0:00:23 GMT
Surely a benevolent God would see that his subjects did poorly this time around and give them a chance to fix it, that is to say withhold reward as opposed to deliver punishment. Which is what God is doing through inaction. In that way God would still be allowing free will, but not eternally punishing someone for messing up on their first go. But this is precisely what the story of the Bible is about. Satan and his angels were told to do one thing. They chose poorly and did the opposite. Then when given authority over the earth and hell, they again chose poorly and did everything they could to ruin humanity. Likewise, Adam and Eve were given an ultimatum. They chose poorly. Then God said, "I'll give you one more chance" and I'll let my Son be the one who does most of the suffering in order to make good on this second chance. So you're absolutely right. A benevolent God did see that some of his subjects did poorly the first time around and gave them a chance to fix it. And he did so - in the case of humans - by withholding a reward (Eden, eternal life in the flesh) and by offering only the smallest of punishments (two forms of hard labor). except according to you he now send (or allows to be sent ) souls to hell, so as I say surely a benevolent god would not do this. The assertion that previously this God has stopped eternal punishment is moot if this God currently allows eternal punishment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 15:06:55 GMT
But this is precisely what the story of the Bible is about. Satan and his angels were told to do one thing. They chose poorly and did the opposite. Then when given authority over the earth and hell, they again chose poorly and did everything they could to ruin humanity. Likewise, Adam and Eve were given an ultimatum. They chose poorly. Then God said, "I'll give you one more chance" and I'll let my Son be the one who does most of the suffering in order to make good on this second chance. So you're absolutely right. A benevolent God did see that some of his subjects did poorly the first time around and gave them a chance to fix it. And he did so - in the case of humans - by withholding a reward (Eden, eternal life in the flesh) and by offering only the smallest of punishments (two forms of hard labor). except according to you he now send (or allows to be sent ) souls to hell, so as I say surely a benevolent god would not do this. The assertion that previously this God has stopped eternal punishment is moot if this God currently allows eternal punishment. It may seem that way from your perspective, but I honestly believe you are purely reviewing the matter from a human perspective. When the entirety of the situation is duly considered, the conundrum of a benevolent god "allowing evil beings" to go to an evil place is perfectly logical and just. After all, do sharks belong on a mountain? Do goats belong in the sea? Allowing evil beings to go into a place meant for the containment of evil is not only sensible, it shows respect for the free will and natural instinct of the beings in question. There is another side to this coin, of course. When Lucifer and his seraph army attacked the throne, they simultaneously attacked the defenders of the throne. Does a benevolent god allow this to transpire forever? Would a benevolent god allow good angels to be injured and all of heaven to be ripped asunder? What of those good angels? Do they not deserve peace? Do they not deserve relief from the violent assault of selfish traitors? Does a benevolent god allow the insurgency to continue until every mountain is ripped from its base and heaven is no longer a fitting abode for those who will remain? Of course not. If you had three sons and one of them was trying to murder the other two and destroying your house in the process, you would do the same thing I would do and any other rational being would do: you would expel the one son from your house. But what if you still loved this son? If you're a parent, you'll know that it is difficult to forget your child's beauty and innocence when he was young. You may hate the face of what he has become as an adult, but a part of you will be haunted by a memory of when things were better for him and, in turn, your relationship with him. So if you're not just a good parent, but an extraordinary one, you would probably keep in touch through the years. Even if all this son did was cuss you out and attack your other children every time you got on the phone with him, you would still check in from time to time. And if you were an all-time dad, you'd give him his inheritance anyway and see what he'd do with it. But he can't come to Thanksgiving dinner if he won't mind his manners. The other kids don't deserve to have to put up with him.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2018 15:17:57 GMT
an evil place is perfectly logical and just. After all, do sharks belong on a mountain? Do goats belong in the sea? Allowing evil beings to go into a place meant for the containment of evil is not only sensible, it shows respect for the free will and natural instinct of the beings in question.
But evil can hardly be 'contained' when God admits to creating it where it is not contained (and indeed when the nature of God and His will one might expect as being beyond all containment):
Isaiah 45:7 KJV “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things.”
If an all good-God would want to contain evil it would, well, best not deliberately create it in the first place - or at least actively work then to end it with the limitless power it possessed. To misquote Ben Franklin: all that is required for evil to triumph is for a good god to do nothing. But I did enjoy your special pleading.
And you do know that not everything in the Bible, notably in the early parts which represent just another creation myth such as common to most cultures, are to be taken as literally true... right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 15:27:56 GMT
an evil place is perfectly logical and just. After all, do sharks belong on a mountain? Do goats belong in the sea? Allowing evil beings to go into a place meant for the containment of evil is not only sensible, it shows respect for the free will and natural instinct of the beings in question. But evil can hardly be 'contained' when God admits to creating it where it is not contained (and indeed when the nature of God and His works one might expect as being beyond all containment): Isaiah 45:7 KJV “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things.” And you do know that not everything in the Bible, notably in the early parts, are to be taken as literally true... right? What is the verse you are referencing when you conclude that God admits to creating it where it is not contained?
Of course evil can be contained. It is one of the recurring themes of the text that everything has a place and a number assigned to it. Job specifically discusses how everything in existence is contained in one format or another. I am fond of Isaiah 45:7. It's often been a source of terrific debate. God certainly did create evil. Well, more specifically, he created Sin. Based on the way you've phrased your question, I am going to assume that you will think I'm quite an idiot. I believe the parts of the text that are contextually indicative of figurative meaning are meant figuratively. The parts that are written with specific detail defining them as most likely literal are all the ones I consider literal. Let's cut to the chase: I believe the text indicates that the human world was created in 144 hours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 15:36:10 GMT
an evil place is perfectly logical and just. After all, do sharks belong on a mountain? Do goats belong in the sea? Allowing evil beings to go into a place meant for the containment of evil is not only sensible, it shows respect for the free will and natural instinct of the beings in question.
But evil can hardly be 'contained' when God admits to creating it where it is not contained (and indeed when the nature of God and His will one might expect as being beyond all containment):
Isaiah 45:7 KJV “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things.”
If an all good-God would want to contain evil it would, well, best not deliberately create it in the first place - or at least actively work then to end it with the limitless power it possessed. To misquote Ben Franklin: all that is required for evil to triumph is for a good god to do nothing. But I did enjoy your special pleading.
And you do know that not everything in the Bible, notably in the early parts which represent just another creation myth such as common to most cultures, are to be taken as literally true... right? Yeah, I responded before you totally rewrote your post. Sorry about that. If I haven't addressed anything you want me to address, I'll be happy to respond again.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2018 16:06:42 GMT
What is the verse you are referencing when you conclude that God admits to creating it where it is not contained?
I am saying that, first, neither God, or his Will can be contained. See 2 Sam 7:5-9. (I think that we can agree that God, and God's will, cannot meaningfully be separated); and, moreover, we are told that "God's will will be done". Then secondly, your god is apparently limitless, being the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" [Rev1:7] etc. So, if your god's stated will is that, as Isiah admits, He creates evil on earth, then unless we argue that God's will is limited (contained) then that particular creation, of evil, is uncontained as representing His will. The Bible describes us as all sinners ("For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23] etc ) - which seems pretty uncontained to me! I hope that helps.
One could of course argue that, yes, of course God always wants evil contained. But then why deliberately create something the always-badness of which always demands containing? It doesn't seem very efficient or responsible.
I see. So God's will in action can be contained (limited)? Job speaking, with all his issues, btw is not God speaking. Which is odd that, especially since elsewhere we read such things as 1 Timothy 4:4: "For everything created by God is good." Is Sin good? I don't assume anything. But those who take the Bible literally, all the way, have certainly been accused of several things. You have your religion and your opinions about its creation myth and are welcome to them. However discoveries of genetics make a literal Adam and Eve unlikely. I can't speak for talking snakes though. (Was this 144 hour creation 6,000 or so years ago too, via Bishop Ussher's famous calculations? If so, I am here to tell you that modern geology brought the House of Ussher down years ago.)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2018 16:15:39 GMT
I responded before you totally rewrote your post. Sorry about that. If I haven't addressed anything you want me to address, I'll be happy to respond again. My apologies for that, I do have the trying habit of re-reading my posts, enlarging and correcting, although I always try to do so before quoted in a reply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 16:21:54 GMT
What is the verse you are referencing when you conclude that God admits to creating it where it is not contained? I am saying that, first, neither God, or his Will can be contained. See 2 Sam 7:5-9. (I think that we can agree that God, and God's will, cannot be separated); and, moreover, we are told that "God's will will be done". Then secondly, your god is apparently limitless, being the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" [Rev1:7] etc. So, if your god's stated will is that, as Isiah admits, He creates evil on earth, then unless we argue that God's will is limited (contained) then that particular creation, of evil, is uncontained as representing His will. I hope that helps. I do not agree. God can contain himself. The text is chock full of examples of God containing himself and his will. 2 Samuel 7 says nothing to the contrary. It's important to note that only God can contain God's will, however. I was not referring to Job speaking. I was referring to the parts of the text where God speaks. The creation of it was, yes. She serves a terrific purpose. No, geology, nor any other science has disproved anything. Adam was brought into being as a man. The stars were brought into being with their light visible already on earth. The text itself is explicitly clear that all things were brought into being with age, i.e., mid-process. I would expect nothing less than that geologic studies would indicate sedimentary evidence of things being older than 6,000 years. As for talking snakes, they speak for themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 16:23:24 GMT
I responded before you totally rewrote your post. Sorry about that. If I haven't addressed anything you want me to address, I'll be happy to respond again. My apologies for that, I do have the trying habit of re-reading my posts, enlarging and correcting, although I always try to do so before quoted in a reply. And I, in turn, hate to be criticized for not answering a challenge and it seemed like more was brought to bear in your edit, so I wanted to recognize it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2018 16:43:46 GMT
I do not agree. God can contain himself. God's deliberately created evil is clearly uncontained in this world, since the Bible assures us we are all sinners. But the earth, where God admits to creating evil or sin, is chock full of examples of God's will, where evil is obviously not 'contained' - as per as my observation above. So I guess He hasn't decided that yet. I would not disagree with this. Which still makes wonder why He, being all-good, does not do it on a wholly sinful earth, created, in both senses, by Him. Which rather dodges the question, (and the Biblical contradiction this poses) But calling the creation of sin (evil, misfortune or whatever one calls it) and its existence a 'terrific' thing, so expressing appreciation, reminds me of why I am a secular humanist and atheist. Is the existence childhood cancer really 'terrific'? And yours was a good try, but Timothy manifestly talks of things created as good in and of themselves, not about the mere act of creation. As already said, you have your opinions and you are welcome to them. But genetics has conclusively proved empirically that the ancestors of mankind were just not two individuals - and moreover could not be, given what we know about the effect of genetic bottlenecks and the like. Naturally, one would expect you to argue nothing less. But to non-fundamentalists and creationists it just sounds like special pleading. And, one wonders. why God would seek to delude. or deceive man over the actual time scale of creation. Not today in my world they don't lol. But there is a talking donkey in Shrek. So by your own rule of thumb, it not being a figurative character, it must be literally true...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 20:05:04 GMT
I do not agree. God can contain himself. God's deliberately created evil is clearly uncontained in this world, since the Bible assures us we are all sinners. It is clearly contained by time, as it promises we will be without sin. See above. Also, God does not admit to creating Sin on earth. Sin was created before earth and before man. God does not dictate every choice because God respects free will. Now, to get to a question I actually don't have an answer to is the question of why angels and humans were created with free will in the first place. I have theories, but no textual reference. Also, I fear I have been remiss in pointing out that - while I agree that God created Sin (from which evil is born) - I do not agree with your interpretation of Isaiah 45. The word "evil" in this context does not refer to the classic definition of good vs. evil, but rather, "calamity," as in a natural disaster. No it doesn't, though. See below. So be it, but let's stop assigning things to me that I have not said. I said it served a terrific purpose. I did not say it was terrific. Those are different sentiments. The reason I say it serves a terrific purpose is because without it, I cannot exercise my free will. I love my life (though not as much as I will love the next) because I get to choose everything I do. Don't you? You seem to enjoy your secular humanism. Of course not. Not sure why you'd pose such a question. Certainly you aren't comparing the "good" that Timothy is describing to the word "good" as it pertains to morality? He's talking about food! But before you said "unlikely." Now you're saying "conclusively proved empirically." I realize that both comments can be true at the same time. But would you please expound on this? He didn't. He told us with absolutely no delusion whatsoever that the earth was created with age. Where's the delusion? Don't mix up an apologists' bad apology with the actual text of what he claims he is apologizing for. The actual text is very simply stated and it clearly says that all of creation was created mid-flow of development. Besides, nothing as relatively insignificant as whether the creation story was meant figuratively or literally should really matter all that much. Those who have faith will believe. Those who don't will seek to prove the Bible seeks to deceive them. Luke 16:18-21. Great passage and so true. Oh, I'm sure you've encountered some slippery-tongued creatures in your life, some of them right here on this board! And yes, I do believe there was a literal talking snake. And a talking donkey. And bears that mauled kids. The one I'm not sold on is the unicorn. I really hope it's meant to mean a unicorn in the sense of like, the movie Legend with Tom Cruise, but I fear it isn't that. I'm also not convinced that Leviathan is an actual dragon, but I hope so because dragons are awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 20:14:57 GMT
Now, to get to a question I actually don't have an answer to is the question of why angels and humans were created with free will in the first place. Well, one could say that if the ultimate goal of creation is for God's created beings to enter into a genuinely loving relationship with him, then free will is necessary. We can program robots to do exactly what we want them to do, but we wouldn't call them loving.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 20:28:13 GMT
tpfkar Now, to get to a question I actually don't have an answer to is the question of why angels and humans were created with free will in the first place. Well, one could say that if the ultimate goal of creation is for God's created beings to enter into a genuinely loving relationship with him, then free will is necessary. We can program robots to do exactly what we want them to do, but we wouldn't call them loving. "Free will" does not require crappy natures, as the fact that people do get into heaven establishes. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 20:44:41 GMT
Now, to get to a question I actually don't have an answer to is the question of why angels and humans were created with free will in the first place. Well, one could say that if the ultimate goal of creation is for God's created beings to enter into a genuinely loving relationship with him, then free will is necessary. We can program robots to do exactly what we want them to do, but we wouldn't call them loving. I agree completely that what you have just stated is the reason free will exists for the benefit of man and angel. The part I can't answer is why God felt the need or desire to do it for His benefit.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 20:59:21 GMT
tpfkar Let's suppose a merchant's family lived within the borders of a benevolent kingdom. Within the confines of that territory and under its laws, he was allowed to produce, sell, and prosper in peace. One day, the merchant decides to move his family outside the territory of the benevolent kingdom and into the territory of a bordering enemy. He does this, by the way, because the king of the enemy kingdom has shown him that there many more people to sell his wares to, thus the merchant is enticed by greater wealth and greater power. He makes this decision despite warnings from his current king that the evil king the merchant is about to pledge to will bring him nothing but death. Once the merchant and his family land in this malevolent kingdom, he learns its laws: all the progress of his toils are taken by the king or destroyed by the king's men. The merchant's family members are enslaved and routinely beaten. When the merchant's wife complains, who should she complain to? Her husband for choosing to move or the benevolent king for not locking her husband up in chains and instead, allowing him to pursue his wishes? Wouldn't it be illogical of her to blame the benevolent king for not putting the merchant in chains in order to save him from chains? More like a Creator that made the need to "sell wares", and relative "wealth", and lust for it, and "power", and malevolent kingdoms and kings and even the concept of "chains" and the like, in the first place and at all. Sunday!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 21:02:34 GMT
tpfkar Let's suppose a merchant's family lived within the borders of a benevolent kingdom. Within the confines of that territory and under its laws, he was allowed to produce, sell, and prosper in peace. One day, the merchant decides to move his family outside the territory of the benevolent kingdom and into the territory of a bordering enemy. He does this, by the way, because the king of the enemy kingdom has shown him that there many more people to sell his wares to, thus the merchant is enticed by greater wealth and greater power. He makes this decision despite warnings from his current king that the evil king the merchant is about to pledge to will bring him nothing but death. Once the merchant and his family land in this malevolent kingdom, he learns its laws: all the progress of his toils are taken by the king or destroyed by the king's men. The merchant's family members are enslaved and routinely beaten. When the merchant's wife complains, who should she complain to? Her husband for choosing to move or the benevolent king for not locking her husband up in chains and instead, allowing him to pursue his wishes? Wouldn't it be illogical of her to blame the benevolent king for not putting the merchant in chains in order to save him from chains? More like a Creator that made the need to "sell wares", and relative "wealth", and lust for it, and "power", and malevolent kingdoms and kings and even the concept of "chains" and the like, in the first place and at all. Sunday!Show me scripture where it is indicated that God infused Adam with the need to "sell wares," or gave him a lust for "wealth," or gave him a lust for power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 21:03:33 GMT
Well, one could say that if the ultimate goal of creation is for God's created beings to enter into a genuinely loving relationship with him, then free will is necessary. We can program robots to do exactly what we want them to do, but we wouldn't call them loving. I agree completely that what you have just stated is the reason free will exists for the benefit of man and angel. The part I can't answer is why God felt the need or desire to do it for His benefit. I just imagine that God didn't desire a "relationship" (if you could even call it that) with a group of pre-programmed robots. God therefore made beings in his image (viz. free) so he could have a genuinely loving relationship with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 21:07:31 GMT
I agree completely that what you have just stated is the reason free will exists for the benefit of man and angel. The part I can't answer is why God felt the need or desire to do it for His benefit. I just imagine that God didn't desire a "relationship" (if you could even call it that) with a group of pre-programmed robots. God therefore made beings in his image (viz. free) so he could have a genuinely loving relationship with them. Totally agree, but why the desire to have any relationship at all? That's what I'm driving at. God is not like us in the sense that he has a natural inclination toward loneliness. After all, that's one of the great things about being a trinity; you're your own companion
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 21:09:45 GMT
tpfkar More like a Creator that made the need to "sell wares", and relative "wealth", and lust for it, and "power", and malevolent kingdoms and kings and even the concept of "chains" and the like, in the first place and at all. Sunday!Show me scripture where it is indicated that God infused Adam with the need to "sell wares," or gave him a lust for "wealth," or gave him a lust for power. Where did he get it then? Where did the concepts come from? That's not even biblical!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 21:10:41 GMT
I just imagine that God didn't desire a "relationship" (if you could even call it that) with a group of pre-programmed robots. God therefore made beings in his image (viz. free) so he could have a genuinely loving relationship with them. Totally agree, but why the desire to have any relationship at all? That's what I'm driving at. God is not like us in the sense that he has a natural inclination toward loneliness. After all, that's one of the great things about being a trinity; you're your own companion Ah, I get what you're asking now. That's a great question. My best guess is that God simply WANTED to share his love with a new creation. Maybe it was too good to keep to himself.
|
|