• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did we fail God or did God fail us ?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Nope. I am happy to admit that I'm far from perfect, however we measure "perfect."
Glad to hear that! However, our measurements can be wrong too.
We know because "did the creation faithfully represent the vision and plan of the creator?" is a or yes or no question.

I believe I answered it… the vision given by God is perfect as represented in Genesis 1&2 and the end in Revelation.

The vision represented by man is all that is iin between.

The statement is either true or false. What other options do you see?

But we are talking about your imperfect list… so I stand by my answer which is a little more perfect (though not completely)
So you believe that a faithful representation of God's plan and vision includes evil?

Not really… evil was man’s vision. In the end, there is no evil (God’s vision) - but love does include choice to reject God’s way and follow our way.
A poorly-designed plane will fail more often than a well-designed plane even if the poorly-designed plane is barely flyable.

that is true.
The difference between how much poorly-designed and well-designed planes fail is the portion of the failure rate that's entirely on the designer of the plane.

Not really… it could be those who built the plane. The design was good but the builders who built the plane didn’t care. Boeing is a good example of what I am saying. The design is good but man has messed it up.
When it comes to the idea of "free will", a lot of factors beyond our control still affect our behaviours. It's like that Penn Jillette quote: "I do rape and murder as much as I want; it's just that 'as much as I want' is zero." If there were a god and this god wanted people not to murder, a million people like Penn with free will would commit way fewer murders than a million people with free will but also with constant intrusive thoughts about killing people that they have to actively force themselves not to indulge. In these two scenarios, the excess murders in the "intrusive thoughts" scenario would all be the god's fault.

Some truth and some I wouldn’t call truth. We do have factors that we have to deal with (as per my signature) - man is obviously broken. Some more than others but all are broken. But God has to door to put broken pieces back together and ultimately brings it back to the correct design, unbroken, no crying, no dying, no sickness and no brokenness.
 
Last edited:

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Christians say that we have given into temptation and thus evil entered the world but perhaps God is evil for allowing us to even be tempted into he first place.
Evil comes from law. God warned Eve and Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge good and evil, since that tree not only teaches you the good but also the reflected evil. This learning of the evil side of law, comes back to bite people. Humans were warned to avoid law, but they still ignore the warning signs, and continue to impose law, and teach both good and evil, with the evil repressed, to avoid punishment, leading to evil compulsions. Humans are their own worst enemies by still ignoring a basic command.

Law was not made for the righteous man, but for the sinners. Yet everyone is forced to be under law, as though all are assumed to be criminals. This harms the righteous person, since law was not made for them. That is a recipe for failure. One size fits all come from a small brain. It would be like if we have a minority of sick people, who need certain drugs to become healthy, so everyone now has to take those drugs. It becomes a land of morons with lots of unintended side effects.

When you are a small child, there are few civil laws imposed. If one child slaps another this is not assault with mandatory arrest. That applies to adults. Children are exempt from civll law, until they become teens. Yet these small children are not a threat, even without civil law. Without law they do not learn how to be as evil as adults who learn evil from the law; what to avoid.

The better way would be to start all children with no law, like we already do. We then allow the good children to avoid nay formal civil law, as long as they remain basically good. There are good teens and young adults. They never have to learn evil and then have to repress it. We only impose law on those, who begin to violate the spirit of the law; cheat and harm others. This way law would only be for its intended purpose, which is to instruct the criminals. The righteous people will have no need to learn the evil of criminals, and get contaminated with side effects. Medicine is not given to healthy children, but is only useful for the sick, so can become healthier. Simple Divine lesson.

You could not just remove all law and expect peace, if the brain was already contaminated for decades by law and knowledge of evil. The DNC tied this and shop lifting got worse and not better. Removing law would need to start with a first generation of children, while not transitioning the righteous to law, if they can still do good, without the need of law. They will have guidelines for safety, but these guidelines will be absent of the teeth of punishment, associated with the dark side of law, where the state can act as heartless criminals, in the name of good.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
IOW when someone has a desire to eat out of politeness than out of hunger. An impulse to be polite is still a desire we don't choose.
Maybe you don't choose, I choose.
You're still talking about a scenario where we're choosing whether to act on our desires or not. We don't choose our desires, so the raw material that free will acts on - and therefore the outcomes of free will decisions - would be dictated by our designer,
Sorry, I disagree with that.
 

Massimo2002

Active Member
I see it as “victim mentality” when we think that God is evil for allowing us to be tempted.

When I view love without choice, it looks robotic and controlling. I see love as demanding choice and freedom of will vs “you have to love me period”.
So you shame people who can clearly see that the Christian God is evil ?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
So you shame people who can clearly see that the Christian God is evil ?
Not at all. In a court of law you have two people sharing their viewpoints. If one’s statement is false, the truth simply exposes it. The response of the person who had false information can react in different ways. Personally, when I am shown truth exposing my faulty position I simply say, “Thanks - I will correct my thinking”.

Proverbs 27:5-7​

Contemporary English Version​

5 A truly good friend
will openly correct you.
6 You can trust a friend
who corrects you,
but kisses from an enemy
are nothing but lies.
 

servant1

Active Member
Christians say that we have given into temptation and thus evil entered the world but perhaps God is evil for allowing us to even be tempted into he first place.
Actually God wanted mortals to choose with their love and respect for him to listen to his advice and know it was the best advice. It wasn't much to ask of one to not eat of one tree, and in return get life everlasting, never sick, never without, not aging like now, etc. Gods kingdom rule will bring that reality back.
 
Top