If God knew beforehand why did he go through with it?

[cottage]

Evil is only necessary if you want to gain a full understanding/appreciation of good.

The state of goodness is the absence of evil and suffering. You are saying evil is necessary to appreciate its absence (ie to understand goodness). But if evil is absent you can’t use it as a comparator! Therefore evil isn’t necessary.

Love is not murder.

Love is a neurological process, an instinctual emotion that enables reproduction and care for infants; it also exists as a self-serving, functionalist emotion to protect the subject.

Is murder evil? Depends.To murder a murderer is not evil Love is not murder.

Leaving aside the fact that ‘murder’ means unlawful killing, the instance of the first murder, for which the murder was himself murdered, implies a world containing evil.
.

Everyting is relative. Is this apple good? Is this life good? Is this person good? To answer any of these questions, you have to compare it to something else.

Apples aren’t evil. A bad apple doesn’t suffer or inflict moral evil. And if there is no evil in life then by definition life is good, as must the person be if there is no evil.

good, better, best,

happy, happier, happiest

"happiest" means you are better off than happy or happier... happy and happier have to exist for happiest to exist.

What if "happiest" is infinitely / eternally happier than just happy? That makes "just happy" the equiv of horror . Horror exists for happiest to exist.

‘Happier’ and ‘happiest’ are just progressions from the term ‘happy’; they are all positive conditions and they don’t imply the necessary existence of ‘unhappiest’, ‘unhappier’ or ‘unhappy.’

Either there are stepping stones from lesser to greater ways of living/being, or "all is compound into one". If "all is compound into one" then "happiest" does not exist.

There is no contradiction or evident absurdity in conceiving a world without evil, but with a progressive happiness; and there is no contradiction or absurdity in conceiving of a world where the inhabitants are simply happy.

In the Garden if Eden Adam and Eve did not have a fullness of joy. They had no appreciation for the paradise they were surrounded with...

But so what? Are you saying it was right that they were punished for their lack of appreciation?

Are you infinately joyful every moment over your ability to see? One who understands what "blind" is understands what "seeing" is.

Are you infinately joyful for the use of your legs? One who understands what being lame means understands the joy of legs..
The greater the depths of sorrow before, the greater the depths of happiness later.
last shall be first.
etc. etc. etc.

I'm not 'infinitely joyful' at being able to see or walk, just like the rest of us I rather take it for granted. And by what reasoning of logic does it follow that great sorrow precedes great happiness?

no infinite sacrifice, no infinite love...[/quote

I agree. There can be no such thing as infinite sacrifice and infinite love; the two concepts are self-contradictory.

 

[sojourner]

This question is for all you who are believers in God

These question has been lingering over my head for a very long time.

If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world? Why did he create Lucifer knowing he would become Satan? Why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he knew Adam and Eve would be tricked by the serpent?

If you are believer in God and you know the answer, do let me know as to be honest im racking my brain over the concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his creations demise and let it happen anyway?

Why would loving parents, who know that the child they conceive will endure hardships, be tempted, fall, get hurt, have its heart broken numerous times, be tormented by disillusionment and distrust, be desperately sad at times, become clinically depressed, have handicaps, suffer the ridicule and ostracism of its peer group, etc. choose to give birth to that child?

Because they also know that the child they conceive deserves to have life, and that the child may also experience joy, unbounded happiness, overcome temptation, learn to pick itself up and be independent, experience healing, have its heart opened numerous times, be surprised by love and trust, be desperately contented at times, realize its potential, overcome handicaps, enjoy the comeraderie and inclusion of its social group, etc.

Propagation of life, with all its joys and sorrows is the issue here. We can either choose to live out of fear of the bad stuff, or out of hope of the good stuff.

 

[cottage]

Why would loving parents, who know that the child they conceive will endure hardships, be tempted, fall, get hurt, have its heart broken numerous times, be tormented by disillusionment and distrust, be desperately sad at times, become clinically depressed, have handicaps, suffer the ridicule and ostracism of its peer group, etc. choose to give birth to that child?

Because they also know that the child they conceive deserves to have life, and that the child may also experience joy, unbounded happiness, overcome temptation, learn to pick itself up and be independent, experience healing, have its heart opened numerous times, be surprised by love and trust, be desperately contented at times, realize its potential, overcome handicaps, enjoy the comeraderie and inclusion of its social group, etc.

Propagation of life, with all its joys and sorrows is the issue here. We can either choose to live out of fear of the bad stuff, or out of hope of the good stuff.

Of course the first and foremost reason that parents give birth to children is because they are innately programmed to do just that. Everything you’ve said is summed up by your last sentence. In other words what will be will be, and we must hope for the best. But this doesn’t address the question that the poster is asking. And so the above doesn’t serve as an analogy to explain the actions of a supernatural creator.

 

[idea]

I'm not 'infinitely joyful' at being able to see or walk, just like the rest of us I rather take it for granted. .

The reason you are not infinitely joyful is because you have never experienced the opposite - you have never experienced what it is to go through life blind.

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing:
(Old Testament | Isaiah 35:5 - 6)

Those who have been blind, deaf, lame - these people don't take eyes/ears/legs for granted like the rest of us do. When they are healed of their infirmities, they will have a greater appreciation of eyes/ears/legs because they know what it is to go without. They will experience greater joy than we will, because they have experienced greater sorrow...

 

[sojourner]

Of course the first and foremost reason that parents give birth to children is because they are innately programmed to do just that. Everything you’ve said is summed up by your last sentence. In other words what will be will be, and we must hope for the best. But this doesn’t address the question that the poster is asking. And so the above doesn’t serve as an analogy to explain the actions of a supernatural creator.

Bull crap! Poster asked why a God who foreknew the bad stuff would bring us into that situation. My answer was to ask why do parents do that very thing. The answer is twofold: First of all, for children to realize their human potential for good, they must be born. Second, just as procreation is programmed into human parents, creation is also God's very nature. Get over yourself.

 

[cottage]

Bull crap! Poster asked why a God who foreknew the bad stuff would bring us into that situation. My answer was to ask why do parents do that very thing. The answer is twofold: First of all, for children to realize their human potential for good, they must be born. Second, just as procreation is programmed into human parents, creation is also God's very nature.

You seem unaware that you’ve spoken nonsense. You can’t make the argument for parents (or God) bringing children into the world to realise their potential for good, because prior to conception children don’t have any potential – they don’t exist! We bring children into the world to satisfy our biological needs. It is a purely selfish but necessary instinct, where a child is the product of the producer’s desires. Whether God or man, the self is always logically prior to any thought or action.

Get over yourself.

Yes, how dare I have a view, or speak my mind! Instead I ought to stick to uttering cliche's, like that one above.

 

[cottage]

The reason you are not infinitely joyful is because you have never experienced the opposite - you have never experienced what it is to go through life blind.



Those who have been blind, deaf, lame - these people don't take eyes/ears/legs for granted like the rest of us do. When they are healed of their infirmities, they will have a greater appreciation of eyes/ears/legs because they know what it is to go without. They will experience greater joy than we will, because they have experienced greater sorrow...

It is in the nature of people to very quickly adjust to new positive circumstances (but not in the opposite case). The joy you speak of is fleeting, and though we may be forever thankful we nevertheless very soon take our new state for granted. I don't wake up ecstatic every morning with the realisation that I'm without the double pneumonia that I had in my teens, and I'm not elated that I've recovered fully from a horrific car accident. We don't need evil in order to know 'good'. 'Goodness' is a state of being that exists without evil; so it doesn't make sense to say we would need evil to appreciate its non-existence.

 

[sojourner]

You seem unaware that you’ve spoken nonsense.

You just love to project, don't you!

You can’t make the argument for parents (or God) bringing children into the world to realise their potential for good, because prior to conception children don’t have any potential – they don’t exist!

They don't? The Psalmist says that God knew me before I was knit together in my mother's womb. So much for your "theory."

We bring children into the world to satisfy our biological needs.

So? Doesn't refute my point in the least. I wasn't talking about parental needs, was I? (You love to misdirect, too!) I was talking about hope -- the hope that what is produced will be a good thing.

Whether God or man, the self is always logically prior to any thought or action.

So what? "Self" doesn't necessarily mean "selfish." It can (and often does) also mean "selfless."

Try again. It's OK to fall down and get bruised. You'll eventually get it right!

 

[cottage]

You just love to project, don't you!

And that’s an answer to your misconceived explanation, is it? I pointed out to you that it is illogical to speak of realising the ‘potential for good’ in non-existent creatures. It is nonsensical.

They don't? The Psalmist says that God knew me before I was knit together in my mother's womb. So much for your "theory."

More nonsense! You didn’t exist before you were in your mother’s womb. <titter>

So? Doesn't refute my point in the least. I wasn't talking about parental needs, was I? (You love to misdirect, too!) I was talking about hope -- the hope that what is produced will be a good thing.

You weren’t speaking of the parents’ needs – but I was! I’m saying parents’ needs are the prime mover in the conception of the child, in both senses of the term. The hope that the result will be a good thing goes without saying, but it is an ancillary consideration; it follows from the deliberation but is not the cause of it.

So what? "Self" doesn't necessarily mean "selfish." It can (and often does) also mean "selfless."

There is no completely selfless thought or act (as I’m sure you’re aware?).

Try again. It's OK to fall down and get bruised. You'll eventually get it right!

I so look forward to our exchanges, and your little flashes of temper. Watch the old blood pressure, though, eh?

 

[twem10w]

As a parent, my view is this, I decided to have children even though I knew they would at many points, have painfull experiences and eventually death, but still I had them, and the reason I had them, was basically because I could, and I hoped they would contribute to my life and spiritual growth as well as thier own. Point is God is God, this life is but a test, we make our own way through it in order to prove ourselves worthy of him, hence the need for trials in life.

 

[sojourner]

I pointed out to you that it is illogical to speak of realising the &#8216;potential for good&#8217; in non-existent creatures. It is nonsensical.

How do you know with any degree of certainty that we are non-existent before birth? How do you measure or observe the non-existence of a soul?

More nonsense! You didn&#8217;t exist before you were in your mother&#8217;s womb. <titter>

[titter] (He thinks we don't exist before our birth). Once again, I defy you to prove that it's nonsense. The concept has precedence in more than one major religion, Christianity among them.
Your assessment is nonsense.

The hope that the result will be a good thing goes without saying, but it is an ancillary consideration; it follows from the deliberation but is not the cause of it.

Yeah, well, you're not a Christian, either, so I wouldn't expect you to consider the hope for a good life of your as-yet unborn child. However, your position is not the only one to be considered. Since the OP assumes the existence of God, from a presumably Xian perspective, I answered the OP from that perspective. Since that is the case, the opinion of a non-believer, operating out of a different paradigm, need not be considered cogent to the question asked.

There is no completely selfless thought or act (as I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;re aware?).

So? God would be an exception to that. We operate from the perspective that God is as pure as pure gets and, since it is God who is under discussion here, God is capable of completely selfless acts, as in when God underwent death as a selfless act.

I so look forward to our exchanges, and your little flashes of temper. Watch the old blood pressure, though, eh?

Who's got a temper going? I'm just calling you out on your bull crap.

 

[cottage]

How do you know with any degree of certainty that we are non-existent before birth? How do you measure or observe the non-existence of a soul?

Ah! You’re in the right area now! And so the question, as you say, is how do you measure or observe ‘soul’? If you’re saying something is, then it is for you to show that it is, what it is and where it is. Prove the soul and you’ve proved your argument. If not then it’s just one more pretended claim to knowledge.

[titter] (He thinks we don't exist before our birth). Once again, I defy you to prove that it's nonsense. The concept has precedence in more than one major religion, Christianity among them.
Your assessment is nonsense.

Ahem! Why not read the quote properly before you answer?
I didn’t exist before I existed; there was no child, no person, no form or presence, no knowledge, nothing but atomic particles before I became the creature I am. It is therefore nonsensical to say that my prior non-existence could benefit from anything. And a plea from religious faith makes not an iota of difference because the logical absurdity remains.

Yeah, well, you're not a Christian, either, so I wouldn't expect you to consider the hope for a good life of your as-yet unborn child. However, your position is not the only one to be considered. Since the OP assumes the existence of God, from a presumably Xian perspective, I answered the OP from that perspective. Since that is the case, the opinion of a non-believer, operating out of a different paradigm, need not be considered cogent to the question asked.

Every parent wishes the best for its unborn child developing in the mother’s womb, Christian or not! But before the conception there is no child: it doesn’t exist! And by the way, it is not for you to say which arguments need not be considered. This is a public forum and all opinions are to be welcomed.

So? God would be an exception to that. We operate from the perspective that God is as pure as pure gets and, since it is God who is under discussion here, God is capable of completely selfless acts, as in when God underwent death as a selfless act.

Well if God is under discussion then we must examine his ‘pureness’ and selflessness. God is the Necessary Being and omnipotent, which means that his will is absolute and that reality itself is subject to God. Everything that occurs is God-centric. So God’s being is prior to all his actions, in just the same way that the human self is logically prior to every action. Consider them one and the same if you like (St Aquinas Summer contra gentiles, III, 67). So God is essentially and necessarily selfish. Consider that he sacrificed his only son, an act that was evil and pointless. The very notion of sacrifice, of killing, is abhorrent to every person, and to kill a son (albeit God incarnated in this case) is to display a shocking example of evil to the world. But there is a twist to this, for despite the filicidal/suicidal act of Jesus/God putting himself to death for our sins, no such thing happened and he was restored to life and to heaven. Should we be surprised? Was it ever conceivable that God would destroy himself? No, of course not, because even the supernatural must look to themselves first. Meanwhile evil on earth continues. But that’s okay, apparently, because we’ve been forgiven. Brilliant!

Who's got a temper going? I'm just calling you out on your bull crap.

Here are my thoughts on this matter. I think it is perfectly acceptable to describe a post or a passage as ‘bull crap’, providing that exclamation is followed immediately with an argument or demonstration as why it is believed to be such. But sharp little personal remarks (‘get over yourself’) are puerile, add nothing to an argument and reflect badly on the person making them.

 

[Willamena]

If you’re saying something is, then it is for you to show that it is, what it is and where it is.

Well; "where" is meaningless to existence, because that's a spacial reference. As spacial references exist, obviously existence cannot be dependent upon them.

 

[Harshtotem]

existance is dependent on Time- once there is time it exist- outside of time- is where true "godhood" exist

 

[cottage]

Well; "where" is meaningless to existence, because that's a spacial reference. As spacial references exist, obviously existence cannot be dependent upon them.

My question concerns where souls have their inception, and where souls are to be found, ie who has them?

 

[sojourner]

Ah! You&#8217;re in the right area now! And so the question, as you say, is how do you measure or observe &#8216;soul&#8217;? If you&#8217;re saying something is, then it is for you to show that it is, what it is and where it is. Prove the soul and you&#8217;ve proved your argument. If not then it&#8217;s just one more pretended claim to knowledge.

Doubt is never the "right area" where the spirit is concerned. But, then, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't operate out of that paradigm to give faith its proper due.

Ahem! Why not read the quote properly before you answer?
I didn&#8217;t exist before I existed; there was no child, no person, no form or presence, no knowledge, nothing but atomic particles before I became the creature I am. It is therefore nonsensical to say that my prior non-existence could benefit from anything. And a plea from religious faith makes not an iota of difference because the logical absurdity remains.

Human being and soul are two different matters. Again, I wouldn't expect you to give it its proper due. In this case, a plea from empirical evidence makes not one iota of difference. In fact, it creates a logical absurdity that clouds the real issue.

Every parent wishes the best for its unborn child developing in the mother&#8217;s womb, Christian or not! But before the conception there is no child: it doesn&#8217;t exist! And by the way, it is not for you to say which arguments need not be considered. This is a public forum and all opinions are to be welcomed.

Xy (IMO) offers the deepest and most tangible hope. Before conception there is a soul to be considered. It's a tenet of the faith that we hold dear. Until you can prove differently, on a religious forum, we must defer to the religious opinion -- in this case, the Christian one.

Read the post again. I didn't say that your opinion need not be considered. I said your opinion need not be considered cogent to the issue. There's a difference.

So God is essentially and necessarily selfish.

Boy, are you off-base! God is essentially and necessarily selfless, since God is love (and love is selfless). "Prior being" does not = "selfish."

Consider that he sacrificed his only son, an act that was evil and pointless.

I don't consider it, because that's not what happened. You're really skewing the long-standing and orthodox theology of the Incarnation here in order to push your agenda. God committed an act of self sacrifice, since Jesus is True God, just as the Father is True God. God sacrificed no one but God's Self. And it was an act that was perpetrated by an evil human institution. But the offering of God's Self was not evil, but an act of love. I'd have to agree that the crucifixion, itself, was pretty pointless, but the act of becoming subject to it was an act of love. Period. Get your facts straight before you bash my religion, pal!

The very notion of sacrifice, of killing, is abhorrent to every person, and to kill a son (albeit God incarnated in this case) is to display a shocking example of evil to the world.

Read above. Of course it's abhorrent. That's why it was an act of terrorism on the part of the Romans. That act of theirs did display how evil humanity can be when it cabbages on to power. The very fact that, through death, life triumphed, changes the complexion of the act. God took very sour lemons and made lemonade.

But there is a twist to this, for despite the filicidal/suicidal act of Jesus/God putting himself to death for our sins

The twist is in your head. There was no "filicide" or "suicide." God didn't kill God's Self. The Romans did.

no such thing happened and he was restored to life and to heaven.

Patent heresy. That's not what we believe. You're setting up a straw man, based upon very poor theology. Jesus died by crucifixion. Therefore, to say that "no such thing happened" is in theological error.

Was it ever conceivable that God would destroy himself?

God didn't destroy God's Self. God destroyed the power of death.

No, of course not, because even the supernatural must look to themselves first.

By becoming subject to crucifixion, God was looking out for us first.

Meanwhile evil on earth continues.

Evil wasn't destroyed. The power of death was destroyed. Get your theological ducks in a row, man!

But that&#8217;s okay, apparently, because we&#8217;ve been forgiven. Brilliant!

It is brilliant! By jove, I think your getting it, now!

Here are my thoughts on this matter. I think it is perfectly acceptable to describe a post or a passage as &#8216;bull crap&#8217;, providing that exclamation is followed immediately with an argument or demonstration as why it is believed to be such. But sharp little personal remarks (&#8216;get over yourself&#8217 are puerile, add nothing to an argument and reflect badly on the person making them.

I don't need to provide an argument. You've done that for me! What's "peurile" (and a perfectly good argument for my case) is the obvious straw man you've set up here, based upon very, very poor theology, which has been presented as if it were the gospel truth. In other words: Get over yourself. Either you don't know what you're talking about with regard to Christian theology, yet wish us to believe that "you know all about us and our little scam," or else you do know, but choose to issue cheap shots, disguised as real argument. Either way, it's bull crap, and you need to get over yourself.

Personally, I don't think you have clue one as to what constitutes faith, or God, or the human soul, and you dis it, and try to explain it all away via a "logical argument," because logical argument is what you understand. But it's like installing an elevator in an outhouse. Doesn't fit.

You think that, if we don't understand it, it's ain't real. You're just wrong about that.

 

[cottage]

Doubt is never the "right area" where the spirit is concerned. But, then, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't operate out of that paradigm to give faith its proper due.

Well that’s a non-response! And to what must I give its proper due – a belief? It seems to me that if you don’t know what the spirit is then doubt is a perfectly proper and reasonable view to hold.

Human being and soul are two different matters. Again, I wouldn't expect you to give it its proper due. In this case, a plea from empirical evidence makes not one iota of difference. In fact, it creates a logical absurdity that clouds the real issue.

Please don’t insult my intelligence and yours with such an obtuse explanation. There is no plea from evidence because there is no evidence, and the only absurdity is the claim that x exists prior to the existence of x.

Xy (IMO) offers the deepest and most tangible hope. Before conception there is a soul to be considered. It's a tenet of the faith that we hold dear. Until you can prove differently, on a religious forum, we must defer to the religious opinion -- in this case, the Christian one.

Oh but that’s absolute rubbish! Quite untrue! This forum caters for all opinions, of every belief and none. And it certainly isn’t the personal and exclusive reserve of Christians.

Boy, are you off-base! God is essentially and necessarily selfless, since God is love (and love is selfless). "Prior being" does not = "selfish."

Love is selfish, necessarily so. Give me an example where it is not?
And God’s being is prior to his will, by definition of him being the deity, and it logically comes before everything including petty human needs and desires. You show me an instance of God’s love and then I’ll show you one of his malevolence?

I don't consider it, because that's not what happened. You're really skewing the long-standing and orthodox theology of the Incarnation here in order to push your agenda. God committed an act of self sacrifice, since Jesus is True God, just as the Father is True God. God sacrificed no one but God's Self. And it was an act that was perpetrated by an evil human institution. But the offering of God's Self was not evil, but an act of love. I'd have to agree that the crucifixion, itself, was pretty pointless, but the act of becoming subject to it was an act of love. Period. Get your facts straight before you bash my religion, pal! Of course it's abhorrent. That's why it was an act of terrorism on the part of the Romans. That act of theirs did display how evil humanity can be when it cabbages on to power. The very fact that, through death, life triumphed, changes the complexion of the act. God took very sour lemons and made lemonade.

I’m not disputing for a moment that Jesus was crucified. I’m saying to you that, according to the Bible, Jesus was resurrected. In other words there was no sacrifice, no dying for our sins, no selfless act of love. For Jesus/God was soon brought back to life and then spirited away back to heaven. It was farcical. And if it is being said, as you do above, that God committed an act of self-sacrifice, in other words, he intentionally caused that event to happen for a given purpose, then it cannot be blamed on an ‘evil human institution’. (And incidentally where I see contradictions and incoherence I will bash your religion as I see fit, ‘pal’!) And so we may conclude that if it was all the Romans’ doing then self-evidently it wasn’t a gracious act of self-sacrifice on the part of God, and that also raises questions concerning God’s wisdom and omnipotence. Death and evil continues to this present day and the whole crucifixion thing was futile. A further nonsense is that we’ve been forgiven for the evil that we’ll do in the future. Of course all this graciousness would be better-employed alleviating suffering and protecting the innocent, now and for all time. But that isn’t going to happen. To say ‘God has forgiven mankind’ is not something that can be proved true or false in experience. But to say ‘God has alleviated suffering’ is plainly false. The Bible’s writers were aware of this of course, and so the redemption couldn’t be exercised in reality, but only as salvation – after death. No witnesses, you see.

I don't need to provide an argument. You've done that for me! What's "puerile" (and a perfectly good argument for my case) is the obvious straw man you've set up here, based upon very, very poor theology, which has been presented as if it were the gospel truth. In other words: Get over yourself. Either you don't know what you're talking about with regard to Christian theology, yet wish us to believe that "you know all about us and our little scam," or else you do know, but choose to issue cheap shots, disguised as real argument. Either way, it's bull crap, and you need to get over yourself.

It is interesting that you use the term ‘us’. In nearly fifteen years of debating religion I’ve yet to come across two Christians who share exactly the same view of the faith. In fact some of the views are so diverse it is impossible to say precisely what a Christian is by definition, other than perhaps by some loose association with the term ‘Christ’. I’ve had discussions with two Christians on this very forum (one very recently) who dismiss the involvement of any supernatural agency. And the story itself, well, it appears to be open season without a break as far as interpretation and acceptance goes. My criticisms, which I’m perfectly entitled make, are mild by comparison to some. And it isn’t a ‘scam’ (ridiculous thing to say) it is a confection of different people’s input over time that leads naturally to inconsistencies and contradictions, the subject of this thread being one such example.

Personally, I don't think you have clue one as to what constitutes faith, or God, or the human soul, and you dis it, and try to explain it all away via a "logical argument," because logical argument is what you understand. But it's like installing an elevator in an outhouse. Doesn't fit.

You think that, if we don't understand it, it's ain't real. You're just wrong about that.

The problem is that you never seem to understand how to argue properly or how to conduct yourself in a debate, and so you take criticism personally, get angry, and quickly resort to insults and infantile comments. It isn’t about you, or me, it is about what is claimed, the reasons that are given in support and the conclusions that may be drawn.

 

[sojourner]

Well that&#8217;s a non-response! And to what must I give its proper due &#8211; a belief? It seems to me that if you don&#8217;t know what the spirit is then doubt is a perfectly proper and reasonable view to hold.

You posted. I responded to that post. If it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. I can't help it if you can't comprehend -- or don't like -- my answer. It is a response (and a proper one).
"A belief" is a different thing than faith. Don't shortchange it.
If you don't know about spiritual matters, how can you pretend to comment on them with any authority?

Please don&#8217;t insult my intelligence and yours with such an obtuse explanation. There is no plea from evidence because there is no evidence, and the only absurdity is the claim that x exists prior to the existence of x.

Show some with regard to spiritual matters, and I'll be happy to refrain from doing so. The only absurdity going on here is arguing from something other than the Christian POV in an argument about a Christian tenet.

Oh but that&#8217;s absolute rubbish! Quite untrue! This forum caters for all opinions, of every belief and none. And it certainly isn&#8217;t the personal and exclusive reserve of Christians.

Of course it does. But for purposes of this thread, dealing as it does with the Christian God, it would behoove us to consider the argument from the Christian paradigm, rather than just sticking our nose in the air and claiming that such God doesn't exist anyway.
Telling us that souls don't really exist before one's birth is not cogent to the argument. We believe that they do, and the OP wants to know how God deals with that sort of thing.

Love is selfish, necessarily so. Give me an example where it is not?

I Corinthians 13:5: [Love] does not insist on its own way.

And God&#8217;s being is prior to his will, by definition of him being the deity, and it logically comes before everything including petty human needs and desires. You show me an instance of God&#8217;s love and then I&#8217;ll show you one of his malevolence?

Since God is love, and love is not selfish, God's will must necessarily not be selfish, but selfless.

I&#8217;m saying to you that, according to the Bible, Jesus was resurrected. In other words there was no sacrifice, no dying for our sins, no selfless act of love.

Jesus died. There was a body laid in a grave. The fact that there was a resurrection notwithstanding. Go to any cemetery. You'll find a whole lot of dead bodies. Just like Jesus.

Have you ever been crucified? Becoming subject to such an act would, indeed, be a selfless act.

It was farcical.

have some spikes crammed into your hands and feet, hang for a few hours on a cross and then come talk to me about farce. It wasn't farce. It was grace.

And if it is being said, as you do above, that God committed an act of self-sacrifice, in other words, he intentionally caused that event to happen for a given purpose, then it cannot be blamed on an &#8216;evil human institution&#8217;.

God didn't "intentionally allow the crucifixion to happen." The Romans perpetrated it at the request of the Jews. Jesus willingly participated in it (which does not constitute "cause.")

incidentally where I see contradictions and incoherence I will bash your religion as I see fit, &#8216;pal&#8217;!

You're not equipped to make such a determination, except it be infantile.

so we may conclude that if it was all the Romans&#8217; doing then self-evidently it wasn&#8217;t a gracious act of self-sacrifice on the part of God,

You're really grasping at straws, aren't[/quote] you? Too bad you can't come up with a decent argument here. Rome was the perpetrator. Jesus could have run away and hidden but he didn't. Therefore, he willingly offered himself as a sacrifice.

that also raises questions concerning God&#8217;s wisdom and omnipotence.

According to whom? You?! What you count as "wisdom," God counts as foolishness.

Death and evil continues to this present day and the whole crucifixion thing was futile.

The crucifixion had nothing to do with evil. And death, while "continuing," does not prevail. Guess the "whole crucifixion thing" wasn't so futile after all.

A further nonsense is that we&#8217;ve been forgiven for the evil that we&#8217;ll do in the future.

Since when is forgiveness ever "nonsense?"

Of course all this graciousness would be better-employed alleviating suffering and protecting the innocent, now and for all time.

Well! Too bad this isn't "the world according to Cottage!"
Your ego must be from Texas. It's the biggest da** thing I've ever seen. Well... the second biggest.

To say &#8216;God has forgiven mankind&#8217; is not something that can be proved true or false in experience.

And yet you deny that God has done that, as if it were an absolute truth.

But to say &#8216;God has alleviated suffering&#8217; is plainly false.

No one's saying that. Except for you.

so the redemption couldn&#8217;t be exercised in reality, but only as salvation &#8211; after death.

What in the world does redemption have to do with "no human suffering." In fact, redemption has happened in spite of human suffering.

In nearly fifteen years of debating religion I&#8217;ve yet to come across two Christians who share exactly the same view of the faith.

So what?

In fact some of the views are so diverse it is impossible to say precisely what a Christian is by definition, other than perhaps by some loose association with the term &#8216;Christ&#8217;.

Your point? That we're wrong because we don't agree? Nice try, Skeezix, but it don't work that way.

I&#8217;ve had discussions with two Christians on this very forum (one very recently) who dismiss the involvement of any supernatural agency. And the story itself, well, it appears to be open season without a break as far as interpretation and acceptance goes.

OK. Good. Again, so what!

My criticisms, which I&#8217;m perfectly entitled make, are mild by comparison to some.

They're still bull crap.

And it isn&#8217;t a &#8216;scam&#8217; (ridiculous thing to say) it is a confection of different people&#8217;s input over time that leads naturally to inconsistencies and contradictions, the subject of this thread being one such example.

Reading the tone of this:

But to say &#8216;God has alleviated suffering&#8217; is plainly false. The Bible&#8217;s writers were aware of this of course, and so the redemption couldn&#8217;t be exercised in reality, but only as salvation &#8211; after death. No witnesses, you see.

I'd have to say that you do think it's a scam.

The problem is that you never seem to understand how to argue properly or how to conduct yourself in a debate, and so you take criticism personally, get angry, and quickly resort to insults and infantile comments. It isn&#8217;t about you, or me, it is about what is claimed, the reasons that are given in support and the conclusions that may be drawn.

Can't argue properly with an argument that is so far off-base it's more than ridiculous.
It all goes back to what I said at the outset: You obviously don't have the first clue about Christian theology, yet you pretend that you're arguing logically. How can you refute something you don't know enough about to refute? How is that logical? Again, get over yourself.

 

[cottage]

You posted. I responded to that post. If it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. I can't help it if you can't comprehend -- or don't like -- my answer. It is a response (and a proper one).
"A belief" is a different thing than faith. Don't shortchange it.
If you don't know about spiritual matters, how can you pretend to comment on them with any authority?

Then I must ask you the same question!
You’re saying that if I don’t know about spiritual matters I’m in no position to comment on them, and that I think would be a genuine response - if I were presuming to explain them. I’m not. I’m saying there is no rational or logical reason to believe there is such a thing as soul; and therefore I’m asking you to explain to me what it is and how it is to be identified.

Show some with regard to spiritual matters, and I'll be happy to refrain from doing so. The only absurdity going on here is arguing from something other than the Christian POV in an argument about a Christian tenet.

You attempt to defend your beliefs from reason, and then when that fails you fall back on reference to ‘spiritual matters’ and the ‘Christian point of view’. How I am supposed to show regard for 'spiritual matters' when even you cannot explain what that means? So tell me, what is the difference, ontologically, between ‘spiritual matters’ and magical matters?

Of course it does. But for purposes of this thread, dealing as it does with the Christian God, it would behoove us to consider the argument from the Christian paradigm, rather than just sticking our nose in the air and claiming that such God doesn't exist anyway.
Telling us that souls don't really exist before one's birth is not cogent to the argument. We believe that they do, and the OP wants to know how God deals with that sort of thing.

That is presumptuousness and arrogance on an unbelievable scale! So, your expectation is that anyone who poses a controversial question ought to be satisfied with the answer that they’re given, and only in terms of a partisan view? Don’t you understand how debate forums work? The OP asked the question because of a statement that doesn’t make sense. The OP wasn’t looking for a further example of illogical reasoning to explain the first instance!!

I Corinthians 13:5: [Love] does not insist on its own way.

That's begging the question! Quoting from the Bible cannot prove biblical beliefs to be factually true!

Since God is love, and love is not selfish, God's will must necessarily not be selfish, but selfless.

Self-evidently God is not love, otherwise there would be no problem of evil!

Jesus died. There was a body laid in a grave. The fact that there was a resurrection notwithstanding. Go to any cemetery. You'll find a whole lot of dead bodies. Just like Jesus.
Have you ever been crucified? Becoming subject to such an act would, indeed, be a selfless act.

You are missing the crucial point. There are no dead bodies ‘just like Jesus’ in cemeteries, because Jesus isn’t a dead body. It is Jesus’/God’s death that was supposed to be an act of sacrifice, not his torture.

God didn't "intentionally allow the crucifixion to happen." The Romans perpetrated it at the request of the Jews. Jesus willingly participated in it (which does not constitute "cause.")
You're not equipped to make such a determination, except it be infantile.

You're really grasping at straws, aren't you? Too bad you can't come up with a decent argument here. Rome was the perpetrator. Jesus could have run away and hidden but he didn't. Therefore, he willingly offered himself as a sacrifice.

Wrong! Rome wasn’t the perpetrator. Jesus was sent to earth for a purpose, and his death was preordained by God. This is explained in Philippians 2:6, and also in John 1:4 et al.

And death, while "continuing," does not prevail. Guess the "whole crucifixion thing" wasn't so futile after all.

The crucifixion was to atone for man’s sin, supposedly, and yet sin continues. And death does prevail, unless of course you can show that it doesn’t? Therefore the crucifixion was nothing but an exercise in futility.

Since when is forgiveness ever "nonsense?"

When it is applied to the future.

What in the world does redemption have to do with "no human suffering." In fact, redemption has happened in spite of human suffering.

Because suffering is evil. God supposedly slew himself so that we might be saved from evil. See Galatians 1:4

Your point? That we're wrong because we [Christians]don't agree? Nice try, Skeezix, but it don't work that way.

My point is the exact opposite! Not all Christians agree and nor do I disagree with all Christians. We are all entitled to our view of Christianity whether to promote it, criticise it, or dismiss it altogether.

Reading the tone of this:
I'd have to say that you do think it's a scam.

I understand a scam to mean ‘deprive by deceit’. It wasn’t that at all. But it was a farce, caused by a series of self-contradictory statements, with each trying to explain the other and becoming ever more absurd. The account started off on the wrong foot and it then continually wrong-footed what was to follow. A sole author would have commanded an overview of what he wanted to say and a bit of proof reading would have picked up on the errors.

Can't argue properly with an argument that is so far off-base it's more than ridiculous.
It all goes back to what I said at the outset: You obviously don't have the first clue about Christian theology, yet you pretend that you're arguing logically. How can you refute something you don't know enough about to refute? How is that logical? Again, get over yourself.

I know more about your religion than you may be aware. I grew up with Christian institutions and the Christian tradition. And as I explained in my previous response there is no authoritative definition of a Christian. As with the Bible itself, the devil has always been in the detail and in the interpretation. And I can show you theologians who would disagree with many of your statements, while I happen to agree with them: St Thomas Aquinas; Dominican Friar, Brian Davies; and Paul Tilloch, among others. Furthermore, a logical absurdity is what it is, regardless of the subject matter.

 

[sojourner]

I&#8217;m saying there is no rational or logical reason to believe there is such a thing as soul; and therefore I&#8217;m asking you to explain to me what it is and how it is to be identified.

Then why are you even here? If you think that the concept of God, as it has been developed throughout history is nonsense, if you doubt the concept of the human soul, why bother with this pitiful little forum? Unless you're a troll?

You attempt to defend your beliefs from reason, and then when that fails you fall back on reference to &#8216;spiritual matters&#8217; and the &#8216;Christian point of view&#8217;.

You attempt to take reason too far.

How I am supposed to show regard for 'spiritual matters' when even you cannot explain what that means?

It's not up to me to explain what it means. It's up to you to discover for yourself. This is your journey -- not mine.

So tell me, what is the difference, ontologically, between &#8216;spiritual matters&#8217; and magical matters?

Magic consists of human beings acting upon the supernatural. Spirituality consists of God acting upon human matters.

That is presumptuousness and arrogance on an unbelievable scale!

What's presumptive and arrogant is claiming that the Xian POV has no basis in reality in a thread that approaches a spiritual question from a Xian POV.

So, your expectation is that anyone who poses a controversial question ought to be satisfied with the answer that they&#8217;re given, and only in terms of a partisan view?

No, my expectation is that you not pretend to be an expert when you're clearly not.

That's begging the question! Quoting from the Bible cannot prove biblical beliefs to be factually true!

The question wasn't posed as a "biblical belief." I simply used the Bible as the best theological example of what love is.

Self-evidently God is not love, otherwise there would be no problem of evil!

See? You're not such an expert in matters of theology. Evil exists because love does not force its own way (as stated in I Cor. 13). You want love to be something it is not, and when it fails to meet your expectations, you say, "Well, that's not what love is." Talk about "falling back" from logic! Who died and made you God?

You are missing the crucial point.

I don't think you'd know a "crucial point" of theology if it bit you on the nose.

There are no dead bodies &#8216;just like Jesus&#8217; in cemeteries, because Jesus isn&#8217;t a dead body. It is Jesus&#8217;/God&#8217;s death that was supposed to be an act of sacrifice, not his torture.

There was a body. The body was dead. The body had been tortured to death. It was a sacrifice.
The crucial point here is that death had no power any longer. The torture was real, the sacrifice was real. Life is just as real. Until you understand that, there's no point in you debating the topic.

Wrong! Rome wasn&#8217;t the perpetrator. Jesus was sent to earth for a purpose, and his death was preordained by God. This is explained in Philippians 2:6, and also in John 1:4 et al.

Hmm..

Quoting from the Bible cannot prove biblical beliefs to be factually true!

Nonetheless, don't pretend to spar scripture with me. Rome was the perpetrator. Read the gospels. REad Genesis. Death is "preordained" (I don't care for that term, personally) for every human being. Since Jesus was fully human, this was to be expected. That death came about because of something we have done -- not because of something God did.
The purpose Jesus came for was to reconcile humanity to God. Which happened by the very Incarnation.

The crucifixion was to atone for man&#8217;s sin, supposedly, and yet sin continues.

Only if one subscribes to Substitutionary Atonement, which many Christians -- myself included -- do not.

And death does prevail, unless of course you can show that it doesn&#8217;t?

And death does not prevail, unless, of course, you can show that it does. Since you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the soul, you've thrown away your best tool to accomplish that purpose.

Therefore the crucifixion was nothing but an exercise in futility.

Straw man.

When it is applied to the future.

Hmm. Lots of the best people would call that "mercy," or "forbearance," or "grace." You call it "nonsense." Well, isn't your little world a lovely and gentle place to live?! You really don't understand the paradigm of forgiveness. Sad for someone who's so well-versed in sociology.

Because suffering is evil. God supposedly slew himself so that we might be saved from evil. See Galatians 1:4

In what way are we not saved from evil?

We are all entitled to our view of Christianity whether to promote it, criticise it, or dismiss it altogether.

Unless one doesn't know enough about it to do any of those things.

But it was a farce, caused by a series of self-contradictory statements, with each trying to explain the other and becoming ever more absurd.

I'm sorry you dismiss it in such a way.

The account started off on the wrong foot and it then continually wrong-footed what was to follow.

Shows what you know about Biblical literature and its critique.

A sole author would have commanded an overview of what he wanted to say and a bit of proof reading would have picked up on the errors.

Read above. There was no "sole author." dismissing the whole thing is absurd, based upon "if I ran the circus, I would have done it this way."
You show more and more that you don't know squat about what you purport to debunk.

I know more about your religion than you may be aware.

It's obvious to everyone that you know less than you may be aware.

I grew up with Christian institutions and the Christian tradition.

So did Hitler. He didn't get it right, either.

And as I explained in my previous response there is no authoritative definition of a Christian.

Has very little to do with good theology or bad theology; a thorough or inadequate understanding of what it's about.

As with the Bible itself, the devil has always been in the detail and in the interpretation.

Or is the detail and interpretive diversity a good thing? Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way. You want it all to be a neat and tidy package. It isn't, because humanity itself isn't. Since we were made good, and since God advocates for us, I'd say we're on the safe side of OK here.

And I can show you theologians who would disagree with many of your statements, while I happen to agree with them: St Thomas Aquinas; Dominican Friar, Brian Davies; and Paul Tilloch, among others.

You could at least spell them correctly. It's Tillich. In any case, opinions vary. Even these folks would acknowledge that theology exists in a range of understanding.

Furthermore, a logical absurdity is what it is, regardless of the subject matter.

Yep. Sure is. That's what you create with every post. A logical absurdity. You want to force solidity on something that is fluid.