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

[cottage]

True, God is all sufficient and does not need our love.
But it was He who first loved us, and desires that we do the same to Him and one to another.

If we had nothing but these two commandments, "love God and love thy neighbor", could we interpret that without the experience of life and suffering?

'Need' and 'desire' amount to the same thing. Why does Almighty God require worship and adulation?

It is through suffering that the charter of love is born.

Suffering is not necessary for love.

In adversity, we either forgive or hate, good or evil, night or day, up or down, east or west.

There doesn't have to be adversity or any tribulations. And you keep mentioning good and evil, night and day, etc, as if it were logically impossible to have the one without the other.

The experience with credentials, is what will get us through it, be it for our good or for evil.

It has to be love from God first before I can learn to exercise it myself.

Yes, non believers in God can exercise love as well, but that is because it given us all in the form of a conscience.

Does a lion kill a baby deer because it has a conscience?

Yet, we feel for the baby deer, or have compassion for its inability to defend itself giving want for our help.

'Love' is a biological instinct, selfish and utterly essential for humans to procreate and continue their existence. And compassion, conscience and empathy are reflective emotions, and as with all emotions they are centred necessarily on the self.

Loving one another is best tested in an adverse conditions, giving degree to that love.

Then you're making suffering a condition for love, which completely negates its meaning. I'm sorry but what you describe is conditional and contradictory (if not an immoral concept!).

 

[TimothyA]

Having said all that, then it is very clear why God would know what the future possibility, the evil potential that the hearts of mankind would imagine to do while in the flesh.

Is your opinion that the Book of Revelation an example of 'God' knowing a future possibility or a future absolute?

 

[sojourner]

You would do better to address the points I make instead of continually complaining. Also as you so frequently and incorrectly appeal to the straw man fallacy I suggest you look up its meaning, as you understand perfectly well that my argument concerns all biblical and Christian reasoning that alludes or makes claims to a loving God.

You'd rather just make empty claims that God is not good, based upon a cursory reading of scripture, and assigning a skewed theological understanding to that scripture. It is a straw man that you can knock down. Perhaps you'd better look up the definition.

Of course I will use reasoning that supports the case that I’m making for a coherent God. And I have no preconceived notions regarding Christianity, apart from the understanding that it is founded on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Other than that I rely on Christians themselves to put their arguments and defend their claims.

God's coherency can only be truly understood theologically. I'm not convinced you're equipped for that kind of determination.

It’s ludicrous, if not obscene, to denounce John Edwards’ thesis as wrong in the same way that Nazi propaganda was wrong. Propaganda serves to promote a skewed political view. Divine determinism is a metaphysical explanation, as is the concept of God’s saving grace, neither of which can be falsified. And the latter, unlike the former, raises questions concerning its rationality and logic. Certainly in that sense Edwards’ logically coherent view is ‘right’, even if it can’t be proved true.

"Divine determinism" is more logical and rational than God's saving grace???
That's how God has always been understood. God is determined to reconcile us to God's Self. I really don't see how Edwards' view (and yours), which is skewed, not politically, but theologically, makes more sense, since the overarching qualities of God as presented by the tradition that has worshiped God, are love and grace.

 

[sojourner]

'Love' is a biological instinct, selfish and utterly essential for humans to procreate and continue their existence.

Love is a relationship, not a feeling or an instinct.

Then you're making suffering a condition for love, which completely negates its meaning. I'm sorry but what you describe is conditional and contradictory (if not an immoral concept!).

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[look3467]

cottage

'Need' and 'desire' amount to the same thing. Why does Almighty God require worship and adulation?

He is the originator of love and adulation.

If He created all there is, is posed as a question, for those who question His existence, then it is He who originates all emotion and logic.

The first set of parents created were placed into a condition subjected to vanity.

Vanity "vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others".From Wikipedia

Basic element of the human physic, own abilities (Independence) and attration to others. (Emotion).

Both of which are, as you pointed out in your post "“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10:37)" set as not attractive to God.

If love for God cannot be generated from within the soul (that is Housed in a fleshly body) tested and tried, then everything done is in futility.

Futility in this respect, that salvation of one's own soul can not mankind make, save God.
So all of mankind's works are subject to one's own consequence; some for good and some for evil.

In the midst of all of it, God will rejuvenate (give life) to the human soul as a love gift, unconditionally.
What transpires after that, is up to the individual.

The choice is ours to believe or not in a God of love; be it at our own risk, either way.

The book of Ecclesiastes, the writer says: " Ecc 1:1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
Ecc 1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

The answer is to conclude, that without God, all our efforts futile.

The question is, works for good, or works for salvation of one's soul?

The former is at our own consequence, the latter is God's consequence.

So it stands "“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me...."
requires God to perform in our behalf because we are not capable of loving God more than father, mother.
And again: Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I mean, what person is capable of doing that on it's own without defining what love is?

In order for us to meet that requirement, God has to first be born in us!

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Is your opinion that the Book of Revelation an example of 'God' knowing a future possibility or a future absolute?

Read in the first verse these words: "Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ...."

It is about Jesus Christ, the work He came to do for your soul and mine.

Now, did not for-tell the coming of Jesus hundreds of years prior?

And did not Jesus fulfill every dot-and-tittle of prophecy and the law?

Tell me not, that God does not know of future events.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

The kind of love that begets love is not a human trait, but God's.

Love attraction as in male/female is not essential for procreation, yet preferred.

Humanity can procreate on its own as stated:Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

There is then a love that is of God, and love that is of man.

Blessings, AJ

 

[TimothyA]

Read in the first verse these words: "Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ...."

It is about Jesus Christ, the work He came to do for your soul and mine.

Now, did not for-tell the coming of Jesus hundreds of years prior?

And did not Jesus fulfill every dot-and-tittle of prophecy and the law?

Tell me not, that God does not know of future events.

Blessings, AJ

You can't have it both ways with, on one hand, 'God' only knows only future possibilities, and potential of hearts, when we are talking about whether or not he with intent creates a mass murderer and evil, but then claim God does know all absolute future events when talking about biblical prophecy. He is either processes All-Knowledge (knowing everything that has happened, is happening, and all possible futures) or he is All-Knowing (knowing the absolute of all past, present, and future). If he knows only what is possible, then there is free-will and we have choice. If he knows absolutely what our choice will be, then there is no free-will, and he is culpable for our crimes... in which case, what place is it for him to forgive us anything?

 

[look3467]

You can't have it both ways with, on one hand, 'God' only knows only future possibilities, and potential of hearts, when we are talking about whether or not he with intent creates a mass murderer and evil, but then claim God does know all absolute future events when talking about biblical prophecy. He is either processes All-Knowledge (knowing everything that has happened, is happening, and all possible futures) or he is All-Knowing (knowing the absolute of all past, present, and future). If he knows only what is possible, then there is free-will and we have choice. If he knows absolutely what our choice will be, then there is no free-will, and he is culpable for our crimes... in which case, what place is it for him to forgive us anything?

Let's see, if I wanted to plan ahead to a point in my life where I thought I should retire, I would announce that at a certain age I am going to retire, and all the circumstances would lead to that end, that is, with my management of them.

I mean that, it is my making a statement that might not be attainable, given that I have no power to make things happen, only to adjust to things happening.

God does have the power to manipulate the conditions to bring about His goals, knowing full well the human potentials.

Let's take the life of Paul, then Saul; one whose life was changed 180 degree by the presences of God in Him.
God knew exactly what He needed to do with Paul as with many others as well, to bring about certain circumstances to His end meet.

But as for mankind's evil ways, may go unhindered for a while, but will in time either we put and end to it or God will.

Look at the history of the Jewish people. God both favored them when they were right with Him and likewise, disfavored them when they didn't.

When He says, " I will raise nation against nation" is God's way of causing us to cure some of the evil in the world.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

TimothyA

If he knows only what is possible, then there is free-will and we have choice. If he knows absolutely what our choice will be, then there is no free-will, and he is culpable for our crimes... in which case, what place is it for him to forgive us anything?

You make a good point!
There are some things we don't have free will in, like when we are born, to who.
Whether we are born in times of peace, wars.
Whether we are born with deficiencies.

We are allowed to exercise Free will within those perimeters, meaning, how will we take it?
If God is in us we will grow spiritually despite our infirmities, our sufferings, tribulations and pain.

If not, then we are on our own.

Because God placed us into this condition, He is in position to forgive all.

And that He did, read Romans 8:20.

Jesus is the price God paid for subjecting us to vanity, and Jesus is also the hope for our escape from it.

Without total and unconditional forgiveness, what reason would God have to pay the price?

Blessings, AJ

 

[cottage]

You'd rather just make empty claims that God is not good, based upon a cursory reading of scripture, and assigning a skewed theological understanding to that scripture. It is a straw man that you can knock down. Perhaps you'd better look up the definition.

Completely wrong! My claim that ‘God is not good’ is not based on the Bible, but on the Problem of Evil, and that is to say experience and facts, or in other words on the existence of suffering! I merely refer to the Bible to give example of the numerous instances where God threatens and uses violence as a response to the apologetic. And you still don’t understand the straw man fallacy.

God's coherency can only be truly understood theologically. I'm not convinced you're equipped for that kind of determination.

You are saying nothing at all. That’s just the sort of response that shows theists in a bad light. In fact there are more theologians and theist thinkers who argue rationally for their faith than those who do not, while your reply above is nothing more than obfuscation. Give me your theological argument, and I’ll give you my reasoned critique.

"Divine determinism" is more logical and rational than God's saving grace???

Yes, absolutely! Of course it is! (Argument below)

That's how God has always been understood. God is determined to reconcile us to God's Self. I really don't see how Edwards' view (and yours), which is skewed, not politically, but theologically, makes more sense, since the overarching qualities of God as presented by the tradition that has worshiped God, are love and grace.

Divine determinism. God is the greatest good. The former, having no contradictions, is logical. But the latter can be denied without contradiction, since we can conceive of a greater good (hence the PoE). So the tradition of love is simply an attribute awarded to the idea of God to make believers feel better about themselves, because obviously nobody wants to worship an uncaring or indifferent deity.

 

[cottage]

Love is a relationship, not a feeling or an instinct.

I’m sorry but that is not correct. Have you never heard of unrequited love, or worshipping someone from afar? Love can be very, very one-sided. And if a relationship is the definition of love then it means God cannot love those who don’t recognise him! Love is simply a human concept, a schematic and selfish means to enable procreation and to keep carers and infants together. And that is why the entire Godly love thing expires into an anthropomorphic absurdity.

Pot, meet kettle.

You might want to explain what you mean by that, with reference to what I’ve written above?

 

[sojourner]

Completely wrong! My claim that ‘God is not good’ is not based on the Bible, but on the Problem of Evil, and that is to say experience and facts, or in other words on the existence of suffering!

You're the one proof-texting certain passages of scripture and spouting an obviously "Biblically-based" theology...

I merely refer to the Bible to give example of the numerous instances where God threatens and uses violence as a response to the apologetic.

In your mind, why do those passages weigh so much heavier than the ones that claim God's goodness, mercy, love, etc.?

And you still don’t understand the straw man fallacy.

Whatever, dude.

Give me your theological argument, and I’ll give you my reasoned critique.

I'm not going to enter a theological debate with the unarmed.

the latter can be denied without contradiction, since we can conceive of a greater good (hence the PoE).

Only if your theology is skewed.

So the tradition of love is simply an attribute awarded to the idea of God to make believers feel better about themselves, because obviously nobody wants to worship an uncaring or indifferent deity.

God is not "awarded" attributes in order to "make us feel better about ourselves." We just call it as we see it. God has always taken care of us, despite the presence of evil and suffering. AS Dunemeister said, that ship of debate sailed a long time ago. PoE really poses no significant stumbling block for a good God.

I’m sorry but that is not correct. Have you never heard of unrequited love, or worshipping someone from afar? Love can be very, very one-sided.

Are you aware of the many terms for the English "love?" We're not talking about schoolboy crush, or infatuation, or sexual longing, or objectification. We're talking about a relationship. Have you ever tried to love mutually without a relationship? It just don't work. I'm sorry. You're the one who's mistaken about the kind of love that is understood to describe God's nature.

And if a relationship is the definition of love then it means God cannot love those who don’t recognise him!

But God can wait until they love God -- which is how scripture portrays God -- as the Father who waits until the Prodigal returns, as the shepherd who searches for the lost sheep until it is found.

Love is simply a human concept, a schematic and selfish means to enable procreation and to keep carers and infants together.

Honeymoons, birthdays, and Christmas must be a travesty at your house...

And that is why the entire Godly love thing expires into an anthropomorphic absurdity.

The Eeyor-esque POV displayed by that statement is the only anthropomorphic absurdity I'm aware of.

 

[sojourner]

You might want to explain what you mean by that, with reference to what I’ve written above?

you're making suffering a condition for love, which completely negates its meaning. I'm sorry but what you describe is conditional and contradictory (if not an immoral concept!).

Have you never heard of unrequited love, or worshipping someone from afar? Love can be very, very one-sided...
Love is simply a human concept, a schematic and selfish means to enable procreation and to keep carers and infants together.

I'm the one making suffering a condition for love??? When you're the one negating the whole love-concept because of the PoE???
Pot, meet kettle.

 

[TimothyA]

Let's see, if I wanted to plan ahead to a point in my life where I thought I should retire, I would announce that at a certain age I am going to retire, and all the circumstances would lead to that end, that is, with my management of them.

I mean that, it is my making a statement that might not be attainable, given that I have no power to make things happen, only to adjust to things happening.

God does have the power to manipulate the conditions to bring about His goals, knowing full well the human potentials.

Let's take the life of Paul, then Saul; one whose life was changed 180 degree by the presences of God in Him.
God knew exactly what He needed to do with Paul as with many others as well, to bring about certain circumstances to His end meet.

But as for mankind's evil ways, may go unhindered for a while, but will in time either we put and end to it or God will.

Look at the history of the Jewish people. God both favored them when they were right with Him and likewise, disfavored them when they didn't.

When He says, " I will raise nation against nation" is God's way of causing us to cure some of the evil in the world.

Blessings, AJ

This actually creates an something I didn't even think about. I was looking at this as either 'God' caused the world to exist and allowed free will or 'God' is in absolute control. What you put forth is that 'God' uses his knowledge of all possible futures to manipulate to his own end. Paul did not choose Christ out of free will. It was that 'God' knew which buttons to push to manipulate his conversion. We would have to then presume there was a mistake in choosing the original disciples, and that they were not up the the task of converting on the scale 'God' desired. His goals can then, in theory, be subverted.

 

[look3467]

This actually creates an something I didn't even think about. I was looking at this as either 'God' caused the world to exist and allowed free will or 'God' is in absolute control. What you put forth is that 'God' uses his knowledge of all possible futures to manipulate to his own end. Paul did not choose Christ out of free will. It was that 'God' knew which buttons to push to manipulate his conversion. We would have to then presume there was a mistake in choosing the original disciples, and that they were not up the the task of converting on the scale 'God' desired. His goals can then, in theory, be subverted.

"Paul did not choose Christ out of free will".

With an experience like that, who wouldn't convert?

I mean, being in the very presence of God?

There would be no hesitation on my part for a second.

Saul, was educated in the law, thus, was a perfect candidate for the job.

His heart was in it.

Blessings, AJ

 

[TimothyA]

Absolutely, but then it still returns to 'God' being culpable for all evil in this world and proof of his imperfection.

 

[look3467]

Absolutely, but then it still returns to 'God' being culpable for all evil in this world and proof of his imperfection.

Are you saying God is guilty of all evil as proof of His imperfection?

Blessings, AJ

 

[TimothyA]

Yes, yes I am. Especially, if he is manipulating free will to his own end.

(Before we get too far... I have to let you know, this discussion is mostly theory for me because I don't believe the God of Abraham to be anything more than a very unpleasant nature divinity.)

 

[look3467]

Yes, yes I am. Especially, if he is manipulating free will to his own end.

(Before we get too far... I have to let you know, this discussion is mostly theory for me because I don't believe the God of Abraham to be anything more than a very unpleasant nature divinity.)

Understood.
Our very presence in this discussion is food for thought for many readers.
Yea or nay, They will take from it as they choose.

Theory, is OK by me, since it is a privilege by choice.

God being guilty, yes, but not imperfect.

God is guilty for making His creation and subjecting us to this hellish environment.
Agree?

Would it not be fair to say that because we were subjected to all this, that we might be a bit angry at Him?

Angry enough that we might just take our frustrations out on His Son?

He sent us messengers and we stoned them.

He thought, well, if I sent my Son they must honor Him.

So He sent us His Son, and we accused Him being a false God, claiming to be the Son of God, giving us the image that He was equal to God: just blasphemous.

Well, we crucified Him! There......., we showed God just what we though of Him.

Anger justified?

God understood, that is why He did send His Son, so that our anger may be turned to Joy, by taking away the penalty of death from us and placing it on His Son.

1Pe 4:13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

Well, He was revealed, and so remains...........the joy to be experienced.

I understand that trying to push a point of view when the source of that view is unbelievable by you.

Blessings, AJ