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

[TimothyA]

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.

This is not what supposedly happened. 'God' sent his son as a sacrifice for the New Covenant... the final covenant is a series of failed covenants. Humanity was only a tool. Even Judas can be said to have been manipulated, and not truly responsible for his 'sin.'

 

[sojourner]

This is not what supposedly happened. 'God' sent his son as a sacrifice for the New Covenant... the final covenant is a series of failed covenants. Humanity was only a tool. Even Judas can be said to have been manipulated, and not truly responsible for his 'sin.'

I don't know how you've arrived at this conclusion. Failed covenants? A covenant requires two parties. If a covenant has failed, it's likely due to humanity's propensity to sin, rather than due to a loving and steadfast God.
Humanity is a "tool" for what, exactly?
Of course Judas was culpable for his sin.
What are you talking about?

 

[look3467]

This is not what supposedly happened. 'God' sent his son as a sacrifice for the New Covenant... the final covenant is a series of failed covenants. Humanity was only a tool. Even Judas can be said to have been manipulated, and not truly responsible for his 'sin.'

I understand what you are trying to say.
God sent His Son for one primary purpose, and that was to save "that which was lost".

The first covenant was added to qualify God as the only possible Savior of "that which was lost".

That which was lost, of its own will could not effect its salvation, save God.

Therefore, there had to be a new covenant, but not after first, God's fulfilling of it Himself, nullifying the gravity of it.

Not taking them away, but only fulfilling of them. (Law)

Now, the "tool" as you put it, is the same as saying "an instrument in God's hands".

God used them to meet His ends, as did with Judas, the Romans, Peter and all the rest.

The instruments used were as like angels in this sense, that they were held guiltless of their crimes as evidenced by Jesus' cry, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

God works with what is available to accomplish His ends, therefore, we can say "He is in control".

What happens is that because mankind is a separate entity with a will, evil is always an option.
And, it happens.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Fisherman]

If you are a parent, you let your children do things that allow them to make their own choices, even though you know what the end result would be.
God only grants you your choice in the end.

 

[look3467]

I don't know how you've arrived at this conclusion. Failed covenants? A covenant requires two parties. If a covenant has failed, it's likely due to humanity's propensity to sin, rather than due to a loving and steadfast God.
Humanity is a "tool" for what, exactly?
Of course Judas was culpable for his sin.
What are you talking about?

The first covenant could not be met by mankind, individually or as a whole, save God.
(A designed default)

The second covenant was to introduce a means by which mankind could attain the requirements for salvation. (designed corrective action)

First step was to introduce Himself to Mankind via Abram/Abraham.
Down the chain, prophets prophesying the coming redemption via the Messiah.
Then, the actual coming of the Messiah as promised but not first, instituting the law (Ten Commandments) by which no man could take credit, save God, for our salvation.

The instrument God used was/is the nation of Israel, of whom were made stubborn to the letter of the law, therefore blinded by the law to not see the coming Messiah for who He was.

Thus, in their innocence, they were loyal to the law and had Him crucified.

Now, the payment was made in full, releasing mankind from the penalty of death (Lost condition) to that of Life condition, via the Son of God, being that it was God saving mankind.

Now, both Jew and Gentile are co-members of that one body spiritually, to where there is neither one or the other, but one in Christ.

All that work was only for the salvation of the soul of mankind, as a gift, a free gift at that.

What we do with that is a matter of choice. (Take it or leave it)

So the words that say:"Whatever we sow, we shall reap" still apply as our work and not God's.
So we have full responsibility for our own work of whatever it is, tired and tested to our own reward or consequence.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

If you are a parent, you let your children do things that allow them to make their own choices, even though you know what the end result would be.
God only grants you your choice in the end.

True, He gives them up to their own desires if they insist.

Blessings, AJ

 

[cottage]

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

Yes! The PoE concerns all theists’ claims and references to a loving deity, which of course includes references to the biblical God.

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

What you raise here is actually a crucial point. The weighing of particular passages to balance goodness against suffering is akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted. And in any case a single instance is all that is required to prove the contradiction. Evil and suffering exists (and God is party to it), as passages in the Bible acknowledge.

Only if your theology is skewed.
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.

You need to explain precisely what you mean by: ‘God has always taken care of us.’ Who are ‘us’?
Oh I can assure you the existence of evil remains a very significant problem for those whose faith is centred on a God of love, for the simple reason that the argument has never been refuted. And even on here I believe there are three threads currently addressing the matter. The question of evil isn’t a subject dreamt up by hardcore anti-theists, but something that the greatest theological minds have wrestled with and had to face up to. The problem exists without it having to be pointed up by sceptics.

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.

To ‘try and love mutually without a relationship’ is something of a tautological mindbender that I won’t even try to unpack. But the essence of an all-loving God must be unconditional love, otherwise ‘all loving’ is a misnomer.

So how should we describe a God of love, or ‘pure love’ as some would have it? Surely it must be something along the lines ofthis: An unconditional, charitable, care and concern for the loved, an affection that is deep, genuine and unremitting? There may be even more to it than that, but there cannot logically be less.

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.

If God’s love is defined by relationships, then by your own admission there are times when God isn’t able to love. And in that case God is not all loving at all times.

And consider this: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved(John 3:16-17)."

Now that is conditional love. Clearly he doesn't 'so love the world' to an extent where all are to be saved! He expects recognition and fealty in return for his love, only then he will consider the saving bit.

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

Those happy occasions are no different in my house than they are in yours. I don’t subject every tradition and institution to analytical scrutiny any more that you would bore the pants off everyone with a piecemeal Christian lecture on every event. There is a place and a time for everything.

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

Then please explain what is absurd about it?

 

[zflash7]

Its obvious God likes to have fun..LOOK at His creation..He's seriously ammused, now the last thing he wants is boaring..Ahh suffering who cares..after a zillion years you get over it.

 

[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. Get over yourself.

You said: “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."

So the bad stuff is necessary for good. The very essence and existence of Christianity, and our saviour, Jesus, is dependent upon good overcoming evil. No evil, then no good, and no good, then no Christ. Suffering is Christianity’s raison d’etre.

 

[cottage]

I don't know how you've arrived at this conclusion. Failed covenants? A covenant requires two parties. If a covenant has failed, it's likely due to humanity's propensity to sin, rather than due to a loving and steadfast God.

My understanding of the New Covenant is that it is not an agreement between parties but God’s promise to the human race. We are to receive God’s mercy and blessing not because of anything we’ve done but because of what Christ did?

Of course Judas was culpable for his sin.
What are you talking about?

If Jesus wanted to be betrayed and killed in order to redeem all humanity (the very reason he was sent to earth) then Judas Iscariot’s role was a central part of the preconceived plan. Surely he ought not to be vilified for carrying out God’s work?

 

[cottage]

cottage
He is the originator of love and adulation.

That still doesn’t even begin to answer the question! Why does God, an omnipotent, all sufficient being need, desire or want adulation and worship? And incidentally, he is also the ‘originator’ of evil and suffering.

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.

No disagreement there.

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

By God’s own doing, and in full knowledge of the outcome.

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.

This once again clearly confirms that God craves his creation’s worship and affection, even to the detriment of others. The vanity is God’s!

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

Question: What is this terrible, unspeakable transgression that deserves eternal punishment? Answer: A lack of belief! A lack of belief! So here we have threats and intimidation from a supposed God of love who deliberately sent evil into the world in the first place. This all powerful, all knowing, ever present and supposedly loving God will inflict the most evil torture imaginable on his own people for simply daring not to believe in him. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. Indeed! And what an example to set for the world?

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.

Nonsense! We have duties and obligations to our fellow men. Such efforts are not futile, but an essential part of what it is to be a human being, notwithstanding the existence of any gods.

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.

Thank you. This really reinforces the image of a self-obsessed deity who would set family members against one another, inducing hatred and spite, in his vainglorious quest to impose his authority on his own imperfect creation.

 

[sojourner]

Yes! The PoE concerns all theists’ claims and references to a loving deity, which of course includes references to the biblical God.

That's not an answer. My issue in this quotation is your misuse of the texts by proof-texting.

The weighing of particular passages to balance goodness against suffering is akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted.

What about your weighing particular passages to balance suffering against goodness? Again, pot, meet kettle.
We weigh scripture in order to judge its importance in informing our understanding of how God works within the realities of life -- not just the good/evil "scorekeeping" trivialities, but deep and spiritual issues. Some texts weigh heavier than others. Yes, there are a few passages that speak about God creating evil, but they are far, far outweighed, both in terms of quantity and in terms of theological coherence, by the preponderance of the Biblical narrative that points us toward a God of love and mercy.

And in any case a single instance is all that is required to prove the contradiction.

Again, goes to your misuse of the texts. We use the texts to help us gain an overall picture of how God interacts with us. You use them as a punch-line.

Evil and suffering exists (and God is party to it), as passages in the Bible acknowledge.

Again, only in a certain manner of speaking. Those few passages do not "weigh out" as particularly authoritative in establishing God's overall nature or character.

You need to explain precisely what you mean by: ‘God has always taken care of us.’ Who are ‘us’?

specifically, "those who believe in God." In OT understanding, that included Israel. In post-modern Xy, it includes all humanity. You don't believe God takes care of you, because you don't believe in God. But we believe God takes care of you.

Oh I can assure you the existence of evil remains a very significant problem for those whose faith is centred on a God of love, for the simple reason that the argument has never been refuted. The question of evil isn’t a subject dreamt up by hardcore anti-theists, but something that the greatest theological minds have wrestled with and had to face up to. The problem exists without it having to be pointed up by sceptics.

Theodicy is always problematic. However, it need not, has not, does not serve as a significant qualifier for God's nature. That part of the issue, as Dune said, was settled long ago. That is, until scoffers dig it up for further sad and tired review. Once again, we deal with the problem seriously. You use it as a punch-line in order to scoff God.

the essence of an all-loving God must be unconditional love, otherwise ‘all loving’ is a misnomer.

Isn't that what I've stated all along? That God is love, and love is unconditional? I believe I have.

So how should we describe a God of love, or ‘pure love’ as some would have it? Surely it must be something along the lines ofthis: An unconditional, charitable, care and concern for the loved, an affection that is deep, genuine and unremitting? There may be even more to it than that, but there cannot logically be less.

OK. Great! Glad you're on board with us!

If God’s love is defined by relationships, then by your own admission there are times when God isn’t able to love. And in that case God is not all loving at all times.

We are always in some sort of relationship with God. As the Bible makes clear, "Where can I hide from God's love? If I climb the highest mountain, you are there." When we completely turn our backs on God, God still waits.

If God’s love is defined by relationships, then by your own admission there are times when God isn’t able to love. And in that case God is not all loving at all times.

And consider this: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved(John 3:16-17)."

Now that is conditional love. Clearly he doesn't 'so love the world' to an extent where all are to be saved! He expects recognition and fealty in return for his love, only then he will consider the saving bit.

Once again, your theological slip is showing. You're treating this as some sort of rewards-based proposition, wherein salvation is some sort of magical event. It is not. clearly, John deals with the process of salvation -- that is, growing in a relationship with God. If God intends the world to be saved, that's precisely what will happen at some point in God's time: The world will be saved. Until that time comes, God is perfectly willing to wait. All are reconciled to God because of the Incarnation. All shall eventually come to God, because God is "home." The process of salvation will be completed when all are in love and felicity.

Those happy occasions are no different in my house than they are in yours.

Your statement about love relationships, which precipitated my statement about those "happy occasions" is incongruent with your statement here. If you really really feel about love as you say you do, those occasions cannot, by definition, be "no different" from those occasions in my home.

Then please explain what is absurd about it?

Do I really have to zip up the cardigan, put on my sneakers, sing "It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood," and invite in Mr. McFeely for you?
Eeyore is a caricature of a gloomy mind set, where everything is defined in grayer shades of black.
your philosophical outlook on human spirituality is similarly a caricature of gloom.
"Well... we can't all, and some don't. That's just How it Is."

 

[sojourner]

You said: “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."

So the bad stuff is necessary for good. The very essence and existence of Christianity, and our saviour, Jesus, is dependent upon good overcoming evil. No evil, then no good, and no good, then no Christ. Suffering is Christianity’s raison d’etre.

I understand where you got my quotation in the first paragraph. What I don't understand is where the second quotation came from. It isn't mine. Is it supposed to be your answer?

I don't think the bad stuff is necessary for the good stuff at all. Evil does nothing to inform good. The very essence of Xy is to reconcile us to God. That skews different than "suffering is Xy's raison d'etre." The statement, "No evil, then no good" is not logical at all. good is not dependent upon evil. When God created, creation was "good." No evil.

 

[sojourner]

My understanding of the New Covenant is that it is not an agreement between parties but God’s promise to the human race. We are to receive God’s mercy and blessing not because of anything we’ve done but because of what Christ did?

A covenant is always -- by definition -- an agreement between parties.
Jesus, being fully human, is "one of us," as the Bible tells us. God showed mercy by becoming one of us. Fully one of us. That act of Incarnation is what reconciles humanity to God.

If Jesus wanted to be betrayed and killed in order to redeem all humanity (the very reason he was sent to earth) then Judas Iscariot’s role was a central part of the preconceived plan. Surely he ought not to be vilified for carrying out God’s work?

Being betrayed and killed isn't what "redeemed all humanity." It was not the very reason he came to earth. God's "preconceived plan" includes neither lying nor deceit, neither terrorism nor death. The reason the crucifixion took place is found in Philippians 2: He became obedient, even to the point of death -- even death on a cross. If God was to be fully human, that means that Christ would have to participate in all the vagaries of humanity -- including death -- while, at the same time, remaining obedient to the Father. Since God's purposes were neither Rome's purposes, nor the religious authorities' purposes, that created a conflict, which humanity decided could be resolved by an act of terrorism. God, being fully human in the person of Jesus, had no choice but to subject himself to that act of terrorism, or else be disobedient to God's purposes by renouncing what he had taught.

Judas is culpable for his sin of betrayal.

yet again, your bad theological constructs are not up to the challenge of supporting your viewpoint.

 

[cottage]

That's not an answer. My issue in this quotation is your misuse of the texts by proof-texting.

I don’t misuse them. I quote them verbatim. I’m only guilty of misuse if they are wrong, or I’ve deliberately altered them in some way. If they give an example of God threatening or using evil then I’ve used them legitimately to support my argument. Those passages say what they say and can’t be unsaid.

What about your weighing particular passages to balance suffering against goodness? Again, pot, meet kettle.

Let me explain for the umpteenth time. The problem of evil exists because theists want to say God is the epitome of goodness. Now, you could quote 999 examples of goodness, mercy and compassion, but I only have to give one instance of evil to demonstrate a contradiction. The 999 positive examples cannot negate a single negative one. This will be the case whether as factual existence or as written words.

We weigh scripture in order to judge its importance in informing our understanding of how God works within the realities of life -- not just the good/evil "scorekeeping" trivialities, but deep and spiritual issues. Some texts weigh heavier than others. Yes, there are a few passages that speak about God creating evil, but they are far, far outweighed, both in terms of quantity and in terms of theological coherence, by the preponderance of the Biblical narrative that points us toward a God of love and mercy.

Missing the point. The problem of evil concerns the concept of identity as a God who is pure love. There never has been any dispute or argument concerning a God who is sometimes loving and sometimes not. Indeed, God can be both good and evil without contradiction.

Again, goes to your misuse of the texts. We use the texts to help us gain an overall picture of how God interacts with us. You use them as a punch-line.

It is entirely irrelevant to the problem of evil how believers interact with God or how they gain an overall picture. In fact it may very well be the case that on balance God is for good rather than for evil. But the quoted passages illuminate examples where evil acts or intentions are stated, and that is all that is required to make the point.

Again, only in a certain manner of speaking. Those few passages do not "weigh out" as particularly authoritative in establishing God's overall nature or character.

I’m afraid they do. As mentioned previously a single example proves the contradiction.

specifically, "those who believe in God." In OT understanding, that included Israel. In post-modern Xy, it includes all humanity. You don't believe God takes care of you, because you don't believe in God. But we believe God takes care of you.

Very clearly God’s love doesn’t include all humanity. In fact I think you’d have a difficult job to show God has taken care of any aspect of humanity.

Theodicy is always problematic. However, it need not, has not, does not serve as a significant qualifier for God's nature. That part of the issue, as Dune said, was settled long ago. That is, until scoffers dig it up for further sad and tired review. Once again, we deal with the problem seriously. You use it as a punch-line in order to scoff God.

Then I invite you to explain how the problem has been settled? If it were settled there would be an argument or proof to contrary. So let’s hear it? And you do not deal with the problem at all, but only offer responses apologetically.

OK. Great! Glad you're on board with us!

So if we’ve established what Godly love is to your satisfaction, then why do we not see it? Where is this unconditional, unremitting love that God has for his creation? Why do people suffer if they are genuinely cared for?

We are always in some sort of relationship with God. As the Bible makes clear, "Where can I hide from God's love? If I climb the highest mountain, you are there." When we completely turn our backs on God, God still waits.

If I may remind you that your argument is that Godly love is a relationship, two-way traffic in other words. But unbelievers do not love God; therefore there can be no relationship, which means there cannot be a loving God as there is no relationship. (I’m simply applying your reasoning, btw.)

Once again, your theological slip is showing. You're treating this as some sort of rewards-based proposition, wherein salvation is some sort of magical event. It is not. clearly, John deals with the process of salvation -- that is, growing in a relationship with God. If God intends the world to be saved, that's precisely what will happen at some point in God's time: The world will be saved. Until that time comes, God is perfectly willing to wait. All are reconciled to God because of the Incarnation. All shall eventually come to God, because God is "home." The process of salvation will be completed when all are in love and felicity.

This is about stated words and not theological special pleading. I saying the entire redemption thing is illogical and contradictory. And it is a rewards-based offer. The New Covenant isn’t unconditional (despite some people thinking the contrary). Individuals will be saved, providing they come to Christ in faith.

Your statement about love relationships, which precipitated my statement about those "happy occasions" is incongruent with your statement here. If you really really feel about love as you say you do, those occasions cannot, by definition, be "no different" from those occasions in my home.

Oh don’t speak like a drama queen! Lol! These discussions are about views that are held philosophically? You need to separate academic scrutiny from the emotions that we all share. Do you suspend rational thinking and logic in your ordinary life, the way you do with your religious beliefs? No, of course you don’t. Away from this forum we’re all much of a muchness. In our everyday lives we love and are loved without questioning the cause or agonising over the nature of its meaning. Did Descartes really believe he might not exist? Did Bishop Berkeley really think there was no such thing as the material world?

Do I really have to zip up the cardigan, put on my sneakers, sing "It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood," and invite in Mr. McFeely for you?
Eeyore is a caricature of a gloomy mind set, where everything is defined in grayer shades of black.
your philosophical outlook on human spirituality is similarly a caricature of gloom.
"Well... we can't all, and some don't. That's just How it Is."

I would rather you answered my question properly instead of just pronouncing on my philosophical views, in classic red herring form. I said if a relationship is the definition of love then it means God cannot love those who don’t recognise him! I also said that love is a human concept. If it isn’t then explain to me exactly what it is.

 

[cottage]

A covenant is always -- by definition -- an agreement between parties.
Jesus, being fully human, is "one of us," as the Bible tells us. God showed mercy by becoming one of us. Fully one of us. That act of Incarnation is what reconciles humanity to God.

The usual definition of a covenant is a binding contractual agreement between two or more parties. What I’m saying is that God’s covenant was not an agreement as above between parties but a promise to the other party, man, an act of grace on God’s part. But a covenant by proxy is no covenant at all!

Being betrayed and killed isn't what "redeemed all humanity." It was not the very reason he came to earth. God's "preconceived plan" includes neither lying nor deceit, neither terrorism nor death. The reason the crucifixion took place is found in Philippians 2: He became obedient, even to the point of death -- even death on a cross. If God was to be fully human, that means that Christ would have to participate in all the vagaries of humanity -- including death -- while, at the same time, remaining obedient to the Father. Since God's purposes were neither Rome's purposes, nor the religious authorities' purposes, that created a conflict, which humanity decided could be resolved by an act of terrorism. God, being fully human in the person of Jesus, had no choice but to subject himself to that act of terrorism, or else be disobedient to God's purposes by renouncing what he had taught.
Judas is culpable for his sin of betrayal.
yet again, your bad theological constructs are not up to the challenge of supporting your viewpoint.

It is a point of logic, not theology, that I’m arguing.
Jesus had no option but to subject himself to the torture and death that was prescribed by the Romans, for two reasons. He was human and the event was ordained. If Jesus was God then the crucifixion and resurrection were not an accident or a chance event. Jesus was sent to earth for a reason and that reason became evident in his death and mankind’s supposed salvation. Otherwise the opposite situation must be true, in which case there can be no omnipotent, omniscient God. Although Jesus went willingly to his death, that willingness, that event, was merely another aspect God controlled, had foreseen and foreordained. Judas simply played his part, according to the plan. Jesus even knew that Judas would give him away.

 

[cottage]

I understand where you got my quotation in the first paragraph. What I don't understand is where the second quotation came from. It isn't mine. Is it supposed to be your answer?

Not sure, but I think it was your post 225. My answer is the second paragraph.

I don't think the bad stuff is necessary for the good stuff at all. Evil does nothing to inform good. The very essence of Xy is to reconcile us to God. That skews different than "suffering is Xy's raison d'etre." The statement, "No evil, then no good" is not logical at all. good is not dependent upon evil. When God created, creation was "good." No evil.

Okay, I’m happy that we can agree there is no logical necessity for evil. What I’m saying is that without evil there would be no reason for Jesus coming to earth, no reason for the act of self-sacrifice and the crucifixion, no need for the Resurrection and the need for our salvation. Jesus the Saviour is dependent upon sin. And why do we need to be reconciled to God? Because of sin! Christianity and evil are inseparable.
It’s all very well you saying when God created the world it was good, but it wasn’t good for very long. And what’s more God knew it wouldn’t be good for long. God created evil, the same as he created everything else.

 

[sojourner]

I don’t misuse them. I quote them verbatim. I’m only guilty of misuse if they are wrong, or I’ve deliberately altered them in some way. If they give an example of God threatening or using evil then I’ve used them legitimately to support my argument. Those passages say what they say and can’t be unsaid.

I assume you're a smart chap. When reading ancient, translated, heavily-edited texts such as these, one has to do at least some exegesis in order to understand what the texts really mean. If they give an example of God as threatening or "using evil," we need to get at the theological and cultural reasons why they give those examples. Surely you can't mean to say that you're treating the Bible like some kind of history textbook?! A cursory and surface reading of any text like that, and then basing a theological statement upon the validity of such reading does constitute a misuse of the text. Lots of Christians do it, too, but that doesn't make it right.

Let me explain for the umpteenth time. The problem of evil exists because theists want to say God is the epitome of goodness. Now, you could quote 999 examples of goodness, mercy and compassion, but I only have to give one instance of evil to demonstrate a contradiction. The 999 positive examples cannot negate a single negative one. This will be the case whether as factual existence or as written words.

If the Bible were a simple textbook, only giving raw and irrefutable data, you would be correct. But the Bible is not that sort of text. That's why it must undergo, in the exegesis, a process of weighing what is more important information and what is less. It is precisely because of the overwhelming communication of God as ultimate good that we must lend those statements pertaining to evil much less weight. The Bible is theological truth, not raw fact.

Missing the point. The problem of evil concerns the concept of identity as a God who is pure love. There never has been any dispute or argument concerning a God who is sometimes loving and sometimes not. Indeed, God can be both good and evil without contradiction.

I understand that. That's why it's problematic. But it can't be so easily explained away as "sometimes God is good and sometimes not." We have to look deeper than that. Using theology to help us understand God also requires that we use theology to understand why evil exists when God is ultimate good. A "good/bad" God has no apparent contradictions, but if we were to study the matter theologically, a "good/bad" God ultimately causes more problems than it solves. Problem is that you're forcing the existence of evil to be the absolute in the equation. Theology tells us that a good God is the absolute in the equation. All else relates to that in some way, and takes a back seat to that in some way.

It is entirely irrelevant to the problem of evil how believers interact with God or how they gain an overall picture. In fact it may very well be the case that on balance God is for good rather than for evil. But the quoted passages illuminate examples where evil acts or intentions are stated, and that is all that is required to make the point.

See above. As I've shown, it isn't all that's required. We also need to figure out who, why, intended audience, language and cultural idiosyncracies, etc.

I’m afraid they do. As mentioned previously a single example proves the contradiction.

No. No, Cottage. No. They don't.

Very clearly God’s love doesn’t include all humanity. In fact I think you’d have a difficult job to show God has taken care of any aspect of humanity.

Based upon what? I don't think that statement is clearly borne out at all. I think you'd have a difficult job to show that God is ambivalent toward any aspect of humanity.
You will now no doubt say that suffering is the only proof you need. Again, the presence of suffering isn't the primary consideration here.

Then I invite you to explain how the problem has been settled? If it were settled there would be an argument or proof to contrary. So let’s hear it? And you do not deal with the problem at all, but only offer responses apologetically.

Oh, I deal with it every single day! The formal study of theodicy really isn't an area of focus for me, but I believe it has to do with God giving us the freedom to experience all of life, including our own power to do as we choose.

So if we’ve established what Godly love is to your satisfaction, then why do we not see it? Where is this unconditional, unremitting love that God has for his creation? Why do people suffer if they are genuinely cared for?

You're really hung up on this, aren't you? Don't you imagine that there is comfort given, strength afforded, viewpoints sharpened, and resolve bolstered through the process of suffering? Don't you suppose that deep meaning can come about through the process of suffering, and when the suffering is over the grace of new life is granted? I can imagine no more meaningless or boring existence than life being all happy and fluff and getting what we want when we want it.

In order to temper steel, you have to heat it up and beat the crap out of it with a big hammer. Ultimately, the human spirit works the same way. We are tested through our suffering.

You are now doubtless going to say that "God didn't have to make the world work that way."
We can suppose all day long. At the end of the day, all we know is that this is the way the world is, creation was deemed "good" by a Creator who knows "good" better than anyone else, and that we're better for the grace that comes as a result of living through it.

If I may remind you that your argument is that Godly love is a relationship, two-way traffic in other words. But unbelievers do not love God; therefore there can be no relationship, which means there cannot be a loving God as there is no relationship. (I’m simply applying your reasoning, btw.)

sometimes the relationship is one-way. But it is relationship, nonetheless.

This is about stated words and not theological special pleading.

Smoke and mirrors. It must be argued theologically, because it is theology. the "stated words" have to be exegeted and then a theological construct applied.

I saying the entire redemption thing is illogical and contradictory.

Only if you don't have the entire story. Only if you don't know what's happening theologically. It's quite obvious that you don't.

And it is a rewards-based offer.

which you infer from a cursory reading of the texts. It isn't a rewards-based offer. If it were, it wouldn't be "grace." It'd be "payment."

The New Covenant isn’t unconditional (despite some people thinking the contrary). Individuals will be saved, providing they come to Christ in faith.

Wrong. Reconciliation has been achieved for us. Since that has happened, now the way is clear for us to come to God.

Oh don’t speak like a drama queen! Lol! These discussions are about views that are held philosophically? You need to separate academic scrutiny from the emotions that we all share. Do you suspend rational thinking and logic in your ordinary life, the way you do with your religious beliefs? No, of course you don’t. Away from this forum we’re all much of a muchness. In our everyday lives we love and are loved without questioning the cause or agonising over the nature of its meaning. Did Descartes really believe he might not exist? Did Bishop Berkeley really think there was no such thing as the material world?

I'm sorry. I thought we were dealing with verbatim texts here. What you wrote is what you said, so it must be what you mean. No exegesis necessary. Right?

God cannot love those who don’t recognise him!

God can and does love those who don't recognize God. They just can't love God back. Reciprocity, not relationship, is what is lost.

I also said that love is a human concept. If it isn’t then explain to me exactly what it is.

It's a relationship.

 

[sojourner]

The usual definition of a covenant is a binding contractual agreement between two or more parties. What I’m saying is that God’s covenant was not an agreement as above between parties but a promise to the other party, man, an act of grace on God’s part. But a covenant by proxy is no covenant at all!

That's the beauty of the Incarnation. That makes it a bilateral affair. When Jesus instituted the New Covenant, Jesus, fully God, was on one side of the Covenant. Jesus, fully human, was on the other side of the Covenant.

It is a point of logic, not theology, that I’m arguing.

I know. It's like trying to cut down the largest tree in the forest with a herring.

Jesus had no option but to subject himself to the torture and death that was prescribed by the Romans, for two reasons. He was human and the event was ordained.

Not so, on either count. Jesus need not have gone to Jerusalem (the act which put him in a dangerous position). He saw the way the wind was blowing. He could have stopped what he was doing and faded quietly into the background. Additionally, I don't believe for one second that the event was "ordained."

If Jesus was God then the crucifixion and resurrection were not an accident or a chance event. Jesus was sent to earth for a reason and that reason became evident in his death and mankind’s supposed salvation.

It's not because Jesus was God, it's precisely because God became human that he became obedient to his ministry and was subject to death on a cross. That's an important theological distinction.

Otherwise the opposite situation must be true, in which case there can be no omnipotent, omniscient God.

Because, as we all know, an omnipotent God is the quintessential scofflaw.

Although Jesus went willingly to his death, that willingness, that event, was merely another aspect God controlled, had foreseen and foreordained.

God-controlled? No. Jesus prayed fervently that he not be subjected to that death. Roman-controlled? Absolutely. Pilate could have grown a set and told the religious authorities to sit on it and twirl.

Judas simply played his part, according to the plan.

Only to the extent that he perfectly played the part of the imperfect human.

Jesus even knew that Judas would give him away.

Even psychics can predict the future. What's your point?

 

[sojourner]

What I’m saying is that without evil there would be no reason for Jesus coming to earth, no reason for the act of self-sacrifice and the crucifixion, no need for the Resurrection and the need for our salvation.

Your theological slip is showing again. Perhaps a safety-pin is in order here? Without sin there would be no need for humanity to be reconciled to God. But sin and evil are not synonymous.

Jesus the Saviour is dependent upon sin. And why do we need to be reconciled to God? Because of sin! Christianity and evil are inseparable.

See above. Not true. I can think of lots of things that I do on a daily basis that "miss the mark," but would not be identified as "evil."

God created evil, the same as he created everything else.

[very patiently and slowly]
No...
God's whole creation was termed "good."