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

[logician]

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 a god make a chaotic multiverse where true prophecy was impossible?

The obvious answer is that there is no omniscient god.

 

[TimothyA]

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

It is a whole lot of unnecessary drama, don't you think? My big problem with the God of Abraham is that he needs... he needs obedience... he needs to be loved... he needs to be acknowledged. This is apparent from the very beginning of Biblical "history". It may have been the serpent who whispered in Eve's ear, but it was 'God' who created the temptation. It was 'God" who caused the conflict between Cain and Able. It was 'God' who acted in anger and sadness when he flooded the world. It was 'God' who asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. It was 'God' who delivered his "chosen people" into the slavery of Egypt, only so that he could deliver them from it and command absolute obedience. The God of the Bible is not free of passion or change. A thing that suffers from being changeable cannot be said to be perfect, for a thing that is perfect needs and wants for nothing.

 

[cottage]

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 was unilateral! An agreement between two individuals is just that, and nothing more. One man cannot presume to act as a surrogate for humanity at large.

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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

Well, either the event was ordained or there is no omnipotent, omniscient God. It is as simple and straightforward as that. Jesus was human, but no ordinary human, and an omniscient God was not surprised or shocked to learn of the unfolding events. Jesus didn’t make a wild guess that Judas would betray him; as the Son of God he had foreknowledge of his fate, just as the Father foresaw and foreordained it. God may have briefly turned away from his Son, in spite of the impassioned plea (no benevolence there, then?), but the whole business had been cooked up in advance and Dad would soon whisk his boy back to headquarters with nary a scratch to show for his earthly experience.

The deed had been done and mankind had been saved from the wrath and vengeance of a wholly good God. Okay, we know it sounds immoral to kill your own Son, but (A) Jesus didn’t actually die, and (B) God didn’t actually do the murder by his own hand. So everything is right with the world? Well, no, actually. Nothing has changed. But we’re okay to carry on sinning because we’ve been forgiven. Yes, but wouldn’t it be better if all evil and suffering ceased, rather than letting us carry on as before with the blessing of God’s forgiveness? It would, true enough, but it’s not about God ending suffering. It’s got more to do with the Bible writers attempting to accommodate the existence of evil while intimidating the masses with the supposed power and authority of God, tempered by the humility of meek and mild Jesus. And it works splendidly because millions believe it!

 

[cottage]

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.

This is special pleading to a point where it is becoming comical. There are so many examples in the Bible of evil and killing, by God or in the name of God, that it is impossible to mention but a few at the time. And please don’t insult my intelligence and yours by trying to explain away every single example as meaning something other than what is said, because regardless of the meaning you want to ascribe to the passages the fact remains that ‘God’ and ‘evil’ are a contradiction in terms. And that is the argument.

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22)

“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” (1 Kings 20:35-36)
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you.” (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)
“After this, David subdued and humbled the Philistines by conquering Gath, their largest city. David also conquered the land of Moab. He made the people lie down on the ground in a row, and he measured them off in groups with a length of rope. He measured off two groups to be executed for every one group to be spared. The Moabites who were spared became David's servants and brought him tribute money. “If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22). (2 Samuel 8:1-2) For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51)
“But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7)
"O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prove today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant. Prove that I have done all this at your command. O LORD, answer me! Answer me so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God and that you have brought them back to yourself." Immediately the fire of the LORD flashed down from heaven and burned up the young bull, the wood, the stones, and the dust. It even licked up all the water in the ditch! And when the people saw it, they fell on their faces and cried out, "The LORD is God! The LORD is God!" Then Elijah commanded, "Seize all the prophets of Baal. Don't let a single one escape!" So the people seized them all, and Elijah took them down to the Kishon Valley and killed them there. (1 Kings 18:36-40)

The above are just a few examples of those that refer to killing, examples of slavery and rape to follow.

 

[cottage]

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.

To ‘weigh what is more important’ is just special pleading. Of course you would give greater consideration to the aspects that you want to believe true, but that doesn’t make the considerable number negative examples disappear, and nor does it divest them of their meaning.
And I disagree that the overwhelming communication of God is as the ultimate good. The message throughout the Bible is that God is the ultimate power. And whether that power is good is the question raised by the PoE.

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.

The only possible conclusion, assuming that God exists, is that he is indifferent to human suffering, and takes no interest in us other than what is necessary to facilitate the world’s continued existence. The deduction is demonstrated in two ways: from experience and by the law of non-contradiction. In the first instance ‘evil and suffering exists’ is true. In the second instance God cannot logically be other than the creator in the same way as God cannot be other than necessarily existent, but no contradiction is involved when we deny ‘God is love.’ Love is at the very top of the human wish list, because it makes no sense at all to worship and invest our emotions in a being that cares not a jot for us. There is no proof for God, but there is proof that the world carries on with a mix of suffering and joy, in roughly equal measures.

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.

No, it’s you andnot‘we’who needs to figure out those things, if you can. Evil and suffering exist, and no careful choice of words or scholarly exegesis can deny what we see occurring daily in experience and what is written in the Holy Bible. There are so many instances of God threatening or using violence* in the Bible that it would be foolish and self-defeating to say none, or only a few of them, mean what they say. *In fact the number is so great that my every response to you could easily be taken up with posting them for days on end.

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.

Well of course suffering is the prime consideration, if God loves and cares for all humanity! I’ve already touched upon this above, but I’m happy to continue. There are several facts I think you’ll agree with. Nobody is free from suffering; in fact everybody suffers at times. There is no absolute justice; in fact everybody experiences some form of injustice or unfairness. There is no universal happiness; in fact there are some whose lives are wretched from beginning to end. Everybody dies; and there is no dignity or self-respect in death.

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.

But that doesn’t explain the existence of suffering. Free will doesn’t imply necessary evil.

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.

So now you’re making a case for suffering, making evil a condition for goodness! So, the circular argument again.

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.

We don’t know that the creation was ‘good’, and we don’t know there is a creator. And we don’t know that we’re better for there being what there is. But what we do know is that evil and suffering exists, and that there is no logically necessary reason for its existence.

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

Oh what nonsense! There can be one-way love, but you can’t have a one-way relationship.

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

Wrong! Salvation has been achieved for us - conditionally. In Acts it says 'believe in me and you will be saved'. Faith is the necessary element for salvation. But even faith alone isn't sufficient, it seems.
Didn't Jesus looked right through the rich ruler who asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. He was told to sell up, give his possessions to the poor and ‘Follow me.’ So it isn’t merely a matter of faith, of believing, or even observing God’s laws and demands. The wealthy ruler had faith, but it seemed he didn’t have the commitment and wasn’t able to forsake the luxuries of material world. (Basic Sunday school stuff, this.) Salvation has conditions.



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?[/quote]


That’s right. Of course it’s what I mean! We accept things in life because that is the way of nature. But I don’t accept that a Supreme Being is constrained to act within the rules of the natural world. (You have a strange understanding of 'exegesis', btw)


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.[/quote]

Oh pleeease! Nothing is ‘lost’ when it didn’t exist in the first place. I don’t recognise God therefore I can’t be in a relationship with him.

 

[cottage]

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.

Oh yes they are! The Bible speaks of sin as a transgression, to include all unrighteousness, evil doing, wickedness, and disobeying the Ten Commandments.

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."

That’s not what I meant. I’m saying it is logically impossible to speak of Salvation independent of sin. Jesus the Saviour needs sin in the same way that a rectangle needs its four sides. Sin gives Christianity its reason for being.

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

Term it however you like, and say it as slowly and as often as you wish, but it remains the case that God created evil (Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6, and Lamentations 3:38). And it makes logical sense, for if he didn’t cause what there is then some other power did, in which case God is not the omnipotent creator.

 

[sojourner]

It was unilateral! An agreement between two individuals is just that, and nothing more. One man cannot presume to act as a surrogate for humanity at large.

One man can act for humanity-at-large, if that man is very God. And not as a "surrogate," either.

Well, either the event was ordained or there is no omnipotent, omniscient God.

Either/or statements get one into a lot of hot water very quickly. The event need not be ordained in order for God to be either omnipotent or omniscient. God could see what was going to happen. That does not constitute "ordained" to happen. God subjected God's Self to such a death. That does not constitute an abdication of omnipotence.

Jesus was human, but no ordinary human, and an omniscient God was not surprised or shocked to learn of the unfolding events.

So?

Jesus didn’t make a wild guess that Judas would betray him; as the Son of God he had foreknowledge of his fate, just as the Father foresaw and foreordained it.

You're right. Jesus knew what Judas would do. So did God. But neither case indicates "ordination." "Allowing" and "ordering" are different actions.

but the whole business had been cooked up in advance and Dad would soon whisk his boy back to headquarters with nary a scratch to show for his earthly experience.

No, it hadn't been "cooked up in advance." You're making an assumption that just doesn't bear out. Nary a scratch? he still bore the nail-scars and the wound in his side post-resurrection.

The deed had been done and mankind had been saved from the wrath and vengeance of a wholly good God.

Now you're arguing against bad theology. Good. very good! Humanity had not been saved from God's wrath, but from the power of sin.

Okay, we know it sounds immoral to kill your own Son

God didn't kill Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus.

Jesus didn’t actually die,

Yes he did. Placed in a tomb. Dead.

God didn’t actually do the murder by his own hand.

You're right. The Romans killed Jesus, without any help or direction from God, in whom they did not, in any case, believe.

Nothing has changed.

Yes it has. The Jesus Event fundamentally changed the relationship between God and humanity.

But we’re okay to carry on sinning because we’ve been forgiven.

No, Cottage. No. It's not ok to "keep sinning." Forgiveness does not mean "green light."

wouldn’t it be better if all evil and suffering ceased, rather than letting us carry on as before with the blessing of God’s forgiveness?

That's not our call to make.

but it’s not about God ending suffering. It’s got more to do with the Bible writers attempting to accommodate the existence of evil while intimidating the masses with the supposed power and authority of God, tempered by the humility of meek and mild Jesus. And it works splendidly because millions believe it!

"Oh, Crash! You do make speeches!"
You're right! It's not about God ending suffering. It's about God reconciling Humanity to God's Self. God and Jesus don't play "good cop/bad cop." You're arguing against bad theology again.
Veeerry Gooood!
Just because millions believe it don't make it so.

This is special pleading to a point where it is becoming comical. There are so many examples in the Bible of evil and killing, by God or in the name of God, that it is impossible to mention but a few at the time. And please don’t insult my intelligence and yours by trying to explain away every single example as meaning something other than what is said, because regardless of the meaning you want to ascribe to the passages the fact remains that ‘God’ and ‘evil’ are a contradiction in terms. And that is the argument.

That's right. They are. But I'm not saying that the passages say something other than what they say. I'm saying that we have to come to an understanding of what was meant by that saying. To the writers and their intended audiences, God helping Israel to be mighty and prevail in battle was good. Our perspective is different than theirs. but then, we're not the target audience, are we!
The underlying message remains the same: God helps us. That might mean something to an ancient Mesopotamian other than what it means to a post-modern American or European, but the message is clear: God helps us.

The above are just a few examples of those that refer to killing, examples of slavery and rape to follow.

M'kay. Read above.

To ‘weigh what is more important’ is just special pleading.

Yet, that's what you're doing. Pot, meet kettle. Actually, weighing scripture is a very responsible act. Some scripture does weigh heavier than others, for many reasons.

Of course you would give greater consideration to the aspects that you want to believe true, but that doesn’t make the considerable number negative examples disappear, and nor does it divest them of their meaning.

'K. Whaddo they mean? ::taps foot...looks at watch...hums "Jeopardy!" theme::
Didn't think so.
I give greater consideration to the aspects that are congruent with the theme of the story, which is one of loving relationship and salvation.

And I disagree that the overwhelming communication of God is as the ultimate good.

But then, you're neither an exegete nor a theologian. I don't agree with the British system of socialized medicine, either.

The message throughout the Bible is that God is the ultimate power.

Partly. Read above: "But then..."

whether that power is good is the question raised by the PoE.

And it's one that deserves due consideration and study.

The only possible conclusion, assuming that God exists, is that he is indifferent to human suffering,

And yet, we are told that God takes care of lilies and sparrows, and that we are far more important to God that either of those two things. (Now, I dare you to not discount or "weigh" that passage, but to take it at face value. You end up with a contradiction.)

 

[cottage]

One man can act for humanity-at-large, if that man is very God. And not as a "surrogate," either.

The very notion is absurd. A covenant is an agreement between parties concerned, but God made an arrangement with himself, over the heads of humanity.

Either/or statements get one into a lot of hot water very quickly. The event need not be ordained in order for God to be either omnipotent or omniscient. God could see what was going to happen. That does not constitute "ordained" to happen. God subjected God's Self to such a death. That does not constitute an abdication of omnipotence.

God is omniscient. There can be no point where he received information of which he wasn’t already aware. The events were foreknown because they were foreordained and occurred due to divine will. If they did not then we have a contradiction.

You're right. Jesus knew what Judas would do. So did God. But neither case indicates "ordination." "Allowing" and "ordering" are different actions.

Were God to merely allow things to happen then events must have their own cause, which is impossible, since by definition God is the only uncaused cause.

No, it hadn't been "cooked up in advance." You're making an assumption that just doesn't bear out. Nary a scratch? he still bore the nail-scars and the wound in his side post-resurrection.

Jesus ascended to heaven to join the Father, no scars or penetration marks up there?

Now you're arguing against bad theology. Good. very good! Humanity had not been saved from God's wrath, but from the power of sin.

Sin has no ‘power’! It is just a state of affairs created by God, and it could disappear in an instance, if that were the will of a loving deity.

Yes he did. Placed in a tomb. Dead.

He laid down his life…and then took it up again. Someone who is alive cannot be dead.

You're right. The Romans killed Jesus, without any help or direction from God, in whom they did not, in any case, believe.

The Romans killed Jesus because it was the will of God, who sacrificed his own son. (This business of God and sacrifice was nothing new. Abraham was told to stab his own son, Isaac, to death on God’s instructions and to then to burn his body as a sacrifice, just to prove his unswerving loyalty. The point made, this God of pure love stepped in just as the knife descended, and instead Abraham killed a terrified ram that was caught in a thicket.)
If you want to insist that it was all the Roman’s doing, then mankind have the Romans to thank for events that brought about our salvation.

Yes it has. The Jesus Event fundamentally changed the relationship between God and humanity.

Nothing has changed in more than two thousand years. It is only your belief.

No, Cottage. No. It's not ok to "keep sinning." Forgiveness does not mean "green light."

Well of course it doesn’t! I was speaking satirically. The point of that piece (which you’ve broken up) was that forgiveness has no meaning if things continue unabated.

That's not our call to make.

Exactly! It’s the call of a perfectly good and omni-benevolent God, if there is such a being.

"Oh, Crash! You do make speeches!"
You're right! It's not about God ending suffering. It's about God reconciling Humanity to God's Self. God and Jesus don't play "good cop/bad cop." You're arguing against bad theology again.
Veeerry Gooood!
Just because millions believe it don't make it so.

The New Testament was a response the Old Testament, the recognition that its content and tone were becoming less acceptable to a more sophisticated readership. Rather than relying on threats, intimidation and constant reassertion of authority, the Bible’s writers astutely changed direction, re-branding God from the previously tyrannical, power mad and self-obsessed deity by emphasising love and mercy. Of course there was still the underlying threat of damnation because the New Testament couldn’t be divorced from the Old, but on balance it was a public relation coupe, par excellence, by comparison. This time God (as Jesus) appeared to be on our side and he had a solution to get us out of the mire he had created. But make no mistake, the threat of damnation and the eternal fire was still there, as Jesus himself would constantly remind us (Matt 18:8 Luke 13:3). Indeed, ‘it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God’ (Hebrews 10:30 – 31). Believe in me or suffer for all eternity is the message. So although Jesus’ role was the Saviour who would bring humans to God, the coercion continued and he threatened the most terrible punishment conceivable for those who kept to their unbelief.

That's right. They are. But I'm not saying that the passages say something other than what they say. I'm saying that we have to come to an understanding of what was meant by that saying. To the writers and their intended audiences, God helping Israel to be mighty and prevail in battle was good. Our perspective is different than theirs. but then, we're not the target audience, are we!
The underlying message remains the same: God helps us. That might mean something to an ancient Mesopotamian other than what it means to a post-modern American or European, but the message is clear: God helps us.

If we, humanity at large, are not the target audience then the Bible has no meaning. And the underlying message of the Bible is that God is the supreme power, and the world and all it contains is subject to his will alone.

Yet, that's what you're doing. Pot, meet kettle. Actually, weighing scripture is a very responsible act. Some scripture does weigh heavier than others, for many reasons.

The New Testament represents just a quarter of the Bible. The examples of killing, rape, sodomy, slavery and obsession with power found in the Old Testament, the other three quarters, overwhelms anything said in the New Testament. Added to which are the examples of Jesus’ threats in the New Testament and the final bloodthirsty sign off in Revelations.

'K. Whaddo they mean? ::taps foot...looks at watch...hums "Jeopardy!" theme::
Didn't think so.

Here’s one classic example: ‘These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.’ This upside down logic, which stands morality on its head, refers to the punishment of those who being insufficiently charitable will suffer damnation that is the equal of God’s eternal wrath. This is a perverse moral reasoning, where any lack of charity is taken to be sleight on the Lord, whose own charity and mercifulness is underscored and contradicted by the unambiguous words ‘eternal punishment’.

But then, you're neither an exegete nor a theologian. I don't agree with the British system of socialized medicine, either.

One need be neither to understand that power and authority are the overwhelming themes that underpin both the New and Old Testament, logically and in fact. By the way, exegesis isn’t the prerogative of theists who hold to particular views. Interpretive research and analytical study may be carried out by anyone. For example Hebrew for ‘good’ is ‘tolby’, which means ‘bountiful’ or ‘fine’ in modern parlance. The secondary meaning is ‘joyful’, ‘loving’ and ‘merciful.’ In Genesis when God saw what he had created and pronounced it ‘good’, and it was in the aforementioned sense that the term was used.
[And as a completely incidental point, I don’t agree with the concept a state owned health service either.]

And yet, we are told that God takes care of lilies and sparrows, and that we are far more important to God that either of those two things. (Now, I dare you to not discount or "weigh" that passage, but to take it at face value. You end up with a contradiction.)

I gave a logical/experiential argument, as a conclusion.
If every single sentence in every single verse in the Bible were taken to mean goodness, love and mercy, nature’s indifference to suffering would remain. And by the same token the opposite is true. If every single sentence in every single verse in the Bible were taken to mean evil, killing and rape, then that too would not alter the balance of suffering in experience. And there is no difference between lilies, sparrows and humans. They are all part of the world and they live and die by what nature provides.

 

[look3467]

It is a whole lot of unnecessary drama, don't you think? This is apparent from the very beginning of Biblical "history". It may have been the serpent who whispered in Eve's ear, but it was 'God' who created the temptation. It was 'God" who caused the conflict between Cain and Able. It was 'God' who acted in anger and sadness when he flooded the world. It was 'God' who asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. It was 'God' who delivered his "chosen people" into the slavery of Egypt, only so that he could deliver them from it and command absolute obedience. The God of the Bible is not free of passion or change. A thing that suffers from being changeable cannot be said to be perfect, for a thing that is perfect needs and wants for nothing.

My bigproblem with the God of Abraham is that he needs... he needs obedience... he needs tobe loved... he needs to be acknowledged.

God needs none of it, but does desire it---- of free will.

It may have been the serpent who whispered in Eve's ear, but it was 'God' who created the temptation.

God did all of it as in this verse: Rom 20:8.

It was 'God' who acted in anger and sadness when he flooded the world.

The flood has not yet been proven, but the lesson from it has.
The lesson is that one, Jesus, consumed as like a flood the sins of the world, as noah is a picture of the Savior of mankind, as a type of Jesus.

It was 'God' who asked Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Abraham, a picture of God as Father, the sacrificial animal, a picture of Jesus, and Issac, a picture of us all.

Who was then spared?

It was 'God' who delivered his "chosen people" into the slavery of Egypt, only so that he could deliver them from it and command absolute obedience.

The object here is that regardless of what laws were instituted by God, apart from God Himself, no human being could effect a change in the survial of its own soul.

Also shows mankind that God is over all, able to help us when we need Him, and more when we look to Him for daily sustenance.

Again, Moses is a type of Noah, a type of Jesus, all of which paints a picture of the real issue, and that is that God is the pictured Savior of all mankind in Jesus.

The God of the Bible is not free of passion or change. A thing that suffers from being changeable cannot be said to be perfect, for a thing that is perfect needs and wants for nothing.

Said perfect!

Unless the perfect righteousness of God is given to us in place of our own righteousness, there is no hope of salvation.

Look at the good work that God has done in behalf of mankind, and look not at the the deeds of mankind necessitating divine correction, except in the cases where we need to see the consequences of our own making.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Humanistheart]

The very notion is absurd. A covenant is an agreement between parties concerned, but God made an arrangement with himself, over the heads of humanity. .

Indead, the concept sojourner put's forth is incredibly unethical, although this is hardly surprising as that is an apt discription for christianity as a whole.

 

[cottage]

Indead, the concept sojourner put's forth is incredibly unethical, although this is hardly surprising as that is an apt discription for christianity as a whole.

Yes, unethical and illogical.

Nothing of the contingent world existed prior to creation, not a thought or an object, no substance or form, nor any particle of matter, until an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who caused the earth and everything within it to come into being. And from the point of creation every thought or object, all substance and form, and every particle of matter is necessarily dependent for its continued existence upon the deity that caused such existence. So evil thoughts and actions and all cases of suffering are existent in the same way that everything else is existent, and that is to say by the deity’s intention, since we cannot hold that the deity is all-powerful while allowing that he is not the cause of all things.

Christianity, however, is a very confused belief system. Because of evil, man is to be eternally punished by an all-loving God, or saved by an act of sacrifice (an evil act) by the same benevolent deity who causes and sustains the existence of evil! And the provision for salvation by the loving God is conditional upon belief in this all-sufficient, omnipotent being, which is a further contradiction.

 

[emiliano]

Yes, unethical and illogical.

Nothing of the contingent world existed prior to creation, not a thought or an object, no substance or form, nor any particle of matter, until an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who caused the earth and everything within it to come into being.

Where do you get this notion, Christians know that before creation there was God, He is eternal, a spirit thus incorruptible and unchangeable.

And from the point of creation every thought or object, all substance and form, and every particle of matter is necessarily dependent for its continued existence upon the deity that caused such existence. So evil thoughts and actions and all cases of suffering are existent in the same way that everything else is existent, and that is to say by the deity’s intention, since we cannot hold that the deity is all-powerful while allowing that he is not the cause of all things.

How come you believe in things that you can’t see? This is possible only if you can see them.

Christianity, however, is a very confused belief system. Because of evil, man is to be eternally punished by an all-loving God, or saved by an act of sacrifice (an evil act) by the same benevolent deity who causes and sustains the existence of evil! And the provision for salvation by the loving God is conditional upon belief in this all-sufficient, omnipotent being, which is a further contradiction.

Another falsehood, this is the tenet of Christianity:
Jhn 1:11
He came to His own, [fn] and His own did not receive Him.
Jhn 1:12
And this:

Jhn 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
​

I don’t see a promise of Salvation to every Tom, Dick and Harry, do you?

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

 

[cottage]

Yes, unethical and illogical.


Where do you get this notion, Christians know that before creation there was God, He is eternal, a spirit thus incorruptible and unchangeable.

Er…I think you’ve misread the quote, because you're agreeing with me.

How come you believe in things that you can’t see? This is possible only if you can see them.

I don’t believe-in anything, but I believe-that particular things are logically the case.

Another falsehood, this is the tenet of Christianity

Jhn 3:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.​

I don’t see a promise of Salvation to every Tom, Dick and Harry, do you?

Absolutely not! My very point! Might be an idea to have another look at what I've written?

 

[emiliano]

Er…I think you’ve misread the quote, because you're agreeing with me.




I don’t believe-in anything, but I believe-that particular things are logically the case.

Another falsehood, this is the tenet of Christianity

Jhn 3:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.​

Absolutely not! My very point! Might be an idea to have another look at what I've written?

How are we confused? It is so clear that evil will not be permitted in the kingdom. As for the condition of those that believe in his power and of course that God exit, remember that a person can ask God assistance (inspired men to write the Bible) gave us the moral laws so as to do good and made it practice a duty to those that Believe, love God and have a reverent fear of transgressing His laws. “Christianity, however, is a very confused belief system. Because of evil, man is to be eternally punished by an all-loving” and there you have. Evil will be cleanse from the kingdom that is been established for those that believe, it simple there are many that will not saved. It is impossible to do it without God assistance. Have you ask for the gift?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, unethical and illogical.

Nothing of the contingent world existed prior to creation, not a thought or an object, no substance or form, nor any particle of matter, until an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who caused the earth and everything within it to come into being. And from the point of creation every thought or object, all substance and form, and every particle of matter is necessarily dependent for its continued existence upon the deity that caused such existence. So evil thoughts and actions and all cases of suffering are existent in the same way that everything else is existent, and that is to say by the deity’s intention, since we cannot hold that the deity is all-powerful while allowing that he is not the cause of all things.

Christianity, however, is a very confused belief system. Because of evil, man is to be eternally punished by an all-loving God, or saved by an act of sacrifice (an evil act) by the same benevolent deity who causes and sustains the existence of evil! And the provision for salvation by the loving God is conditional upon belief in this all-sufficient, omnipotent being, which is a further contradiction.

It's only as confusing as you make it be.

 

[look3467]

Knowledge of good and evil simply means that evil can be a product of one's own choosing.

Having the ability (Intellect) to choose, makes us the ones responsible of doing evil, if set in an environment that is conducive to evil.

Not having a choice of being placed in this environment, it is encumbered upon God to save us from it.

Christianity is very simple: Believe in God in faith.

What is complicated and or confusing, is mankind's views on what God is like.

He is painted with many different brushes.

Blessings, AJ