Tired of the "why did God allow ……." posts.

[Kolibri]

This has nothing to do with Satan. This is flowery language about an anointed King - allowed to walk on the Holy Mountain.

Go read Isaiah. This is the same war over Jerusalem, and is talking about the scattered Hebrew people that were taken, just as in Isaiah, etc.

Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus (Tsor, Tyre), Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Eze 28:3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

Eze 28:4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:

Eze 28:5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:

Eze 28:25 Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.

*
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament.

"In Tyre especially the national and political development went hand in hand with the spread and propagation of its religion. "The Tyrian state was the production and seat of its gods. He, the prince of Tyre, presided over this divine creation and divine seat; therefore he, the prince, was himself a god, a manifestation of the deity, having its work and home in the state of Tyre." All heathen rulers looked upon themselves in this light; so that the king of Babylon is addressed in a similar manner in Isa_14:13-14. This self-deification is shown to be a delusion in Eze_28:2; He who is only a man makes his heart like a God's heart, i.e., cherishes the same thought as the Gods. לֵב, the heart, as the seat of the thoughts and imaginations, is named instead of the disposition."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

"Ezekiel 28:1-19

Ethbaal, or Ithobal, was the prince or king of Tyre; and being lifted up with excessive pride, he claimed Divine honours. Pride is peculiarly the sin of our fallen nature. Nor can any wisdom, except that which the Lord gives, lead to happiness in this world or in that which is to come. The haughty prince of Tyre thought he was able to protect his people by his own power, and considered himself as equal to the inhabitants of heaven.

*

Agreed.
Applying Eze 28:11-19 to Satan is only conjecture. We really do not know what responsibilities this angel had before he became a resister.
One can not say definitively that does not also apply to Satan, but neither can we definitively say it does.
This, though, is an easy distinction to miss.
All we do know is it does apply to the King of Tyre.

 

[Sleeppy]

I am not a Christian, nor do I fall under normative Judaism. However I am willing to debate the following items concerning the Hebrew scriptures. My positions are as follows:

1. God is not outside of time
2. God is not omnipresent nor omniscient but can be in multiple places at once.
3. God did not make or create evil
4. God does not claim to predestine mans fate
5. God does not know what we are going to do (specifically)

We/you need to factor in modern scientific revelations.

Entangled toy universe shows time may be an illusion - physics-math - 25 October 2013 - New Scientist

Time is an illusion, resulting from limited perceptive capacity. God's perceptive capacity is not limited, but "whole", or "perfect", or "eternal." The Source is self-aware and unchanging, according to Hebrew scriptures. In other words, God doesn't attain knowledge in the same way His creation is "seemingly" required to. Prophets aren't immune to the perceptive/language barriers which prevent them from prophesying using both nouns and verbs.

 

[1robin]

I have seen numerous posts lately which claim that God is responsible for evil and suffering on earth. I understand this kind of logic and believe much of typical Christian doctrine actually supports this sad way of thinking. To many people God is a being who is omniscient and timeless. He is also seen as someone who micromanages free will and even ordains evil actions! Most believe that this (ordained evil) is justified because its all part of a intricate plan which will eventually lead men back to God. Sigh...

I am not a Christian, nor do I fall under normative Judaism. However I am willing to debate the following items concerning the Hebrew scriptures. My positions are as follows:

1. God is not outside of time
2. God is not omnipresent nor omniscient but can be in multiple places at once.
3. God did not make or create evil
4. God does not claim to predestine mans fate
5. God does not know what we are going to do (specifically)

How could you know that any of these are true even if they were? This applies to all of them except number 4. I agree with no. 4 so I am not challenging it but I still don't see how anyone can know the truth of the matter to a certainty, for it as either.

In general God being outside of time, omnipresent, the author of all objective moral truth, and omniscient are components that simply are given in the bible for God. We merely evaluate whether these have any evidence or are logically sound. I have never seen a test they fail, they are so absolute they are also characteristics of even the generic God of philosophy. While I cannot know they are all true to a certainty I don't know how to even go about resolving they are untrue. How can you know any of them are true or false?

 

[Simplelogic]

How could you know that any of these are true even if they were? This applies to all of them except number 4. I agree with no. 4 so I am not challenging it but I still don't see how anyone can know the truth of the matter to a certainty, for it as either.

In general God being outside of time, omnipresent, the author of all objective moral truth, and omniscient are components that simply are given in the bible for God. We merely evaluate whether these have any evidence or are logically sound. I have never seen a test they fail, they are so absolute they are also characteristics of even the generic God of philosophy. While I cannot know they are all true to a certainty I don't know how to even go about resolving they are untrue. How can you know any of them are true or false?

Well, I think many of them are provable. For many of these concepts, I don't deny that God could behave differently with us, if He wanted to. The items I am attempting to prove are how He operates with humanity according to the text alone. In many cases I believe that God has limited His abilities in order for humans to be independent.

 

[Simplelogic]

We/you need to factor in modern scientific revelations.

Entangled toy universe shows time may be an illusion - physics-math - 25 October 2013 - New Scientist

Time is an illusion, resulting from limited perceptive capacity. God's perceptive capacity is not limited, but "whole", or "perfect", or "eternal." The Source is self-aware and unchanging, according to Hebrew scriptures. In other words, God doesn't attain knowledge in the same way His creation is "seemingly" required to. Prophets aren't immune to the perceptive/language barriers which prevent them from prophesying using both nouns and verbs.

My stance on time:

"Einstein’s theory of general relativity is bankrupt of any reality. It is only a "looks like" or a "relative appearance" theory. Every model he used to demonstrate the slowing or accelerating of time amounts to nothing more than a slow-motion or fast-forward playback of what had already occurred and been pre-recorded. His models have all the genius of suggesting that I can record a clock with my video camera, drive real fast around the block while rewinding the tape, then play the video back next to the clock and thus prove I have slowed time! No model can be cited to demonstrate witnessing an event before that event actually occurs in its space. This should not be the case if time is alterable as Einstein suggests. The only time that exists at any given moment is the present. The future can be planned for (as in a blueprint) and events can be predicted, and the present can be recorded on numerous media (including light waves) and played back at a future present so as to make the past appear revisited, but none of these phenomena alter or effect in any way the steady, linear, eternal progression of time."

Was Einstein right

 

[Simplelogic]

This has nothing to do with Satan. This is flowery language about an anointed King - allowed to walk on the Holy Mountain.

Go read Isaiah. This is the same war over Jerusalem, and is talking about the scattered Hebrew people that were taken, just as in Isaiah, etc.

Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus (Tsor, Tyre), Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Eze 28:3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

Eze 28:4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:

Eze 28:5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:

Eze 28:25 Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.

*
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament.

"In Tyre especially the national and political development went hand in hand with the spread and propagation of its religion. "The Tyrian state was the production and seat of its gods. He, the prince of Tyre, presided over this divine creation and divine seat; therefore he, the prince, was himself a god, a manifestation of the deity, having its work and home in the state of Tyre." All heathen rulers looked upon themselves in this light; so that the king of Babylon is addressed in a similar manner in Isa_14:13-14. This self-deification is shown to be a delusion in Eze_28:2; He who is only a man makes his heart like a God's heart, i.e., cherishes the same thought as the Gods. לֵב, the heart, as the seat of the thoughts and imaginations, is named instead of the disposition."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

"Ezekiel 28:1-19

Ethbaal, or Ithobal, was the prince or king of Tyre; and being lifted up with excessive pride, he claimed Divine honours. Pride is peculiarly the sin of our fallen nature. Nor can any wisdom, except that which the Lord gives, lead to happiness in this world or in that which is to come. The haughty prince of Tyre thought he was able to protect his people by his own power, and considered himself as equal to the inhabitants of heaven.

*

Obviously this is dualistic in style. The King of Tyre and lucifer are being mentioned here:

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Was the prince of Tyre in the garden of Eden?

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Why call the prince of Tyre an anointed cherub? Nor did the prince of Tyre get anywhere near the "holy mountain" nor the "stones of fire".

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Was the prince of Tyre "perfect in his ways"?

 

[Simplelogic]

They didn't have the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil before this event - thus no sin, - period.

You must KNOW something is evil, - and do it anyway, with intention, for it to be a sin/evil.

If a child has no KNOWLEDGE that someone considers tipping over the apple cart - is evil, - and they push it over for a new experience, to see what happens when you tip a cart, - they have not committed any sin. They can't, as they have no KNOWLEDGE of sin, let alone that someone decided that tipping over carts is a sin.

*

Here comes the kicker….

They actually already had knowledge of good and evil!!!! They just had never followed through with it. Why was Adam hesitant to listen to his wife? Was it not because he knew what he was about to do was wrong? The tree's fruit didn't do anything to Adam and Eve. It was their conscious choice to CHOOSE evil.

 

[Simplelogic]

Eve knew the consequences before hand:

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” Gen 3:2

Look how Adam acts after the fact:

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me, she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” Gen 3:12

Blamed it on the woman. He already knew it was wrong to begin with!

 

[1robin]

Well, I think many of them are provable. For many of these concepts, I don't deny that God could behave differently with us, if He wanted to. The items I am attempting to prove are how He operates with humanity according to the text alone. In many cases I believe that God has limited His abilities in order for humans to be independent.

Ok I am a little confused. Lets take the first one all alone.

You said God is not outside of time.

1. I want to know how you could know that?
2. Are you saying that the bible does not justify thinking he is outside of time or are you saying you have some other way of knowing this? That is what is confusing me.
3. Are you merely saying God does enter time so he can't be outside of time in all cases? Or are you saying God is bound by linear time the same way we and the rest of creation is?
4. Are you saying that an omnipresent God who shows up at some place is in some way he no longer is outside of time? That he has actually volunteered to make himself be bound by time?

BTW I used the term "outside of time" because you did so as to limit confusion but technically we say he is independent of time. He can enter into it, exist beyond it, and exist even if it did not. Depends on what your claims are whether the technical term is necessary.

Once I figure out exactly what your claiming in reference to the first of your points it should apply to the rest. So that is why I kept this post to a single claim.

 

[JayJayDee]

Here comes the kicker….

They actually already had knowledge of good and evil!!!! They just had never followed through with it. Why was Adam hesitant to listen to his wife? Was it not because he knew what he was about to do was wrong?

I believe that he was hesitant because he knew what death was, not necessarily because he knew what evil was. It was the "knowledge of good and evil" that was represented by the tree. It was a small test of respect for what God placed in his own jurisdiction and recognising what was rightfully someone else's property. Adam and his wife became thieves with no way to make recompense for their actions. God stepped in with the solution by offering the life of his son to pay for what Adam lost for his children....all born with the defect of sin through no fault on their part.

Adam had no firsthand knowledge of what it meant for humans to die, but animals were finite creatures, so he was not unacquainted with death.

The tree's fruit didn't do anything to Adam and Eve. It was their conscious choice to CHOOSE evil.

Yes. Their choice was one of pure deliberate disobedience in full knowledge of the consequences. The woman was deceived by the serpent but the man was not. His choice was made because he was emotionally attached to his wife instead of being obedient to his God.
The devil forced him to choose. If the devil had approached Adam directly, he would, in all probability have rejected his offer. By targeting the woman, he divided the man from his God and conquered him. It's the devil's favorite tactic.

 

[Simplelogic]

Ok I am a little confused. Lets take the first one all alone.

You said God is not outside of time.

1. I want to know how you could know that?
2. Are you saying that the bible does not justify thinking he is outside of time or are you saying you have some other way of knowing this? That is what is confusing me.
3. Are you merely saying God does enter time so he can't be outside of time in all cases? Or are you saying God is bound by linear time the same way we and the rest of creation is?
4. Are you saying that an omnipresent God who shows up at some place is in some way he no longer is outside of time? That he has actually volunteered to make himself be bound by time?

BTW I used the term "outside of time" because you did so as to limit confusion but technically we say he is independent of time. He can enter into it, exist beyond it, and exist even if it did not. Depends on what your claims are whether the technical term is necessary.

Once I figure out exactly what your claiming in reference to the first of your points it should apply to the rest. So that is why I kept this post to a single claim.

What I meant was that according to the scriptures, God is going through time with us. He repents and even gets surprised sometimes! This means that He is not outside of time like many suggest. I believe that time is a part of God and He is going through it with us.

 

[Deidre]

Hey!! My first taker.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

These words certainly seem to paint a gut-wrenching picture of God actually admitting to being responsible for creating evil. No thought could be further from the truth or more blasphemous. What God is speaking of is obviously the opposite of "peace", in the same way He contrasted "light" and "darkness". This peace means tranquility of life, and the word translated "evil" more literally means "calamity". Some translations, including the NKJV, actually use the word "calamity" in this verse instead of "evil". This calamity is the picture of God's judgment on man for his sinful deeds. Many examples of this type of picture could be cited. The great flood was a major calamity and judgment on man. There was judgment in the form of calamity on Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh in Egypt, Israel in the wilderness, and so on. Many times this judgment is called "evil". Here are a couple of examples where the same Hebrew word is used.

And the Lord repented of the evil ("harm" NKJV)which he thought to do unto his people. Exodus 32:14 KJV

"Thus says the Lord: 'Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. Perhaps (What? God didn't know for sure?!) everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the evil ("calamity" NKJV) which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings." Jeremiah 26:2-3

Note: By using the word "perhaps", it should be apparent that God wasn't even sure if the people would repent! So much for Calvinism's concept of an all-knowing God.

Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel: 'Behold, I will bring on Judah and on all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil ("doom" NKJV) that I have pronounced against them; because I have spoken to them but they have not heard, and I have called to them but they have not answered.'" Jeremiah 35:17

These are examples of the same "evil" God was speaking of in Isaiah 45:7. God most certainly did not bring evil into existence as though it would not exist had He not created it.

If ''God'' created man, wouldn't he have created all that man would be capable of, as well? (good and evil)

 

[Simplelogic]

If ''God'' created man, wouldn't he have created all that man would be capable of, as well?

no

 

[1robin]

What I meant was that according to the scriptures, God is going through time with us. He repents and even gets surprised sometimes! This means that He is not outside of time like many suggest. I believe that time is a part of God and He is going through it with us.

I agree with our premise. God does enter in and engage us where we are. He must if he is to interact with us because we are bound by time. I however disagree with the that demonstrates that God is in essence within time. First some clarity when we say time we mean something else. Time is only one side of a relationship. When we say time we actually mean space time. However time can be related to a lot of things. God may enter space time or interact with it yet not be bound in anyway by it. He would remain as timeless as he ever was (meaning ungoverned by time) even if he entered into time entering into time. The same way I can be an American citizen even if I visit Peru. God could have always existed from eternity in a state independent of space time. Could have created space time and the rest of creation. Could intervene within time if he chose and still remain unbound by time. There is no logical contradiction between a God that can act in space time and who is also eternal an independent of time. Even if there were an omnipresent God would circumvent even that. He could act within time and remain unbound by time. I just do not see anything that would require me to suggest God is bound by time even if he intervenes in time.

Perhaps you can post why you think that is the case? I also think the label of surprised and repent in this context is a little ambitious. He does repent but to repent does not entail that he was unaware of what would happen. Repent can mean many things, regret among them. The same way I might regret my child falling down despite knowing he would do so before he existed.

 

[Deidre]

no

Unless man happens to do 'good,' then God is responsible. But, if evil prevails...that is man's problem. Hmmm....
I've often thought that the Abrahamic faiths do the concept of ''God'' a great disservice. As if an almighty and all powerful 'God' can't bear the responsibility of what exactly he's created.

 

[Simplelogic]

I agree with our premise. God does enter in and engage us where we are. He must if he is to interact with us because we are bound by time. I however disagree with the that demonstrates that God is in essence within time. First some clarity when we say time we mean something else. Time is only one side of a relationship. When we say time we actually mean space time. However time can be related to a lot of things. God may enter space time or interact with it yet not be bound in anyway by it. He would remain as timeless as he ever was (meaning ungoverned by time) even if he entered into time entering into time. The same way I can be an American citizen even if I visit Peru. God could have always existed from eternity in a state independent of space time. Could have created space time and the rest of creation. Could intervene within time if he chose and still remain unbound by time. There is no logical contradiction between a God that can act in space time and who is also eternal an independent of time. Even if there were an omnipresent God would circumvent even that. He could act within time and remain unbound by time. I just do not see anything that would require me to suggest God is bound by time even if he intervenes in time.

Perhaps you can post why you think that is the case? I also think the label of surprised and repent in this context is a little ambitious. He does repent but to repent does not entail that he was unaware of what would happen. Repent can mean many things, regret among them. The same way I might regret my child falling down despite knowing he would do so before he existed.

Regarding time: Was Einstein right

 

[Simplelogic]

Unless man happens to do 'good,' then God is responsible. But, if evil prevails...that is man's problem. Hmmm....
I've often thought that the Abrahamic faiths do the concept of ''God'' a great disservice. As if an almighty and all powerful 'God' can't bear the responsibility of what exactly he's created.

No….man is responsible for doing good or evil

If God created robots and programmed them then He would be responsible.

 

[JustWondering]

I have seen numerous posts lately which claim that God is responsible for evil and suffering on earth. I understand this kind of logic and believe much of typical Christian doctrine actually supports this sad way of thinking. To many people God is a being who is omniscient and timeless. He is also seen as someone who micromanages free will and even ordains evil actions! Most believe that this (ordained evil) is justified because its all part of a intricate plan which will eventually lead men back to God. Sigh...

I am not a Christian, nor do I fall under normative Judaism. However I am willing to debate the following items concerning the Hebrew scriptures. My positions are as follows:

1. God is not outside of time
2. God is not omnipresent nor omniscient but can be in multiple places at once.
3. God did not make or create evil
4. God does not claim to predestine mans fate
5. God does not know what we are going to do (specifically)

I would be happy to debate any of these statements with any and all who wish to debate them. I am even willing to state publicly that if it can be proven, from the Hebrew scriptures, that God is outside of time and predestining the will of man then I will formally and publicly renounce the God of Israel who's name is Yehovah.

Note: As many already know, I don't regard Paul's letters as scripture. I recognize that Paul did believe in a predestining God who is outside of time. My argument will be made with the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) as well as any NT writing which was not written or influenced by Paul.

The law that someone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death seems kind of evil to me. How is someone working on a certain day, not hurting anyone, deserving of death?

My main problem with the Abrahamic god though is that according to the scriptures humanities only worth to god seems to be in us mindlessly groveling to and obeying him. He definitely has no problem wiping out anyone who displeases him. Which raises the question of why such a god would create creatures to worship and grovel before him that were inherently rebellious? Does that mean god is insane?

 

[1robin]

Regarding time: Was Einstein right

For which of his claims are you asking? He made quite a few. Some were right, some were wrong, some are unknowable to anyone currently, and some are knowable to some but not me perhaps.

 

[Simplelogic]

You said:

"He does repent but to repent does not entail that he was unaware of what would happen. Repent can mean many things, regret among them. The same way I might regret my child falling down despite knowing he would do so before he existed."

Regret means that God wished He had never done the thing He did. Which means He did not know that humans would do what they did.