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

[Kolibri]

If Eve acted out of ignorance, is she accountable according to the Law?-- Why would someone who has "exquisite delight, in the abundance of peace" want wisdom? It doesn't make sense. If you are standing in front of a river and become thirsty, do you look for more water? Are you saying Eve was looking for more water, in the abundance of it?

In the abundance, one can certainly say that the forbidding to eat of the tree was an easy test to pass.

As to the fear, what child does not fear to displease his/her daddy? Did not Jesus tell us to remain teachable like young children? We really do not know how old Eve was when she was tested. Only that she was younger then Adam. Regardless she put her desire to be self-determined over acknowledging her God's right to establish loving boundaries. Had she continued to have this fear based on love, she would still be here today. It would have been an example of wisdom being "proved righteous by its works." (Mt 11:19; Lu 7:35)

 

[Simplelogic]

For the following I would say that Jehovah does not make mistakes. It is the change in people's attitude toward his righteous standards that changes how he feels.
A Repentant God?
M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia comments: “God himself is said to repent [na·cham′, feel regret]; but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct towards his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or infliction of evil—which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in his creatures; and thus, speaking after the manner of men, God is said to repent.” (1894, Vol. VIII, p. 1042) God’s righteous standards remain constant, stable, unchanging, free from fluctuation. (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17) No circumstance can cause him to change his mind about these, to turn from them, or to abandon them. However, the attitude and reactions of his intelligent creatures toward those perfect standards and toward God’s application of them can be good or bad. If good, this is pleasing to God; if bad, it causes regret. Moreover, the creature’s attitude can change from good to bad or bad to good, and since God does not change his standards to accommodate them, his pleasure (and accompanying blessings) can accordingly change to regret (and accompanying discipline or punishment) or vice versa. His judgments and decisions, then, are totally free from caprice, fickleness, unreliability, or error; hence he is free from all erratic or eccentric conduct.—Eze 18:21-30; 33:7-20.
----
In the same way God can “feel regret” and ‘turn back’ from carrying out some punishment when his warning of such action produces a change in attitude and conduct on the part of the offenders. (De 13:17; Ps 90:13) They have returned to him and he ‘returns’ to them. (Zec 8:3; Mal 3:7) Instead of being ‘pained,’ he now rejoices, for he finds no delight in bringing death to sinners. (Lu 15:10; Eze 18:32) While never shifting away from his righteous standards, God extends help so that persons can return to him; they are encouraged to do so. He kindly invites them to return, ‘spreading out his hands’ and saying by means of his representatives, “Turn back, please, . . . that I may not cause calamity to you,” “Do not do, please, this detestable sort of thing that I have hated.” (Isa 65:1, 2; Jer 25:5, 6; 44:4, 5) He gives ample time for change (Ne 9:30; compare Re 2:20-23) and shows great patience and forbearance, since “he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:8, 9; Ro 2:4, 5) On occasion he kindly saw to it that his message was accompanied by powerful works, or miracles, that established the divine commission of his messengers and helped strengthen faith in those hearing. (Ac 9:32-35) When his message receives no response, he employs discipline; he withdraws his favor and protection, thereby allowing the unrepentant ones to undergo privations, famine, suffering of oppression from their enemies. This may bring them to their senses, may restore their proper fear of God, or may cause them to realize that their course was stupid and that their set of values was wrong.—2Ch 33:10-13; Ne 9:28, 29; Am 4:6-11.

However, his patience has its limits, and when these are reached he gets “tired of feeling regret”; then his decision to render punishment is unchangeable. (Jer 15:6, 7; 23:19, 20; Le 26:14-33) He is no longer merely “thinking” or “forming” against such ones a calamity (Jer 18:11; 26:3-6) but has reached an irreversible decision.—2Ki 23:24-27; Isa 43:13; Jer 4:28; Zep 3:8; Re 11:17, 18.
- Repentance — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

God's repentance had nothing to do with God sinning. He regretted having made those humans who turned out to be more evil than He anticipated.

 

[Simplelogic]

This takes us back to the idea behind "original sin".

I don't agree. Original sin is a completely different concept. The fact that humans fell out of a certain level of relationship is very different then original sin/total depravity. Original sin means that humans after Adam were born with a (evil nature) and guilty before God just for being born. This is a scam.

 

[Kolibri]

God's repentance had nothing to do with God sinning. He regretted having made those humans who turned out to be more evil than He anticipated.

Having the rebellious sons of God and the hybrid Nephlim no doubt accelerated the growth of that evil.
Perhaps that was the reason why God used a Deluge to cleanse the earth of the moral depravity, Flood the earth to put a limit on how much land mass is available for us to morally and physically ruin afterward. - This is conjecture of course.

 

[Simplelogic]

You acknowledge that it was about the king of Tyre, but then you ask these questions, as if even poetically it had nothing to do with Tyre. God specifically asks Ezekiel to talk about the king of Tyre, and the following verses do that. Why question in this manner?

Ezekiel - Chapter 28 - OU Torah

I don't know the entire history, but this made a lot of sense.

Another horrible explanation imho. Calling the King of Tyre a Cherub because of "his long wingspan"?

The article said:

"The king metaphorically covered his people with his wings, protecting them." -----kind of a reach wouldn't you say?

Again, the article dismisses the reference to this Cherub being in the "garden of Eden". It also dismisses this Cherub being called blameless.

This is much more likely a prophetic passage of doom over the king of Tyre. The pride of the King of Tyre is being compared to the pride of a Cherub who was "in the garden of God".

 

[Simplelogic]

I thought God created everything, but then I can't be expected to keep up with these permutations.

Yes…but evil is not a "thing". It is a choice that men are free to make. God created ontonomous beings capable of being whatever they want to be.

 

[Simplelogic]

Having the rebellious sons of God and the hybrid Nephlim no doubt accelerated the growth of that evil.
Perhaps that was the reason why God used a Deluge to cleanse the earth of the moral depravity, Flood the earth to put a limit on how much land mass is available for us to morally and physically ruin afterward. - This is conjecture of course.

I don't think it is conjecture at all. Enoch provides us with much insight into these fallen angel/human hybrids:

Watch this if you dare:

 

[tkdrocks]

God's repentance had nothing to do with God sinning. He regretted having made those humans who turned out to be more evil than He anticipated.

Can you explain what you mean by 'evil'? Do you mean that God didn't expect people to treat each other with such cruelty? Just curious.

 

[Sleeppy]

For the following I would say that Jehovah does not make mistakes. It is the change in people's attitude toward his righteous standards that changes how he feels.
A Repentant God?
M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia comments: “God himself is said to repent [na·cham′, feel regret]; but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct towards his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or infliction of evil—which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in his creatures; and thus, speaking after the manner of men, God is said to repent.” (1894, Vol. VIII, p. 1042) God’s righteous standards remain constant, stable, unchanging, free from fluctuation. (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17) No circumstance can cause him to change his mind about these, to turn from them, or to abandon them. However, the attitude and reactions of his intelligent creatures toward those perfect standards and toward God’s application of them can be good or bad. If good, this is pleasing to God; if bad, it causes regret. Moreover, the creature’s attitude can change from good to bad or bad to good, and since God does not change his standards to accommodate them, his pleasure (and accompanying blessings) can accordingly change to regret (and accompanying discipline or punishment) or vice versa. His judgments and decisions, then, are totally free from caprice, fickleness, unreliability, or error; hence he is free from all erratic or eccentric conduct.—Eze 18:21-30; 33:7-20.
----
In the same way God can “feel regret” and ‘turn back’ from carrying out some punishment when his warning of such action produces a change in attitude and conduct on the part of the offenders. (De 13:17; Ps 90:13) They have returned to him and he ‘returns’ to them. (Zec 8:3; Mal 3:7) Instead of being ‘pained,’ he now rejoices, for he finds no delight in bringing death to sinners. (Lu 15:10; Eze 18:32) While never shifting away from his righteous standards, God extends help so that persons can return to him; they are encouraged to do so. He kindly invites them to return, ‘spreading out his hands’ and saying by means of his representatives, “Turn back, please, . . . that I may not cause calamity to you,” “Do not do, please, this detestable sort of thing that I have hated.” (Isa 65:1, 2; Jer 25:5, 6; 44:4, 5) He gives ample time for change (Ne 9:30; compare Re 2:20-23) and shows great patience and forbearance, since “he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:8, 9; Ro 2:4, 5) On occasion he kindly saw to it that his message was accompanied by powerful works, or miracles, that established the divine commission of his messengers and helped strengthen faith in those hearing. (Ac 9:32-35) When his message receives no response, he employs discipline; he withdraws his favor and protection, thereby allowing the unrepentant ones to undergo privations, famine, suffering of oppression from their enemies. This may bring them to their senses, may restore their proper fear of God, or may cause them to realize that their course was stupid and that their set of values was wrong.—2Ch 33:10-13; Ne 9:28, 29; Am 4:6-11.

However, his patience has its limits, and when these are reached he gets “tired of feeling regret”; then his decision to render punishment is unchangeable. (Jer 15:6, 7; 23:19, 20; Le 26:14-33) He is no longer merely “thinking” or “forming” against such ones a calamity (Jer 18:11; 26:3-6) but has reached an irreversible decision.—2Ki 23:24-27; Isa 43:13; Jer 4:28; Zep 3:8; Re 11:17, 18.
- Repentance — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is a very robust outlook. It has problems, which I won't go into all of them, but it serves its function. One issue remains: God is shown to be subservient toward His creation. When Moses commands that God repent of the evil He had promised for Israel, God submits. In like manner, this outlook promotes that idea. When God's creations do anything, whether desirable or undesirable, the creations assume ownership of themselves, and thereby project ownership over God's "emotions" and resulting actions. Men are shown forcing God's being. Men, who according to free will, become their own gods, also exert godly authority over the Most High. Men determine God's actions. Men determine whether God repents. -- I don't agree.

 

[Simplelogic]

"Total depravity. This means that each individual is conceived guilty of Adam's sin and lost... even before birth.

Hereditary Total Depravity.

Wrong. Children are conceived and born sinless and are not charged with sin until they are able to know the difference. Man may be born with a propensity for evil, but he is not born guilty. Just a few of the passages that make this evident are the following;

"They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters..." Psalm 106:37,38

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good... Isaiah 7:16

Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them, But Yeshua said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:13,14

And Yeshua called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one little child like this in my name receives me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:2-6 "

The Attributes of Deity

 

[Simplelogic]

Can you explain what you mean by 'evil'? Do you mean that God didn't expect people to treat each other with such cruelty? Just curious.

Yes…thats what I meant.

 

[Kolibri]

I don't think it is conjecture at all. Enoch provides us with much insight into these fallen angel/human hybrids:

The conjecture part was merely why God chose a Flood when he could have used other means.

 

[WALL]

I
3. God did not make or create evil

Just so ya know

Isaiah 45:6-7 (KJV)
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[Simplelogic]

This is a very robust outlook. It has problems, which I won't go into all of them, but it serves its function. One issue remains: God is shown to be subservient toward His creation. When Moses commands that God repent of the evil He had promised for Israel, God submits. In like manner, this outlook promotes that idea. When God's creations do anything, whether desirable or undesirable, the creations assume ownership of themselves, and thereby project ownership over God's "emotions" and resulting actions. Men are shown forcing God's being. Men, who according to free will, become their own gods, also exert godly authority over the Most High. Men determine God's actions. Men determine whether God repents. -- I don't agree.

Humans have no control over God. Though humans can change God's mind about a certain matter. I don't see this as a negative thing. I see it as an amazing because He actually hears the cry of His people.

 

[Simplelogic]

The conjecture part was merely why God chose a Flood when he could have used other means.

Ok

 

[Simplelogic]

Just so ya know

Isaiah 45:6-7 (KJV)
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

See post 12

 

[Sleeppy]

In the abundance, one can certainly say that the forbidding to eat of the tree was an easy test to pass.

It would've made the test nearly impossible. Ignorance would be the only method by which the test even functioned. You don't stand in front of a river, looking for water, unless your mentally impaired in some significant manner.

As to the fear, what child does not fear to displease his/her daddy? Did not Jesus tell us to remain teachable like young children? We really do not know how old Eve was when she was tested. Only that she was younger then Adam. Regardless she put her desire to be self-determined over acknowledging her God's right to establish loving boundaries. Had she continued to have this fear based on love, she would still be here today. It would have been an example of wisdom being "proved righteous by its works." (Mt 11:19; Lu 7:35)

Fear is not enough. Is it? -- You have to identify what actually causes obedience in children, and in adults. It's not fear. Fear can, and does fail. Understanding does not.

 

[Kolibri]

This is a very robust outlook. It has problems, which I won't go into all of them, but it serves its function. One issue remains: God is shown to be subservient toward His creation. When Moses commands that God repent of the evil He had promised for Israel, God submits. In like manner, this outlook promotes that idea. When God's creations do anything, whether desirable or undesirable, the creations assume ownership of themselves, and thereby project ownership over God's "emotions" and resulting actions. Men are shown forcing God's being. Men, who according to free will, become their own gods, also exert godly authority over the Most High. Men determine God's actions. Men determine whether God repents. -- I don't agree.

In Moses' case, there are two things to consider. One, Moses as a mediator prefigured Jesus. Jehovah was using Moses to demonstrate how he leaves the judging to his Son, to mediate between God and man.

Two:
*** w10 10/15 pp. 5-6 pars. 13-15 “Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?” ***
For example, consider Jehovah’s words to Moses after the Israelites had made a golden calf to worship. God said: “I have looked at this people and here it is a stiff-necked people. So now let me be, that my anger may blaze against them and I may exterminate them, and let me make you into a great nation.”—Ex. 32:9, 10.
14 The account goes on to say: “Moses proceeded to soften the face of Jehovah his God and to say: ‘Why, O Jehovah, should your anger blaze against your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a strong hand? Why should the Egyptians say, “With evil intent he brought them out in order to kill them among the mountains and to exterminate them from the surface of the ground”? Turn from your burning anger and feel regret over the evil against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself, in that you said to them, “I shall multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have designated I shall give to your seed, that they may indeed take possession of it to time indefinite.”’ And Jehovah began to feel regret over the evil that he had spoken of doing to his people.”—Ex. 32:11-14.
15 Did Moses really need to correct Jehovah’s thinking? By no means! Although Jehovah expressed what he was inclined to do, this was not his final judgment. In effect, Jehovah was here testing Moses, just as Jesus later did Philip and the Greek woman. Moses was given an opportunity to express his view. Jehovah had appointed Moses as mediator between Israel and Himself, and Jehovah respected His appointment of Moses to that role. Would Moses succumb to frustration? Would he take this opportunity to encourage Jehovah to forget about Israel and to make a mighty nation from Moses’ own descendants?

*** w10 10/15 p. 6 “Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?” ***
According to some scholars, the Hebrew idiom rendered “let me be” at Exodus 32:10 could be taken as an invitation, a suggestion that Moses would be allowed to intercede, or ‘stand in the gap,’ between Jehovah and the nation. (Ps. 106:23; Ezek. 22:30) Be that as it may, Moses obviously felt comfortable expressing his opinion freely to Jehovah.

 

[Simplelogic]

In Moses' case, there are two things to consider. One, Moses as a mediator prefigured Jesus. Jehovah was using Moses to demonstrate how he leaves the judging to his Son, to mediate between God and man.

Two:
*** w10 10/15 pp. 5-6 pars. 13-15 “Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?” ***
For example, consider Jehovah’s words to Moses after the Israelites had made a golden calf to worship. God said: “I have looked at this people and here it is a stiff-necked people. So now let me be, that my anger may blaze against them and I may exterminate them, and let me make you into a great nation.”—Ex. 32:9, 10.
14 The account goes on to say: “Moses proceeded to soften the face of Jehovah his God and to say: ‘Why, O Jehovah, should your anger blaze against your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a strong hand? Why should the Egyptians say, “With evil intent he brought them out in order to kill them among the mountains and to exterminate them from the surface of the ground”? Turn from your burning anger and feel regret over the evil against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself, in that you said to them, “I shall multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have designated I shall give to your seed, that they may indeed take possession of it to time indefinite.”’ And Jehovah began to feel regret over the evil that he had spoken of doing to his people.”—Ex. 32:11-14.
15 Did Moses really need to correct Jehovah’s thinking? By no means! Although Jehovah expressed what he was inclined to do, this was not his final judgment. In effect, Jehovah was here testing Moses, just as Jesus later did Philip and the Greek woman. Moses was given an opportunity to express his view. Jehovah had appointed Moses as mediator between Israel and Himself, and Jehovah respected His appointment of Moses to that role. Would Moses succumb to frustration? Would he take this opportunity to encourage Jehovah to forget about Israel and to make a mighty nation from Moses’ own descendants?

*** w10 10/15 p. 6 “Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?” ***
According to some scholars, the Hebrew idiom rendered “let me be” at Exodus 32:10 could be taken as an invitation, a suggestion that Moses would be allowed to intercede, or ‘stand in the gap,’ between Jehovah and the nation. (Ps. 106:23; Ezek. 22:30) Be that as it may, Moses obviously felt comfortable expressing his opinion freely to Jehovah.

I agree with much of this. However I do believe that YHVH pronounced judgement and then relented because of Moses' plea, just as the text says. God would not have been wrong to destroy them btw.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't agree. Original sin is a completely different concept. The fact that humans fell out of a certain level of relationship is very different then original sin/total depravity. Original sin means that humans after Adam were born with a (evil nature) and guilty before God just for being born. This is a scam.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! Good it were for him if that man had not been born.

How could it be good for a man to never have been born? If we're talking about a transgression that occurs decades after birth, why extend judgment to the birth of this person?


You acknowledge that Adam and Eve were cursed because of a transgression that was their own. So then, why also acknowledge that their offspring are cursed?