Spirituality
21 Apr 09
26 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe point of creating the other is that the other is bound to fail. This, He knew. This, He already planned for and atoned for with His suffering, denying Himself.
They could say worse: He knew in advance that many would suffer in the world he was about to create, and yet he created it anyway.
He could have created only heaven, with only enlightened beings who would not sin, and yet have full free will. This is what a morally responsible creator would have done.
You are very big on the supposed suffering of the many, but I believe your empathy is wrongly placed. While history reveals many examples of so-called suffering, no example can compare to what the Creator of the universe--- willingly and with full foresight--- took upon Himself to redeem mankind.
26 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut isn't the idea that one atones for suffering with more suffering just kind of idiotic?
The point of creating the other is that the other is bound to fail. This, He knew. This, He already planned for and atoned for with His suffering, denying Himself.
You are very big on the supposed suffering of the many, but I believe your empathy is wrongly placed. While history reveals many examples of so-called suffering, no example can compare to ...[text shortened]... tor of the universe--- willingly and with full foresight--- took upon Himself to redeem mankind.
Next time I am presented with the opportunity to alleviate or prevent the suffering of another, I'll just allow said suffering to happen but then bring about conditions under which I myself suffer. For instance, if I spot a child about to run out in front of a speeding car, I'll just let the child get demolished. But then I'll go nail myself to a cross. My suffering will mysteriously bring the cosmos back into harmony.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 27974
26 Apr 09
Give up the idea that you will ever be 'right' or that it even matters and just feel how you feel. As I've said many times to others "I can only try to be honest with myself. If honest people go to hell then prepare a place for me." Personally, I think it is all brain-function determined by genetics - the vast majority could feel any way at any distinct time and the real zealots are just poor brain-damaged humans that the rest of us should tolerate until they show signs of violence. If you have the peace that comes from knowing yourself then you quit looking for converts and start looking for brothers and sisters. (If you have siblings you should know what I mean.)
26 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBy the way, Freaky, you are really failing to address SwissGambit's actual charge. His charge doesn't have to do with sin per se but with preventable suffering (not that it would make any sense for one to atone for the sins of others by nailing himself to a cross, either). That people sin is just one possible source of suffering. People also suffer for any number of other reasons. For instance, people can suffer when their knowledge of the situation at hand fails to be perfect, such as when a child runs after a ball without the knowledge that a speeding car is coming. Or people suffer from diseases, accidents of all sorts, climatic disasters, etc, etc -- I mean, take your pick. An omnipotent being is in position to disallow such instances of suffering by any number of means (including suffering that would be attributable to sin).
The point of creating the other is that the other is bound to fail. This, He knew. This, He already planned for and atoned for with His suffering, denying Himself.
You are very big on the supposed suffering of the many, but I believe your empathy is wrongly placed. While history reveals many examples of so-called suffering, no example can compare to ...[text shortened]... tor of the universe--- willingly and with full foresight--- took upon Himself to redeem mankind.
26 Apr 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloI suppose the more obvious question is, in light of the knowledge that all penalties have been (historically, from our perspective; 'were to be' from the perspective of those who lived prior to the cross) removed, why would anyone continue purposing to live in rejection of that provision?
But isn't the idea that one atones for suffering with more suffering just kind of idiotic?
Next time I am presented with the opportunity to alleviate or prevent the suffering of another, I'll just allow said suffering to happen but then bring about conditions under which I myself suffer. For instance, if I spot a child about to run out in front of a s ...[text shortened]... nail myself to a cross. My suffering will mysteriously bring the cosmos back into harmony.
28 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, he deliberately created a race in which every member was defective, took no accountability for his own poor design, launched an ineffective plan that only saved some of them, then condemned the rest to be tormented for all time.
The point of creating the other is that the other is bound to fail. This, He knew. This, He already planned for and atoned for with His suffering, denying Himself.
You are very big on the supposed suffering of the many, but I believe your empathy is wrongly placed. While history reveals many examples of so-called suffering, no example can compare to ...[text shortened]... tor of the universe--- willingly and with full foresight--- took upon Himself to redeem mankind.
I have not even an ounce of empathy for such a malevolent being.
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf you're saying that there is potential for defectiveness, then you are correct. However, man was created without sin, perfect. He could have perpetuated that paradise with God, had he simply continued making good decisions. He did not.
So, he deliberately created a race in which every member was defective, took no accountability for his own poor design, launched an ineffective plan that only saved some of them, then condemned the rest to be tormented for all time.
I have not even an ounce of empathy for such a malevolent being.
Man is able to not sin; when executing any particular sin, it is from his own free will choice. Said free will is not defective, per se, it simply has the potential for the same.
Case in point: the Lord Jesus Christ was able to live a perfect, sinless life--- birth to death. Born without sin (just like Adam), but continued in the same up to and including during His death.
The condemnation that awaits those who reject the solution to their problems is desired by those for whom it is reserved.
30 Apr 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow can you compare Christ with MAN ???
If you're saying that there is potential for defectiveness, then you are correct. However, man was created without sin, perfect. He could have perpetuated that paradise with God, had he simply continued making good decisions. He did not.
Man is able to not sin; when executing any particular sin, it is from his own free will choice. Said free will is ...[text shortened]... e who reject the solution to their problems is desired by those for whom it is reserved.
I know the Bible does that but the fact is that there is no comparison. NONE. NONE. End of story. Christ was blessed from the day he was born. If you have to ask how he was blessed please read your bible. Christ was NOT born the same way man is born.
30 Apr 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you believe that the saved will go to heaven eventually?
If you're saying that there is potential for defectiveness, then you are correct. However, man was created without sin, perfect. He could have perpetuated that paradise with God, had he simply continued making good decisions. He did not.
Man is able to not sin; when executing any particular sin, it is from his own free will choice. Said free will is ...[text shortened]... e who reject the solution to their problems is desired by those for whom it is reserved.
If yes, will they sin in heaven?
If no, do they still have free will?
30 Apr 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut was he capable of sin? If so, why do you believe that he did not sin? Did he claim to be sinless? What did he have that we don't that enabled him to remain sinless?
Case in point: the Lord Jesus Christ was able to live a perfect, sinless life--- birth to death. Born without sin (just like Adam), but continued in the same up to and including during His death.
30 Apr 09
Originally posted by Rajk999I do not compare Christ with man, I compare the Lord's humanity with man... in the same way the Bible does.
How can you compare Christ with MAN ???
I know the Bible does that but the fact is that there is no comparison. NONE. NONE. End of story. Christ was blessed from the day he was born. If you have to ask how he was blessed please read your bible. Christ was NOT born the same way man is born.
I am aware of His status from the moment of His earthly birth, more specifically of the triune nature of the same. By virtue of this triune nature, the Lord Jesus Christ was both able not to sin and unable to sin.
This is to mean, His humanity (like ours) was equipped with self-determination, a will. By His will, He decided to continually follow the plan of God.
Unlike us, He had/has a divine nature. As God, He is unable to sin. Also unlike us, He was born as Adam was created, i.e., without a sin nature.
30 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitDo you believe that the saved will go to heaven eventually?
Do you believe that the saved will go to heaven eventually?
If yes, will they sin in heaven?
If no, do they still have free will?
No. The saved are immediately transported to heaven at the moment of death.
If yes, will they sin in heaven?
Sin is not possible in heaven, just as sin was not possible in the Garden of Eden.
If no, do they still have free will?
Yes, free will is--- and always will be--- in effect.
30 Apr 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOK - so why did God even make earth? It would have been so much better if he had just started by creating heaven, with only those people who cannot sin, yet have their free will.
[b]Do you believe that the saved will go to heaven eventually?
No. The saved are immediately transported to heaven at the moment of death.
If yes, will they sin in heaven?
Sin is not possible in heaven, just as sin was not possible in the Garden of Eden.
If no, do they still have free will?
Yes, free will is--- and always will be--- in effect.[/b]
Just think - no suffering, no death, no torment in hell. What's not to like here?!