Originally posted by scottishinnzGod has never been ambivalent. The goal after the fall was to produce the Messiah to reconcile his creation back to him. He did this through the nation of Israel. The entire fight to establish Israel is a recorded history on how difficult it was. Much of the threads on this forum bash Bible believing Christians by pointing out how bloody this process was and how unjustifiable their goal was as a result. The battle was a spiritual battle, however. God is not concerned with wordly empires and wealth. Once in the promise land, the Jewish nation never sought to expand their empire. They only took possession of what God told them they could have. After the Messiah had come, the Jewish nation rejected their Messiah. This should not be a suprise and was prophesied. Throughout the Old Testament the Jewish nation continually rejected their God by worshiping other gods and such. It was prophesied that God would provoke his people to jealousy through reaching the Gentile nations. It was prophesied that through Abraham, all nations would be blessed. As we can see, through Abraham the nation of Israel was produced and through the the nation of Israel, the Messiah was produced. Also, do we not see three major religions of the world today, namely Christianity, Judism, and Islam, claiming Abraham as their own? It seems to me that yet another prophesy has been fulfilled. However, the goal was not to simply magnify Abraham. The goal was to bring the Messiah to reconcile God's creation back to him no matter their race or nationality. He continues to do so. Just look at the world and see the influence of a poor carpenters son in timbuktoo has had on the world today. Why then are we talking about the Messiah on these threads if God has left us?
Okay, so the style is tongue-in-cheek, my favourite style, but the serious question remains, why did god become so ambivalent towards humanity after the split from the Jews?
I suppose you say that God has become ambivalent to humanity because we no longer seem to see the great miracles such as the Red Sea parting before us. However, did the witnesses of these miracles have faith produced as a result? In fact, when the children of Israel exited Egypt by crossing the parted sea, the first question the Israelites asked Moses was why he had brought them out into the wilderness to die. Then when he left them at the base of Mount Siani to recieve the ten commandments, they built a golden calf to worship it. Is seeing believing? Look at the miracles that Christ performed. He healed the sick and raised the dead. Was seeing believing? They then nailed him to a cross, did they not? In reality, you can explain any miracle away. Look at God's creation around you. Is this not a miracle? Yet there are many interesting and intelligent ways to explain its origins away.
Originally posted by whodeyOkay, I see your point. However, this is god we're talking about. The ultimate creator, able to have anything he wants. Able to create anything he wants in any way, since his knowledge of what has, can and will happen is perfect. He didn't have to have things the way they were in the OT. He could have had them any way he wanted. This leads us to the conclusion that he deigned for them to be that way. He created the universe and humanity in such a way that all these things recounted in the OT would come to pass (if indeed it is true).
God has never been ambivalent. The goal after the fall was to produce the Messiah to reconcile his creation back to him. He did this through the nation of Israel. The entire fight to establish Israel is a recorded history on how difficult it was. Much of the threads on this forum bash Bible believing Christians by pointing out how bloody this process was ...[text shortened]... t a miracle? Yet there are many interesting and intelligent ways to explain its origins away.
You can state that the universe is a miracle, and I'd agree. I'd simply say that I believe it to be a miracle that we can and should understand. No matter what the Christian says he can never fully understand god. He may have a relationship with god, but he can never understand what it is to be god.
And yet, none of this explains why god saw fit to go through the whole OT palavar, and why he chooses not to do such things nowadays. Let's face it, he destroyed Soddom, why not L.A.?
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou must understand God's nature. As corny as it may sound he is a God of love. Love demands a free choice. We must have free choice to love him back and do. You say that he can do anything he wants. Why is giving us free will to love him back not included in this? Why then can he not, on the one hand, design us to serve him and, on the other hand, let us choose to serve him? Once man is given free will, he must then choose to walk in faith with God. In other words, God needs your will to do his will in order to move in our lives. If he forced himself upon mankind, then he would be taking away what he freely chose to give us. In essence, he has chosen to limit his control because he insists on us having free will. Again, this is because love demands free choice. It was never God's will that Adam and Eve fall from grace just as it was never God's will that Israel reject him or that any one reject him. It says in his word that it is his will that none should perish. As far as designing his creation to fall, I would have to disagree. We were designed to serve our creator and not to serve ourselves. Satan, for example, was not designed to fall. He is not fulfilling the purpose in which he was created for. As a result of his decision, he exists in torment as a result of willfully being cut off from the God of life. By default he has therefore chosen death. God has a design and purpose for us in our lives as well. This does not mean we fulfill it, however. This means that we have the choice to fulfill it.
Okay, I see your point. However, this is god we're talking about. The ultimate creator, able to have anything he wants. Able to create anything he wants in any way, since his knowledge of what has, can and will happen is perfect. He didn't have to have things the way they were in the OT. He could have had them any way he wanted. This leads us to th chooses not to do such things nowadays. Let's face it, he destroyed Soddom, why not L.A.?
I know that you will probably argue that God knew beforehand that Satan would fall as well as man and I would agree. Then you will probably argue that God could have designed man's will in such a way so as to never reject him. This is where I would disagree. How then could it be free will? It would not truely be free will unless someone somewhere down the line decided to reject him. If you think about this stuff to long your head will really start to hurt!!!!!!!!!!!
Your second paragraph somewhat confuses me. On the one hand you say that there are mysteries about God that we will never understand which I would agree with. Then you say that his creation is a miracle and a mystery that we should understand. It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways. For me I think that understanding him and learning about him is an eternal process. We continue from revelation to revelation. We even do this with ourselves, don't you agree?
Originally posted by twhiteheadLOL This is funny. Thanks for the laugh, guys.
This is one bit I have never understood. God made man and woman without the knowledge to understand what they were doing and what was right and wrong. They did wrong - with some assistance from Mr. Snake. He punishes them and all thier decendants etc who are just as innocent.
It just doesnt make sense to me.
Just in case someone was actually curious...
Adam and Eve didn't know right and wrong because there was no wrong in the world at that time. God created everything and everything was perfect. But they did know God's will and that He didn't want them to eat from that one tree. When they used thier free will to go against God's will, they introduced wrong into the world and then they could tell the two apart.
Now, God didn't/doesn't punish us for doing wrong. Hell is simply the consequence of sin. Just like gravity is a law of the phyiscal world (I drop something, it falls), hell is a law of the spiritual world (I sin, I destine my soul for hell).
It's a common thought that God punishes us by sending us to hell. As if we were all destined to go to heaven if God didn't intervene and send us to hell. That's perfectly human. We all like to think of ourselves as "good". But that's exactly backwards. Heaven can only contain that which is absolutely perfect, which none of us are, so our default destination is hell. Jesus came to give us a way out of this. By accepting Him, we are washed clean of our sins and therefore can be admitted into heaven (this is another spiritual law).
Does that make sense?
DF
Originally posted by scottishinnzTwo reasons:
Okay, so the style is tongue-in-cheek, my favourite style, but the serious question remains, why did god become so ambivalent towards humanity after the split from the Jews?
1, the split was a mistake and Jesus is a false Messiah
2, with the Pope being Infallible, who needs God?
Originally posted by whodeyAllow me to paraphrase your position and make sense of it:
God has never been ambivalent. The goal after the fall was to produce the Messiah to reconcile his creation back to him. He did this through the nation of Israel. The entire fight to establish Israel is a recorded history on how difficult it was. Much of the threads on this forum bash Bible believing Christians by pointing out how bloody this process was ...[text shortened]... t a miracle? Yet there are many interesting and intelligent ways to explain its origins away.
"God has never been." Full stop.
Followed by loads of ridiculous flim-flam, of how Mankind attempted to square the fact that through the ages he has been very nasty and caused much death and suffering, with the idea that we are all God's chosen people.
Farcical.
Originally posted by howardgeeAlrighty then. Thanks for the discussion.
Allow me to paraphrase your position and make sense of it:
"God has never been." Full stop.
Followed by loads of ridiculous flim-flam, of how Mankind attempted to square the fact that through the ages he has been very nasty and caused much death and suffering, with the idea that we are all God's chosen people.
Farcical.
Originally posted by KneverKnightWho says he split from the Jews? They are no better or no worse than any other race. Also, who says that the Pope in infallible. I certainly did not. This is because I am not Catholic. This is a man made teaching that is not Biblical.
Two reasons:
1, the split was a mistake and Jesus is a false Messiah
2, with the Pope being Infallible, who needs God?
Originally posted by whodeyWell, with Fundies around, no need for God, since they know it all.
Who says he split from the Jews? They are no better or no worse than any other race. Also, who says that the Pope in infallible. I certainly did not. This is because I am not Catholic. This is a man made teaching that is not Biblical.
Praise be.
I apologize to everyone in advance for the choppy 'cut and respond' style of this post. Of late, I have tried to avoid this technique, but here it seems the most efficient manner in which to reply to DF's assertions. Please accept as consolation that I will eschew the snide one-liners that often accompany this method.
Adam and Eve didn't know right and wrong because there was no wrong in the world at that time.
Isn't it commonly accepted among by xians that Satan was in the world then? If so, then would "wrong" have already been actualized before Eve ate of the fruit.
God created everything and everything was perfect.
Perhaps, except that God designed the concept of "wrong" AKA evil. That doesn't seem perfect. Moreover, his design clearly had a serious flaw since a great many of the angels and all of the humans did "wrong." You'd hope that God could make a world where at least some humans choose not to do evil.
But they did know God's will and that He didn't want them to eat from that one tree. When they used thier free will to go against God's will, they introduced wrong into the world and then they could tell the two apart.
OK. So just two sentences above you said that neither Adam nor Eve knew right and wrong, but in the first sentence of this quote you implicitly assume that Adam and Eve knew that they should not go against God's will, that is they knew it was " If you don't assume this, then the Fall is all just a happy accident.
Now, God didn't/doesn't punish us for doing wrong. Hell is simply the consequence of sin. Just like gravity is a law of the phyiscal world (I drop something, it falls), hell is a law of the spiritual world (I sin, I destine my soul for hell).
Except that if Hell is just like gravity, then God is punishing us for doing wrong because God designed gravity. It was not as if God said, "Hmm . . . I must create a universe, but I must also respect the universal law of gravity." Of course not. Gravity didn't exist until he created it.
In the same way, Hell and the universal rule that doing wrong warrants eternity in it are properties of Creation designed by God. He thought it up while hanging out in the Void and chose to create it.
BTW I call arguments like the one about gravity that you use "God in a Box" arguments. They come up all the time in intelligent design debates. For instance, if a skeptic points out how poorly designed the human eye is the "God in a Box" response would be something like "Actually, the eye is a very good design if you consider the natural constraints which govern it. Ever heard of constrained optimization?" (I actually heard a IDist use this exact response on Lee Strobel's "Faith Under Fire." The economist in me wanted to reach through the television and give that stupid apologist a math lesson.) The "God in a Box" argument claims that laws within Creation governed the the type of Creation God could make, that is to say these natural laws bound God before they even existed! Obviously this is silly, since God's omnipotence and Creator status necessarily imply that God could have chosen any sort of natural laws he desired, and that he was not compelled to respect any particular natural laws in advance.
Aside over. Back to your post.
It's a common thought that God punishes us by sending us to hell. As if we were all destined to go to heaven if God didn't intervene and send us to hell. That's perfectly human. We all like to think of ourselves as "good". But that's exactly backwards. Heaven can only contain that which is absolutely perfect, which none of us are, so our default destination is hell.
Here again you assume that this "good things go to Heaven, bad things go to Hell" was an exogenous law that existed before Creation and that God just had to work around it. If God really is the Creator of the Universe then such a rule was designed by him. The question you should ask yourself before making these God in a Box arguments is "if God didn't come up with the rule, then who did?"
Originally posted by telerionMy point was that Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong at the time they ate the apple because they had never experienced wrong. The world (and them) was perfect at that time.
Isn't it commonly accepted among by xians that Satan was in the world then? If so, then would "wrong" have already been actualized before Eve ate of the fruit.
Perhaps, except that God designed the concept of "wrong" AKA evil. That doesn't seem perfect. Moreover, his design clearly had a serious flaw since a great many of the angels and all of the hu ...[text shortened]... in a Box arguments is "if God didn't come up with the rule, then who did?"
Some of the humans (and some of the angels) have chosen not to do evil (but none are perfect, if that's what you mean - but that's a seperate issue). But the choice to do evil must exist or free will wouldn't. And without free will you can't have love (which is the whole purpose of the creation to begin with).
They knew they should not go against God's will, yes, but they didn't know the consequences of it because they had never experienced wrong. How do you describe yellow to a person who's been blind their whole life? They have no frame of reference to hang your description on. The same is true of wrong here.
Yes, God designed the rules and hell is part of those rules. But it was never designed for humans. Hell was created for Satan and his followers, not humans. Humans made the choice to enter it themselves (there's that pesky free will again).
I'm not assuming that good goes to heaven, it's simply how God designed the place. And when you stop to think about it, it's just a side affect of who He is. God is perfect and our souls are supposed to reside with Him. How can the imperfect coexist with the perfect? Can light and darkness exist together? Of course not. Neither can the imperfect exist with the perfect. The imperfect must be made perfect to exist with God, thus Jesus.
DF
Originally posted by DragonFriendNow, God didn't/doesn't punish us for doing wrong. Hell is simply the consequence of sin. Just like gravity is a law of the phyiscal world (I drop something, it falls), hell is a law of the spiritual world (I sin, I destine my soul for hell).
LOL This is funny. Thanks for the laugh, guys.
Just in case someone was actually curious...
Adam and Eve didn't know right and wrong because there was no wrong in the world at that time. God created everything and everything was perfect. But they did know God's will and that He didn't want them to eat from that one tree. When they used thier fre ...[text shortened]... n be admitted into heaven (this is another spiritual law).
Does that make sense?
DF
It's a common thought that God punishes us by sending us to hell.
I think you have the wrong idea about this. The scripture tells us that it is God’s law that sin be punished. Whether people suffer for their evil actions here on earth, or in the afterlife, God’s law dictates that unforgiven sin be paid for.
Originally posted by telerionPerhaps, except that God designed the concept of "wrong" AKA evil. That doesn't seem perfect. Moreover, his design clearly had a serious flaw since a great many of the angels and all of the humans did "wrong." You'd hope that God could make a world where at least some humans choose not to do evil.
I apologize to everyone in advance for the choppy 'cut and respond' style of this post. Of late, I have tried to avoid this technique, but here it seems the most efficient manner in which to reply to DF's assertions. Please accept as consolation that I will eschew the snide one-liners that often accompany this method.
[b]Adam and Eve didn't know ri "if God didn't come up with the rule, then who did?"
[/b]His design is actually quite perfect. Evil has to exist for there to be good. If your so inclined take a look at my post in my “An Argument for the Existence of God” thread page 9.
Also, it is quite possible for us to not choose evil. If this weren’t so then we wouldn't have free will.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf this is all you want to know then it's all you ever will know.
Act 1; God creates earth and everything in it. Eve, being the wench that she is, eats apple. God not happy. Punishes all of mankind, forvever. Next couple of thousand years plagued with plagues, wars, civil unrest, floods, pillars of salt, sodomites and general smiting. [curtains close on Roman soldiers marching into sunset....]
Act 2; God sends ...[text shortened]... 's not called that anymore, it's called 'dissociative identity disorder'.
Views?
Long post, cut and respond, same disclaimer applies here as before. Thank you in advance for your patience.
My point was that Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong at the time they ate the apple because they had never experienced wrong. The world (and them) was perfect at that time.
You don't have to have experienced committing wrong to know what right and wrong is. You do have to commit wrong to know what it feels like to commit a wrong.
I believe this is twhitehead's point: God punishes Adam and Eve for doing something that they could not know was wrong. Only after they ate of the fruit did they understand what good and evil are. If they didn't know before, then they couldn't know that it was wrong to eat of the tree even if God did warn them. If they didn't understand that disobeying God was an evil act, then how is God justified in punishing them? It's like beating a dog for not sharing his bone. You can tell him, "Share you bone with the other dogs, Rosco," but he just has no concept.
Some of the humans (and some of the angels) have chosen not to do evil (but none are perfect, if that's what you mean - but that's a seperate issue).
That is exactly what I mean. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" as Paul tells us in Romans. I know that some of the angels haven't and that's why I made sure to say "a great many" rather than "all." That aside, surely God, being the omni-being that is, could create a world where not every human fails. After all he designed free will, did he not?
But the choice to do evil must exist or free will wouldn't. And without free will you can't have love (which is the whole purpose of the creation to begin with).
This is another "God in a Box" argument. God designed evil, free will, and love. If each of these necessitates the others' existence, then God made it so. Again, ask yourself, if God did not make these rules which you say govern evil, free will, and love, then who or what did?
They knew they should not go against God's will, yes, but they didn't know the consequences of it because they had never experienced wrong.
Until eating of the tree though, they did not know that disobeying God's will was an evil act. Further they did know what the consequence would be because God told them in advance:
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 3:3 NIV emphasis mine)
Now an apt question here would be "why would God threaten Adam and Eve with a punishment they could not understand?" Whatever the answer to that question is, they were warned ahead of time of the consequence.
How do you describe yellow to a person who's been blind their whole life? They have no frame of reference to hang your description on. The same is true of wrong here.
This is exactly right, but what I and, I believe, twhitehead are trying to say is that Adam and Eve could not understand that the act of eating of the tree was wrong. Your analogy puts it well: it would be like describing yellow to a blind person.
Yes, God designed the rules and hell is part of those rules. But it was never designed for humans. Hell was created for Satan and his followers, not humans. Humans made the choice to enter it themselves (there's that pesky free will again).
But given that God has perfect foresight (by his omniscience), he knew before the moment of Creation that many (most?) humans would spend eternity in Hell. He chose to create it anyway. Therefore, one cannot say that God did not create Hell for humans as well as demons. Perfect foresight rules out that defense.
I'm not assuming that good goes to heaven, it's simply how God designed the place. And when you stop to think about it, it's just a side affect of who He is. God is perfect and our souls are supposed to reside with Him. How can the imperfect coexist with the perfect? Can light and darkness exist together? Of course not. Neither can the imperfect exist with the perfect. The imperfect must be made perfect to exist with God, thus Jesus.
There are several issues that I want to tackle here. First, I see that I misrepresented you slightly. You said only "perfect" things can go to heaven, not "good" things. My apologies for overlooking that. I am intentionally conflating "good" and "perfect," but it seems that you do not agree with that. Also a technicality, I bet that you would agree that your statement should read that "only perfect things and redeemed things" can go to heaven. This makes it consistent with the statements "no human is perfect" and "some humans will go to heaven."
Now again in this section we encounter a "God in a Box" argument. You claim that "[good things going to heaven is] just a side affect (sic) of who He is" and that the imperfect cannot "coexist with the perfect." There is nothing illogical about perfect and imperfect things coexisting in proximity to each other or with evil things going to heaven. If it does not violate an axiom of logic, then these rules must have been created by God (again unless some other creator established these laws before God created). So again you are attempting to explain why some humans go to hell rather than heaven by tying God's hands, constraining him to obey rules of this Creation even before he created.
I also find it odd that you first claim that good things go to heaven because that's "simply how God designed the place," and then in the next sentence contradict this by saying that it's "just a side affect (sic) of who He is." Which is it? Did he create it that way or is it just a law God did not create but which nevertheless binds because of who God is?
Finally I'd like to point out that your light/darkness analogy doesn't work well in this case. First, there is no reason to think that perfect things and imperfect things must be seperated even as light and darkness are now seperate. You have for all appearances a misplaced analogy. Second, this is another "God in a Box" argument. God designed light and darkness to be seperate. In fact, the Bible even says so on this one.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. (Gen 1:3-4 NIV).
So it is not as though God had to respect an a priori law that in every potential Creation light and darkness must be seperate. Rather he chose to make their relationship so. Also given that there was no a priori law that said that in every potential Creation perfect things and imperfect things must not be in proximity to one another, then the seperation of perfect things from imperfect things was a choice made by God (if there was such an a priori law, then, again, who or what made this law?).
Finally, it is clear from the Bible that perfect things and imperfect things can share proximity with each other. I will give you three examples,
1) Satan enters heaven whereupon God boasts of Job
One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." (Job 1:6-7)
2) Satan comes to Jesus in the desert
(Matt 4:1-11)
3) Jesus walks among mankind for over 30 years
In every one of these cases an imperfect thing and a perfect coexist in proximity to one another. In the first example, the imperfect thing is actually in Heaven, and in the third example, the perfect thing coexists with imperfect things for a long period of time.
The biggest point that I want to make however is that these "God in a Box" arguments are a fallacious method by which to explain why God created as he did or to pass the blame for the bad aspects of Creation onto another person.