Suffering for the Sins of the World

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Edgarcito you were trying desperately to sidetrack the conversation onto the subject of Adam and Eve and free will.  Well, now we're having that conversation.  About time you chimed in, don't you reckon?

[alreadyGone]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

...

I submit, therefore, based on the evidence given in the text, that it was not the serpent who corrupted Eve.  Eve had been already corrupted by her corrupt and evil creator, who then used the serpent, the tree, and the fruit as a means to both confirm and complete her corruption and ensure the suffering of evil would befall every generation of her children thenceforth.  This is all the work of god.  The intentional and deliberate damnation of his own children, for what purposes only a complete psychopath could fathom.

 

 

Very well said!

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

It seems like desire is the actual motivation.

Here's another way of looking at it, mwc.  The seven deadly sins are listed as Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Greed, Gluttony, and Lust.  Isn't Desire in some form or another at the heart of each of these sins?  So, going back to the analogy, if Pride was the component of the target analyte, then Desire would be the exact covalence or ion of the component upon which the catalyst would interact.  The serpent was able to appeal to the Desire that underlay both Eve's Pride and her sense of mystery.  That's a good catch.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

My contention here would be that god never had any intention to protect Adam and Eve from the serpent, nor did he have any reason to.  Precisely because god knew they were already contaminated with Sin; and the serpent was merely going to be the reagent or catalyst that extracted the target analyte.  The serpent was as much a part of god's experiment as the tree and the fruit.  The serpent was the methylene chloride that would interact with the component (Pride) and thus extract the entire target analyte (Sin) so that it could be analyzed with the tree and the fruit.  So, for god to have protected Adam and Eve would have botched the experiment from the start.

 

It seems clear to me, from the text, that god intended for Sin (and with it Suffering) to be present in the world.  As such, he created Adam and Eve with the capacity for sin and the ability to sin.  The entire Garden experiment was simply god confirming that the Sin he created them with, was indeed present; and thereby confirming that the Suffering that would result from Sin would be unleashed upon the generations.  Of course, god using the serpent while he was, himself, off somewhere else, not only provided god an alibi for the crime, but also allowed the blame to be shifted off of him and onto Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

 

Either way, though, whether god intentionally corrupted them from the start, or whether god allowed the serpent to corrupt them--neither of them alter the cold hard fact that the ultimate responsibility rests squarely upon god's lofty shoulders.  He was in control.  And he had both the power and all of the relevant information he needed to prevent evil and suffering.  And he did nothing.

 

We seem to agree on most points, Prof.

 

However, I think I detect a problem in your middle paragraph, specifically the highlighted sentence.  Because god is all-knowing he has no need to confirm anything to himself.  Seeking confirmation implies or suggests a state of ignorance about something or a lack knowledge about something.  This cannot possibly apply to god.  Being all-knowing, anything and everything that ever needed confirmation is, has and was already fully known by him.

 

So, if he is confirming something about the Garden experiment, for who's benefit was this confirmation?  Presumably another being or beings - those without god's all-knowledge.  Those who cannot see how the experiment will pan out.  But who could these beings be and why would god trouble himself to create an experiment for their benefit?

 

Any ideas?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is a really god analogy, Walt; and it got me thinking about why god would conduct a test when he already knew in advance what the results would be.  This is also something I would expect a fellow scientist such as @Edgarcito to be very familiar with; because it is something that we do in the lab all the time.  We run tests to confirm what we already know, either because a previous test already yielded the information, or because we have historical data and want to confirm the information it yields.

 

Now, if god already knew that the results of the test were going to be sin, rebellion,  and disobedience, then what information was god looking to confirm?  As I see it, he may have wanted to confirm that he had created Adam and Eve as sinful, rebellious, and disobedient beings.  Or, following your analogy here, perhaps he did create them as pure and innocent, but wanted to confirm that they had indeed been corrupted by the serpent, thereby ensuring that god himself would remain blameless. 

 

It's an interesting speculation, that ultimately does not matter, given that god is certainly guilty of planting the tree.  Food for thought, though...

 

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We seem to agree on most points, Prof.

 

However, I think I detect a problem in your middle paragraph, specifically the highlighted sentence.  Because god is all-knowing he has no need to confirm anything to himself.  Seeking confirmation implies or suggests a state of ignorance about something or a lack knowledge about something.  This cannot possibly apply to god.  Being all-knowing, anything and everything that ever needed confirmation is, has and was already fully known by him.

 

So, if he is confirming something about the Garden experiment, for who's benefit was this confirmation?  Presumably another being or beings - those without god's all-knowledge.  Those who cannot see how the experiment will pan out.  But who could these beings be and why would god trouble himself to create an experiment for their benefit?

 

Any ideas?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I believe I had already covered that in a previous post.  god ran the experiment to confirm what he already knew, which is why we, in the lab, often run experiments even when we already know what the results will be based either on a previous experiment or on historical data. 

 

However, the other possibility is that, as Ed would insist, the experiment was meant to demonstrate something to Adam and Eve, and by extension, the rest of humanity.  But what could god be demonstrating beyond his evil?  Because the experiment itself shows us that either god intentionally corrupted Adam and Eve himself, or god intentionally allowed the serpent to corrupt them.

[Edgarcito]

Ok, after our last and somewhat heated exchanges, I tried to log on the next morning and the site took me to the, "you're not a member/sign up" opening page to ExC.  And having crossed the threshold of bad behavior before, it was reminiscent of being placed in time out.  Went to another computer and could see the forum and tried to log in to the same result.  Sent a message to the Prof and he did some magic and now I have access.  

 

I likely think the time out was more of a good thing as it was getting too heated.  I shall endeavor to do better.  We just don't share the same logic and it gets overly frustrating because it's "why don't they see that".  Which I think is exactly the same for many of you....."why doesn't that #$% see that".

 

I will try to catch up and see if there is any common ground.   

 

 

[freshstart]

On 9/14/2022 at 1:19 PM, Weezer said:

This is somewhat of a sidetrack, but while we are on this subject, it seems like Ed (or someone else)?  in the past made an insightful comment regarding child starvation, abuse, etc.  We talk about how terrible God is for letting it happen, but all we people from the most wealthy and powerful country in the word do is talk about it.  So are we that much different than God??  

I see your point, but I don't know that that is entirely fair to say that "all we do is talk." There are many indirect ways to fight injustice, and as somebody pointed out, just paying taxes is one of the ways to contribute.  But when there is an underground network of human traffickers, its hard to know (as well as overwhelming to consider) how to have a personal impact. When I was working for a Christian organization, I traveled to Guatemala serveral times to assist a missionary organization in helping to build homes, distribute food/clothing, and assist in fitting/distribution of wheelchairs for people who needed them. I was overwhelmed by the level of poverty I saw. Ultimately I ended up sending a monthly gift to help children go to school - and never stopped-  even though I disagree with the organization's proselytizing. Its a drop in the bucket but I like to think a lot of people contribute in small ways like this, helping children to get an education and avoid these terrible tragedies. Plus the apathy is not confined to wealthy westerners. I feel like a lot people in countries affected the most by child sex trafficking turn a blind eye.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, if he is confirming something about the Garden experiment, for who's benefit was this confirmation?  Presumably another being or beings - those without god's all-knowledge.  Those who cannot see how the experiment will pan out.  But who could these beings be and why would god trouble himself to create an experiment for their benefit?

 

Another possibility is the one already raised by @Joshpantera that the entire universe is populated by other races of sentient beings upon whom the curse of sin and suffering have not been inflicted.  It would make sense that god would require a control group, if he's any good at experiment design.  And, I would assume most of us are familiar with C.S. Lewis' "Out of the Silent Planet."

 

But most apologists would find that possibility ridiculous. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I believe there may be a way of reconciling our differing views on how the corruption of Adam and Eve occurred, @walterpthefirst.  I contend that they were already corrupted in creation and were never pure to begin with.  You hold that they were created pure and were corrupted by the serpent.  We obviously cannot both be correct... or can we?

 

Well, we certainly can both be correct, if we appeal to Erwin Schrödinger.  In his famous thought experiment, Schrödinger proposed that the cat in the box would simultaneously be both dead and alive until such time as the experimenter acted upon the experiment (by opening the box).  This interaction would affect the outcome of the experiment and determine the final disposition of the cat.  The cat has a 50/50 chance of surviving the experiment; but so long as the box remains closed, no one knows, not even the cat, whether or not the cat is alive or dead, because the cat is both alive and dead.  Similarly, no one knows whether the cat will be alive or dead until the box is opened.

 

I propose, then, the possibility that Adam and Eve were simultaneously sinful and pure; and would have remained in that state until such time as god (the experimenter) acted upon the experiment (by means of the tree and fruit).  Now, an apologist such as Ed would be quick to point out that it was the serpent who acted upon the experiment by means of tempting Eve.  However, I would argue that the serpent, in this analogy, would be representative of the hammer and cyanide vial inside the box.  Again, merely a part of the experiment, but, like the methylene chloride of the previous analogy, the serpent is the precise agent god is using to determine the outcome of the experiment.

 

So, I present to you Schrödinger's Eve--simultaneously pure and sinful until such time as god conducts the experiment in Eden.  The flaw in this analogy, though, is that unlike Schrödinger, god did know the outcome of the experiment beforehand.  He knew that Eve would retain her sinfulness and lose her purity.  In this sense, god knew whether the cat would be alive or dead.  In fact, god knew that the cat would be dead at the end of the experiment and even admitted it beforehand: "You will surely die."  Thus, again, we see the evil nature of god.  We see that it was his intention all along to introduce Sin, Suffering, and Death into the world; and the Garden experiment was simply a means to achieve that end.  

 

god is evil.

[Edgarcito]

In the 2nd Chapter, it seems that humanity could perceive pleasing and good, which would be consistent with hanging out with God or even some innate qualities.  And imo, God tells Adam the truth that he will certainly die, as in not eternal, not just immediate death.

 

Then somehow Eve gets an additional message about touching and she still understands pleasing and good, but the implication is she had an innate quality or potential for jealousy. The serpent says she will know good and evil like them....which seems consistent that God knew good and evil and whoever else "them" is.  But after she ate, it was necessary that God not allow them to become eternal.

 

So Eve, I am thinking, even having exposure to God, good and pleasing, and with instruction, chose her innate potential presented by the serpent.  It's certainly arguable that maybe Eve wanted to be like "them" because she revered them, but maybe for the wrong reasons, that instead of accepting her own path, she took a shortcut, which in itself was not innately righteous as Noah and a couple of more must have possessed.

 

Her innate heart condition was not pure...nor Adams.

[Edgarcito]

We look at Jesus being God.  Jesus is purported to be sinless, but if he's God, then he had the potential as did Eve, for temptation.  The Bible even says that he could have called legions of angels but chose not to....which maintained his sinlessness.

 

This brings us back to the argument the Prof makes about is it evil to allow for selection given God knows the individual and I'm gathering how they will choose.

 

My only answer to that is again the verse says that you may freely eat/consume.  I don't truthfully know if freely with respect to God is, perhaps an absolute freedom outside of his own omniscience or not.  I don't know.

 

"Them" might be playing poker with us.  I believe to understand your point, but I'm going with it's our choices, our heart condition in the face of our nature.

 

   

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Her innate heart condition was not pure...nor Adams.

Precisely.  So, how is it, then, that humanity is at fault for the consequences of Sin, when it was god who created Sin and placed it into Adam and Eve, knowing full well that they would act on it?  Again, the deliberate decision god made in spite of his omniscience condemn him, and prove him to be evil.  He knew Eve would eat the fruit, because he knew that he had created her with the "potential for jealousy" (in your words), as well as Pride (as I've argued) and Desire (as mwc pointed out).  Eve was flawed from the very beginning, and god knew it; but he still hung the fate of all of humanity on her making the choice that he knew he had not designed her to make.  And now this same god presumes to judge us?  Still keeps up the pretense that he is just and blameless?  Still allows children to starve to death and be sold into sexual slavery because he has some great and mighty divine plan?  

 

No, Ed, god is evil.  No matter how you look at it, at the end of the day, god is evil.  If he is omnipotent, then he is evil; because he has the power to stop evil and doesn't do it.  If he is omnibenevolent, then he is evil; because love should overcome evil, but he doesn't do it.  If he is omniscient, then he is evil; because he knew in advance everything that would happen, and he still made the choices that allowed it to happen.

 

There is simply no way the god of the bible exists, Ed.  The only way he exists is if he is evil.  But, if he is evil, then the bible is wrong in describing him as good and loving, which is just another way of saying that the god of the bible does not exist.

[walterpthefirst]

15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I believe I had already covered that in a previous post.  god ran the experiment to confirm what he already knew, which is why we, in the lab, often run experiments even when we already know what the results will be based either on a previous experiment or on historical data. 

 

However, the other possibility is that, as Ed would insist, the experiment was meant to demonstrate something to Adam and Eve, and by extension, the rest of humanity.  But what could god be demonstrating beyond his evil?  Because the experiment itself shows us that either god intentionally corrupted Adam and Eve himself, or god intentionally allowed the serpent to corrupt them.

 

Ah, now here we might disagree, Prof.

 

When you run experiments in your lab you do not know what the results will be as if you had already seen them.  Instead, what you are doing are looking at previous experiments and historical data and then extrapolating from those.  Doing that gives you an expectation that the experiment will produce the same result.

 

You have this expectation because you exist in the present and remember the past, but you do not exist in the future.  This is where you are fundamentally different from god.  To him, the past, the present and the future are all the same and he is fully and totally present in all three.  When most people think of god's quality of omnipresence they tend to think only in spatial terms, with god being fully present in every location.  But he is temporally omnipresent as well.

 

He is not just everywhere, he is also everywhen.

 

And that is why I asserted that there cannot be anything that he wishes to check or confirm for himself - because he already knows it.  Do you see how spatial and temporal omnipresence seamlessly integrate themselves with god's other quality of all-knowledge?  By being temporally omnipresent there is no event that remains unknown to him.  There is also nothing for him to discover and therefore nothing that he needs to confirm to himself.

 

That is why I suggested that his Garden experiment was for the benefit of others who do not possess his god's all-knowledge and spatio-temporal omnipresence.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

We look at Jesus being God.  Jesus is purported to be sinless, but if he's God, then he had the potential as did Eve, for temptation.  The Bible even says that he could have called legions of angels but chose not to....which maintained his sinlessness.

You're opening a very dangerous can of worms, here, Ed.  Because my counter argument is going to center around the idea that, by your own admission, the test god expected Eve to pass was a test that only god could have passed in the first place, and the life of jesus demonstrates that.  

 

Are you sure you want to go down that road?  You aren't going to like where it leads.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

That is why I suggested that his Garden experiment was for the benefit of others who do not possess his god's all-knowledge and spatio-temporal omnipresence.

I concede this point.  Well played, my good man.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I believe there may be a way of reconciling our differing views on how the corruption of Adam and Eve occurred, @walterpthefirst.  I contend that they were already corrupted in creation and were never pure to begin with.  You hold that they were created pure and were corrupted by the serpent.  We obviously cannot both be correct... or can we?

 

Well, we certainly can both be correct, if we appeal to Erwin Schrödinger.  In his famous thought experiment, Schrödinger proposed that the cat in the box would simultaneously be both dead and alive until such time as the experimenter acted upon the experiment (by opening the box).  This interaction would affect the outcome of the experiment and determine the final disposition of the cat.  The cat has a 50/50 chance of surviving the experiment; but so long as the box remains closed, no one knows, not even the cat, whether or not the cat is alive or dead, because the cat is both alive and dead.  Similarly, no one knows whether the cat will be alive or dead until the box is opened.

 

I propose, then, the possibility that Adam and Eve were simultaneously sinful and pure; and would have remained in that state until such time as god (the experimenter) acted upon the experiment (by means of the tree and fruit).  Now, an apologist such as Ed would be quick to point out that it was the serpent who acted upon the experiment by means of tempting Eve.  However, I would argue that the serpent, in this analogy, would be representative of the hammer and cyanide vial inside the box.  Again, merely a part of the experiment, but, like the methylene chloride of the previous analogy, the serpent is the precise agent god is using to determine the outcome of the experiment.

 

So, I present to you Schrödinger's Eve--simultaneously pure and sinful until such time as god conducts the experiment in Eden.  The flaw in this analogy, though, is that unlike Schrödinger, god did know the outcome of the experiment beforehand.  He knew that Eve would retain her sinfulness and lose her purity.  In this sense, god knew whether the cat would be alive or dead.  In fact, god knew that the cat would be dead at the end of the experiment and even admitted it beforehand: "You will surely die."  Thus, again, we see the evil nature of god.  We see that it was his intention all along to introduce Sin, Suffering, and Death into the world; and the Garden experiment was simply a means to achieve that end.  

 

god is evil.

 

There is another way to sidestep our differences on this one, Prof.

 

Instead of treating scripture as being accurate and then extrapolating rigorously from that, utilising complex arguments involving quantum uncertainty, why don't we just settle for an altogether simpler, more realistic and much more likely explanation?

 

That the Eden narrative was written by religious people a long time ago and that it is simply the limited, flawed and contradictory product of their limited, flawed and contradictory minds?

 

What say you?

 

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You're opening a very dangerous can of worms, here, Ed.  Because my counter argument is going to center around the idea that, by your own admission, the test god expected Eve to pass was a test that only god could have passed in the first place, and the life of jesus demonstrates that.  

 

Are you sure you want to go down that road?  You aren't going to like where it leads.

No, as I pointed out, there were a few that passed the test in the OT.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

No, as I pointed out, there were a few that passed the test in the OT.  

No.  There weren't, Ed.  Because even if god considered them "righteous" they still experienced death, which means they were under the curse of Sin already and therefore were not sinless at the beginning of the test.  Lot, for example, who got drunk and fucked both of his daughters, was considered "righteous" by god.  This shows how low god's standard for righteousness is after the fall.  But Lot also died.  So, he didn't pass the test.  Now bring up Enoch and Elijah and we'll see how they didn't pass the test either.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

That the Eden narrative was written by religious people a long time ago and that it is simply the limited, flawed and contradictory product of their limited, flawed and contradictory minds?

I already view the scripture that way, including the Eden story.  But, as you pointed out to duderonomy, sometimes it's necessary to treat it as "true" in order to argue against it and prove it "false."

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I already view the scripture that way, including the Eden story.  But, as you pointed out to duderonomy, sometimes it's necessary to treat it as "true" in order to argue against it and prove it "false."

 

Aye aye, cap'n!  

 

Devil's Advocate is our friend.

 

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  There weren't, Ed.  Because even if god considered them "righteous" they still experienced death, which means they were under the curse of Sin already and therefore were not sinless at the beginning of the test.  Lot, for example, who got drunk and fucked both of his daughters, was considered "righteous" by god.  This shows how low god's standard for righteousness is after the fall.  But Lot also died.  So, he didn't pass the test.  Now bring up Enoch and Elijah and we'll see how they didn't pass the test either.

 

A point of order, Prof.

 

 

Genesis 5 : 24

Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

 

Hebrews 11 : 5

 

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

 

2 Kings 2 : 11 & 12

11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

12 Elisha saw this and cried out, “My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!” And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his garment and tore it in two.

 

 

According to scripture neither the patriarch Enoch nor the prophet Elijah experienced physical death.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

According to scripture neither the patriarch Enoch nor the prophet Elijah experienced physical death.

That is true; but that is also a part of the trap I was laying for Ed.  Because, as we know, Death was not the only curse that resulted from Sin.  As members of humanity, both Enoch and Elijah would have been born under Original Sin.  This means, by definition, that both, at some point would have had a choice between doing what was "right" and what was "wrong" and both would have chosen "wrong".  Had they not chosen "wrong" at some point, they would have been considered "sinless."  But, they were not considered "sinless"; rather, they were considered "righteous."  The argument could also be made that had they been "sinless" then god could have used them to redeem us, obviating the need for jesus.  

[walterpthefirst]

Having said that about Enoch and Elijah, the bible does help to explain why they could enter heaven alive, even though they were descended from Eve, the Mother of all the living.

 

Exodus 33 : 18 - 20

 

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

 

Romans 9 : 13 - 24

 

13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

 

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 

 

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 

20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 

23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 

24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

 

 

Enoch and Elijah would be objects that god prepared in advance to receive his mercy.  Whereas Esau and the Pharaoh were objects prepared in advance to receive his wrath.  And none of what they did or didn't do or nothing of what they did or didn't believe could change god's mind.  

 

Nor did the Pharaoh or Esau have any comeback, because the potter has the right to make some pots for noble uses and others for ignoble uses.  The pot itself has no right to question the pot maker about how they were made or what their ultimate fate was.

 

This is, of course, predestination.

And predestination totally contradicts the principle of salvation by free choice.  The fact that both mutually exclusive ways of getting to heaven are written in the same inerrant and infallible book simply demonstrates how flawed and unreliable scripture really is.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  There weren't, Ed.  Because even if god considered them "righteous" they still experienced death, which means they were under the curse of Sin already and therefore were not sinless at the beginning of the test.  Lot, for example, who got drunk and fucked both of his daughters, was considered "righteous" by god.  This shows how low god's standard for righteousness is after the fall.  But Lot also died.  So, he didn't pass the test.  Now bring up Enoch and Elijah and we'll see how they didn't pass the test either.

It appears that Noah, Daniel, and Job were righteous enough themselves to be saved from death.  

 

I don't think sinless is the test, but to choose sinless while having the capacity to sin.  I think Jesus had the capacity, but chose no.  Eve was presented two pretty equal scenarios, one of instruction from God, and one of temptation from the serpent.

 

I see the possibility of your point, but here in this example, I don't see the intent that God was choosing suffering for humanity in his omniscience.....i.e. intended it.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

And yet, there is another curious example from scripture of a person who avoided inheriting their sin from Eve.

 

Genesis 14 : 18  - 20.

 

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 

19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
    Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High,
    who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

 

Psalm 110 : 4

 

The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”

 

Hebrews 7 : 1 - 3

 

7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 

2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 

3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

 

If the apostle Paul was the true author of the book of Hebrews then we have another scriptural contradiction.  Paul explains that Melchizedek was not descended from Eve.  Therefore, he is exempt from any of the curses god laid upon Adam and Eve.  This meant that he could live forever and never die.  Which is why he was fit to be a priest forever.  No priest can approach god's presence in the Holy of Holies without a blood sacrifice to wash away their sins.  But Melchizedek could. 

 

So, it seems that if god wishes it, he could create people who would never need the forgiveness found in Jesus' blood.  They were made sinless and stayed sinless forever.  Which is a direct contradiction to Romans 3, also written by Paul. 

 

Romans 

 

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 

22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

 

But because god made Melchizedek sinless and fit to be a priest forever, ALL have not sinned.

 

Paul contradicts himself.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.