Suffering for the Sins of the World

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

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

Except those guys are all dead.  Plenty of people have temporarily escaped death without being considered "righteous."  Hell, I've done so myself.  I've gone on drinking binges that should have killed several men.  I've been told, on multiple occasions, by trained medical professionals, that I should be dead from the damage I've done to my mind and body through copious alcohol consumption.  Yet, here I am, still shitposting and railing against the evilness of god.  Does god consider me "righteous"?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Except those guys are all dead.  Plenty of people have temporarily escaped death without being considered "righteous."  Hell, I've done so myself.  I've gone on drinking binges that should have killed several men.  I've been told, on multiple occasions, by trained medical professionals, that I should be dead from the damage I've done to my mind and body through copious alcohol consumption.  Yet, here I am, still shitposting and railing against the evilness of god.  Does god consider me "righteous"?

Certainly might.  You and I have always argued but still maintain that deep underneath there is a level of knowing that our friendship goes beyond the argument.  I think that's what the Christian God is looking for.  All of my best friends are deviants but would die trying if I was in trouble...lol, maybe.

 

And that in the end we are essentially arguing for the same outcome.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

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.

But jesus was supposedly god.  So this supports the idea that god gave Eve a test that he knew only he could pass.  Moreover, the two scenarios were not pretty equal, not even close.  One option was the known and understood option of "good"; the other was the completely unknown and not understood option of "evil."  But, here's the kicker, without knowing the difference between good and evil, Eve had no way of knowing that "good" was actually good, nor that "evil" was actually evil.  She could only know which was which after she made the choice.  Prior to making it, she only had two relatively unknown entities offering her opposing opinions on the choice.  One entity issued commands and threats; the other offered knowledge and advancement.  And god had already created her with natural proclivities toward the latter.  Eve really never stood a chance; and god knew that.  Yet, he still hung the fate of the rest of humanity (except Melchizedek, apparently) on a choice he knew she could never correctly make.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Certainly might.

Maybe he'll come visit me in hell, then.  

[Edgarcito]

55 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But jesus was supposedly god.  So this supports the idea that god gave Eve a test that he knew only he could pass.  Moreover, the two scenarios were not pretty equal, not even close.  One option was the known and understood option of "good"; the other was the completely unknown and not understood option of "evil."  But, here's the kicker, without knowing the difference between good and evil, Eve had no way of knowing that "good" was actually good, nor that "evil" was actually evil.  She could only know which was which after she made the choice.  Prior to making it, she only had two relatively unknown entities offering her opposing opinions on the choice.  One entity issued commands and threats; the other offered knowledge and advancement.  And god had already created her with natural proclivities toward the latter.  Eve really never stood a chance; and god knew that.  Yet, he still hung the fate of the rest of humanity (except Melchizedek, apparently) on a choice he knew she could never correctly make.

Eve wasn't innately righteous apparently.  Let's start there.

 

We gather that she had a chance, but not a great chance.  What evidence do we have regarding what God was creating in humanity....and even in light of what Walter brings to the conversation....pots for certain use, Melchizedek, Angels, Cherubim, etc.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

What evidence do we have regarding what God was creating in humanity.

Obviously, to begin with, we have no evidence that god even created humanity.  Anything built upon the assumption that he did would be speculation, at best.  And, I remind you, there are things we know, without speculation.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Obviously, to begin with, we have no evidence that god even created humanity.  Anything built upon the assumption that he did would be speculation, at best.  And, I remind you, there are things we know, without speculation.

Ok, I'll go back.  Eve should have been a bias for security given God's provision in the garden.  She still chose otherwise.  In retrospect, the serpent lied. She would die.  God did know this.

 

So again, they had innate knowledge and were living apparently in an eternal condition with God.  She had a bias chance even to select God, but chose the deception via her innate potential for sin.

 

The question then becomes why did God create this scenario.  For the purpose of subjecting humanity to evil and suffering?

 

I'm asking if we have evidence that this is the case, the case you are defending.

[Edgarcito]

Been years since I have studied or been to church, but isn't there even a specific verse that says the hope is that no one is lost/parishes?

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So again, they had innate knowledge and were living apparently in an eternal condition with God.  She had a bias chance even to select God, but chose the deception via her innate potential for sin.

No.  There is no evidence from scripture that Eve understood what "death" even was, let alone that she was in an eternal condition with god.  What evidence the scripture does provide is that god issued an order and made a threat; whereas the serpent made an appeal and a kind offer of knowledge and advancement.  If Eve was genuinely naive, there's no reason to believe she would have understood any of it; but, I've been in enough language-barrier situations to know the instinctual human response that occurs when one has the choice of being ordered around and threatened versus being appealed to and kindly offered, even when one does not fully understand the threat or the offer.  god would have known this, too, by which we can extrapolate that even his approach to the situation was designed to ensure that Eve failed the test.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Been years since I have studied or been to church, but isn't there even a specific verse that says the hope is that no one is lost/parishes?

 

Yes.

 

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Peter 3

 

Here again, we find god issuing threats, rather than making an appealing offer.  Seems consistent with Genesis, no?

[Edgarcito]

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  There is no evidence from scripture that Eve understood what "death" even was, let alone that she was in an eternal condition with god.  What evidence the scripture does provide is that god issued an order and made a threat; whereas the serpent made an appeal and a kind offer of knowledge and advancement.  If Eve was genuinely naive, there's no reason to believe she would have understood any of it; but, I've been in enough language-barrier situations to know the instinctual human response that occurs when one has the choice of being ordered around and threatened versus being appealed to and kindly offered, even when one does not fully understand the threat or the offer.  god would have known this, too, by which we can extrapolate that even his approach to the situation was designed to ensure that Eve failed the test.

The implication was that given the warning of death, then Adam had an understanding of what death was.  Did he convey that to Eve adequately?  Who knows.   She made one transcription error that we can tell.

 

No one that I know when offering food orders and threatens.  Here, I've prepared these dishes and you may eat freely from them.  But watch the peanuts, if you have an allergy, you might die.  There is no order and threat there.

 

Next, the serpent was called crafty and lied.  You're essentially saying that the serpent was not autonomous and God was controlling him to deceive Eve.  Is that what you are saying?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

39 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.

 

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Peter 3

 

Here again, we find god issuing threats, rather than making an appealing offer.  Seems consistent with Genesis, no?

I see it as a warning, not a threat.

[Edgarcito]

A threat in my mind would read, "you can eat from these trees, but if you eat from this one, I will kill you".  That is a threat.

 

Do you read it like that, really?  I've been baptized for 30+ years and have never interpreted that verse as a threat.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The implication was that given the warning of death, then Adam had an understanding of what death was.

How would he have understood death in an environment in which death had never occurred?  Or are you suggesting that god had other ways of making him understand death without experiencing it, even vicariously?  If so, why could god have not done the same thing and allowed Adam and Eve to understand evil and suffering without experiencing it?

 

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No one that I know when offering food orders and threatens.  Here, I've prepared these dishes and you may eat freely from them.  But watch the peanuts, if you have an allergy, you might die.  There is no order and threat there.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it (issued an order): for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (made a threat).  Genesis 2:17

 

And we both know that god was not simply offering food here.  By your own admission, this was the test that would determine how many 10-year-old girls would be sold into sexual slavery throughout history.

 

18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Next, the serpent was called crafty and lied.

I've been called many things.  Some were accurate; some were not.  Where is the lie in what the serpent said?  

 

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

Were their eyes opened?  Yes; and they knew they were naked.  Did they become like gods, knowing good and evil?  Yes, and god even admitted, "now they have become like us, knowing good and evil; quick get them out of the garden before they gain eternal life, too."

 

The only thing that might be questionable was the part about them surely dying.  But, didn't god also lie about that?  

 

And the evening and the morning were the first day.  Genesis 1:5

 

for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.  Genesis 2:17

 

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.  Genesis 5:5

 

So, god told Adam he would die the day he ate the fruit; and had already specified that a day consisted of a morning and an evening.  But Adam did not die on the day he ate the fruit.  In fact he didn't die until nearly a millennium later.

 

god lied.

 

But what about what the serpent said?  Was it untrue?  No.  Because they did not die.  So, while the serpent did not tell them the entire truth, he also did not bald-face lie like god did.  What he said was true; it just wasn't the whole truth.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

A threat in my mind would read, "you can eat from these trees, but if you eat from this one, I will kill you".  That is a threat.

 

Do you read it like that, really?  I've been baptized for 30+ years and have never interpreted that verse as a threat.

Given the implication of Sin, Death, Suffering, and eternal hellfire and damnation attached to the fruit, yes, I can't take it as anything other than a threat.  If god was simply concerned about their well-being and safety, he would simply not have planted the tree there in the first place.  The fact that he did plant it there shows how silly your argument is.  And the fact that he attached such gravity, both temporal and eternal, to the eating of the fruit shows that god's main concern was ensuring that Sin, Death, and Suffering entered into the world.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This just brings us right back to god's omniscience and his acting with malice aforethought. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Honestly, Ed.  As much as I enjoy going around in circles with you, there's just some circles not worth going around in.  And this is one of them.  Because no matter how you look at it, the bible claims that god is good and loving, but then presents us with a god who is evil, malicious, and conniving.  And that means that the god the bible presents cannot exist.  Because how could he be good if he is evil?  How could he be loving if he is malicious?  The law of non-contradiction precludes this possibility; because it tells us that A is A and cannot be anything other than A.  A can equal B; but A cannot be B.  And, most importantly, A cannot be not A.  So god cannot be all-loving and also not all-loving.  god cannot be all-powerful and also not all-powerful.  god cannot be all-knowing and then not know where Adam and Eve hid once they knew they were naked.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This just brings us right back to god's omniscience and his acting with malice aforethought. 

I don't know and I don't think we can know the answers to the questions we are asking.  You keep saying facts lead you to this conclusion.  The difference in us is I believe what we don't know leads us to an answer and you are saying what we do know leads us to the truth already.  I can't agree just because I can't know due to being limited.  I'm willing to bet my life on it, but not yours.

 

If something comes to me, I shall return.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know and I don't think we can know the answers to the questions we are asking.

But is this really true, Ed?  Or are there things we can and do know, that you are simply not willing to admit to yourself?  Things such as:

 

1. Evil exists

2. An all-powerful god would have the ability to prevent evil

3. An all-loving god would have the willingness to prevent evil

4. Because evil exists, a god who is both all-powerful and all-loving can not exist.

 

These are things we do know, Ed.  These are facts which, if faced honestly, do lead us to answers and conclusions.  I don't buy your "ignorance keeps me from taking a stance" because it's not ignorance on your part.  It's unwillingness.

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Honestly, Ed.  As much as I enjoy going around in circles with you, there's just some circles not worth going around in.  And this is one of them.  Because no matter how you look at it, the bible claims that god is good and loving, but then presents us with a god who is evil, malicious, and conniving.  And that means that the god the bible presents cannot exist.  Because how could he be good if he is evil?  How could he be loving if he is malicious?  The law of non-contradiction precludes this possibility; because it tells us that A is A and cannot be anything other than A.  A can equal B; but A cannot be B.  And, most importantly, A cannot be not A.  So god cannot be all-loving and also not all-loving.  god cannot be all-powerful and also not all-powerful.  god cannot be all-knowing and then not know where Adam and Eve hid once they knew they were naked.

I'm going to get back to this one later and it made me think of Christ becoming sin....

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But is this really true, Ed?  Or are there things we can and do know, that you are simply not willing to admit to yourself?  Things such as:

 

1. Evil exists

2. An all-powerful god would have the ability to prevent evil

3. An all-loving god would have the willingness to prevent evil

4. Because evil exists, a god who is both all-powerful and all-loving can not exist.

 

These are things we do know, Ed.  These are facts which, if faced honestly, do lead us to answers and conclusions.  I don't buy your "ignorance keeps me from taking a stance" because it's not ignorance on your part.  It's unwillingness.

I'll get back to you.  Sent my brain into a loop.  Going to watch my son start his first varsity game this evening.  He's only a sophomore.  Thanks for the effort.   

[Edgarcito]

Restoration to the absolute of all whatever, the absolute, depends on our acceptance of Jesus.  So if you had the qualities you list, A,B, and C that represent God, the omni-qualities, then humanity was within that group until they demonstrated that they weren't through Eve.  So then came the OT and law to remain grouped together until the separation.  Now the groupings are (ABC God) and a separate group of (humanity and sin).  The important part:  Jesus becomes sin. and now the human grouping is humanity and Jesus, which is the restoration of A&E and God in the Garden before Eve chose.  And this grouping is for those that choose Jesus....otherwise sin wouldn't be covered up.  Jesus replaces sin, pays the penalty, whatever, to restore the first groupings, the purity of the groups.  Looks like God could cure all ills through his own sacrifice of becoming the offender....  I'm sorry man, just some far out thinking minus the far out drugs.

 

Seems like a viable repair mechanism, but why God created humanity in the first place and put humanity though that, I don't know.  It's a solvent extraction process for those willing solutes. 

 

I can see how if we don't know why God put us through the process then how it can make folks turn away.  And I don't think we know that actually.

 

 

 

 

 

We will talk again.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Restoration to the absolute of all whatever, the absolute, depends on our acceptance of Jesus.  So if you had the qualities you list, A,B, and C that represent God, the omni-qualities, then humanity was within that group until they demonstrated that they weren't through Eve.  So then came the OT and law to remain grouped together until the separation.  Now the groupings are (ABC God) and a separate group of (humanity and sin).  The important part:  Jesus becomes sin. and now the human grouping is humanity and Jesus, which is the restoration of A&E and God in the Garden before Eve chose.  And this grouping is for those that choose Jesus....otherwise sin wouldn't be covered up.  Jesus replaces sin, pays the penalty, whatever, to restore the first groupings, the purity of the groups.  Looks like God could cure all ills through his own sacrifice of becoming the offender....  I'm sorry man, just some far out thinking minus the far out drugs.

 

Seems like a viable repair mechanism, but why God created humanity in the first place and put humanity though that, I don't know.  It's a solvent extraction process for those willing solutes. 

 

I can see how if we don't know why God put us through the process then how it can make folks turn away.  And I don't think we know that actually.

 

 

 

 

 

We will talk again.

Cool story.  But which group is our 10-year-old sex slave in?  And why is she in that group?

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Cool story.  But which group is our 10-year-old sex slave in?  And why is she in that group?

She's in the waiting to get out group....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

She's in the waiting to get out group....

And? Why is she in that group?