|
Replies: 30
| visibility 2180
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102349]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98911
Joined: 2009
|
This won't be burried in a long laborious thread.
1
Apr 24, 2025, 5:55 AM
|
|
Sometime before or soon after man was created Satan made these claims.
ISA 14:
"12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
We all heard the story of the war in Heaven and we've been entertained by at least half a dozen good movies regarding the the devil's abandonment of his faithfulness to God and his fall from grace. Growing up the story's theme seemed to be a war that Satan could win, a struggle to the death between holiness and ungodliness.
It wasn't like that folks. Lucifer just make five claims that he would do what he wanted and to hell with God. Look around you, we live in a world where most of the people have that spirit of rebellion within them. We're born with it and if not for God's grace we would remain servants of ourselves and not have become sons of God. I use the term 'sons,' as generic and without gender.
My will, not God's will, be done is the theme of the spirit of evil which resides within mankind.
Somehow many angels decided to adopt Lucifer's attitude and they, along with him were ejected. It really wasn't a type of war like men fight. There was only one sword, The Word of God.
Jude 1:
"9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."
It was probably a for word war. 'The Lord rebuke thee.'
The question is 'Why did so many angels turn against God?' That's been asked and tried many times. The best explanation I've heard is that the great tempter, Satan, approached the angels with the same questioning of God's intent as does Smiling Tiger®. 'WHY? Why does God do what God does rather than making everything like I WILL?
'Why is God so selfish and full of Himself that He refuses to yield to 'I WILL? One tiny 'my will be done,' by any other being and it's fire and brimstone for eternity for you!
Here it is Smiling: To be perfect everything has to be in harmony. Man never achieves perfection in anything. The best we can do is trial and error until we get acceptable. At times we achieve exceptional but we are incapable of perfection. Suitable works, so that's our goal.
To have a perfect existence everything had to be according to God's will. We don't swim in a swimming pool if there's one tiny chunk of feces floating in it. Not one drink of the punch if it contains any amount of contamination. We are particular about where we go, what we eat, what we buy to wear, what we drive, where we work, where we live and who we marry. Would you expect God to do less?
God isn't deaf, He knew exactly what Satan did. 'LOOK AT HIM! Sitting on His throne and saying what will and what won't be! What a baby, if y'all don't do like I want it's everybody out of the pool, I'll take my toys and y'all can go home!'
Some say Satan was jealous of Adam being that Adam drew so much of God's attention.
Genesis 3:
"8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."
God gave Adam a lot of 'facetime.' The speculation that the devil was jealous holds water.
So it looks like God's in a pickle. On one hand He has a legion of angels accusing Him of being a brat child for selfishness and on the other hand He has this wonderful new physical world with one special creation He calls man and the dilemma of what to do with man after man violated His orders and ate of the forbidden tree.
God's actions were self serving but they also proved He was more than a spoiled child. His demand for perfection manifest when He took on the body of a man and paid the price He exacted upon those who rebelled. That might have been a selfish act too. Bear with me...
God loves us so much that He took on the body of man and served as our sacrifice for sins He never committed. Jesus was that body for within Him was the fullness of God's Spirit. It was given to Him without measure according to John 3:
"34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."
My conclusion is that God created a world, mankind and that forbidden tree (and the woman) knowing that man would eat, sin and die.
If you don't like this life there are two ways out of it. One is to reach out for Jesus, God's Christ, and ask Him to save you, invite Him into your heart and seek to know Him well enough to allow Him to lead you to joy, peace and comfort of your soul.
I'm praying you all accept Christ as your savior because there are two things we all must do, pay taxes and die.
PS: Smiling, this is the 4th time. I'm not doing it again so don't ask!
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102349]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98911
Joined: 2009
|
Re: This won't be burried in a long laborious thread.
1
Apr 24, 2025, 6:09 AM
|
|
OK, there is one 'I will,' that works out right:
Psa 119:
"9 BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
12 Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.
13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth.
14 I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches.
15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word."
However, that's when we adopt God's will as our own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
You didn't answer squat - you just preached a looooong sermon and
2
Apr 24, 2025, 11:16 AM
|
|
avoided answering once again. To be clear, it's not that I'm not getting the answer I like and therefore keep asking. It's not that we are going in circles and you keep answering and I keep on asking. YOU DO NOT ANSWER. YOU PREACH A SERMON THAT AVOIDS THE QUESTION, THEN PRETEND YOU HAVE ANSWERED, AND ACT ALL FRUSTRATED.
Now for my loooooong response.
The question was simple and direct: Why did God not only allow it, but design it all so that most of us would burn in hell for eternity? Saying that God gave us a way out is not an answer, it's a deflection.
You seem to admit that's what God did, but don't say why. You say he included all of these things he didn't like, and has battled against them, but you act like that somehow makes sense, and/or is believeable. According to you:
God loves us, then set up creation so that most of us would burn in hell for eternity. In no way have you explained that. It was obviously what he wanted, else he would not have created it that way, or allowed it in the first place. Your response is "Well, he gave us a way out". Why? Why give us a way out of what he wanted? Why create a situation in the first place (eternity in hell) that requires a way out (blood sacrifice) a few thousand years down the road or at any time? Again, your non-answer just prompts more questions.
The best explanation I've heard is that the great tempter, Satan, approached the angels with the same questioning of God's intent as does Smiling Tiger®. 'WHY? Why does God do what God does rather than making everything like I WILL?
'Why is God so selfish and full of Himself that He refuses to yield to 'I WILL? One tiny 'my will be done,' by any other being and it's fire and brimstone for eternity for you!
A total misrepresentation of my position. I do not question God's will, nor am I trying to make God's will conform to mine; I question what YOU believe to be God's will. I am questioning YOU, and trying to understand why you believe what you believe. Hopefully, it all helps me (and you) to better understand God's true will. When somebody tells me 2+2 does not equal 4, and the sky is not blue, all because God, in the bible says so, I don't accept it without good reason, and without a clear understanding why I should. I definitely think God is a whole lot smarter than me, so I don't think he'd say things that dumb, or expect me to believe such without good reason; and you and other people telling me so is not good reason.
My conclusion is that God created a world, mankind and that forbidden tree (and the woman) knowing that man would eat, sin and die.
Why? What does it say about the nature of God if he included sin and death when it is unnecessary? To me, that's important. I am asking you why you believe that. It goes to our concept of God, which is where it all starts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102349]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98911
Joined: 2009
|
I've told you all I know.
1
Apr 25, 2025, 5:36 AM
|
|
Had God chosen a way which didn't provide for Him sacrificing Himself the rebellion in Heaven might have happened again. It was the only way we know for Him to have settled the question of whether or not He is an overbearing brat with universe building powers.
He is Holy. Sin offends His very nature. He won't allow it but it's not just because He is Holy. He also loves His creation(s) and chooses to present a Holy existence to those of us who trust in Him.
No one will ever challenge God's Holy will again because Christ is sitting at God's right hand with the scars in His hands and feet to prove God's love and selflessness. Jesus' sacrifice is God's Holy statement that He loves mankind.
Those who refuse to receive Jesus are judging God unfaithful, unworthy of their confidence and trust. They don't like who He is now because of His choice to make us human rather than making us gods and allowing us to serve ourselves.
You choose what you want yet you deny God Almighty of choosing what pleases Him. You treat no human beings with that disrespect. The heart of your question is this; 'Why doesn't God do what I want and would have done rather than what He wants and did?'
Job felt the same way, perhaps Job 38-39 might be a good response from God to your question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Wrong.
1
Apr 25, 2025, 9:30 AM
|
|
You are still totally mischaracterizing my position.
'Why doesn't God do what I want and would have done rather than what He wants and did?'
It has nothing to do with what I want vs what God wants. It has nothing to do with my wants at all. ZERO.
I am simply doing exactly what you are doing: questioning claims other people make about God. People are telling me that 2+2 does not equal 4, and that water is not wet. God has not told me that, you and other people have; I am questioning you, not God. I am trying to understand why people like yourself who have engaged it this discussion, think what they think, and how they get around the obvious problems. Maybe I've missed something, but so far I don't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25939]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14805
Joined: 2001
|
Been reading with interest.
3
Apr 25, 2025, 12:30 PM
|
|
If you want this to be only between you and 88, no problem, but something came to mind as I read this conversation. I considered why you believe you are being asked to believe 2+2=5, and this came to mind:
I understand your questions to be variations of the Epicurus Trilemma. If God is omniscient, powerful and loving, He knew we would rebel. That sin is His fault due to the assumed characteristics. Separation from Him because of that sin is therefore irrational, His atonement unnecessary. The Christian claim of personal accountability and consequence for our rebellion do not square with His omniscience, ability, and love. If I have misstated your issue, let me know. I am assuming you are not using this to say God does not exist, but that the Christian view is not correct.
As you know, there are several Christian rationales for how God can be omniscient yet a person retain responsibility for his actions. I'm not arguing that here, but just to frame this I'll remind us that they include things like: Love means an all powerful God can and would choose to transfer freedom and responsibility to us: God "knowing" the future is a human claim only, time existing only in a physical realm, which He created and is not His realm. Etc.
I know you have responses. I am not writing to argue any of that. Instead, it occurred that any of the Trilemma responses have the same problems:
- Existence of sin and injustice question God's omnipotence. Problem: He created the universe, but can't handle that?
- An omniscient God wouldn't allow us to sin. Problem: Then why create the concept in the first place?
- If God is love, He would not let us live in separation (hell). Problem: He obviously would: He allows us to live in injustice now.
That last question brings the questions back to the first one, except for one problem: the last question is not like the others. The first two deal with what God can do (ability and knowledge), while the third deals with what He would do (character). So, the Trilemma can be used to show one of only two things: God does not exist, or He is not loving. The first two cannot question God's existence, because He can do what He wants, so by including the third we are left with either no God or a God of no love, unless ...
... unless a loving God would grant an individual freedom and responsibility. To answer that possibility by invoking the Trilemma does nothing but point out that the third issue of the Trilemma is not like the first two. To do that mixes what and why in a way that cannot be rationally reconciled. Whether one believes in God or not, to use the Trilemma one has to assume that God might not be loving.
IE, the Trilemma does nothing but isolate the characteristic of love. Therefore, you are not being asked to believe that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. You are being asked to believe that you live in a world populated by, and explained by, people loved by God but who do not love Him in return. The Trilemma does not question that, except by first assuming an unloving God could exist. In other words, you believe Christianity has unanswerable questions. It seems to that the basis on which you say that is what is unanswerable.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
It will take me a while to dive into that.
1
Apr 25, 2025, 1:16 PM
|
|
I'm not familiar with the Trilemma, and want to look into it when I'm not so busy.
When I say I am being told that 2+2 does not equal 4, one example is, "God is all-powerful and all-knowing. God loves us more than we can comprehend. God designed the universe to include things that are not loving and things he does not like. He gets very angry and sad about that. God included eternity burning in hell for most of us, who he loves, but made a way out for some by believing in his blood sacrifice".
Irrespective of the Trilemma, I don't see any way possible 2+2=4 in that.
You are being asked to believe that you live in a world populated by, and explained by, people loved by God but who do not love Him in return.
I think that's very true.
In other words, you believe Christianity has unanswerable questions.
Yeah, but it's more than that. I think it's based on nonsensical concepts developed by ancient men as a natural product of their environment and the limitations that entailed. They were doing the best they could, not realizing they were developing a religion that would be maintained and added to and tweaked over the millennia in ways they never imagined in order to reflect the changing world of subsequent authors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25939]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14805
Joined: 2001
|
Re: It will take me a while to dive into that.
1
Apr 25, 2025, 2:58 PM
|
|
You don't need to look up the Trilemma unless you just want to: you already know it. It is the questions you are asking: If God is powerful, knowing and loving, then (fill in the blank) wouldn't happen.
I would amend your paragraph only slightly: "God is all-powerful and all-knowing. God loves us more than we can comprehend. God designed the universe to include things He does not like. He gets very angry and sad about that. God included separation from him for all who choose that, but made a way out for everyone by believing in his blood sacrifice". [I don't think we need to get into the weeds about those changes I made: I made them to keep us from devolving into things like, "Would God hold a blowtorch to human skin for eternity?" No, he is not. But the reality of the separation is as bad as those hyperbolic terms the Bible uses. So, that much we can agree on.]
You have said that a God who is powerful, knowing and loving would not, or could not, create a world where that paragraph is reality. That is the trilemma. I use that word for simplicity, to keep from having to say it all every time.
We can't be irrespective of the trilemma, because that is actually your response to that paragraph: that a loving God would not do that. However, that response has its own problems that are unanswerable. In other words, the trilemma works only if one says that a loving God would not choose to give individuals freedom and responsibility. All logic has beginning assumptions, and that assumption is required to make the trilemma work. Rather than admitting that you and Christians disagree on that one point, you say we are telling you 2+2=5, when that is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Re: It will take me a while to dive into that.
1
Apr 25, 2025, 5:28 PM
|
|
In other words, the trilemma works only if one says that a loving God would not choose to give individuals freedom and responsibility.
I assume you mean that by giving us freedom and responsibility, thus giving us a choice or option, he is not responsible if we make the wrong choice and choose hell.
That does not change the fact that he included hell as part of his creation in the first place. Giving us a way out, knowing most of us won't take it, doesn't let him off the hook. If I bring you into an existing environment, then I am responsible for any harm that results from factors I control. Me offering ways for you to avoid the danger doesn't relieve me of the responsibility when I could easily remove danger to start with.
Throughout our lives, we protect those we love from themselves much of the time. When I see my drunk brother getting in his car, I stop him and take his keys away; his safety and well being are more important than his freedom at that point; the consequences are too great. When he's drunk and depressed and has been talking about suicide, I don't just warn him not to do it, I take all of the guns out of the house. I gladly limit his ability to harm himself. That's love.
Sure, in this world, we can't eliminate all danger, so we have to learn how to avoid it and deal with it by being exposed to it gradually in small, controlled doses. However, if we could eliminate it, we would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25939]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14805
Joined: 2001
|
Re: It will take me a while to dive into that.
2
Apr 25, 2025, 8:42 PM
|
|
I dont think I disagree with much of what you just said. Yes, if He gives us freedom and responsibility, we are responsible for our choices.
However, where we would have a beer-worthy discussion is your wording of "doesnt take him off the hook". Being on or off the hook is not, imo, a factor in granted freedom: In my view, when that freedom is granted, we have two independent beings. Therefore, an individual's independence from God would not be in conflict with any of God's abilities or character. In that scenario, we choose to keep that independence and make of it what we will eternally, or we choose to give it up.
One can choose to not accept that for a number of reasons: God doesn't exist, He does not judge sin, He grants universal forgiveness unilaterally, etc. All those things can be discussed. That does not mean that the scenario I believe is on the order of 2+2=5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Re: It will take me a while to dive into that.
Apr 26, 2025, 12:03 AM
|
|
2+2=4 would be God loves us, and therefore would not include most of us burning in hell for eternity as part of his creation.
Why does God make that an option if he loves us?
If the purpose is to separate us from him since he can't have sin in his presence, it seems that sin is the problem, not the person. So why not just eliminate sin? Then there's no need for hell - that would be 2+2=4. Choosing to allow the sin to exist even though you can't tolerate it in your presence, then punishing the people you love for it is 2+2=789.
Supposedly God hates sin and doesn't want us to burn in hell because he loves us. So instead of making those things go away, which he could easily do and it would solve the problem for good, I'm being told God's solution was to insist that we believe he offered a blood sacrifice instead. Say what? That's 2+2=1,495.
I honestly believe there is some underlying truth in that story, but as is, it doesn't add up. Something is wrong. Something is missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25939]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14805
Joined: 2001
|
Re: It will take me a while to dive into that.
1
Apr 26, 2025, 9:45 AM
|
|
Great questions, though I think they have been discussed in previous threads. In case not, I think the answer is the same as to the question, "Why would God grant individuals relational freedom and accompanying responsibility?" If God is love - the third aspect of the trilemma - such a God would not create beings without that freedom, or without that possibility of choosing separation. The result of doing so is the opposite of love, a condition worse than being rejected. You would choose to be created with that freedom and responsibility.
There are reasons a person can choose to not accept that as a possibility (any time I say that, I refer to the ones I mentioned before). But that is a reasonable explanation nevertheless.
I could be wrong, but it seems you insist on defining certain terms your way, for the purpose of being able say they sound silly, such as "burn in hell". There are others, but that one will make the point. You are free to any definition you like, for yourself. However, that does not mean the question is not being answered. I have seen this several times:
Skeptic: God wouldn't make people burn in hell.
Answer: Hell is what we will make it, and what we see on earth is just a preview of what it will be. Hence, a consuming fire.
Skeptic, later: No one can answer my question about burning in hell.
That comment is not true. What you are disagreeing with is the nature of hell, not the answer to why God granted us individual freedom and responsibility. You can choose to say that the bible demands hell to be literal fire, and you are free to choose that definition for whatever reason you want, but if a reasonable answer assumes a different nature of hell, that answer is nevertheless reasonable, if that nature of hell can be biblically defended. The question was reasonably answered. If instead you continue to insist that "No one will answer my questions", that is the reason someone would say you want things your way rather than truth. That comment would not be a personal attack on you, but a description of the circular conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
I guess I'm not too good at explaining my position.
1
Apr 26, 2025, 11:52 AM
|
|
That comment is not true. What you are disagreeing with is the nature of hell, not the answer to why God granted us individual freedom and responsibility.
That's not what I'm disagreeing with. I had lunch with friends last week, and they all believe that hell is indeed "burning in hell". It's what I was taught growing up. I don't ever say "the bible demands it", but it is a commonly held belief, and that's why I use that description, but that's irrelevant to my point, as long as we agree that hell is a miserable, extremely undesirable "hellish" permanent existence.
Nobody, including you, would include eternity in hell, whatever hell is, as a possibility if you didn't have to. God didn't have to; for him, the choices and possibilities are without limit.
Me trying to make words fit my desired definitions has nothing to do with that.
Now, if you do prefer the totally unnecessary inclusion of eternal hell as part of it, and you believe God does as well, I'd like to understand why. That's the whole question, and I have yet to see it addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25939]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14805
Joined: 2001
|
Re: I guess I'm not too good at explaining my position.
Apr 28, 2025, 1:47 PM
|
|
Sorry to be late responding. Had a funeral to go to, such as that.
If those people believe in literal fire, your argument is with those people, not God's nature. As to whether God's limitless ability means He could grant us relational freedom without the responsibility that comes with relational rebellion, that is the same question as whether God can make a square circle, or a rock too heavy for Him to lift. Been discussed at length. If those types of things are your example of asking questions people wont answer, fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3508]
TigerPulse: 79%
34
|
Re: I guess I'm not too good at explaining my position.
1
Apr 28, 2025, 2:31 PM
|
|
“ the responsibility that comes with relational rebellion”
Love me or else…
What a great guy this Yahweh must be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
First, I'm sorry for your loss.
1
Apr 29, 2025, 11:15 AM
[ in reply to Re: I guess I'm not too good at explaining my position. ] |
|
Please allow me to reiterate - as long as we agree that hell is a place of eternal misery and separation from God, I'm good. Whether it's fire, snakes, demons, or just cold and lonely, it's totally irrelevant to my point, and I'm sorry if it's my fault that became an issue.
Bottom line, I don't believe a God who is all-powerful and truly loves us would allow, much less create an existence which includes most of us spending eternity in hell.
You, on the other hand, believe such a God did just that, and you have given your reasons.
So, I am right and you are wrong. I WIN!!!!
Just kidding. It all makes me really stretch to think and try to understand. I don't know how much I've changed, but I feel like I have learned and grown as a result of these back-and-forths, as exhausting as they sometimes can be.
Now let's argue about Trump or who was the greatest baseball player. And The Beatles are better than The Stones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25939]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14805
Joined: 2001
|
Thank you. Miss is doing great.
1
Apr 29, 2025, 4:44 PM
|
|
You framed all that really well.
A healthy Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, Orlando Cepeda, Josh Gibson, Ohtani: pick any, I say.
Yes, by far, and Beach Boys better than either. 
Years ago had a friend whose wife took an annual vacation by herself. Nothing untoward, but she was a semi-famous artist and, well, artists; have to let them do their thing. She was in her early 70's. One year she went to one of those 20 acre islands that one hotel owns. A central dining and pool area, surrounded by cabanas on the beach. She went for a month, her husband did a welcome home party upon return. She described her wonderful cabana, and the wonderful young man who had the cabana next to hers. "Such a nice young man", made sure she had towels, a drink, etc at her beach umbrella, checked on her in the afternoon, accompanied her to dinner. "And such a wonderful conversationalist. Wanted to know all about Tulsa and Oklahoma. I asked him what he did, he said he used to play in a band. I said I was sorry it didn't last, and he said, well, nothing ever does. But he was so nice and attentive."
"You remember his name?"
"Heavens no, who can remember names? Mike or Mac or something like that."
"Jodie, was his name Mick Jagger?"
"My gosh, that's right. How would you ever guess something like that?"
"His band did okay there for a while."
"Well, I'm sure I've never heard of it. But such a nice young man."
This was the same woman who came over to our house one evening and said in between sips of martini, "I saw a UFO today." Like, I went to K-Mart today. You sort of had to just go along with Jodie.
"Really. How interesting."
"Yes, lots of us saw it. People stopped their cars at 51st and Memorial, and got out to look. Looked like a bat."
"A bat."
"Yes. Black. Then it went on, and we got back in our cars and left. So, how was your day?"
Next day the paper had an article about the brand new B-2 bombers that had come into Tulsa for service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
And your input is always welcome.
2
Apr 25, 2025, 2:14 PM
[ in reply to Been reading with interest. ] |
|
I am told that God is all-powerful, and all loving. Then I am told that God's creation includes most of us burning in hell for eternity (not loving) and that God had to do it that way (limits on God's power).
That is somebody telling me that 2+2 does not equal 4. Or they claim that's not what they are saying, that I'm just looking at it wrong. Both are total BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3508]
TigerPulse: 79%
34
|
Re: And your input is always welcome.
2
Apr 26, 2025, 10:10 AM
|
|
It is amazing to me and a little bit scary what human beings will try and convince themselves to believe. People will tell you with a straight face that they themselves deserve to burn for eternity for minor sins like lying, or lusting after a nice set of boobies. If that’s anybody’s fault it is the creator’s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
More.
1
Apr 25, 2025, 11:40 AM
[ in reply to I've told you all I know. ] |
|
You act as if God is having to react to things that didn't work the way he wanted them to, and is having to engage in some sort of battle in an effort to fix things, and do things a certain way:
Had God chosen a way which didn't provide for Him sacrificing Himself the rebellion in Heaven might have happened again. It was the only way we know for Him to have settled the question of whether or not He is an overbearing brat with universe building powers.
According to YOU (not disagreeing with God here, but YOU and your concept of him), his creation was flawed in a way that needed correcting, and the only way he, the one who created it, could fix it was a blood sacrifice. The only way ("It was the only way" your words) the all-powerful creator of the universe could correct the mistake. YOU have put a limitation on God.
What YOU say about God makes no sense. It sounds very much like a story made up by ancient men whose concept of God was shaped by the world in which they lived.
I believe in God. I pray and talk to him every day. I welcome and embrace his guidance. When he leads me or speaks to me I respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102349]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98911
Joined: 2009
|
Re: More.
1
Apr 25, 2025, 7:12 PM
|
|
No, I failed to convey the fact that God created this universe perfect and man walked with Him if full fellowship for man was at one time without sin.
Things worked just as planned. God made this world and created man knowing man would sin. The plan was to redeem mankind by His Son taking the body of flesh and dying to pay man's sin debt. He did.
No, in the OP I specifically said that my presentation was one of the reasons God created this world and put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in it. I don't know any other reasons because when I realized the truth of what's in the OP I needed nothing more to be satisfied.
My reason doesn't have to satisfy you, you are God's problem and not mine. I'm just trying to lend a hand.
If my God couldn't produce, protect and provide His Word to me I'd be like you. I have full confidence in God's Word, the Bible because of His Holy Spirit's daily testimony to me. You're wasting your time. If I were the only person in the world I wouldn't be more convinced of God's daily attention to me.
BTW, God set the stars and planets into existence and they behave just as ordered. They bring Him glory but no fellowship. I fellowship with God. I think He must like it because He is there every time I call upon Him and even when I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Thanks for finally saying it!:
Apr 26, 2025, 7:10 PM
|
|
Things worked just as planned.
There we have it. Sin was part of God's plan from the git-go. He didn't need it; he could have accomplished absolutely anything without it. But God WANTED sin. God wanted the very thing he could not tolerate. 2+2=7. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31377]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 19094
Joined: 2000
|
What did you win?***
1
Apr 28, 2025, 12:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102349]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98911
Joined: 2009
|
Re: What did you win?***
Apr 28, 2025, 7:37 AM
|
|
Psa 139:
"126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.
127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
It's not a competition, so I have won nothing. I just finally got a
Apr 28, 2025, 9:07 AM
[ in reply to What did you win?*** ] |
|
straight answer to a question, from somebody who freely engaged in the discussion, and established that God wanted sin and evil and hell as part of his creation, even though he hates them and can accomplish anything he desires without them. The only question left is "why does God unnecessarily include things that he hates and that cause pain and suffering? What does that say about the nature of God?".
I certainly don't expect an answer to that; at least not a reasonable one that makes any sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102349]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98911
Joined: 2009
|
I DID NOT SAY GOD WANTS SIN IN HIS CREATION!
Apr 29, 2025, 3:44 AM
|
|
I said God knew sin would exist. That doesn't mean it gets His stamp of approval.
You have children, you know you will die and they will suffer from your death but you have them anyway. If I said you want your children to suffer that would be a conflation of the two events. You are conflating the facts and assuming that because God knew of sin He approved of it.
This is a logic fallacy.
You intently desire to establish My God as unrighteous, unholy and unworthy of my devotion. I didn't create my God, He created me. I am here at His behest and my service and worship of Him and to Him is my pleasure, my treasure and the only reason I have for living, comparatively speaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3508]
TigerPulse: 79%
34
|
Re: I DID NOT SAY GOD WANTS SIN IN HIS CREATION!
Apr 29, 2025, 7:58 AM
|
|
Key difference in your analogy...
We have children but we don't create the world they live in.
God supposedly created the world, and then created humans to live in it.
It wasn't perfect, because satan and the opportunity for sin was there.
Which brings up a good question. Who created satan and the opportunity for sin? The bible doesn't mention any of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Wait, are you saying that God, all-powerful creator of the universe,
Apr 29, 2025, 11:41 AM
[ in reply to I DID NOT SAY GOD WANTS SIN IN HIS CREATION! ] |
|
said to himself, "I am going to create a perfect universe, and fill it with creatures I love, with the ultimate goal of SOME of them loving and obeying me FREELY, while having the choice to reject me. Therefore, I will include sin and evil as part of my creation, things which I can't stand. For me, it's worth if the vast majority of the souls I truly love spend eternity in hell, as long as I get to share my Godly love with a relative few in eternity for those who make the right choices. Ahhh yes, I truly love them all, and I hate it that most will not accept my love, but that's the way I am designing this perfect universe. I just can't have everything".
You intently desire to establish My God as unrighteous, unholy and unworthy of my devotion.
No, I have no intent whatsoever regarding God, aside from understanding him and his nature. I choose not to base that understanding based on what other people tell me is true and not true about God.
You have children, you know you will die and they will suffer from your death but you have them anyway. If I said you want your children to suffer that would be a conflation of the two events. You are conflating the facts and assuming that because God knew of sin He approved of it.
I did not create everything, including the rules which govern it all; I am simply constrained by them. Per those rules, some suffering is inevitable. I believe the world is also filled with joy and beauty and wonder, that makes most suffering worth it. If I could, I would eliminate all of the suffering, while still retaining the ability to appreciate all of the good, but I can't do that. God can do that, unless you believe there are things he can't do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
"Want", "approve", whatever.
Apr 29, 2025, 11:53 AM
[ in reply to I DID NOT SAY GOD WANTS SIN IN HIS CREATION! ] |
|
He chose to include it in his creation. Nobody made him do it, and he had unlimited choices. So yeah, he most certainly WANTED it, To claim otherwise would be laughable if it weren't so insane. You are literally saying that God does things he doesn't want to do, as if he has to in order to accomplish certain things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [8]
TigerPulse: 85%
1
|
Re: This won't be burried in a long laborious thread.
Apr 25, 2025, 12:32 PM
|
|
Isaiah 14 is actually a prophecy about Lucifer incarnate, the man of sin, the antichrist. The king of Babylon (mystery). How can we know this? Easy. No evil dictator in history has ever died & then resurrected & then continued to rule afterwards like the false christ will. The man in Isaiah 14 dies in verse 11....
Isaiah 14:11
King James Version
11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
But he doesn't stay in the grave...
Isaiah 14:19
King James Version
19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
Cast out of his grave...abominable branch. That title is drawing a contrast between Christ The Righteous Branch & false christ, the abominable branch. His death & resurrection is repeated in verse 29 of the same chapter...
Isaiah 14:29
King James Version
29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.
Don't rejoice when he dies Palestina, because he is going to come back to life. Out of the serpent (Satan) comes forth a cockatrice (king 7/man of sin) & his fruit (death & resurrection》see John 12:24 & 1 Corinthians 15:35-37) shall be a fiery flying serpent (king 8 who is of the 7/false prophet/son of perdition).
This man't death & resurrection is foretold in Zechariah 11...
Zechariah 11:15-17
King James Version
15 And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.
16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
He is RAISED UP by God...double meaning. Meaning 1, brought to power. Meaning 2, resurrected. His death & resurrection is the strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) sent by God to unbelievers that cause them to believe the lie that the beast is God. This lie believed leads to damnation (taking the mark). Verse 17 here describes his deadly head wound (Revelation 13:3) that will be "healed".
His death & resurrection is also in Daniel 11, although the wording tricks most people....
Daniel 11:28-29
King James Version
28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.
29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
Verse 28; he returns to HIS LAND with money. If he is worried about money, he aint dead....yet. But notice how at the end of verse 28 it says he returns to HIS OWN LAND...except at no point in verse 28 did it ever say he left HIS LAND where he took the money. Odd isn't it? Not really. Phrases like "his own land", "his own house", & "his own place" in the King James Bible are synonymous with death & the grave. The examples are too numerous to post but Acts 1:25 is a good example....
Acts 1:25
King James Version
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Judas died & went where? His own place. So the man of sin dies at the end of verse 28 in Daniel 11 and he RETURNS at the time appointed in verse 29...
Daniel 11:28-29
King James Version
28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.
29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
This all matches what Revelation teaches about him in chapter 13....
Revelation 13:10-12
King James Version
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
King 7 (Revelation 17:8-11) dies by the sword here in verse 10 & goes into captivity (the grave). Then in verse 11, king 8 who is of the 7 (Revelation 17:8-11) rises up out of the earth where king 7 was buried. 2 kings, 1 body, dragon voice, unholy trinity in one body because Satan/Lucifer wants to be like God (Isaiah 14:14) & God's fulness (Father/Son/Spirit) is in one body (Colossians 2:9).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25939]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14805
Joined: 2001
|
Re: This won't be burried in a long laborious thread.
1
Apr 26, 2025, 9:59 AM
|
|
It's the definition of hell.
No thread is long or laborious. Anyone can choose to skip right by it, not even glance at it. Whatever is in the thread, or however long it is, is whatever we choose to make it. It is us. No one can be lugubrious about laborious.
Your description is apt. Nevertheless, Tnet does not say threads are long and laborious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 2180
|
|
|
50
