Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?

[Neogaia777]

I defined love as a dedication to minimize suffering.

So, there should be no suffering at all right...?

And you don't think that is exactly what God did...?

Where is your faith...?

If you believe in free will, then you know that the great majority of us do not receive all the suffering that we justly rightly deserve, but just only a "minimal" amount of it, and those who suffer more of it, do it for the rest of us...

There are certain things, like the things in God's ultimate holy and very high good plans for us, that is also our true hearts desire as well, that can only come through suffering...

But God did make it "minimal" though...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Actually if you knew my definition of God, you'd see that He's ineffably kinder than men.

But if I go with the traditional understanding of God, He seems to extrapolate to an evil monster.

There is so many "me, me' me's" and "my, my, my's" and "I, I, I's" in your words, anyway, that was Lucifer's and the fallen angels undoing in the end, etc...

I will pray that it will not be yours...

God Bless!

 

[zoidar]

But how is it maximal kindness for God to permit such a travesty to befall them?

Because it's inherited and God couldn't do anything about it, well not if God wanted to stay righteous, holy and sinfree. That's why He sent Jesus, to deal with sin righteously.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I defined love as a dedication to minimize suffering. How is that inconsistent with Scripture? Have you ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan? Have you ever read any of the NT? The Law? The prophets?

That is in fact contrary to scripture. If we define love in that way than God hated Jesus when he was on the cross. God would hate even his people when he allows them to die. He must have hated all of the Apostles, after all they suffered greatly for Christ's sake.

 

[JAL]

So, there should be no suffering at all right...?

Correct. For a God as traditionally defined, neither temptation nor suffering should exist. In fact temptation is a form of suffering as already noted (viz. the agony of temptation).

 

[JAL]

That is in fact contrary to scripture. If we define love in that way than God hated Jesus when he was on the cross. God would hate even his people when he allows them to die. He must have hated all of the Apostles, after all they suffered greatly for Christ's sake.

I already replied to that objection at post 20.

 

[charsan]

I defined love as a dedication to minimize suffering

That is your human definition not God's. God definition of love is to send His Son into the world to die for even yet we were sinners. Christ said love is someone laying down his life for his friends, God went above that and put His life on the line for people who were not yet His friends. That is true love not human ideas of love

 

[Neogaia777]

Correct. For a God as traditionally defined, neither temptation nor suffering should exist. In fact temptation is a form of suffering as already noted (viz. the agony of temptation).

How about God as you define Him...?

Same answer, or not...?

 

[JAL]

That is your human definition not God's. God definition of love is to send His Son into the world to die for even yet we were sinners. Christ said love is someone laying down his life for his friends, God went above that and put His life on the line for people who were not yet His friends. That is true love not human ideas of love

How does that definition of love contradict my own definition phrased as a "dedication to minimize the suffering (of others)"? Earlier I didn't see any need to add "of others" but given that some are misextrapolating me, I'd better make a habit of adding it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Correct. For a God as traditionally defined, neither temptation nor suffering should exist. In fact temptation is a form of suffering as already noted (viz. the agony of temptation).

You just do not understand that some suffering is necessary for a temporary time, do you...?

 

[JAL]

You just do not understand that some suffering is necessary, do you...?

Oh it's indeed necessary, in my understanding of God. But it is totally unnecessary for the traditional God and therefore constitutes needless unkindness.

 

[Neogaia777]

Oh it's indeed necessary, in my understanding of God. But it is totally unnecessary for the traditional God and therefore constitutes needless unkindness.

Please explain to us how it (suffering or some suffering) is necessary in how you have come to define God, or your god then...?

And don't beat around the bush or play this silly little game either OK...?

And please tell us what makes your definition of God different and right above and beyond any others or anyone else's please...?

And tell us who he is please...?

 

[Neogaia777]

Oh it's indeed necessary, in my understanding of God. But it is totally unnecessary for the traditional God and therefore constitutes needless unkindness.

And, are you claiming that this God or yours is the Highest God...?

And could you tell us how you have come to know that please maybe...?

 

[charsan]

How does that definition of love contradict my own definition phrased as a "dedication to minimize the suffering (of others)"? Earlier I didn't see any need to add "of others" but given that some are misextrapolating me, I'd better make a habit of adding it.

God did not come to do your definition of love but His and it had nothing to do with minimize suffering for we suffer if we love God

 

[A_Thinker]

Kindness seeks to minimize suffering. That's what I mean by 'love'. What definition of love do you subscribe to?

True love will MATURE you to your BEST SELF.

True love will not leave you a BABY.

Growth involves some level of suffering.

Ever heard of GROWING PAINS ... ???

 

[charsan]

And tell us who he is please...?

Not the Christian God that is for sure

 

[Neogaia777]

Not the Christian God that is for sure

Probably not, but I would like to hear Him say it or try to explain it...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

God did not come to do your definition of love but His and it had nothing to do with minimize suffering for we suffer if we love God

Some say our level of suffering is directly proportional to our level of eventual glorification, etc, afterwards, etc...

 

[Redwingfan9]

I already replied to that objection at post 20.

You did no such thing with regards to the suffering of martyrs.

 

[A_Thinker]

I'll ask the same question as before. What's your definition of kindness/love? In my definition, kindness seeks to minimize suffering.
Because anything less leads to a blatant logical contradiction. This requires a bit of explanation.

Why do you select a Bible in your own language? Which still leaves you several choices. Why do you then narrow down your final choice to the one that most clearly and precisely conveys to you the meaning of original Greek or Hebrew? I'll tell you why. Because it is totally inappropriate to select a Bible misleading us about authorial intent. Bear this fact in mind as the discussion proceeds.


As a student of the Bible, I must avoid contradicting myself. Ok so how do I myself, Mr. Jal, define love? As kindness (a dedication to minimizing suffering). For me, therefore, anyone who deviates from my definition must be classified as unloving and unkind. And the same is true for all the virtues (patience, honesty, merit/worthiness), meaning a deviant would be classified, on my terms, as impatient, dishonest, and unworthy.

So if God deviates from MY definition of these virtues - if such was the authorial intent - I need to look for a Bible that describes Him with the most precision, and thus as unloving, unkind, impatient, dishonest, and unworthy. That's the first problem.

The second problem is that the biblical promises become inherently self-contradictory. The promises take the form, 'Be encouraged because God's love is everlasting." But if God's meaning of 'love' deviates from MY definition, such verses aren't cause for hope but cause for alarm. They are terrifying and cause for utter despair. In a nutshell, if God's definition of virtues isn't the same as mine, all Christian hope is thereby undermined.

Awful lot of I, MY, and myself in this posting ....

 

[DamianWarS]

So simply because we're not God, we are basically sinners in need of redemption. Again, that's a non-human theory of justice. . Already refuted in post 12.

I think you mean "already replied". if it were refuted this would be a far shorter thread. when we are speaking of God's kindness on humans then we are talking about divine kindness, divine justice, divine mercy, etc.... but we are not talking about human kindness, human justice, human mercy, etc... What's the difference? well, that's the riddle, you seem to demand it fits a human theory of justice, and I would argue this saying it stems from the divine and whatever human element is a part of it acts to complement but not to enforce.

You seem to read the bible and see conflicting characteristics of God and your conclusion is to reconcile them in your specific world view and for some reason, this satisfies truth to you. Your world view is relative so whatever conclusions you form from it would also be relative and this infamous post 12 you keep talking about is relative as well. You say "if God's definition of virtues isn't the same as mine, all Christian hope is thereby undermined" well what happens when my definition of virtues isn't the same as yours and I claim the same redemption under Christ as you do? Whose human reality wins? Our definitions are fickle and corrupted by our environment. To one, God made someone gay so he takes delight in their expression of homosexuality to another they reject the design of God and are loathed and hated by him. Which reality is it? Do I have to PM you each time to check if I'm on track?

It also raises a related objection. What about angels - those who didn't rebel. They are not God, right? So they need atonement too?

I don't know, I'm not an angel and I don't presume to know the promises given or not given to them but logically it would be the same in terms of the demand for atonement not in terms of the method of atonement. For all I know angels are created already surrounded in atonement, this is however out of the scope of biblical revelation and our knowledge so all we can do is guess on this and it would be irresponsible to claim you know anything more.