Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[InterestedApologist]

You see, I didn't make up the story of Lucifer, nor the story of Adam and Eve. THAT'S SCRIPTURE. It's also a HORRIBLE PREDICAMENT TO PUT SOMEONE IN. Giving someone the 'opportunity' to condemn himself to hell? What kind of a cruel monster what NEEDLESSLY put someone (much less 100 billlion humans who've live and died to date plus countless angels), in that sort of predicament?

Problem is, the Bible ALSO says that God is perfect in love. That itself is ALSO SCRIPTURE.

Has anyone noticed, yet, that my position is founded on Scripture? The stories of Lucifer, Adam and Eve, the demise of th world, and the eventual climaxing of it all on Calvary are so historically tragic that I for one could wish it weren't all true. YET THAT'S SCRIPTURE.

So it APPEARS to be a contradiction, on the face of it. This is a problem known historically as the 'problem of evil'. A considerable number of theologians (and numerous philosophers both Christian and non-Christian) have TALKED about it because it IS A REAL PROBLEM. For atheists today, it is their most staunch objection to any (theistic) Doctrine of God.

So unless we want to live a life of denial, we need to resolve this problem. We need to respond to the atheist's insistence that our God is a monster.

And the church has had 2,000 year to do it. I still haven't seen anything convincing yet. I took a university class on the Philosphy of Religion, and the problem of evil was one of the central topics. Saw nothing very helpful or convincing.

What do you want me to do? Wait another 2,000 years? Watch His Name continue to be slandered for annother two millennia? That would be your definition of being theologically responsible? I would call it irresponsible.

After 2,000 years of unsatisfying traditional 'solutions', it's become pretty obvious that a NON-TRADITIONAL solution is called for. So yes, while I feel your pain that, FROM THE TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE, it feels like insanity to talk about God's insanity, it's also insanity to continue to assume, after 2,000 years, that a traditional perspective will solve the problem.

Let's review our options:
Either:
(A) God created us because NEEDED us OR
(B) He merely because He WANTED us (He made us just for the fun of it, which seems monstrous). He's an infinitely self-sufficient being who, as such, didn't need us for us fun but created us anyway? This is a problem.

Therefore if we're going to step outside the bounds of TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE, we'll have recourse to option A. Fine. But WHY would God need us? Answer: perhaps He is a FINITE BEING whence the possibility of weaknesses and vulnerabilities such as insanity looms on the horizon.

So He evidently has one weakness or another (viz 'God rested on the 7th day' as though FATIGUED).
Note: Jesus is God and became fatigued.
Conclusion: God is potentially susceptible to fatigue.

Second example:
God came to the earth as the man Jesus.
As a man, Jesus was POTENTIALLY susceptible to every human frailty, including INSANITY.
Conclusion: God is potentially susceptible to insanity.

Whether or not you happen to AGREE with this kind of reasoning, no one's likely to convince me that it's peurile. Unfortunately my hands are tied to defend it, because there's only so much I can say for fear of Staff deleting this thread for a second time (not sure how far I'm allowed to go).

One final example. Genesis features an enumeration of God's creations. After each one is itemized, it is sealed with the words, 'And God saw that it was good' - UNTIL HE CREATED ADAM. That was the ONE THING of which He said, it is NOT good, for "It is not good for man to be alone."

WHY is it not good? Afer 6,000 years of human history since Adam, it's pretty clear why. Too much loneliness and isolation can corrupt mental health to the point of INSANITY.

What's God's REMEDY to the problem of Adam's loneliness? A BRIDE. The logic is irresistible. Where there is danger of loneliness-based INSANITY, God's first and foremost solution IS A BRIDE.

Now, what role does the CHURCH play for God? She is His bride.

So if you're going to try to tell me that the Bible has NOTHING to say about God's sanity, I will simply beg to differ.

Insanity is only one possible weakness justifying our creation. Actually I provided a SECOND weakness as well (but personally I think both weaknesses factored in God's decision). The second weakness is that the task of becoming holy (whereby He acquired merit and thus now merits praise) was probably too daunting for Him to undertake without some hope of reward. The angels and the church, as His eternal companion, was that reward.

You're welcome to come up with a better solution to the problem of evil. But I for one am not going to wait around for another 2,000 years, holding my breath for it.

So your solution to the problem of evil is that God was unhinged when He created man? To call this a stretch would not even begin to describe the audaciousness of that assumption.

You have allowed yourself only two possibilities for why creation took place, so you already come to the matter severely limited. You believe God had to create or created “for fun”. Maybe God created because He wished to demonstrate his power? His justice? For fellowship? Or as I tend to believe, maybe He created us out of love... there are countless more options that could be thrown in there, but I think I have made my point. Since your premise is flawed, your conclusions are as well.

While there are many thoughts on the problem of evil, I see no issue with a loving God creating out of love and desiring man to love Him of their own volition. Man chose to love himself instead. I see no conflict in God’s character and man’s free will, nor anything to suggest God is a monster, and I certainly don’t see a God teetering on the brink of insanity.

 

[rjs330]

You see, I didn't make up the story of Lucifer, nor the story of Adam and Eve. THAT'S SCRIPTURE. It's also a HORRIBLE PREDICAMENT TO PUT SOMEONE IN. Giving someone the 'opportunity' to condemn himself to hell? What kind of a cruel monster what NEEDLESSLY put someone (much less 100 billlion humans who've live and died to date plus countless angels), in that sort of predicament?

Problem is, the Bible ALSO says that God is perfect in love. That itself is ALSO SCRIPTURE.

Has anyone noticed, yet, that my position is founded on Scripture? The stories of Lucifer, Adam and Eve, the demise of th world, and the eventual climaxing of it all on Calvary are so historically tragic that I for one could wish it weren't all true. YET THAT'S SCRIPTURE.

So it APPEARS to be a contradiction, on the face of it. This is a problem known historically as the 'problem of evil'. A considerable number of theologians (and numerous philosophers both Christian and non-Christian) have TALKED about it because it IS A REAL PROBLEM. For atheists today, it is their most staunch objection to any (theistic) Doctrine of God.

So unless we want to live a life of denial, we need to resolve this problem. We need to respond to the atheist's insistence that our God is a monster.

And the church has had 2,000 year to do it. I still haven't seen anything convincing yet. I took a university class on the Philosphy of Religion, and the problem of evil was one of the central topics. Saw nothing very helpful or convincing.

What do you want me to do? Wait another 2,000 years? Watch His Name continue to be slandered for annother two millennia? That would be your definition of being theologically responsible? I would call it irresponsible.

After 2,000 years of unsatisfying traditional 'solutions', it's become pretty obvious that a NON-TRADITIONAL solution is called for. So yes, while I feel your pain that, FROM THE TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE, it feels like insanity to talk about God's insanity, it's also insanity to continue to assume, after 2,000 years, that a traditional perspective will solve the problem.

Let's review our options:
Either:
(A) God created us because NEEDED us OR
(B) He merely because He WANTED us (He made us just for the fun of it, which seems monstrous). He's an infinitely self-sufficient being who, as such, didn't need us for us fun but created us anyway? This is a problem.

Therefore if we're going to step outside the bounds of TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE, we'll have recourse to option A. Fine. But WHY would God need us? Answer: perhaps He is a FINITE BEING whence the possibility of weaknesses and vulnerabilities such as insanity looms on the horizon.

So He evidently has one weakness or another (viz 'God rested on the 7th day' as though FATIGUED).
Note: Jesus is God and became fatigued.
Conclusion: God is potentially susceptible to fatigue.

Second example:
God came to the earth as the man Jesus.
As a man, Jesus was POTENTIALLY susceptible to every human frailty, including INSANITY.
Conclusion: God is potentially susceptible to insanity.

Whether or not you happen to AGREE with this kind of reasoning, no one's likely to convince me that it's peurile. Unfortunately my hands are tied to defend it, because there's only so much I can say for fear of Staff deleting this thread for a second time (not sure how far I'm allowed to go).

One final example. Genesis features an enumeration of God's creations. After each one is itemized, it is sealed with the words, 'And God saw that it was good' - UNTIL HE CREATED ADAM. That was the ONE THING of which He said, it is NOT good, for "It is not good for man to be alone."

WHY is it not good? Afer 6,000 years of human history since Adam, it's pretty clear why. Too much loneliness and isolation can corrupt mental health to the point of INSANITY.

What's God's REMEDY to the problem of Adam's loneliness? A BRIDE. The logic is irresistible. Where there is danger of loneliness-based INSANITY, God's first and foremost solution IS A BRIDE.

Now, what role does the CHURCH play for God? She is His bride.

So if you're going to try to tell me that the Bible has NOTHING to say about God's sanity, I will simply beg to differ.

Insanity is only one possible weakness justifying our creation. Actually I provided a SECOND weakness as well (but personally I think both weaknesses factored in God's decision). The second weakness is that the task of becoming holy (whereby He acquired merit and thus now merits praise) was probably too daunting for Him to undertake without some hope of reward. The angels and the church, as His eternal companion, was that reward.

You're welcome to come up with a better solution to the problem of evil. But I for one am not going to wait around for another 2,000 years, holding my breath for it.

The problem you are having is trying to put human concepts into God. The best scripture to help clarify this is God's thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways.

God is not us. We are not God. He doesn't think like us or act like us. Our morality is not superior to God's morality. In fact morality is a man concept. God ALWAYS deals in commands and obedience.

The truth God says "I created man because..." Your philosophy is based upon your own mind. God always has a purpose for things but he doesn't always tell us what the purpose is. Remember "trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight".

You cannot lean on your own understanding. Only the scriptures tell us the truth. And the truth is, God is far above us and our understanding. He doesn't explain everything to us and we can't understand all of what he does and why. We can read the scriptures and see what they have to say. But if they are silent in a particular subject or idea then any thoughts we have are our own and are only opinion. And if we say something that is contrary to scripture then we are fact wrong.

Your idea of God's love us unscriptural and carnal. Your idea of the insanity of God is a prime example of your leaning on your own understanding. It's also an example on how our ways and thoughts are so limited and fleshly.

 

[JAL]

So your solution to the problem of evil is that God was unhinged when He created man? To call this a stretch would not even begin to describe the audaciousness of that assumption.

Unhinged? Huh? Whom are you responding to?

You might want to try to understand my position before you knock it.

You have allowed yourself only two possibilities for why creation took place, so you already come to the matter severely limited. You believe God had to create or created “for fun”. Maybe God created because He wished to demonstrate his power? His justice? For fellowship? Or as I tend to believe, maybe He created us out of love... there are countless more options that could be thrown in there, but I think I have made my point. Since your premise is flawed, your conclusions are as well.

Flawed? Huh? Didn't you just confirm the same two options that I proposed? (Sigh). Again, my two options were:
(A) God NEEDED us
(B) God WANTED us (or 'wished' for us to use your term).

While there are many thoughts on the problem of evil, I see no issue with a loving God creating out of love and desiring man to love Him of their own volition....

You see no issue because you don't WANT to see the obvious issue. But there's no consistency there.

Suppose you saw your own kids about to kill each other for no good reason. And you could put it to a stop with a snap of your fingers. What would YOU do as a loving parent? (Answer the question, please). WHAT would a loving parent do?

Or, given the 'opportunity', would you happily let your children starve to death? Suffer rape, disease, abuse, murder, senility, loneliness, rejection, failed marriages, broken-heartedness, addictions, failed careers, shattered dreams, etc?

I'm pretty confident that you would put it all this suffering to a stop if it were fairly easy for you. (I'm also pretty confident that you won't provide a direct answer to the question since it refutes your argument - chances are you'll give me an evasive answer like a politician would).

Man chose to love himself instead. I see no conflict in God’s character and man’s free will, nor anything to suggest God is a monster, and I certainly don’t see a God teetering on the brink of insanity.

Actually if you read my post about the Immune System (i..e the Third Person as stabilization), you'd understand that insanity is impossible for Him - but that's precisely because the Immune System WON'T ALLOW the Godhead to push itself beyond the brink of insanity.

 

[JAL]

I am glad you use words like "in my view". Because most of what you say certainly isn't supported by scripture. You are entitled to your view, but that certainly doesn't make any of what you say truth.

If we are going to talk about God, I think we ought to consult with the scriptures and if what we say doesn't align with scriptures then we ought to be taken with a very large lump of salt.

Don't just state your position. Argue it. I've discussed various Scirptures of the Bible and explained why traditional interpretations of some verses (for example the Adam-Eve account) reduce to nonsense and logical contradictions. If you can show the traditional arguments to be strong, then do it. Meet my arguments head-on. Don't just ramble.

 

[JAL]

I literally gave you God’s definition of love according to scripture, and your response is that God’s definition of love is silly because it isn’t the same as yours.

OK now it looks like you're just telling lies. I addressed your point in at least two legitimate ways.
(1) I mentioned that my argument doesn't stand or fall exclusively on the word 'love' - I said that the biblical God is said to be perfectly good, kind, and merciful, and that any of these virtues suffice to make my points on this thread. You deliberately ignore this rebuttal, and every cogent argument that I've made. Which proves to me that my arguments are, for you, insurmountable.
(2) Since it seemed to me rather bizarre that you don't see acts of divine mercy as a manifestation of His love, I provided several verses seemingly to the contrary. You could have addressed those Scriptures - but of course you won't because it's much easier for everyone to sit around accusing me of not looking to Scripture! (The irony of it all...).

Again, John 3:16, one of the verses that I cited.
“God so loved (agapao) the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” WHY did He give His son? So that men would not perish into hell. Looks to me like an effort to alleviate (longterm) suffering. Yet, here you are acting like I'm the crazy one for seeing traces of mercy in His love.

No more comments should be necessary but, since you insist, let's go back to your supposed linchpin (1Cor 13) - the passage which, according to you, is the linchpin of proof that love has nothing to do with minimizing suffering. According to that passage, "Love is kind and is not self-seeking."

Ok so perfect love:
(1) Is kind to the others.
(2) Is not self-seeking, rather it seeks to improve the welfare of others.

So if your next-door neighbor is STARVING to death, and he asks you for a crumb, what is an oft-commendable response given premises 1 and 2?

Honestly I don't know what sort of tortured reasoning that you are trying to subscribe to, but I think it's merely to win this debate. Looks like you'll say anything at this point, regardless of whether you yourself believe it.

Your arguments on God’s character and the nature of love are just naively narrow and poorly constructed. They don’t even work from a strictly human perspective.

And you've demonstrated this - how? Evidently by evasively dodging all my arguments and torturing all the verses?

You want to excoriate God’s character because of suffering...

Telling lies again? Any theodicy, including mine, argues FOR the goodness of God, not against it.

...and then you disprove your point by quoting scripture illustrating God’s love by his willingness to sacrifice himself in the form of His son.

Huh? Since my point is that God is good, the cross is consistent with goodness. I adduced the cross (at least 3 times on this thread), as an EXAMPLE of God's merit. So why the lies? A pack of lies is a very good sign that my theology wins this debate hands-down.

This sacrifice is to save us from eternal separation from him, the worst suffering imaginable. All of this is consistent with the scripture I posted.

Did anyone say you denied the cross? Certainly not I? You pretend of me things that I didn't say, so that you can pretend to rebut me. This is known as a strawman argument.

Humans chose and choose to sin. We live in a fallen world where Jesus told us there would be suffering. It is expected! This isn’t God’s fault, it is our own.

You're trying to pretend that the problem of evil is not a real problem. That's a totally unconvincing theodicy, because there are several less-painful outcomes, if God had arranged things differently - and His Son would not have died on the cross if He had chosen a different arrangement. You say His Son endured the WORST SUFFERING IMAGINEABLE (your own words). WHY would a loving parent create that 'opportunity' for his son?

(1) Because He NEEDED to?
(2) Or because He WANTED to - and thus for the fun of it.

THAT, my friend, is the problem of evil. Trying to evasively ignore it, side-step, deny it (etc) might fly with some of your comrades, but it certainly it doesn't wash with me.

Furthermore, God did not spare His only son from experiencing that very same fallen world and giving Himself up as a sacrifice while we were still His enemies! I must surmise that you lack a belief in heaven, as you are so concerned with suffering here, you are forgetting this life is but a vapor. The word says that the trials and suffering we experience here are not worthy to be compared to the riches and joy that await us.

Heaven's so wonderful? Tell it to the souls in hell who are wondering, "If God is so good, why did He give me this 'opportunity' to condemn myself to hell? Just for the fun of it?"

I know you think you are onto something new and revolutionary with “your theology”, but all you have offered up so far is scriptural inconsistency mixed with freshman level philosophy. You clearly have worked hard to build a philosophical framework you like, but you value your own wisdom over Biblical evidence, which you have repeated several times. I hope in the future you will open your mind to scripture first, and then conform your reason to be in harmony with it, instead of contradictory to it.

And yet everything you write reaffirms what I suspect - that no one will ever be able to refute the logic of my position. It's far more solid than the last 2,000 years of shallow theodicy.

 

[JAL]

You cannot lean on your own understanding. Only the scriptures tell us the truth.

So where is the word Trinity in Scripture? I'm a Trinitarian, but you can't find that word in Scripture. Trinitarianism is a logical deduction. It's a theological construct. The reality, then, is that theologians have to read between the lines on points not explicitly stated in Scripture. Traditional theology does the same thing - it's just that, in some cases, it has drawn conclusions that I disagree with.

So please desist from belittling me for a hermeneutic that is universal.

And the truth is, God is far above us and our understanding.

As I've pointed out probably 20 times on this thread, theology that we don't understand is gibberish and therefore useless (except as an excuse to condemn a fellow believer for refusing to accept our gibberish).

Let's stick with those doctrines which we CAN understand. Shall we?

But if they are silent in a particular subject or idea then any thoughts we have are our own and are only opinion.

ANY reading of the Bible is opinion. To begin with, you weren't BORN with an infallible knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. So the first thing you have to do, to study the Bible, is to put your trust in the OPINIONS OF MEN. Meaning, when you open a Greek or Hebrew lexicon or grammar book to learn those languages, you have to place confidence in the WRITERS of those tools.

Which is why biblical exegesis will always be fallible. Prophetic revelation is the answer, in my opinion, but since I'm not currently a prophet (and I suspect neither are you), I use biblical exegesis as a crutch, imperfect as it is.

Your idea of God's love us unscriptural and carnal. Your idea of the insanity of God is a prime example of your leaning on your own understanding. It's also an example on how our ways and thoughts are so limited and fleshly.

You can't establish any LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS in my theodicy. Historic theodicy is self-contradictory and therefore DEFINITELY wrong. Mine is free from contradiction and therefore POSSIBLY correct - indeed probably correct since I don't really see any theodicy-worthy alternatives.

To put it differently - to use the words of Sherlock Holmes - when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Since theologians have, for 2,000 years, tried every possible spin on traditional theology as a basis for theodicy, and come up empty, then "whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

[Micah888]

They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.

I have just joined this forum, and I would like to comment on this topic as well as this quoted statement.
1. When someone uses the term "mainstream" it would appear that they reject the generally held Bible doctrines of evangelical Christians.

2. When someone uses the term "Yahweh" instead of "the Lord Jesus Christ" it indicates that they are also rejecting the generally accepted biblical terms which have been used by Christians and are still being used.

3. You have indicated that "Yahweh's sacrifice" is NOT the cross, or to be more precise, not the offering up of Christ Himself as the Lamb of God. So what do you consider to be Yahweh's sacrifice, and why did you avoid using "Lord Jesus Christ"?

 

[rjs330]

So where is the word Trinity in Scripture? I'm a Trinitarian, but you can't find that word in Scripture. Trinitarianism is a logical deduction. It's a theological construct. The reality, then, is that theologians have to read between the lines on points not explicitly stated in Scripture. Traditional theology does the same thing - it's just that, in some cases, it has drawn conclusions that I disagree with.

So please desist from belittling me for a hermeneutic that is universal.


As I've pointed out probably 20 times on this thread, theology that we don't understand is gibberish and therefore useless (except as an excuse to condemn a fellow believer for refusing to accept our gibberish).

Let's stick with those doctrines which we CAN understand. Shall we?

ANY reading of the Bible is opinion. To begin with, you weren't BORN with an infallible knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. So the first thing you have to do, to study the Bible, is to put your trust in the OPINIONS OF MEN. Meaning, when you open a Greek or Hebrew lexicon or grammar book to learn those languages, you have to place confidence in the WRITERS of those tools.

Which is why biblical exegesis will always be fallible. Prophetic revelation is the answer, in my opinion, but since I'm not currently a prophet (and I suspect neither are you), I use biblical exegesis as a crutch, imperfect as it is.

You can't establish any LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS in my theodicy. Historic theodicy is self-contradictory and therefore DEFINITELY wrong. Mine is free from contradiction and therefore POSSIBLY correct - indeed probably correct since I don't really see any theodicy-worthy alternatives.

To put it differently - to use the words of Sherlock Holmes - when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Since theologians have, for 2,000 years, tried every possible spin on traditional theology as a basis for theodicy, and come up empty, then "whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The word Trinity isn't in the Bible . But the Bible as you say the Bible describes the Trinity. The Bible doesn't describe the stuff you are espousing. Your logic is flawed. Why? Because it doesn't match what scripture says. God is good and he is righteous. God IS. Therefore anything he does or allows is good and righteous. In your own understanding that doesn't make sense. But that is YOUR limited understanding. Your logic is carnal and fleshly. If you lean on scripture then your logic is irrlelevent because you are leaning on truth. Remember "lean not on your own understanding." I don't have to lean on my personal understanding. I just lean on the truth.

Believe what the Bible says. God isn't like you.

Does this sound like your kind of love?
Don’t intermarry with them — don’t give your daughter to his son, and don’t take his daughter for your son.For he will turn your children away from following me in order to serve other gods. If this happens, the anger of Adonai will flare up against you, and he will quickly destroy you.No, treat them this way: break down their altars, smash their standing-stones to pieces, cut down their sacred poles and burn up their carved images completely.For you are a people set apart as holy for Adonai your God. Adonai your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his own unique treasure.Adonai didn’t set his heart on you or choose you because you numbered more than any other people — on the contrary, you were the fewest of all peoples.Rather, it was because Adonai loved you, and because he wanted to keep the oath which he had sworn to your ancestors, that Adonai brought you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from a life of slavery under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.(Maftir) From this you can know that Adonai your God is indeed God, the faithful God, who keeps his covenant and extends grace to those who love him and observe his mitzvot, to a thousand generations.But he repays those who hate him to their face and destroys them. He will not be slow to deal with someone who hates him; he will repay him to his face.Therefore, you are to keep the mitzvot, laws and rulings which I am giving you today, and obey them. Haftarah Va’etchanan: Yesha‘yahu (Isaiah) 40:1–26 B’rit Hadashah suggested readings for Parashah Va’etchanan: Mattityahu (Matthew) 4:1–11; 22:33–40; Mark 12:28–34; Luke 4:1–13; 10:25–37; Acts 13:13–43; Romans 3:27–31; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; Ya‘akov (James) 2:14–26; and all the readings for Parashah 17 - Deuteronomy 7:3-11 Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 7:3-11 - Complete Jewish Bible

No it doesn't. Yet God loves. In your human mind it doesn't make sense. But you are limited in your understanding. We trust that what God says is true whether we understand or not. God loves because he says he does. God is Holy and he is righteous.

 

[JAL]

The Holy Spirit is God, and is not a material entity.

As demonstrated earlier, the proper translation is the Holy Breath/Wind. The Hebrew (and Greek) term for PHYSICAL wind/breath is used throughout the Bible as the name of the third Person.

As a result, Scripture has not even one iota of hard evidence for an immaterial God. The English word 'spirit' never appears in the Bible because (physical) breath/wind is always the better translation.

In fact, if God were an immaterial 'spirit', He would be too intangible to even push a pencil, and thus powerless/impotent in our univrse.

He isn't magical. Just as you move your own body by the PHYSICAL POWER of free will, so does God.

If God were magical (if He were a witch), He could sanctify you from afar, by just enunciating an incantation. Only a physical, non-magical being would need to extend His arm into the vicinity to perform the miracle physically, with His own Hand.

What does Scripture have to say about all this? When God wants to perform a miracle, does He do it magically from afar? Or does He venture into the vicinity? Every time Samson needed supernatural strength, the Holy Breath FELL UPON HIS BODY. In fact, how does God perform the new birth, sanctification, and prophetic utterance, according to Scripture? Does He do these things magically from afar? Or does He venture into your vicinity to do the work with His own Hand? Clearly the latter, because He sends the Holy Breath into our bodies, as His temple, to fulfill those intentions. For example on Pentecost, "They were all filled with the Holy Wind, and begin to speak in other languages, as He gave them utterance." Did you catch that? On your own, you cannot properly enunciate syllables foreign to you. What they needed was a tangible Hand physically stirring their voicebox with the unfamiliar syllables.

Thus we could walk through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation showing example after example after example of the physical divine Presence - and we'd probably never find a SHRED of evidence for immaterial spirit. Certainly none that I'm aware of.

Actually I'm being WAY too generous here. If we take a look at the official, TECHNICAL definition of 'spirit' as defined in traditional theology, several unresolved logical problems will surface.

Moving on. John 1:14 tell us, "The Word became flesh." Notice it does not say, "The Word entered into flesh", nor even, "The Word became LIKE flesh" - you might find OTHER passages which so stipulate, but not THIS one. THIS one says, "The Word BECAME flesh" - and that's the UNDISPUTED literal translation accepted in all of Christendom, as far as I know.

Which is a serious problem for immaterialism. Consider a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. When I consume it, my metabolism converts it to human protoplasm. It BECOMES FLESH. No logical problems there. In other words, if God is a physical Person, it is UNPROBLEMATICAL for Him to become flesh.

Now consider an immaterial substance. Could an immaterial substance BECOME FLESH? Or to put the point more clearly, which of the following two substances, FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, is your metabolism more capable of converting to flesh/protoplasm?
(1) A peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
(2) An immaterial spirit.
To suggest that a spirit becomes flesh sounds as logically absurd as claiming:
(1) Yesterday my material mattress became an immaterial spirit.
(2) Hurray! Today I can lie down on it again, because it became matter again.
At the very LEAST, such a claim would be humanly incomprehensible. It's gibberish.

As noted, the Greek word for the Holy Breath is Pneuma (as in pneumatic tools powered by wind/breath/air). In Scripture, that same Greek word is used for the human soul.

So is the human soul physical? Or nonphysical? It is physical, by logical necessity. Your soul moves your body by free will (causing the body to misbehave, for example). An immaterial soul would be UNABLE to push and pull the body in such ways.

So we see that the soul moves/influenes the body. Conversely the body also moves/influences the soul. For example if I want you to fail a math test, all I have to do is physically spike your beverage with drugs or alcohol. If the human mind were immaterial, physical drugs and alcohol would have ZERO IMPACT on it.

The foregoing is called the mind-body argument, and it's never been refuted in all of human history. It was one of Tertullian's favorite arguments. Tertullian was the church father (200 AD) who:
(1) Invented the word Trinity
(2) Insisted that God is a material being.
(3) Insisted that the human mind is material.
(4) Was totally opposed to immaterial 'spirit' which he blamed on the philosopher Plato's unfortunate influence on early theologians.

 

[JAL]

I have just joined this forum, and I would like to comment on this topic as well as this quoted statement.
1. When someone uses the term "mainstream" it would appear that they reject the generally held Bible doctrines of evangelical Christians.

You're reading too much into that. I accept the definitive creed of mainstream theology, namely the Nicene Creed.

But as for those doctrines beyond the scope of the Nicene Creed, I often disagree with the mainstream. As a result, the term 'mainstream' is very convenient for me to use in these discussions.

2. When someone uses the term "Yahweh" instead of "the Lord Jesus Christ" it indicates that they are also rejecting the generally accepted biblical terms which have been used by Christians and are still being used.

Seriously? Referring to my God - the Christian God - using a name that He told us to use is anti-Christian in your view?

3. You have indicated that "Yahweh's sacrifice" is NOT the cross, or to be more precise, not the offering up of Christ Himself as the Lamb of God...

Huh? Where did I say that? I said that the cross wasn't God's most COSTLY sacrifice. I said that, in terms of overall suffering, the cross was SECONDARY to His greatest sacrifice.

So what do you consider to be Yahweh's sacrifice, and why did you avoid using "Lord Jesus Christ"?

Read the early part of this thread for His greatest sacrifice.

 

[JAL]

The word Trinity isn't in the Bible . But the Bible as you say the Bible describes the Trinity. The Bible doesn't describe the stuff you are espousing. Your logic is flawed. Why? Because it doesn't match what scripture says. God is good and he is righteous. God IS. Therefore anything he does or allows is good and righteous.

Honestly, would you make a world like this?
I don't know you, so until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume you're a decent human being. As such, I'm pretty sure you would NEVER make a world like this, if you were an infinitely self-sufficient being who, as such, had no need for it. I certainly wouldn't do it, and I'm not even much of a good guy.

If I were an infinitely self-sufficient being, and even halfway-decent in moral virtue, I wouldn't even CONSIDER creating a world like this. You realize what temptation is, right? It's horrible suffering - that's why we call it the AGONY of temptation. And what's the quickest form of relief? Sin! Yielding to it! And if you so succumb, what's the penalty? HELL !!!

I don't believe that either you or I would EVER be so cruel as to make a world like this. It therefore simply wouldn't make sense for me to claim that a PERFECTLY kind God would do so - unless He NEEDED us.

In your own understanding that doesn't make sense. But that is YOUR limited understanding. Your logic is carnal and fleshly. If you lean on scripture then your logic is irrlelevent because you are leaning on truth. Remember "lean not on your own understanding." I don't have to lean on my personal understanding. I just lean on the truth.

OUR finite human understanding is the only one that matters in this discussion. If the Bible doesn't make sense to US, then it is useless to US. I defended this point at post #41. Please address the arguments made there.

Believe what the Bible says. God isn't like you.

Not sure if I'm getting you. Are you suggesting that God doesn't define love the same way I do? That leads to logical contradictions, as shown in post #41.

Does this sound like your kind of love?
Don’t intermarry with them — don’t give your daughter to his son, and don’t take his daughter for your son.For he will turn your children away from following me in order to serve other gods. If this happens, the anger of Adonai will flare up against you, and he will quickly destroy you.No, treat them this way: break down their altars, smash their standing-stones to pieces, cut down their sacred poles and burn up their carved images completely.For you are a people set apart as holy for Adonai your God. Adonai your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his own unique treasure.Adonai didn’t set his heart on you or choose you because you numbered more than any other people — on the contrary, you were the fewest of all peoples.Rather, it was because Adonai loved you, and because he wanted to keep the oath which he had sworn to your ancestors, that Adonai brought you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from a life of slavery under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.(Maftir) From this you can know that Adonai your God is indeed God, the faithful God, who keeps his covenant and extends grace to those who love him and observe his mitzvot, to a thousand generations.But he repays those who hate him to their face and destroys them. He will not be slow to deal with someone who hates him; he will repay him to his face.Therefore, you are to keep the mitzvot, laws and rulings which I am giving you today, and obey them. Haftarah Va’etchanan: Yesha‘yahu (Isaiah) 40:1–26 B’rit Hadashah suggested readings for Parashah Va’etchanan: Mattityahu (Matthew) 4:1–11; 22:33–40; Mark 12:28–34; Luke 4:1–13; 10:25–37; Acts 13:13–43; Romans 3:27–31; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; Ya‘akov (James) 2:14–26; and all the readings for Parashah 17 - Deuteronomy 7:3-11 Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 7:3-11 - Complete Jewish Bible

No it doesn't. Yet God loves. In your human mind it doesn't make sense. But you are limited in your understanding. We trust that what God says is true whether we understand or not. God loves because he says he does. God is Holy and he is righteous.

But it should and DOES make sense. The theodicy that I've outlined on this thread implies that God is WARRANTED in the ways that He deals with men.

Firstly, you seem to be saying that God has His own sense of justice deviant from the human definition. Again, see post #41.

Secondly, my theodicy seeks to show how God's actions do indeed align with the human definition of justice. If you see any discrepancy between human justice and God's actions, I think you don't yet understand my theodicy. For example I've explained in what sense we are guilty in Adam (certainly NOT in the traditional sense!). On this basis, we are all guilty in Adam wherefore God is warranted in punishing those people threatened in the passage that you cited.

 

[InterestedApologist]

OK now it looks like you're just telling lies. I addressed your point in at least two legitimate ways.

Quoting scripture is not “telling lies”.

(1) I mentioned that my argument doesn't stand or fall exclusively on the word 'love' - I said that the biblical God is said to be perfectly good, kind, and merciful, and that any of these virtues suffice to make my points on this thread. You deliberately ignore this rebuttal, and every cogent argument that I've made. Which proves to me that my arguments are, for you, insurmountable.

You couldn’t be more wrong here. I find your argument sophomoric, not airtight as you presume. You keep submitting the same two points over and over again, but you misrepresent them when challenged. You say God needed to create, or wanted to create “for fun”. When challenged, you conveniently forget you must defend your “for fun” requirement you add to God wanted to create. You ignore, because it is the “for fun” portion on which your argument against God’s love hinges upon. Without “for fun”, your “needed to create” becomes far weaker an argument, which really hurts “your theology”. In this respect, I have indeed challenged you with plenty of other options, none of which you have addressed, because it undermines your argument.

(2) Since it seemed to me rather bizarre that you don't see acts of divine mercy as a manifestation of His love, I provided several verses seemingly to the contrary. You could have addressed those Scriptures - but of course you won't because it's much easier for everyone to sit around accusing me of not looking to Scripture! (The irony of it all...).

This is funny to me, as I stated the versus were in perfect harmony with the Bible’s definition of love. They just don’t fit your definition of love so it irritates, I guess?

Again, John 3:16, one of the verses that I cited.
“God so loved (agapao) the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” WHY did He give His son? So that men would not perish into hell. Looks to me like an effort to alleviate (longterm) suffering. Yet, here you are acting like I'm the crazy one for seeing traces of mercy in His love.

Never in this thread have I denied God’s mercy or love. You are off the rails here reading into things that were never said.

No more comments should be necessary but, since you insist, let's go back to your supposed linchpin (1Cor 13) - the passage which, according to you, is the linchpin of proof that love has nothing to do with minimizing suffering. According to that passage, "Love is kind and is not self-seeking."

Ok so perfect love:
(1) Is kind to the others.
(2) Is not self-seeking, rather it seeks to improve the welfare of others.

So if your next-door neighbor is STARVING to death, and he asks you for a crumb, what is an oft-commendable response given premises 1 and 2?

Honestly I don't know what sort of tortured reasoning that you are trying to subscribe to, but I think it's merely to win this debate. Looks like you'll say anything at this point, regardless of whether you yourself believe it.

And you've demonstrated this - how? Evidently by evasively dodging all my arguments and torturing all the verses?

Love bears all things and never fails as well. Your entire argument rests on minimizing suffering as the defining characteristic of love, correct? My argument is that this isn’t a good definition for love and isn’t even a good definition by man’s standards.

How do you feel about a parent that never disciplines their child to spare them some pain? Is that really love? What about the parent who denies medical treatment to a child because it will be painful? What about the parent who always saves their kids and bailed them out of trouble? Still loving?

You see, in life, sometimes short term pain or suffering is necessary or even preferable to comfort. Shocking, right? Sometimes the most loving thing doesn’t appear so at the moment. So, no, I don’t agree with your definition of love and sidestepping it by changing the language isn’t helping your point. God is love, and his love is the central point of your argument.

Perhaps it is time to look beyond your own reasoning and open yourself to the possibility that all you consider to be God allowed suffering might actually be made into good in ways you never imagined possible. This is easy when one understands God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge. But then again, didn’t you say you don’t believe he is all knowing?

Telling lies again? Any theodicy, including mine, argues FOR the goodness of God, not against it.
Huh? Since my point is that God is good, the cross is consistent with goodness. I adduced the cross (at least 3 times on this thread), as an EXAMPLE of God's merit. So why the lies? A pack of lies is a very good sign that my theology wins this debate hands-down.

At this point you are so all over the place with with wild theories and doublespeak it is hard to tell what you believe. You give lip service to scriptural authority and God’s goodness, but deny scripture that isn’t readily understood by yourself or may conflict with “your theology”. Accusing me of being a liar when I have been nothing but consistent smacks of desperation on your part.

You're trying to pretend that the problem of evil is not a real problem. That's a totally unconvincing theodicy, because there are several less-painful outcomes, if God had arranged things differently - and His Son would not have died on the cross if He had chosen a different arrangement. You say His Son endured the WORST SUFFERING IMAGINEABLE (your own words). WHY would a loving parent create that 'opportunity' for his son?

I have answered this at least twice, but the third and final time:

God desires man to love him of their own volition. Simple and scriptural. If man cannot choose not to love God, he is then forced to love God, which is not love at all. You cannot force someone to love you. Love is something freely given.

God gave Adam and Eve everything wonderful. He asked only they not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why? Because eating from the tree was a choice to elevate themselves into God’s role. The serpent explained when you eat it you will be like God, and that was the temptation they yielded to. Adam and Eve desired not to rest in God’s love and perfection, but instead chose to deify themselves. They decided to love themselves over loving God. What charge, then do you lay at God’s feet for this? You feel He was unjust for allowing them to choose to love Him?

(1) Because He NEEDED to?
(2) Or because He WANTED to - and thus for the fun of it.

Hey, there’s the “fun of it” again

THAT, my friend, is the problem of evil. Trying to evasively ignore it, side-step, deny it (etc) might fly with some of your comrades, but it certainly it doesn't wash with me.

Heaven's so wonderful? Tell it to the souls in hell who are wondering, "If God is so good, why did He give me this 'opportunity' to condemn myself to hell? Just for the fun of it?"

Not explaining again. You can accept my explanation or not. You harp on your choice to condemn yourself to Hell as though He didn’t offer you the opposite in salvation as a free gift through faith. God says He wishes none would perish. You say He sends people to Hell for the fun of it. Your view contradicts scripture. God’s emphasis is love and redemption, and I don’t think the cross was fun when He sacrificed His own life to grant you that redemption.

And yet everything you write reaffirms what I suspect - that no one will ever be able to refute the logic of my position. It's far more solid than the last 2,000 years of shallow theodicy.

And this is why there is no longer any point in engaging. Nothing, not scripture (your words), not logic, not reason, not even more data will sway you.

 

[JAL]

Quoting scripture is not “telling lies”...You couldn’t be more wrong here. I find your argument sophomoric, not airtight as you presume. You keep submitting the same two points over and over again, but you misrepresent them when challenged. You say God needed to create, or wanted to create “for fun”. When challenged, you conveniently forget you must defend your “for fun” requirement you add to God wanted to create.

Actually that's not strictly true (although I honestly don't see an option OTHER than fun).

Strictly my argument rests on two possiblities:
(1) God NEEDED us
(2) God WANTED us...
That's all that's required. I don't see that the 'for fun' part is a requisite. I just added the 3 dots as an ellipsis because I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY TO END THAT SENTENCE THAN:
(2) God WANTED us...for His pleasure (and thus for fun).

You keep saying there are PLENTY of other ways to end that sentence but YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED ONE.

You said, for example, "Maybe God WANTED ('wished' was your term) to demonstrates His love'

How is that different than option 2? The word WANTED is the same word that I used!

Or maybe a word game is your big 'rebuttal' of me ('wished' versus 'wanted').

Anyone, please, what am I missing here?

You ignore, because it is the “for fun” portion on which your argument against God’s love hinges upon. Without “for fun”, your “needed to create” becomes far weaker an argument, which really hurts “your theology”. In this respect, I have indeed challenged you with plenty of other options, none of which you have addressed, because it undermines your argument.

Plenty of other options to end sentence 2? That's funny, because here I am still waiting for one.

This is funny to me, as I stated the versus were in perfect harmony with the Bible’s definition of love.

1Cor 13 is clearly about love. Where have I denied that? But you conveniently ignored my exposition where I DEMONSTRATED that the love of 1Cor 13 IMPLIES a dedication to minimizing suffering - I honestly can't believe we're still debating this point. Here too, is another 'big rebuttal' of my position? That's all you've got? Really?

They just don’t fit your definition of love so it irritates, I guess?

Where have I contradicted the biblical definition of love?

Never in this thread have I denied God’s mercy or love. You are off the rails here reading into things that were never said.

Um...re-read the words that you were responding to you. I made no such accusation.

Love bears all things and never fails as well. Your entire argument rests on minimizing suffering as the defining characteristic of love, correct? My argument is that this isn’t a good definition for love and isn’t even a good definition by man’s standards.

That's NOT an argument, it's an assertion. Which is what you've been doing to this point. Whereas I gave you ARGUMENTS, which you ignored.

FINALLY, you're next statement is an argument - but before I continue, I've stated at least twice that MY POSITION DOESN'T EVEN DEPEND on the strict definition of love. I've been using 'love' as a general term for all of God's benevolence (kindess,generosity, mercy, etc). You conveneiently keep ignoring this fact because you're so bent on strawman arguments.

So here's your argument:

How do you feel about a parent that never disciplines their child to spare them some pain? Is that really love? What about the parent who denies medical treatment to a child because it will be painful? What about the parent who always saves their kids and bailed them out of trouble? Still loving?

You see, in life, sometimes short term pain or suffering is necessary or even preferable to comfort. Shocking, right? Sometimes the most loving thing doesn’t appear so at the moment. So, no, I don’t agree with your definition of love and sidestepping it by changing the language isn’t helping your point. God is love, and his love is the central point of your argument.

Utterly puerile because, while this is indeed a wonderful argument FOR SOME OTHER DEBATE, it does nothing to support your stance in THIS debate. And I think you're smart enough to realize it.

So let's analyze your argument to see why. You said:

How do you feel about a parent that never disciplines their child to spare them some pain?
Is that really love?

Whether or not love is involved in SOME sense, I think we can agree that it is not MAXIMAL love because, in the long term, it will likely lead to more suffering. It's too risky. It is insufficiently dedicated to MINIMIZING suffering - it might minimize short-term suffering, but IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE WITH REGARD MINIMIZING OVERALL SUFFERING.

So all you're doing is proving my point that true love is dedicated to minimizing suffering. Thanks.

Secondly, while a human parent can often serve as a good analogy for the Father, we have to be cautious. For example in a debate like this we should ask questions like, Could the parent have minimized the child's suffering by simply - not having children? (Although, if you really understand my doctrine of Adam posted earlier on this thread, this strategy won't succeed post-Fall).

Here's another reason that a human parent is an imperfect analogy. Suppose I force my child to build muscle, for his own protection in a harsh environment. It's painful, but for the long haul, I hope it will serve to minimize his suffering. Is God justified in treating His kids the same way? Depends.
(1) First we must ask - why did God create such a harsh world and a harsh environment? Was it necessary?
(2) OK, assuming it was necessary, is He finite? Meaning, are their limits to His resources for protecting us? If yes, then then answer is, Yes, He is justified in disciplining us in ways to insure our long-term protection. Whereas, if He is INFINITE, then He doesn't need me to build muscle to protect myself. He can protect me just fine.

See what I'm doing? I'm analyzing your arguments point by point. You'd do well to follow my example.

Perhaps it is time to look beyond your own reasoning and open yourself to the possibility that all you consider to be God allowed suffering might actually be made into good in ways you never imagined possible.

Theology is gibberish if it is built upon the incomprehensible. We might as well try to speak Chinese, without knowing the language. Not very fruitful. Let's stick with arguments that we CAN understand. K?

This is easy when one understands God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge.

Yet you conveniently ignored my earlier arguments against foreknowledge. Gee what a shock. Ever heard of Open Theism? (I wouldn't call myself a strict Open Theist but there are significant intersections).

But then again, didn’t you say you don’t believe he is all knowing?

What I 'believe' (opine) isn't terribly relevant to this debate. What matters is whether anyone can provide arguments more cogent than mine. Still waiting.

Pretty cheap to take such a potshot. You know good and well that, with me being non-traditional, anything I say is BOUND to sound outlandish to Christians indoctrinated for 2,000 years. So instead of actually addressing my arguments, you echoed my FINAL CONCLUSION (hoping it will sound silly to everyone on this thread). That's the whole point of:

But then again, didn’t you say you don’t believe he is all knowing?

Why yes. I believe that the concept of infinite knowledge is total gibberish because infinity minus one is - what? Still infinity? For example, if God knows an infinite number of languages, and then happened to forget one billion of them, He now knows exactly:
infinity minus 1,000,000,000 languages.
which is still - infinity! The same amount He started with! Total nonsense! That's a paraphrase of an earlier argument that you, as usual, ignored. Look, if you insist on a commitment to total nonsense and total gibberish, that's YOUR choice. Certainly nothing I can do about it, but maybe someone else will benefit from this thread.

 

[JAL]

Quoting scripture is not “telling lies”.
At this point you are so all over the place with with wild theories and doublespeak it is hard to tell what you believe. You give lip service to scriptural authority and God’s goodness, but deny scripture that isn’t readily understood by yourself or may conflict with “your theology”.

Par for for the course. Plenty of negative judgment on my theology with no specific examples and nothing specific to back it up.

I have answered this at least twice, but the third and final time:

God desires man to love him of their own volition. Simple and scriptural. If man cannot choose not to love God, he is then forced to love God, which is not love at all. You cannot force someone to love you. Love is something freely given.

And how is this different than my assessment of your position. He either NEEDED us,or He DESIRED us. Here you used the word 'desire'. That word indicates He did it for His pleasure (what I called 'fun'). Since you're still in denial about this conclusion, let's consider an every-day example.

Suppose someone gives me the best car on the market. Mechanically, it is perfectly sound. It meets all my NEEDs. Unfortunately it is pink. I WANTED ('desired' to use your term) a blue car. So I go out and buy one.

Didn't I do this for my pleasure? Didn't I do it just for fun? Certainly I didn't do it out of NEED.

Yet whenever I say there SEEMS to be only two options (NEED versus WANT/FUN), you say I'm wrong, but then you use words like 'desire' that confirm my point!

Can anyone make sense of this?

You feel He was unjust for allowing {Adam and Eve} to choose to love Him?

I haven't been debating His justice - well not true, I demonstrated that traditional flavors of the Fall are unjust, and I provided a just alternative. But for the most part I've been debating whether a supposedly infinitely kind, merciful, benevolent, loving (etc) - and self-sufficient - God would create this kind of pain-prone world. To me this is a contradiction in terms.

God gave Adam and Eve everything wonderful.

Not EVERYTHING about it was so wonderful. For example if the agony of temptation is so wonderful, then I can only ASSUME that you are eagerly hoping heaven to be a place saturated with it? So you can have more wonderful opportunities to condemn yourself to hell?

You know what the drug addict REALLY wants - even more than the drugs? Freedom from the agony of temptation. Deliverance from this horrible world. But you say an infinitely kind God - WANTED such a pain-prone world?

He asked only they not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why? Because eating from the tree was a choice to elevate themselves into God’s role. The serpent explained when you eat it you will be like God, and that was the temptation they yielded to. Adam and Eve desired not to rest in God’s love and perfection, but instead chose to deify themselves. They decided to love themselves over loving God. What charge, then do you lay at God’s feet for this?

I don't lay any charge, if God NEEDED us. But if God is infinitely self-sufficient then, by definition, He can furnish His own pleasure. He shouldn't need to create a pain-prone world - a world filled with the agony of temptation - to obtain His desired degree of pleasure. And if he didn't NEED it, and claims to be kind, He should have been kind enough to abstain from it.

Hey, there’s the “fun of it” again

Right, and I wouldn't need to keep repeating myself if you had a legitimate comeback.

Not explaining again. You can accept my explanation or not. You harp on your choice to condemn yourself to Hell as though He didn’t offer you the opposite in salvation as a free gift through faith.

Sorry, the cross doesn't resolve the apparent contradiction. On the contrary, it raises questions as to why a perfectly self-sufficient, perfectly kind God would create a world potentially culminating in the nailing of His own Son to the cross! So in your view, God didn't love His Son enough to abstain from this kind of world?

By the way, repeating stuff that we already agree on isn't really an 'argument'. Of course I understand and agree with statements like:
(1) God wanted Adam and Eve to freely choose to love Him.
(2) God has provided salvation in the cross.
Yet you keep making such mutually accepted statements instead of addressing the REAL underpinnings of my arguments.

God says He wishes none would perish. You say He sends people to Hell for the fun of it.

No, CLEARLY I said that YOUR version of God raises those kinds of questions. In MY version, God wouldn't allow such pain unless He NEEDED to. Stop twisting this.

Your view contradicts scripture.

But what you just described was actually YOUR view! In my view, God didn't make this world because He WANTED to, but out of NEED!

Seems I was wrong - you are a good debater - for defending my position!

God’s emphasis is love and redemption, and I don’t think the cross was fun when He sacrificed His own life to grant you that redemption.

And so what kind of fun would really justify creating a world culminating in His Son's death?

I'm not aware of any. So I'll go with NEED.

And this is why there is no longer any point in engaging. Nothing, not scripture (your words), not logic, not reason, not even more data will sway you.

I'm still waiting on you for logic, reason, and data. Problem is, you're not providing any, except those concessions that prove my point all the more.

 

[rjs330]

Honestly, would you make a world like this?
I don't know you, so until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume you're a decent human being. As such, I'm pretty sure you would NEVER make a world like this, if you were an infinitely self-sufficient being who, as such, had no need for it. I certainly wouldn't do it, and I'm not even much of a good guy.

If I were an infinitely self-sufficient being, and even halfway-decent in moral virtue, I wouldn't even CONSIDER creating a world like this. You realize what temptation is, right? It's horrible suffering - that's why we call it the AGONY of temptation. And what's the quickest form of relief? Sin! Yielding to it! And if you so succumb, what's the penalty? HELL !!!

I don't believe that either you or I would EVER be so cruel as to make a world like this. It therefore simply wouldn't make sense for me to claim that a PERFECTLY kind God would do so - unless He NEEDED us.

OUR finite human understanding is the only one that matters in this discussion. If the Bible doesn't make sense to US, then it is useless to US. I defended this point at post #41. Please address the arguments made there.

Not sure if I'm getting you. Are you suggesting that God doesn't define love the same way I do? That leads to logical contradictions, as shown in post #41.


But it should and DOES make sense. The theodicy that I've outlined on this thread implies that God is WARRANTED in the ways that He deals with men.

Firstly, you seem to be saying that God has His own sense of justice deviant from the human definition. Again, see post #41.

Secondly, my theodicy seeks to show how God's actions do indeed align with the human definition of justice. If you see any discrepancy between human justice and God's actions, I think you don't yet understand my theodicy. For example I've explained in what sense we are guilty in Adam (certainly NOT in the traditional sense!). On this basis, we are all guilty in Adam wherefore God is warranted in punishing those people threatened in the passage that you cited.

You are still wrestling with the idea of God not being like you. You said "If I were an infinitely self-sufficient being". You are not. That's the scriptures point. That's God's point. You are not therefore you do not understand why God created this world.

And by the way he did NOT create the world this way. The world was cursed after Adam sinned. The world was not this way in the beginning. Remember God called all he did good. He saw that it was good.

God didn't need us. No where in scripture does it say or hint at that. You need to get away from the idea that God explains everything he does or has done to us. He doesn't. His ways are not ours. Would I curse the whole world because Adam and Eve sinned? No I wouldn't. But I am not God. I don't have the infinite knowledge or power he has.

The bible just tells us what is. All that God does and why he does or did it, does NOT have to make sense to us. You want it to, but God is under no obligation to explain himself to you or me.

I don't know about you specifically and your definition of love. But MANY people claim, if God loves as he claims he wouldn't send people to hell. If God loves he wouldn't have had the Israelites kill babies. If God loves he wouldn't have cursed all mankind fir the sins of Adam. So no, God's love is not understood by a lot of people because they wouldn't do the things God did.

Remember he will have mercy upon those he will have mercy on and he will give justice to those he will have justice on. It's HIS right. Because he is perfect in all of his ways. We are not. He didn't need us. We need him.

So are we to say, “It is unjust for God to do this”? Heaven forbid!For to Moshe he says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will pity whom I pity.”Thus it doesn’t depend on human desires or efforts, but on God, who has mercy.For the Tanakh says to Pharaoh, “It is for this very reason that I raised you up, so that in connection with you I might demonstrate my power, so that my name might be known throughout the world.”So then, he has mercy on whom he wants, and he hardens whom he wants.But you will say to me, “Then why does he still find fault with us? After all, who resists his will?”Who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me this way?”Or has the potter no right to make from a given lump of clay this pot for honorable use and that one for dishonorable?Now what if God, even though he was quite willing to demonstrate his anger and make known his power, patiently put up with people who deserved punishment and were ripe for destruction?What if he did this in order to make known the riches of his glory to those who are the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — - Romans 9:14-23 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:14-23 - Complete Jewish Bible

 

[JAL]

The theme of this last post seems to be: God's ways are beyond human understanding. He doesn't fit into the human definitions of love, justice, kindness, and so on. As my post #41 detailed, such a stance effectively undermines religion. There can be no eschatology of hope if terms such as love, kindness, and justice mean something OTHER to God than the human defintions. So I'll simply keep pointing you back to post #41.

You are still wrestling with the idea of God not being like you. You said "If I were an infinitely self-sufficient being". You are not. That's the scriptures point. That's God's point. You are not therefore you do not understand why God created this world.

If you subscribe to a particular Magisterium or Tradition (i.e. Catholic or Orthodox), you're not really at liberty to decide doctrine (although, oddly enough, you already exercised such liberty to so subscribe).

Anyway those of who, like me, are not bound to a particular Tradition must make our own minds which doctrines are true. And when faced with, say, three competing doctrines:
(1) The first is humanly incomprehensible. Gibberish.
(2) The second has some intelligible nuances but seems to self-contradict.
(3) The third, compared to the first two, is lucid and relatively unproblematic.
Then a Christian behaving rationally will go with option 3 unless, as I stated on the original thread, an influence on his conscience (hopefully divine), compels him to go with option 1 or 2.

But in this case he simply needs to be HONEST and FORTHCOMING about where he got his conclusions. He shouldn't pretend that his position flows from a legitimate analysis of Scripture.

But you want to bypass the rational, apparently:

You are still wrestling with the idea of God not being like you. You said "If I were an infinitely self-sufficient being". You are not. That's the scriptures point. That's God's point. You are not therefore you do not understand why God created this world.

Sorry, I can't bypass the rational (see post #41). I have to undertake a legitimate analysis. I can't say, 'It's all beyond my understanding so I'm going jump to whatever conclusion suits me at the moment.'

Instead, I must weigh the various doctrines in all ways available to me. So yes, if I'm going to have a doctrine that God is an infinitely self-sufficient being, I shouldn't use those words UNLESS I'M SOMEHAT CLEAR ON WHAT THAT MEANS. If there's NOTHING clear about it, it's just gibberish.

What SEEMS clear about those words is that such a God doesn't need us and would therefore either abstain from creation or create us for pleasure/fun. I don't really think there's a third option but, to play devil's advocate, I pretended one (I did it twice on this thread) - I said perhaps God sees creation as an act of generosity, and then I exposed the logical problems with such a claim.

And by the way he did NOT create the world this way. The world was cursed after Adam sinned. The world was not this way in the beginning. Remember God called all he did good. He saw that it was good.

And it makes perfect sense to call it good, from the standpoint of my theodicy. I fail to see how it is good from the standpoint of traditional assumptions.

God didn't need us. No where in scripture does it say or hint at that.

The Bible doesn't use the word Trinity - it NOWHERE SAYS THAT GOD IS THREE. Odd, but true. A while back I was wanting a few clear passages asserting that the faithful angels underwent a (brief) period of temptational agony and overcame it. Hard to find such. Here again, sometimes as theologians we read between the lines. Not EVERYTHING in the Bible is made explicit for us.

Although I'm not aware of any explicit teaching that God needs us, it is STRONGLY IMPLIED. In my view, the very earliest church fathers, from the moment they read the account of Adam and Eve, should have found it OBVIOUS that God need us (because it all boils down to only two options as I've repeatedly pointed out, so this is not rocket science). It's very difficult to make any sense of Adam, Lucifer, (et. al.) without need.

The Bible doesn't hint at it? We've been over this. You wrote: "Remember God called all he did good" .
Yes, He repeatedly kept saying that about each of His creations, UNTIL He created Adam, which He said was NOT good because, "It is not good for man to be alone." Yahweh proceeds to fashion Eve as his bride.

As I pointed out earlier, a bride satisfies a REAL NEED for companionship. Did you catch that?

Eventually God goes on to identify the church as the bride of Christ. Why would an infinitely self-sufficient being be in want of a bride? Doesn't make a lot of sense without recourse to NEED.

You need to get away from the idea that God explains everything he does or has done to us. He doesn't. His ways are not ours. Would I curse the whole world because Adam and Eve sinned? No I wouldn't. But I am not God. I don't have the infinite knowledge or power he has.

You are implying that God's dealings with Adam violate the normal human concept of justice. YES, if we go with TRADITIONAL theology. I proposed a NON-traditional version of Adam, earlier on this thread. Theology must not violate the human concept of justice (see post #41).

The bible just tells us what is. All that God does and why he does or did it, does NOT have to make sense to us. You want it to, but God is under no obligation to explain himself to you or me.

I don't have to understand every word in the Bible to be a Christian.
But any doctrines that I DO assert should neither be gibberish nor logically inconsistent.

I don't know about you specifically and your definition of love. But MANY people claim, if God loves as he claims he wouldn't send people to hell. If God loves he wouldn't have had the Israelites kill babies. If God loves he wouldn't have cursed all mankind fir the sins of Adam. So no, God's love is not understood by a lot of people because they wouldn't do the things God did.

One CAN'T make sense of God's love on traditional assumptions. That's my point. Mainstream theodicy does indeed present a humanly incomprehensible depiction of God.


Next you appeal to a Romans passage sometimes adduced for the claim that God is at liberty to violate the human concept of justice.

Remember he will have mercy upon those he will have mercy on and he will give justice to those he will have justice on. It's HIS right. Because he is perfect in all of his ways. We are not. He didn't need us. We need him.

So are we to say, “It is unjust for God to do this”? Heaven forbid!For to Moshe he says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will pity whom I pity.”Thus it doesn’t depend on human desires or efforts, but on God, who has mercy.For the Tanakh says to Pharaoh, “It is for this very reason that I raised you up, so that in connection with you I might demonstrate my power, so that my name might be known throughout the world.”So then, he has mercy on whom he wants, and he hardens whom he wants.But you will say to me, “Then why does he still find fault with us? After all, who resists his will?”Who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me this way?”Or has the potter no right to make from a given lump of clay this pot for honorable use and that one for dishonorable?Now what if God, even though he was quite willing to demonstrate his anger and make known his power, patiently put up with people who deserved punishment and were ripe for destruction?What if he did this in order to make known the riches of his glory to those who are the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — - Romans 9:14-23 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:14-23 - Complete Jewish Bible

Here again, see post #41, because the law of non-contradiction stands. As responsible exegetes, we are not ENTITLED to a conclusion that logically contradicts God love and justice, and thereby undermines eschatological hope. It is therefore YOUR responsibility, as a responsible exegete, to find an acceptable reading of the passage. Thus by adducing this passage you are, in essence, asking me to do your homework for you. For the moment, I will oblige.

A good starting point is verse 14, "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!" Here Paul quickly silences any notion that God would ever violate justice. Thank God, because that's only sort of King that I would ever want to serve. The next few verses:
(1) Use the word 'mercy' multiple times. Mercy is, first and foremost, for the SINNER.
(2) Refer to us as objects of 'wrath' (or in the version you cited 'people who DESERVED punishment'.
Isn't this the same God that gave us Ezekiel 18 where He testifies that a child shall only suffer for his OWN sin, not for the sins of his parents?

How, then, does this passage violate the human concept of justice? Does it anywhere teach that He throws innocent men into hell?

If that's what you wanted to imply, perhaps you should have begun at verse 11,"Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls." My solution is simple. As Jacob and Esau, they hadn't done anything good or bad, but as Adam (as I define him, in a non-traditional sense), they HAD sinned, and thus were objects of wrath bound to His mercy.

Some cite the verse, "He visits the sins of the parents upon the children." But the exegete must not have this verse to contradict Ez 18. It is HIS responsibility to come up with an acceptable reading, which is actually simple. Both parents and children are guilty in Adam (as I define him). Therefore God has every right to relinquish mercies upon the children, if the parents offend Him. Ultimately, the children suffer in payment of their own sins, not those of their parents.

 

[rjs330]

The theme of this last post seems to be: God's ways are beyond human understanding. He doesn't fit into the human definitions of love, justice, kindness, and so on. As my post #41 detailed, such a stance effectively undermines religion. There can be no eschatology of hope if terms such as love, kindness, and justice mean something OTHER to God than the human defintions. So I'll simply keep pointing you back to post #41.

If you subscribe to a particular Magisterium or Tradition (i.e. Catholic or Orthodox), you're not really at liberty to decide doctrine (although, oddly enough, you already exercised such liberty to so subscribe).

Anyway those of who, like me, are not bound to a particular Tradition must make our own minds which doctrines are true. And when faced with, say, three competing doctrines:
(1) The first is humanly incomprehensible. Gibberish.
(2) The second has some intelligible nuances but seems to self-contradict.
(3) The third, compared to the first two, is lucid and relatively unproblematic.
Then a Christian behaving rationally will go with option 3 unless, as I stated on the original thread, an influence on his conscience (hopefully divine), compels him to go with option 1 or 2.

But in this case he simply needs to be HONEST and FORTHCOMING about where he got his conclusions. He shouldn't pretend that his position flows from a legitimate analysis of Scripture.

But you want to bypass the rational, apparently:
Sorry, I can't bypass the rational (see post #41). I have to undertake a legitimate analysis. I can't say, 'It's all beyond my understanding so I'm going jump to whatever conclusion suits me at the moment.'

Instead, I must weigh the various doctrines in all ways available to me. So yes, if I'm going to have a doctrine that God is an infinitely self-sufficient being, I shouldn't use those words UNLESS I'M SOMEHAT CLEAR ON WHAT THAT MEANS. If there's NOTHING clear about it, it's just gibberish.

What SEEMS clear about those words is that such a God doesn't need us and would therefore either abstain from creation or create us for pleasure/fun. I don't really think there's a third option but, to play devil's advocate, I pretended one (I did it twice on this thread) - I said perhaps God sees creation as an act of generosity, and then I exposed the logical problems with such a claim.

And it makes perfect sense to call it good, from the standpoint of my theodicy. I fail to see how it is good from the standpoint of traditional assumptions.

The Bible doesn't use the word Trinity - it NOWHERE SAYS THAT GOD IS THREE. Odd, but true. A while back I was wanting a few clear passages asserting that the faithful angels underwent a (brief) period of temptational agony and overcame it. Hard to find such. Here again, sometimes as theologians we read between the lines. Not EVERYTHING in the Bible is made explicit for us.

Although I'm not aware of any explicit teaching that God needs us, it is STRONGLY IMPLIED. In my view, the very earliest church fathers, from the moment they read the account of Adam and Eve, should have found it OBVIOUS that God need us (because it all boils down to only two options as I've repeatedly pointed out, so this is not rocket science). It's very difficult to make any sense of Adam, Lucifer, (et. al.) without need.

The Bible doesn't hint at it? We've been over this. You wrote: "Remember God called all he did good" .
Yes, He repeatedly kept saying that about each of His creations, UNTIL He created Adam, which He said was NOT good because, "It is not good for man to be alone." Yahweh proceeds to fashion Eve as his bride.

As I pointed out earlier, a bride satisfies a REAL NEED for companionship. Did you catch that?

Eventually God goes on to identify the church as the bride of Christ. Why would an infinitely self-sufficient being be in want of a bride? Doesn't make a lot of sense without recourse to NEED.

You are implying that God's dealings with Adam violate the normal human concept of justice. YES, if we go with TRADITIONAL theology. I proposed a NON-traditional version of Adam, earlier on this thread. Theology must not violate the human concept of justice (see post #41).

I don't have to understand every word in the Bible to be a Christian.
But any doctrines that I DO assert should neither be gibberish nor logically inconsistent.



One CAN'T make sense of God's love on traditional assumptions. That's my point. Mainstream theodicy does indeed present a humanly incomprehensible depiction of God.


Next you appeal to a Romans passage sometimes adduced for the claim that God is at liberty to violate the human concept of justice.


Here again, see post #41, because the law of non-contradiction stands. As responsible exegetes, we are not ENTITLED to a conclusion that logically contradicts God love and justice, and thereby undermines eschatological hope. It is therefore YOUR responsibility, as a responsible exegete, to find an acceptable reading of the passage. Thus by adducing this passage you are, in essence, asking me to do your homework for you. For the moment, I will oblige.

A good starting point is verse 14, "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!" Here Paul quickly silences any notion that God would ever violate justice. Thank God, because that's only sort of King that I would ever want to serve. The next few verses:
(1) Use the word 'mercy' multiple times. Mercy is, first and foremost, for the SINNER.
(2) Refer to us as objects of 'wrath' (or in the version you cited 'people who DESERVED punishment'.
Isn't this the same God that gave us Ezekiel 18 where He testifies that a child shall only suffer for his OWN sin, not for the sins of his parents?

How, then, does this passage violate the human concept of justice? Does it anywhere teach that He throws innocent men into hell?

If that's what you wanted to imply, perhaps you should have begun at verse 11,"Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls." My solution is simple. As Jacob and Esau, they hadn't done anything good or bad, but as Adam (as I define him, in a non-traditional sense), they HAD sinned, and thus were objects of wrath bound to His mercy.

Some cite the verse, "He visits the sins of the parents upon the children." But the exegete must not have this verse to contradict Ez 18. It is HIS responsibility to come up with an acceptable reading, which is actually simple. Both parents and children are guilty in Adam (as I define him). Therefore God has every right to relinquish mercies upon the children, if the parents offend Him. Ultimately, the children suffer in payment of their own sins, not those of their parents.

Sorry your post 41 doesn't make a lot of sense. Much of it certainly isn't scriptural. All you have to do is say people who are unbelievers about punishment in hell. Ive had many discussions with them about this on these boards. They cannot understand why God, who is supposed to love us would finish in that way. They also do not believe it is just of God to punish people in that way, because in their eyes they are not that bad.

So human justice would not do that to people. Your argument is invalid. Especially in the light of scripture which says our ways are not his. It's pretty plain.

You keep talking about gibberish. I have no idea what you are talking about. The Bible isn't gibberish. It's pretty clear.

According to humans God DOES violate their concept of justice.

The verse in Ezekiel has nothing to do with Romans. You again miss the point of the Romans passage. It is God that does the mercy. Because his will is absolute. He IS just. The passage says he is. The passage says this.
But you will say to me, “Then why does he still find fault with us? After all, who resists his will?”Who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me this way?”Or has the potter no right to make from a given lump of clay this pot for honorable use and that one for dishonorable? - Romans 9:19-21 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:19-21 - Complete Jewish Bible

God is the Potter and he can do what he wills with us. And it is perfectly just.

That's why I trust God. Because I know he is no matter what he does. It may not look like to me, but I believe he is.

And the NEED you keep.mentioning is not any where to be found in scripture. God doesn't need us nor did he make us for fun. There is no scriptural evidence for such a thing. You certainly haven't provided any.

In fact one scripture that talks about this is in Revelations. And it simply says that God created because he chose to. No motive is given.

 

[JAL]

Sorry your post 41 doesn't make a lot of sense. Much of it certainly isn't scriptural.

Hermeneutics precedes the exegesis. Of course it's not 'scriptural', nor is it non-scriptural, it's pre-exegetical.

Basically it asserts that, before we examine the text, we must have a mindset opposed to conclusions guilty of:
(1) Gibberish
(2) Logical contradiction.
That was clear enough, but you keep twisting things.

All you have to do is say people who are unbelievers about punishment in hell. Ive had many discussions with them about this on these boards. They cannot understand why God, who is supposed to love us would finish in that way. They also do not believe it is just of God to punish people in that way, because in their eyes they are not that bad.

So human justice would not do that to people.

You seem to be making a quantitative distinction, not a qualitative one. People might disagree with God about the AMOUNT or KIND of punishment, but the human concept of justice DOES involve punishment.

Not sure how much we can debate on quantity because:
(1) Neither you nor I know what hell feels like. It's not likely ordinary fire but physical divine Fire implementing torments of a magnitude unknown to either of us. The Fire is eternal but, in my opinion, the torment will probably wane over time until negligible. That too is part of my theodicy.
(2) Neither you nor I know the magnitude of our offenses as seen through God's eyes.

You keep mentioning what OTHER people ponder about hell because you're not really understanding what I mean by the 'human concept of justice'. It's really about YOUR definition of justice (and all the virtues). Post #41 is basically asking you to be consistent with your OWN human definition of justice (forget about what others think). For example, if I committed a crime but you were the one to get punished for it, against your protests of innocence, would you call it justice?

Or consider your own kids. Would you minimize their suffering BOTH short-term AND long-term if you could do so effortlessly? (I would certainly do it for mine). So this is really about being consistent, when you read the Bible, with YOUR own definitions of virtues.

Your argument is invalid. Especially in the light of scripture which says our ways are not his. It's pretty plain.

Same admonitions apply here:
(1) See post #41
(2) It's YOUR responsibility to find a non-contradictory reading of the verse you just cited. I'm not doing your homework on this one. I already did it for you at Romans 9.

You keep talking about gibberish. I have no idea what you are talking about. The Bible isn't gibberish. It's pretty clear.

That's funny, a second ago (and multiple times before) you insinuated that we can't understand God's ways. So to us that would be gibberish, right? You're not making any sense. See post #41 for a reminder that, if we're going to refer to our beliefs as DOCTRINE, or THEOLOGY, they need to actually make sense to the human mind.

Otherwise it's like a bunch of theologians trying to discuss doctrine in Chinese, without knowing the language. Not very fruitful.

According to humans God DOES violate their concept of justice.

See post #41. Also I'm not really referring to 'humans' - I'm asking YOU to be consist with YOUR human concept of justice.

The verse in Ezekiel has nothing to do with Romans. You again miss the point of the Romans passage. It is God that does the mercy. Because his will is absolute. He IS just. The passage says he is. The passage says this.
But you will say to me, “Then why does he still find fault with us? After all, who resists his will?”Who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me this way?”Or has the potter no right to make from a given lump of clay this pot for honorable use and that one for dishonorable? - Romans 9:19-21 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:19-21 - Complete Jewish Bible

Ezekiel tells us about God's justice. Ezekiel is relevant because it recites the kind of justice that MOST humans would subscribe to (each man must pay for his own transgressions). Not sure why you think that's irrelevant to the discussion of God's justice in Romans 9. Perhaps you don't like the fact that it REFUTES your insinuation that Romans 9 ascribes non-human justice to God?

God is the Potter and he can do what he wills with us. And it is perfectly just.

That passage, as I demonstrated, is about SINNERS (called 'objects of wrath' in some translations). OF COURSE God can have His way with people ALREADY GUILTY OF SIN. Even in a human system of justice, when a person commits a crime, he FORFEITS HIS RIGHTS. Duh.

You see that's why hermeneutics precedes the exegesis - that's why post #41 limits acceptable readings to logical consistency. Otherwise the exegete is liable to fly way out into left field into bizarre conclusions such as, "God can treat anyone any kind of way and we still have to call it justice even if it flatly contradicts what we humans mean by justice." That sort of thinking is nonsense.

That's why I trust God. Because I know he is no matter what he does. It may not look like to me, but I believe he is.

But a RESPONSIBLE exegete will opt for a theodicy that at least LOOKS like perfect justice, supreme goodness, and unqualified kindness, if one is available.

In fact one scripture that talks about this is in Revelations. And it simply says that God created because he chose to. No motive is given.

How does a verse silent on the bone of contention support YOUR position? Seems you DO need a lesson in hermeneutics. (Although frankly I'm not sure what verse you had in mind).

And the NEED you keep.mentioning is not any where to be found in scripture. God doesn't need us nor did he make us for fun. There is no scriptural evidence for such a thing. You certainly haven't provided any.

You're trying to reject both option 1 (NEED) and option 2 (WANT) - the only two options - but you can't provide an alternative (because there is none). More gibberish. No surprise here.

And the NEED you keep.mentioning is not any where to be found in scripture.

Neither is the Trinity mentioned. It's a logical construct. Is there evidence for it? Yes but there's tons MORE evidence for the UNQUALIFIED goodness of God. I could give you HUNDREDS of verses regarding THAT. Which frankly rules out any mediocre theodicy that raises serious questions about the goodness of God. So given the two options:
(1) NEED - no theodicy-problem here.
(2) WANT - blatant theodicy-problems here.
The better choice is obvious BASED ON HUNDREDS OF SCRIPTURES. So yes, my theodicy is EVERYWHERE BASED ON SCRIPTURE.

And by the way, the above 2-choice dilemma isn't the only basis for my position. Basically, in my view, finite beings can reasonably be presumed to have needs. So an equally good question is, is God finite?

On that point I've alread submitted approximately six ADDITIONAL arguments on this thread that, as far as I can see, stand UNCONTESTED and UNREFUTED:

(1) The concept of an existing infinity doesn't make sense, for reasons stated.
(2) An infinite God would have atoned for EVERYTHING (including the fallen angels). OBVIOUSLY, God has needs/limits - based on the FACTS of Scripture.
(3) The Ancient of Days acquired a finite amount of knowledge and holiness over a finite period of time. This conclusion logically follows from the definition of merit UNANIMOUS IN THE CHURCH.
(4) He lacks foreknowledge. A person who comes to a decision out of free will does not foreknow the outcome of that deliberation. Moreover a God who foreknew the Fall would seem unkind.
(5) The only clear, unproblematical theory of creation has Yahweh emerging out of preexisting matter as a finite being with NEEDS like us. As a matter of fact, the weird doctrine known as creation ex nihilo (more apparent gibberish) didn't exist in ancient Hebrew culture but rather appeared around 100 A.D.
(6) Infinite attributes must be innate/immutable for lack of infinite time to acquire them. Problem is, God's holy attributes are NOT innate, as proven by the Incarnation. Christ's own life proves that God, by NATURE (setting aside the Immune Sytem for now), is NOT inherently omniscient, ominipotent, and untemptible. He thus had to acquire (finite amounts of) these qualities over (finite) time.

So basically, I find myself EFFORTLESSLY refuting EVERY argument that mainstream theodicy adduces for their infinite-God position, while at the same time providing NUMEROUS irrefutable arguments for my finite-God position.

So which position do you think I'm likely to stick with? Boy - that's a tough one!

 

[InterestedApologist]

Par for for the course. Plenty of negative judgment on my theology with no specific examples and nothing specific to back it up.

I don’t know why I am bothering to reply anymore, but here is one last shot.

“Your theology” is being looked at negatively for a variety of reasons. Here are just a few I see:

1. It isn’t scriptural. You have repeatedly admitted in this thread a complete willingness to reject scripture when it conflicts with your personal belief and narrative, which it does....often.
2. It denies God’s foreknowledge. There is a plethora of scripture confirming this aspect of God’s character. You reject all of it for the sake of keeping your elaborate philosophical web intact.
3. Your “theology” judges God’s motivations on the basis of your own, as though God were a mere human.
4. You blame and accuse God of evil or injustice unless He created man out of a non-Biblical need to create.
5. You have manufactured your own characteristics of God wholly apart from any scriptural evidence whatsoever. God’s immune system? God’s near insanity? There are others, but I think you get my point.
6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.

Honestly, I wouldn’t call your views theological at all, but rather, philosophical. The fact that they have no grounding in scripture alone is enough to reject them, but there really is a lot in your philosophy that is troubling. My hope is that you might have the courage to step back from your current security of your beliefs and truly examine them in light of scripture. When they conflict, go with scripture every time.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Hermeneutics precedes the exegesis. Of course it's not 'scriptural', nor is it non-scriptural, it's pre-exegetical.

Basically it asserts that, before we examine the text, we must have a mindset opposed to conclusions guilty of:
(1) Gibberish
(2) Logical contradiction.
That was clear enough, but you keep twisting things.

Hermeneutics also requires that your logical non-gibberish conclusions not contradict or reject scripture, either. Your philosophy is guilty of both.

On that point I've alread submitted approximately six ADDITIONAL arguments on this thread that, as far as I can see, stand UNCONTESTED and UNREFUTED:

(1) The concept of an existing infinity doesn't make sense, for reasons stated.

This makes no sense to YOU! Unfortunately, most physicists and many in the scientific community would disagree with you, no need for religion at all! Time is a function of creation and did not exist prior. God created both. Once again, your philosophy is narrow by failing to look at more than one discipline.

(2) An infinite God would have atoned for EVERYTHING (including the fallen angels).

This is nothing but assertion. There is no scripture to back this and no logical requirement for this to be so. Just because YOU believe it should be this way doesn’t mean it is. In fact, scripture rejects angelic atonement. You are denying scripture with this.

(3) The Ancient of Days acquired a finite amount of knowledge and holiness over a finite period of time. This conclusion logically follows from the definition of merit UNANIMOUS IN THE CHURCH.

This is pure fabrication. No scripture, no logic, no reason. This violates scriptural revelation of the character and nature of God. This is a god manufactured by you.

(4) He lacks foreknowledge. A person who comes to a decision out of free will does not foreknow the outcome of that deliberation. Moreover a God who foreknew the Fall would seem unkind.

Two parter here. Your assertion of no foreknowledge is in direct violation of scripture. Your assertion of a God who foreknew the fall being unkind fails to take into consideration the eternal nature of life and His sacrificial goodness. I have already presented evidence of why there is no issue here.

(5) The only clear, unproblematical theory of creation has Yahweh emerging out of preexisting matter as a finite being with NEEDS like us. As a matter of fact, the weird doctrine known as creation ex nihilo (more apparent gibberish) didn't exist in ancient Hebrew culture but rather appeared around 100 A.D.

Please provide the origin of matter. This view is also rejection of scripture.

(6) Infinite attributes must be innate/immutable for lack of infinite time to acquire them. Problem is, God's holy attributes are NOT innate, as proven by the Incarnation. Christ's own life proves that God, by NATURE (setting aside the Immune Sytem for now), is NOT inherently omniscient, ominipotent, and untemptible. He thus had to acquire (finite amounts of) these qualities over (finite) time.

Scripture please. Yet another assault on God’s Devine attributes. Are you even reading what you are writing?

So basically, I find myself EFFORTLESSLY refuting EVERY argument that mainstream theodicy adduces for their infinite-God position, while at the same time providing NUMEROUS irrefutable arguments for my finite-God position.

So which position do you think I'm likely to stick with? Boy - that's a tough one!

You have not refuted anything, nor have you proved anything. Your philosophy itself is gibberish, given that it fails scripture, science and reason in some form in nearly all of your points! Again, YOU have created your own god in your image, which leads not to worship of the true God, but rather to the worship of self.