Based on this, I'm going to have a hard to participating, since I don't think these are actually facts. Not all are false, but a lot of them have no Biblical basis.My list of explicitly stated facts:
Upvote
0
Based on this, I'm going to have a hard to participating, since I don't think these are actually facts. Not all are false, but a lot of them have no Biblical basis.My list of explicitly stated facts:
I don't think I can do justice to everyone's comment, so I thought I would list out the explicitly stated "facts" that I am building off of. I said I object to presuppositions, yet it is typically assumed that these are the best we can do. But I think we can assemble a convincing backstory, without relying on presuppositions, that sets the stage for a different story than the one we are used to hearing.
My list of explicitly stated facts:
-God created the earth (obviously...)
-God is king of heaven
-There is a rebellion in heaven, challenging God's claim to the throne
-Satan told a lie that sparked this rebellion (i.e. Satan is called "The Father of Lies")
-Approximately 1/3 of the angels embraced the lie and were cast down to earth (Revelation: 1/3 of the stars fall from heaven)
-Satan already has or easily obtains permission to do whatever he wants on earth (story of Job, also Jesus' warning to Peter)
-Demon makes the claim to Jesus that he has a right to be here ("have you come to torment me before the time?)
-Satan tempted Jesus by offering the world, in exchange for Jesus bowing to him. (Somehow this would achieve Satan's goal, alleviating his need to influence the world)
-Two trees in the garden representing a choice, one is God's, one is Satan's.
-Satan had free access to Adam and Eve before "the fall"
-God also had access to Adam and Eve in the garden.
-Eating the fruit is equivalent to signing a contract, demonstrating the choice
-Adam and Eve kicked out of garden after choosing
-God "...declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying my council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."
-God repeatedly proclaims he is the only true God (others are claiming to be gods)
-God claims to profess perfect wisdom, rather than to be the author of wisdom
-God claims unlimited power, but he is very limited in expressing his power in this world.
-God has some surprising conversations with sinners, not condemning them, like with Cain, Abimelech
-Revelation reveals the angels watching in amazement (something that happens is not obvious to them)
-The angels and the saints applaud God's judgement, which is ultimately condemning satan and the fallen angels, and everything evil in the world
-Paul says every knee bows to Jesus--implies a choice is made. (If it is reflex, then it doesn't mean anything)
-Paul writes that we will judge angels
-Paul writes that we are free from the law if we agree with the law, that the law is good
Important questions:
-Why did God create the world?
-We believe God must have knwon of Satan's rebellion before it happened, and he has the power to intervene, so why didn't God intervene?
-Why doesn't the Bible describe the assumed dramatic alteration to the fabric of the earth caused by "the fall"?
-Why is all this evil and disruption caused by the unremarkable action of eating a piece of fruit?
-The Bible says that the truth of God is made evident through creation, but what is this truth? What is it that God professes to be a fundamental truth, that is evident through creation, that is undeniable to everyone. (If they all deny it, then it is deniable...)
-What is the nature of the conflict between God and Satan?
-How would Jesus bowing to Satan end the conflict between God and Satan?
I see these references like puzzle pieces. I'm going off the top of my head, but I think I'm remembering everything right. But please point out any objections you might have. It's easier to do it now than after I put the puzzle together.
Also, does anybody have any additional factual/ explicit claims they think are relevant to be included? Any additional questions that need explaining?
The Bible is a cohesive narrative of our soul's journey/process taking place within. We are God's garden, a tree, mountain, city, a river...a son. From the very first word God spoke, calling light out of the darkness, is a picture of that process of coming to know as we have always been known (by God The Father)...I think this post will land me squarely in the the "controversial" camp.
I'll start out slow, just asking if anybody has noticed that the Biblical narrative is not always consistent with the Penal Substitution atonement theory?
Penal Substitution says that God is [righteously] angry with us for sinning, thus we [justly] deserve eternal death. But God also loves us, so he came up with a clever plan to save us [from himself]! So God send Jesus, who is a part of God, to die in our place, creating a loophole that allows God to loves us in spite of our sin.
I must point out that this theory states that God constructs an elaborate plan to injure himself (i.e. Jesus), and that injury then inhibits his ability to notice that we are still sinful...and we presume this self-deception will last for eternity. God doesn't notice we are still sinful, yet he is still omnipotent?
I assume everyone knows this theory, and most agree with it. It's an idea that's been around for 1,000 years, after all.
This idea was designed to push back against the previously held Ransom Theory of Atonement, which says that the Bible tells a story about God maneuvering around/ negotiating a conflict with Satan. They thought that Satan was given too much power, so they created a new narrative where Satan plays no significant role. They decided that the Bible is actually a story about God maneuvering around his own characteristics/ qualities in his pursuit of allowing himself the ability to escape from the necessity of his own judgement against us.
The above is a summary of established theology...but what if we read the Bible as a story? I think it is a story. And what should happen in a story is that all the events in the story have significant meaning and their meanings are all connected. But if this is true, how is Revelation connected to Genesis, aside from one being the beginning, and the other being the end?
But even putting Revelation aside, what about Genesis? Why is Satan in the Garden in the first place? I noticed that someone started a thread claiming that Adam = Satan, but....don't be ridiculous. When I was a kid, like in 4th grade, I asked my teachers at a Lutheran school why God didn't just get rid of Satan before he could mess up life on earth? I only mention that I thought it as a child, because it is such an obvious question! God is all powerful and all the rest, so he knew all along....and God allowed it. Why?
So....anybody ever noticed how inadequate Penal Substitution is in answering why God allowed sin into the world? God knew, and he must have known...and God allowed it to happen, since it happened; it was only possible with God's permission, since Penal Substitution says that Satan has no power over God, added to the fact that most believe God created Satan in the first place!
So the point. Yes, I'm proposing that the narrative that emerges from the Bible, if it can be read without tradition being imposed on it, presents a pattern of events that is quite inconsistent with Penal Substitution.
Have you noticed this?
Narratives or the big picture are very important as they determine how scripture is interpreted. I do not take the creation story literally and I believe this world is a penal colony and we are here because of the war in heaven and for the purpose of reconciling with God or else the second death. Now if this was your big picture can you imagine how differently you would understand scripture.
I agree with Hedrick on what you consider facts.
Everything would be driven by the object, just as we are to be driven by our objective.
I will try to explain briefly part of the objective:
Starting with God, God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake.
God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to fulfill their earthly objective.
Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves.
What we can thank Adam and Eve for is showing us that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.
Again the objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.
There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)
This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).
This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.
All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).
Quit blaming Adam and Eve you are accountable.
God is doing all He can to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and that “all” includes: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell and even sin is allowed yet not wanted.
That is an introduction
Based on this, I'm going to have a hard to participating, since I don't think these are actually facts. Not all are false, but a lot of them have no Biblical basis.
I have read criticisms against the penal substitution theory. To me it makes no sense but I really haven't heard any different theories that make more sense. I will have to think about the Ransom theory more..... When I was reading Milton, I was exposed to the concept of the Fortunate Fall. This gives the. Power back to God. I don't have a big problem with not understanding God's every motive; He is God, after all. But I am open to a different theological interpretation.I think this post will land me squarely in the the "controversial" camp.
I'll start out slow, just asking if anybody has noticed that the Biblical narrative is not always consistent with the Penal Substitution atonement theory?
Penal Substitution says that God is [righteously] angry with us for sinning, thus we [justly] deserve eternal death. But God also loves us, so he came up with a clever plan to save us [from himself]! So God send Jesus, who is a part of God, to die in our place, creating a loophole that allows God to loves us in spite of our sin.
I must point out that this theory states that God constructs an elaborate plan to injure himself (i.e. Jesus), and that injury then inhibits his ability to notice that we are still sinful...and we presume this self-deception will last for eternity. God doesn't notice we are still sinful, yet he is still omnipotent?
I assume everyone knows this theory, and most agree with it. It's an idea that's been around for 1,000 years, after all.
This idea was designed to push back against the previously held Ransom Theory of Atonement, which says that the Bible tells a story about God maneuvering around/ negotiating a conflict with Satan. They thought that Satan was given too much power, so they created a new narrative where Satan plays no significant role. They decided that the Bible is actually a story about God maneuvering around his own characteristics/ qualities in his pursuit of allowing himself the ability to escape from the necessity of his own judgement against us.
The above is a summary of established theology...but what if we read the Bible as a story? I think it is a story. And what should happen in a story is that all the events in the story have significant meaning and their meanings are all connected. But if this is true, how is Revelation connected to Genesis, aside from one being the beginning, and the other being the end?
But even putting Revelation aside, what about Genesis? Why is Satan in the Garden in the first place? I noticed that someone started a thread claiming that Adam = Satan, but....don't be ridiculous. When I was a kid, like in 4th grade, I asked my teachers at a Lutheran school why God didn't just get rid of Satan before he could mess up life on earth? I only mention that I thought it as a child, because it is such an obvious question! God is all powerful and all the rest, so he knew all along....and God allowed it. Why?
So....anybody ever noticed how inadequate Penal Substitution is in answering why God allowed sin into the world? God knew, and he must have known...and God allowed it to happen, since it happened; it was only possible with God's permission, since Penal Substitution says that Satan has no power over God, added to the fact that most believe God created Satan in the first place!
So the point. Yes, I'm proposing that the narrative that emerges from the Bible, if it can be read without tradition being imposed on it, presents a pattern of events that is quite inconsistent with Penal Substitution.
Have you noticed this?
. So.... How does Jesus' death and resurrection relate to the "allegiance to God" theory?Yeah, the Bible does talk about acknowledging God, so I'm good with that.
I like to talk of allegiance to God, because it seems a bit more descriptive? I see the conflict between God and Satan, and by default our allegiance is to Satan. I am convinced that is what happened in the Garden! And I would say our salvation comes through giving our allegiance to God. Specifically, allegiance comes by agreeing that God's law is good...the Apostle Paul tells us this is the key to our salvation!
. So.... How does Jesus' death and resurrection relate to the "allegiance to God" theory?
Thank you. I am almost afraid to say "that makes sense," but this is the biggest question we can ask I think, and your explanation seems to fit the pieces better than the others.The Garden is about choosing allegiance. There were two trees--one for God and one for Satan. And both God and Satan talked to Adam and Eve about which tree they should or should not eat from. The inclusion of two things in a story always represents a choice, and the conversation about choosing and not choosing a particular tree confirm there is a choice to be made.
The nature of the choice is about who to join, God or Satan. And eating the fruit is like signing a contract--it confirms and demonstrates the choice. Adam and Eve chose to be on Satan's team, hence we became enemies of God.
Adam and Eve chose to join Satan, and the rest of us are automatically slaves, since the children of slaves are automatically slaves.
And naturally, slaves remain slaves forever, unless their master gives them their freedom.
Jesus' death is still the means by which we are freed from death/ Satan. But instead of Jesus' death having an objective monetary value that equals the sum total of all sins ever committed, Jesus's humiliation and death is the thing that Satan wanted so much that he was willing to let us all go in exchange of it.
A major takeaway from this is that Jesus' death is not a reasonable or logical/ mathematical price or valuation of human worth. Instead, it seems it is the highest price that Satan could imagine, and I think he asked for it believing that God/ Jesus could not go through with it.
Jesus' death gives us the freedom to leave Satan if we so choose. But many people do not choose to leave.
Calling this "Ransom Theory" isn't entirely appropriate, because a ransom demand is accompanied by the act of kidnapping. But Satan did not kidnap us; we chose Satan! But God wanted to get us back, and had to negotiate with Satan to get us back.
Why is God negotiating with Satan? Because God put this whole thing in motion. God created everything, God put Satan here, and God has given Satan freedom to do what he wants. So if God were to snatch us away from Satan, he would be revoking the freedom he originally gave to Satan. And this would be a problem, because it would make God appear to be unjust/ unfair/ breaking his own rule...which is lying. This would undermine all of God's claims, and validate Satan's accusations!
And resurrection? It means that after this world's purpose is served, we have the opportunity to experience the peace and goodness that God claims to represent, but which we are unlikely to experience in this life...because of Satan's constant efforts to disprove God's wisdom.
Hi there bro! I really like what you're digging into here, exposing the absurdities of false doctrines, and indeed, if anyone represents an idea that God could not forgive unless some innocent, righteous blood was spilled, then they've mischaracterised God altogether (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). I would like to explain how the wrath of God is atoned for by the cross, it will take a few paragraphs to build up the view if you can follow me thereThe Garden is about choosing allegiance.
The inclusion of two things in a story always represents a choice, and the conversation about choosing and not choosing a particular tree confirm there is a choice to be made.
I have to call BS. I don't like to start out like this, but you are forcing my hand.
Here is a verse that seems to squarely contradict your first paragraph:
"I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying my council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isaiah 45)
What you wrote: "Starting with God, God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake."
In the above passage, God explicitly states that he is acting according to his whims and desires...saying, "I will do all my pleasure."
I call BS, because this waxing poetically about love is does not reflect the complexity found in the Bible. This kind of theory serves to prevent people from dealing with that complexity...which creates the necessity for people like me to address the errors resulting from this pattern of simplification.
A few more passages for good measure. You already know these passages and many more, so I have no expectation of changing your mind...
"I didn't come to bring peace, but a fire, and how I wish it were already kindled!" (said Jesus)
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,"
You might want to read my post 17 to begin with.I have read criticisms against the penal substitution theory. To me it makes no sense but I really haven't heard any different theories that make more sense. I will have to think about the Ransom theory more..... When I was reading Milton, I was exposed to the concept of the Fortunate Fall. This gives the. Power back to God. I don't have a big problem with not understanding God's every motive; He is God, after all. But I am open to a different theological interpretation.
I have an additional question. With one tree for God and one tree for Satan, this sounds awfully dualistic to me. God made Satan and so the two seemingly equal trees seem to miss something. I have been thinking for awhile about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So they didn't really have a concept of morality at all before the Fall? Anyway. More will be revealed.The Garden is about choosing allegiance. There were two trees--one for God and one for Satan. And both God and Satan talked to Adam and Eve about which tree they should or should not eat from. The inclusion of two things in a story always represents a choice, and the conversation about choosing and not choosing a particular tree confirm there is a choice to be made.
The nature of the choice is about who to join, God or Satan. And eating the fruit is like signing a contract--it confirms and demonstrates the choice. Adam and Eve chose to be on Satan's team, hence we became enemies of God.
Adam and Eve chose to join Satan, and the rest of us are automatically slaves, since the children of slaves are automatically slaves.
And naturally, slaves remain slaves forever, unless their master gives them their freedom.
Jesus' death is still the means by which we are freed from death/ Satan. But instead of Jesus' death having an objective monetary value that equals the sum total of all sins ever committed, Jesus's humiliation and death is the thing that Satan wanted so much that he was willing to let us all go in exchange of it.
A major takeaway from this is that Jesus' death is not a reasonable or logical/ mathematical price or valuation of human worth. Instead, it seems it is the highest price that Satan could imagine, and I think he asked for it believing that God/ Jesus could not go through with it.
Jesus' death gives us the freedom to leave Satan if we so choose. But many people do not choose to leave.
Calling this "Ransom Theory" isn't entirely appropriate, because a ransom demand is accompanied by the act of kidnapping. But Satan did not kidnap us; we chose Satan! But God wanted to get us back, and had to negotiate with Satan to get us back.
Why is God negotiating with Satan? Because God put this whole thing in motion. God created everything, God put Satan here, and God has given Satan freedom to do what he wants. So if God were to snatch us away from Satan, he would be revoking the freedom he originally gave to Satan. And this would be a problem, because it would make God appear to be unjust/ unfair/ breaking his own rule...which is lying. This would undermine all of God's claims, and validate Satan's accusations!
And resurrection? It means that after this world's purpose is served, we have the opportunity to experience the peace and goodness that God claims to represent, but which we are unlikely to experience in this life...because of Satan's constant efforts to disprove God's wisdom.
There is some nuance separating "penal colony" from what I have in mind. In the big picture, I see this phsyical reality as the opportunity for Satan to test his accusation.
A penal colony, as I understand it, is the place to send the convicted criminal. But in this case, the judgement has not yet been made. So in my view, I think this physical reality is more like "house arrest" for Satan and the fallen angels, and God has created a framework specifically designed for testing their claims.
You can start with:I got to the part where you said "limited atonement" and stopped. God so loved the world that he sent his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Etc. I am sure I am not going to change on this point, so if you want to start your explanation at a different point I will read it. Otherwise we disagree on too basic of a theological point for me to argue with you.