Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[Skaloop]

Only God's goodness is absolute. God does not change.

But God did change. He went from not having a universe, to having one. He went from not having people created in His image to having them. He went from killing all but a few of mankind in a flood due to sin to not killing anyone due to sin. God differs between the OT and the NT. So God does change.

And if he changes, he either wasn't perfect to begin with, or He isn't perfect now.

 

[Spacewyrm]

When he was good he was Lucifer.

When he became evil he was Satan.

When he was good he did what God did.

When he became evil he does what Satan does.

Before he became evil there was no evil.

He is the father of evil. This is why he defines evil.

When he was Lucifer he was good, but his goodness was not absolute. This is why he could become evil.

Only God's goodness is absolute. God does not change.

When Lucifer became evil Satan his evil was absolute, because evil Satan does not change.

In the Bible, "Lucifer" does not refer to Satan, nor does it refer to a being who became Satan.

 

[CoderHead]

I think He said 'day', not "moment".

That doesn't change anything. They still didn't die that day.

They were warned.

But they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil because it was intentionally withheld, so they had no frame of reference to tell that disobedience was wrong. They didn't intentionally disobey God because they had no clue what disobedience was, or the consequences of their actions. They hadn't even seen death before, so how could they possibly quantify "Thou shalt surely die?"

Before he became evil there was no evil.

Then how, I wonder, did he become evil? If there was no evil, how does one become evil?

 

[dawiyd]

When he was good he was Lucifer.

When he became evil he was Satan.

When he was good he did what God did.

When he became evil he does what Satan does.

Before he became evil there was no evil.

He is the father of evil. This is why he defines evil.

When he was Lucifer he was good, but his goodness was not absolute. This is why he could become evil.

Only God's goodness is absolute. God does not change.

When Lucifer became evil Satan his evil was absolute, because evil Satan does not change.

So God sanctioned Evil then?

 

[Doveaman]

He wouldn't have the right to punish the child for the rest of his life and extend that punishment to the child's children, grandchildren, and so on unto the third and fourth generations. A smack on the hand is fine. Condemning all of his descendants is not.

If the father is ignorant and he passes on his ignorance to the son, the son will become just as ignorant, or even more ignorant. Then God punishes the son for the ignorance of the father.

But, thankfully, God intervenes in the fourth generation to put and end to the generational cycle of ignorance.

That doesn't change anything. They still didn't die that day.

With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Peter 3:8.

Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. - Gen 5:5.

But they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil because it was intentionally withheld, so they had no frame of reference to tell that disobedience was wrong. They didn't intentionally disobey God because they had no clue what disobedience was, or the consequences of their actions. They hadn't even seen death before, so how could they possibly quantify "Thou shalt surely die?"

I’m sure God explained it in detail.

Then how, I wonder, did he become evil? If there was no evil, how does one become evil?

I think Darwin might have the answer to that.

 

[Doveaman]

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Physical Israel.

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Spiritual Israel.

Exodus 33:2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

Joshua 15:63 As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.

2 Sam 5:6-7 - The king and his men marched to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites, who lived there. The Jebusites said to David, "You will not get in here; even the blind and the lame can ward you off." They thought, "David cannot get in here."

Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David.

Calling people depraved tends to make them act depraved.

Rom 1:28-31 - Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

 

[Doveaman]

But God did change. He went from not having a universe, to having one. He went from not having people created in His image to having them. He went from killing all but a few of mankind in a flood due to sin to not killing anyone due to sin. God differs between the OT and the NT. So God does change.

And if he changes, he either wasn't perfect to begin with, or He isn't perfect now.

God’s methods may change, but He Himself does not.

I am the LORD, I change not. - Mal 3:6.

 

[Skaloop]

God’s methods may change, but He Himself does not.

I am the LORD, I change not. - Mal 3:6.

If His methods change, then He changes. If his methods change, then either his original methods were flawed, or his current methods are flawed, or both. And God has changed in significant ways! Even if He just turned his head (as it were), that's a change. But we're talking major differences in how He deals with people.

 

[Doveaman]

Good is, what God does. Evil is, what Satan does.
Simple? Not quite.
Dove said that there is either complete good or complete evil. But if these terms are defined by the actions, it would be possible for Satan to destroy this distinction. Do what God does, and good and evil become identical!

But Satan does not and will not do as God does, so the two can never become identical.

Of course this is impossible to accept in this version of good and evil. So it is not the actions which define, but the actors. An act is good because God does it, the same act would be evil if Satan does it.

One gives generously because He cares. The other gives the same gift because he wants to be elected President.

And there´s the rub: if the actors define what is good and evil, there can, as Jesus said, be no good except for God. Only God can do what God does, because only he IS God.

Correct.

So when he called his creation "good", he was lying. It cannot be good. It is not God.

It’s good because God did it.

Leading people to make false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is evil. It is what Satan does, usually called "lying".
Creating people to make false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is good. It is what God does, usually called "punishing".
Making false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is also evil. It is what humans do, usually called "sinning".

Chapter and verse, please.

On the other hand, creating all this "evil" stuff: Satan, humans, light, earth, the whole universe... this must be "good", because God does it.
Doing evil, being evil is good, because God did it.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[sk8Joyful]

People tend not to give themselves cancer
and
if they were to, they tend to not self heal.

Sorry, wrong - on both beliefs.

The 1st. such I became aware of was, myself, and aside this self-healing -
many others, many have been guided, to as well heal.

Anyway, this is dancing around the real issue -

Well, having healed (also from other conditions), I -plus others- most definitively regard this as as REAL;
as would any person; how about you?

the tendency of some to give God credit for anything good that happens
but
are keen to blame anything else when something bad happens.

We give GOD the Praise for having created within each human self~heal mechanisms.

We bring GOD also honor when we wisely, with guidance, allow ourselves to self~heal.

GOD is further Glorified when His children agree living (soul) Saved & (mind) Happy & (body) Healthy.

We accept personal respons-ability (as much as medicine allows a person) for these above processes.
And yes, to the degree that docs -interfere with, short-circuit, & prevent- the above from happening, they are to blame.
(But blame itself, is useless).
That is why we must be ever on-guard; as many of us have learned, either by working in medical-arenas ourselves,
or having fallen victims. Dead is quite dead; and "sorry, we made mistakes" does not resuscitate the dead.
~~
That is why countless people have researched additional means, whereby GOD's created self~heal abilities
are enthusiastically empowered, & always cheerleaded! PRAISE God!

 

[Cabal]

As in the other thread, citations definitely needed for these "self-healing" claims. Anecdotes don't cut it, I'm afraid.

 

[sk8Joyful]

citations definitely needed for these "self-healing" claims.
Anecdotes don't cut it, I'm afraid.

No need to fear 'self-healing': all such are most Liberating processes,
to which many - amongst family, friends & clients testify, & help others.

But it's politically-incorrect, & o/o vogue in the mainstream; because
big-pharma, & their minions, want (via poisoning, radiation, & amputations) to be believed as humanity's saviors
and
Yes, there's been plenty documentations re "outcomes", about both models, & methodologies.

Suffice it to say, millions lost family-members (not from cancer) but the agonizing "treatments" they endured,
'til death. <- Horrified, I paid attention, and chose the road less traveled by, and it made ALL the difference.
As have discovered 1000's of others.
And this is the beauty of life: GOD gives *you* the choice which road you want to travel... Choose well!

 

[dawiyd]

No need to fear 'self-healing': all such are most Liberating processes,
to which many - amongst family, friends & clients testify, & help others.

But it's politically-incorrect, & o/o vogue in the mainstream; because
big-pharma, & their minions, want (via poisoning, radiation, & amputations) to be believed as humanity's saviors
and
Yes, there's been plenty documentations re "outcomes", about both models, & methodologies.

Suffice it to say, millions lost family-members (not from cancer) but the agonizing "treatments" they endured,
'til death. <- Horrified, I paid attention, and chose the road less traveled by, and it made ALL the difference.
As have discovered 1000's of others.
And this is the beauty of life: GOD gives *you* the choice which road you want to travel... Choose well!

So no citations then?

 

[Cabal]

So no citations then?

^ This.

And throwing the conspiracy card out proves nothing either.

 

[sk8Joyful]

throwing the conspiracy card out, proves nothing either.

Are you questioning the facts? that sufficient scientific research has proven, how "chemo (poisoning), organ-(amputations), & radiation (poisoning) in fact cause cancers, and more of them; as the body is overburdened,
under these repeated, & dosage-increased onslaughts, until the body is killed. - Yes, those are facts; grim tho they are. -
Are these millions deaths, like the facts of millions of abortions, anything to be proud of?
GOD says not.
and we, who with GOD are PRO-life, quite agree.

 

[sk8Joyful]

So no citations then?

You were honestly told, the facts re 'guided self~healing' exist in abundance... But few, will do your homework for you.

 

[dawiyd]

Are you questioning the facts?

No just your interpretation of them.

that sufficient scientific research has proven,

For starters scientific research doesn't prove anything... ever. Proof belongs in the realm of set axiomatic theory such as math and formal logic not science.

how "chemo (poisoning)

Why the parenthesis for poisoning? Seeing how the conjunction of chemotherapy to chemo, doesn't change it's meaning to rosining.

organ-(amputations)

Not sure what you are trying to get at with the parenthesis again.

& radiation (poisoning)

See above.

in fact cause cancers

As does sunlight?

and more of them

; as the body is overburdened,

Is that meant to be a scientific description, as it doesn't bear resemblance to what happens.

under these repeated, & dosage-increased onslaughts, until the body is killed.

Or the cancer and malady is, thus saving the body.

- Yes, those are facts; grim tho they are. -

So we shouldn't go out in sunlight now either.

Are these millions deaths, like the facts of millions of abortions, anything to be proud of?

Poisoning the well much here?

GOD says not.
and we, who with GOD are PRO-life, quite agree.

Yawn.

SO any chance of those citations now?

 

[dawiyd]

You were honestly told, the facts re 'guided self~healing' exist in abundance... But few, will do your homework for you.

I'm not the one making the positive claim.

Here's the thing, I went to PubMed, and the Lancet and searched for topics on self-healing... couldn't find much and the few articles I did come across were about diabetic patients and insulin injections at home.

Since you have made claim that "self~healing' exist in abundance", then it should be quite simple for you to back up your claim, and present some citations as has been requested.

So far your obfuscation and avoidance of presenting any is pretty clear indication that you can't, it's akin to a prosecutor in a case making a claim the defendant has stolen something from a shop, and when asked for evidence they expect the defendant to present it.

Once again, can we have some citations please.

 

[Cabal]

Are you questioning the facts? that sufficient scientific research has proven, how "chemo (poisoning), organ-(amputations), & radiation (poisoning) in fact cause cancers, and more of them; as the body is overburdened,

You haven't PRESENTED any facts - only assertions, with nothing to back them up. This claim is about as reliable as your other claim about selfhealing.

under these repeated, & dosage-increased onslaughts, until the body is killed. - Yes, those are facts; grim tho they are. -

Really? Because last time I checked those techniques were saving lives. Now you can attempt to refute this WITH evidence, or

Are these millions deaths, like the facts of millions of abortions, anything to be proud of?

The two are not comparable.

GOD says not.
and we, who with GOD are PRO-life, quite agree.

I think this is rather insulting to all the many oncologists who work hard trying to save people with conventional medical techniques.

And please don't besmirch God by giving him the "pro-life" label. What next, God's a Republican or something

You were honestly told, the facts re 'guided self~healing' exist in abundance... But few, will do your homework for you.

If it's that simple, then post some evidence for it

And while you can claim to be honest all you want, it is not proof of anything. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything I say merely because I claim to be honest.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not the one making the positive claim.

Here's the thing, I went to PubMed, and the Lancet and searched for topics on self-healing... couldn't find much and the few articles I did come across were about diabetic patients and insulin injections at home.

Don't be silly, don't you know anything with a hint of medical reputation by any reasonable standards is just out to suppress THE TRUTH?! (tm)

If there aren't any articles on self-healing on those sites then it must be true!