God and Sin

[cvanwey]

We can't go back to this point. I already addressed it in my 2 previous messages to you. God told Adam that eating of TKGE was bad and that Adam knew the consequences. If you still do not understand this simple point then we might as well stop the conversation.

We will have to just agree to disagree on this point.

Without sufficient 'knowledge', Adam would not know to listen, obey, or to discern that death is even 'bad'. Now, after the apple, sure.

Why would God create the tree of Life and the TKGE unless He wanted Adam to eat their fruit? I will attempt to prove that the Bible teaching is that knowledge is good and desirable for people to seek and attain.

Gen 1:31 So God saw everything that He made, and behold it was very good.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.'

Pro 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 2:6 For the Lordgives wisdom; out of His mouth come knowledge and understanding.

2Sa 14:7 And your servant thought, ‘The word of my lord the king will set me at rest,’ for my lord the king is like the angel of God to discern good and evil. The Lord your God be with you!

Isa 7:15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

1Ki 3:9 Give your servant [=Solomon] therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?

Heb 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Col 2:2-3 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Joh 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have pknown my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

2Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

There is absolutely no reason to think that God did not want Adam to gain knowledge or that He planted TKGE for any reason other than to ultimately give Adam that knowledge.

Nothing above expressed that God wanted Adam to eat from the fruit, at any time. Many of these Verses speak of Jesus, as well, (i.e.) the NT.

We're not discussing the existence of God, here, we're assuming His existence. Otherwise, this conversation is really pointless. Why talk about someone who doesn't exist? That would be an exercise in futility .

I would like to move on and discuss some other points of interest. In your initial response, you stated that some 'interesting points' were raised. Care to explore?

 

[Andrewn]

My child not only disobeys my requests, my child later tells me (s)he wants nothing to do with me ever again. And this is after I sacrificed everything to give them a 'better' life.

Do I?

A: Hope (s)he changes his/her mind, and if they don't, forgive them anyways or do not impose harm upon them.
B: Give them an ultimatum, establish a timeline, and if that timeline is to pass, and their choice is not to obey, lock them in a dungeon of torture forever.

But you see, even this scenario is not 'AS BAD'. Why? Because the child at least knows this parent EXISTS. And also can carry on a two-way dialogue, if desired.

Perhaps the example you gave explains your thinking better than abstract expressions. What does a loving parent want / hope their child to accomplish: to become a good loving citizen who cares for God's creation or to become a destructive force and end up being killed by a gang or imprisoned by society? It is the former, I assume.

Assuming that you're a loving parent, does scenario "A" accomplish your goal? No, because evil peer pressure will no doubt lead your child to destruction just as Satan's pressure lead Adam to transgression.

Does scenario "B" lead to your goal? No, bec you love your child too much to lock her in a dungeon of torture forever. And even if you do that, she will not have a chance to live a fulfilled life, care for the creation, and help others, and become a good citizen.

How about scenario "C" take away her free will through torture and intimidation until she becomes like a robot doing your will without having her own developed personality. No, this is not what a loving parent would do either.

We can think of more scenarios imagined by atheists and different religions but God, the true God did not choose anyone of these. What God actually did is explained throughout the Bible. We'll call it "God's Scenario" and it is summarized in these verses:

Heb 1:1-3 At many times and in many ways, God spoke long ago to the fathers through the prophets. In these last days He has spoken to us through a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom He created the universe. This Son is the radiance of His glory and the imprint of His being, upholding all things by His powerful word. When He had made purification for our sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

See, God did not leave people in a dungeon of torture. (That would be a Buddhist or a Gnostic view.) He rather sent prophets to tell us the way of God and finally sent us His Son. So what did people do to God's Son?

Mat 21:37-41 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ “But when the tenants saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir! Come on, let’s kill him and get his inheritance!’ So grabbing him, they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore when the master of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” “He will bring those miserable men to a miserable end,” they said to Him, “and will lease the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the fruits in their seasons.”

God wants people to become mature adults who reflect His love to the world. There are a lot of other animals and plants that fulfill their role in creation. As human beings we also need to fulfill our roles, become good citizens of the universe, stewards of His creation, reflectors of God's image.

1Ti 2:4 He desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[HitchSlap]

Perhaps the example you gave explains your thinking better than abstract expressions. What does a loving parent want / hope their child to accomplish: to become a good loving citizen who cares for God's creation or to become a destructive force and end up being killed by a gang or imprisoned by society? It is the former, I assume.

Assuming that you're a loving parent, does scenario "A" accomplish your goal? No, because evil peer pressure will no doubt lead your child to destruction just as Satan's pressure lead Adam to transgression.

Does scenario "B" lead to your goal? No, bec you love your child too much to lock her in a dungeon of torture forever. And even if you do that, she will not have a chance to live a fulfilled life, care for the creation, and help others, and become a good citizen.

How about scenario "C" take away her free will through torture and intimidation until she becomes like a robot doing your will without having her own developed personality. No, this is not what a loving parent would do either.

We can think of more scenarios imagined by atheists and different religions but God, the true God did not choose anyone of these. What God actually did is explained throughout the Bible. We'll call it "God's Scenario" and it is summarized in these verses:

Heb 1:1-3 At many times and in many ways, God spoke long ago to the fathers through the prophets. In these last days He has spoken to us through a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom He created the universe. This Son is the radiance of His glory and the imprint of His being, upholding all things by His powerful word. When He had made purification for our sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

See, God did not leave people in a dungeon of torture. (That would be a Buddhist or a Gnostic view.) He rather sent prophets to tell us the way of God and finally sent us His Son. So what did people do to God's Son?

Mat 21:37-41 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ “But when the tenants saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir! Come on, let’s kill him and get his inheritance!’ So grabbing him, they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore when the master of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” “He will bring those miserable men to a miserable end,” they said to Him, “and will lease the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the fruits in their seasons.”

God wants people to become mature adults who reflect His love to the world. There are a lot of other animals and plants that fulfill their role in creation. As human beings we also need to fulfill our roles, become good citizens of the universe, stewards of His creation, reflectors of God's image.

1Ti 2:4 He desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I’m a little confused then. Either god/s loves us, or he sends us to hell for rejecting him. Which is it?

 

[cvanwey]

As a precursor, I would like to acknowledge that if Christianity is true, I too might be on your side. Meaning, I would either not really engage with unbelievers at all (or) would attempt to 'defend' any and every statement made, which seems to 'go against' my believed God's expressed Word.

I'm going to earmark posts #262 and 264. Why? I'm not sure where this thread will go from here? But I can imagine it can go a great many number of directions. I would like to keep a reference point, to where we began, to see if we solved this little 'true dilemma' or 'false dilemma'.

I would like to lay down one more preface. Please keep in mind, why I sound like a broken record here....

God is both the rule maker, as well as the rule enforcer. Please tell me what you translate this saying to mean to you???

Perhaps the example you gave explains your thinking better than abstract expressions. What does a loving parent want / hope their child to accomplish: to become a good loving citizen who cares for God's creation or to become a destructive force and end up being killed by a gang or imprisoned by society? It is the former, I assume.

Assuming that you're a loving parent, does scenario "A" accomplish your goal? No, because evil peer pressure will no doubt lead your child to destruction just as Satan's pressure lead Adam to transgression.

Does scenario "B" lead to your goal? No, bec you love your child too much to lock her in a dungeon of torture forever. And even if you do that, she will not have a chance to live a fulfilled life, care for the creation, and help others, and become a good citizen.

How about scenario "C" take away her free will through torture and intimidation until she becomes like a robot doing your will without having her own developed personality. No, this is not what a loving parent would do either.

We can think of more scenarios imagined by atheists and different religions but God, the true God did not choose anyone of these. What God actually did is explained throughout the Bible. We'll call it "God's Scenario" and it is summarized in these verses:

Heb 1:1-3 At many times and in many ways, God spoke long ago to the fathers through the prophets. In these last days He has spoken to us through a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom He created the universe. This Son is the radiance of His glory and the imprint of His being, upholding all things by His powerful word. When He had made purification for our sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

See, God did not leave people in a dungeon of torture. (That would be a Buddhist or a Gnostic view.) He rather sent prophets to tell us the way of God and finally sent us His Son. So what did people do to God's Son?

Mat 21:37-41 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ “But when the tenants saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir! Come on, let’s kill him and get his inheritance!’ So grabbing him, they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore when the master of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” “He will bring those miserable men to a miserable end,” they said to Him, “and will lease the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the fruits in their seasons.”

God wants people to become mature adults who reflect His love to the world. There are a lot of other animals and plants that fulfill their role in creation. As human beings we also need to fulfill our roles, become good citizens of the universe, stewards of His creation, reflectors of God's image.

1Ti 2:4 He desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Perhaps we can start here. The provided video, I have provided before elsewhere. Maybe you have seen it? And yes, it does not stay true to the 'facts' completely. But please watch the entire 6 minute video, and please address the main message.

In the end, it really does look to be an either/or proposition:

 

[Andrewn]

I’m a little confused then. Either god/s loves us, or he sends us to hell for rejecting him. Which is it?

You're an atheist. You don't believe God exist. How is an imaginary character who doesn't exist in reality going to send you to hell?!

 

[cvanwey]

You're an atheist. You don't believe God exist. How is an imaginary character who doesn't exist in reality going to send you to hell?!

As you stated prior, please assume that He does exist. Otherwise, this exercise would be silly.

 

[Andrewn]

Perhaps we can start here. The provided video, I have provided before elsewhere. Maybe you have seen it? And yes, it does not stay true to the 'facts' completely. But please watch the entire 6 minute video, and please address the main message.

I watched the video and it saddened me a great deal that that warped understanding of Christianity is not uncommon.

 

[cvanwey]

I watched the video and it saddened me a great deal that that warped understanding of Christianity is not uncommon.

So you disagree about the premise? Are you going to engage at all? I posited a few points as well.

 

[Andrewn]

God is both the rule maker, as well as the rule enforcer. Please tell me what you translate this saying to mean to you???

God being the rule maker as well as the rule enforcer does not mean that He is free to break the rules. There are certain things that God cannot do. He cannot create a rock that is so heavy that He cannot carry. He cannot create a square circle. He cannot create a triangle with more or less than 180 degrees in sum. The Gospel of John starts this way:

Joh 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him, and apart from Him nothing was made that has come into being.

The word translated "Word" is the Greek "Logos" which can also be translated "Reason" or "Logic." Logic was with God from the beginning. Logic is uncreated. God cannot break the laws of logic.

My point here, however, is that God could make any scenario, and He chose this one. This is what I meant about not having anything to do with free will. God already knows the outcome to any scenario He would have created, which could be an infinite number of scenarios.

In a previous message, I discussed possible scenarios to bring human beings into loving maturity with free will. I hope this settles the argument but you're welcome to debate God's scenario or come up with alternative scenarios. The video you posted does not represent God's scenario. God is not interested in human sacrifices. He told ancient Israelites several times not to do it.

God is a subjective agent, by definition. Meaning, whatever God states, IS 'good'. If this God exists, God created the scenario for which the humans are told to follow. But how would we know if this scenario was 'good' or 'bad'?

As I said above, God does not break the laws of logic. So, He is not subjective at all. Humans can be subjective because they have free will and they may not follow the laws of logic.

Furthermore, if humans are told to merely follow orders, is that always 'good'? (i.e.) If a mother states 'God told her to drown her kids', how are we to 'know' it was 'good' or 'not good', and/or from God or not from 'god'? Maybe more 'knowledge' is necessary?

But humans are _not_ told to merely follow orders. If you give me a fish, I will be fed for a day. But if you teach me how to fish, I will be an independent mature person who is able to feed himself for a lifetime. I may even become a loving a person who reflects the image of God by giving other people fish and teaching them how to fish.

Mat 5:45 That you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

A mature loving mother would know that God would never tell her to drown her kids. She would have learned logic and love. Yes, knowledge is necessary.

This is my point. God has the ability to create any scenario, and He chose this one.

With your God-given logic, you're welcome to come up with a better scenario. Or tell me, what it is in God's scenario that you object to.

 

[cvanwey]

God being the rule maker as well as the rule enforcer does not mean that He is free to break the rules. There are certain things that God cannot do. He cannot create a rock that is so heavy that He cannot carry. He cannot create a square circle. He cannot create a triangle with more or less than 180 degrees in sum. The Gospel of John starts this way:

Joh 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him, and apart from Him nothing was made that has come into being.

The word translated "Word" is the Greek "Logos" which can also be translated "Reason" or "Logic." Logic was with God from the beginning. Logic is uncreated. God cannot break the laws of logic.

I will grant you leniency, merely to be overly generous. But your explanation still fails, in the end. Here's why. God creates a false dichotomy. Please continue to reference posts #262 and #264.

When I asked you what it means to you to be both the rule maker, as well as the rule enforcer, you told me God must follow the laws of logic. Okay. However, God essentially created the following system.

- create beings
- give them "free will"
- create two final destinations only, based upon the result of their concluded 'free will'
- one destination resides with Him, the only other destination resides in hell.

He could also create additional destinations. Therefore, God created a false dichotomy. Not very 'logical'.

A true dichotomy would be with Him, or not with Him. But God dictates the only destination for which is not with Him. With Him is eternal bliss. However, without Him is reserved ONLY for torture. Please also reference the video given prior.

And speaking of 'free will', isn't one of the most classic definitions as follows?

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

Does expressing to humans, that if they don't make the correct "choice", they will be sent to hell categorize under the realm of 'free will'?

(Conclusion)

- God only created two realms. 1) with Him in eternal bliss 2) away from Him in eternal torture
- God does not offer 'free will'. He instead offers coercion and/or an ultimatum

"Free will' is not merely the ability to choose. If it was, you would state you had 'free will' to pay your taxes or whether or not to obey civil laws. It is instead the ability to choose without constraint. From the Bible:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

I now ask you, what is God's definition of 'condemned'?

Also, is belief a choice?

In a previous message, I discussed possible scenarios to bring human beings into loving maturity with free will. I hope this settles the argument but you're welcome to debate God's scenario or come up with alternative scenarios. The video you posted does not represent God's scenario. God is not interested in human sacrifices. He told ancient Israelites several times not to do it.

God is interested in 'human' sacrifice. But apparently, only His own rendition will do.

Are you telling me that God cloning Himself, then sending Himself to earth, and then sacrificing Himself to Himself, to atone for the specific scenario He decided to create, is the only way to resolve the matter? Really?

Please also see above, merely to demonstrate how God's own 'laws' are also violated.

As I said above, God does not break the laws of logic. So, He is not subjective at all. Humans can be subjective because they have free will and they may not follow the laws of logic.

Does a false dichotomy count? If so, then He does break His own laws. I need not even go any further than this point alone, quite frankly.....

But humans are _not_ told to merely follow orders.

Yes they are told to follow, or else:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

With your God-given logic, you're welcome to come up with a better scenario. Or tell me, what it is in God's scenario that you object to.

Please see above.

 

[Andrewn]

I will grant you leniency, merely to be overly generous.

I wonder why you decided to be so kind to me, your honor?

 

[cvanwey]

I wonder why you decided to be so kind to me, your honor?

It's not about being 'kind', 'mean', other. The LOL need not even apply here Some of my reasons for rejecting the notions to 'Christianity' are given below.

- presents a false dilemma (demonstrated in my last response)
- violates true free will (demonstrated in my last response)
- since all sin prior to heaven, and no one sins in heaven, all should go anyways
- belief is not a choice, and yet, this seems to be (the) criteria

etc etc etc........... You get the point....

Is my 'God given logic' flawed? Should I instead shut down, and adhere to Romans 1:18-22?

 

[Andrewn]

However, God essentially created the following system. - create beings - give them "free will" - create two final destinations only, based upon the result of their concluded 'free will'

Heaven and hell are most likely states rather than locations and they most likely lie on a continuum rather than being 2 separate destinations. What I'm saying is consistent with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic beliefs.

- one destination resides with Him, the only other destination resides in hell. He could also create additional destinations. Therefore, God created a false dichotomy. Not very 'logical'. A true dichotomy would be with Him, or not with Him. But God dictates the only destination for which is not with Him. With Him is eternal bliss. However, without Him is reserved ONLY for torture.

I believe God created additional destinations, a continuum. In 1999, Pope John Paul II said that hell was “the ultimate consequence of sin itself … rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”. The following is an informative article:

EWTN Global Catholic Television Network: Catholic News, TV, Radio | EWTN

The Orthodox Faith - Volume IV - Spirituality - The Kingdom of Heaven - Heaven and Hell

And speaking of 'free will', isn't one of the most classic definitions as follows? "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

This sounds like a definition for "crime" rather than for "free will." If one acts in accordance with this definition, he is sure to end up in jail .

Does expressing to humans, that if they don't make the correct "choice", they will be sent to hell categorize under the realm of 'free will'? (Conclusion) - God only created two realms. 1) with Him in eternal bliss 2) away from Him in eternal torture. - God does not offer 'free will'. He instead offers coercion and/or an ultimatum. "Free will' is not merely the ability to choose. If it was, you would state you had 'free will' to pay your taxes or whether or not to obey civil laws.

You have the free will to not pay taxes and to kill your neighbor but you will suffer the consequences. So, this becomes an intelligence test.

It is instead the ability to choose without constraint. From the Bible: "15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." I now ask you, what is God's definition of 'condemned'?

To be away from God is to be condemned to hell. To be away from God is torture.

Also, is belief a choice?

Of course, it is.

God is interested in 'human' sacrifice. But apparently, only His own rendition will do. Are you telling me that God cloning Himself, then sending Himself to earth, and then sacrificing Himself to Himself, to atone for the specific scenario He decided to create, is the only way to resolve the matter? Really?

If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is ridiculous. The good news is that that is not Christianity, although it may sound like some version of Christianity.

 

[cvanwey]

Heaven and hell are most likely states rather than locations and they most likely lie on a continuum rather than being 2 separate destinations. What I'm saying is consistent with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic beliefs.

You could surmise this conclusion only if you did not have to adhere to what the Bible says. However, I would assume you do believe what the Bible says. Hence, you do not get to have your cake, and eat it too This would not be following your God given LoL.

2 realms alone, heaven or hell. Hell is described.

I believe God created additional destinations, a continuum. In 1999, Pope John Paul II said that hell was “the ultimate consequence of sin itself … rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”. The following is an informative article:

EWTN Global Catholic Television Network: Catholic News, TV, Radio | EWTN

Why should I care what Pope John Paul II says? The fact of the matter is what I stated prior. God presents a false dilemma.

A true dichotomy would be 'A' or not 'A'. However, God continues much further. In reference to 'not A', He specifies WHERE 'not A' is specifically, and also what you are to face in this one created realm. If He simply left it at the OT, 'apart from God' or something similar, then you might have some sort of a leg to stand on... But God added additional 'instruction' in the NT. You cannot pick and choose what you like and what you do not like, out of convenience.

This sounds like a definition for "crime" rather than for "free will." If one acts in accordance with this definition, he is sure to end up in jail .

We have not established the 'true' definition of free will yet. This term can certainly mean differing things to differing people. It could also be argued that we do not truly possess 'free will'?

However, even under the loosest of definitions floating around, I doubt the tenets to Christianity stand, as mentioned, from 'free will' - in post 270?

You have the free will to not pay taxes and to kill your neighbor but you will suffer the consequences. So, this becomes an intelligence test.

Again, God is both the rule maker, as well as the rule enforcer. He can set any stage He wishes. God decided to only create two realms. 1) with Him in eternal bliss 2) away from Him in eternal torture. God could have left it at the OT, apart from God or other, and not specify what 'away' means. Or, God could provide additional destinations. He chose not to. This is evident in the NT.

To be away from God is to be condemned to hell. But some people like it there.

To be away from God could mean virtually anything. However, God created a finite space of torture alone, as stated in the NT.

Of course, it is.

Belief is not a choice. Otherwise, make yourself believe that when you let go of a pen, 3 inches directly above a table, it will not land on that table.

Furthermore, the ones whom do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, did not really make this choice. It means the presented evidence, thus far, lacks conviction to these atheists, deists, agnostics, skeptics, other.

If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is ridiculous. The good news is that that is not Christianity, although it may sound like some version of Christianity.

Well, you appear to be half right. It does seem 'ridiculous'.

But am I really speaking with a believer whom has 'Christianity' truly handled? Do you really get it, while others are mistaken about their faith? It's funny how so many Christians seem to think that their interpretation is the correct one. How can one skeptic be so lucky, so often? You have yet to present a convincing case of this assertion, however.

I, on the other hand, have demonstrated how the LoL do not follow, how belief is not a choice, how free will is violated, etc... Which means, I reject such assertions. Does this mean I know what happens after natural death? Of course not. But I'm fairly confident the claims to Christianity do not follow 'logically.'

What'za got?

 

[Andrewn]

You could surmise this conclusion only if you did not have to adhere to what the Bible says. However, I would assume you do believe what the Bible says. Hence, you do not get to have your cake, and eat it too This would not be following your God given LoL. 2 realms alone, heaven or hell. Hell is described. Why should I care what Pope John Paul II says?

Do you think it's just a little bit arrogant to assume that you and me understand the Bible better than the Pope? I can understand objecting to things related to tradition but not objecting to Bible interpretation, at least without giving biblical references. But in this particular situation, I'll go with you and assume that heaven and hell are realms / locations.

The fact of the matter is what I stated prior. God presents a false dilemma. A true dichotomy would be 'A' or not 'A'. However, God continues much further. In reference to 'not A', He specifies WHERE 'not A' is specifically, and also what you are to face in this one created realm. If He simply left it at the OT, 'apart from God' or something similar, then you might have some sort of a leg to stand on... But God added additional 'instruction' in the NT. You cannot pick and choose what you like and what you do not like, out of convenience.

Yes, I true dichotomy would be "with God" and "without God." To be away from God is torture / hell. God does not cause the torture, rather His absence causes the torture. But there is a block in you getting this idea. I need you to quote the verses that are confusing your view.

We have not established the 'true' definition of free will yet. This term can certainly mean differing things to differing people. It could also be argued that we do not truly possess 'free will'? However, even under the loosest of definitions floating around, I doubt the tenets to Christianity stand, as mentioned, from 'free will' - in post 270?

Wikipedia offers the following definitions:
1) Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
2) Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events.

I think the 2nd definition makes better sense because there are always circumstances that impede certain actions. An amputee cannot walk unassisted. I cannot lift a 400 Ib bag. A carpenter cannot perform surgery, etc.

Again, God is both the rule maker, and well as the rule enforcer. He can set any stage He wishes. God decided to only created two realms. 1) with Him in eternal bliss 2) away from Him in eternal torture. God could have left it at the OT, apart from God or other, and not specify what 'away' means. Or, God could provide additional destinations. He chose not to. This is evident in the NT.

Again, I cannot discuss this any further without knowing your biblical basis. My guess is that you are familiar with Evangelical interpretations and that is not my theology, even though I attend Evangelical churches bec I like their style of worship.

Belief is not a choice. Otherwise, make yourself believe that when you let go of a pen, 3 inches directly above a table, it will not land on that table. Furthermore, the ones whom do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, did not really make this choice. It means the presented evidence, thus far, lacks conviction to these atheists, deists, agnostics, skeptics, other.

You express another misunderstanding. When we Christians talk about belief / faith we're not talking about magical thinking, but rather we mean trusting God for healing our lives so that we may become His true image. If this is truly hard for some people and if God is truly righteous, I'm sure He will take the difficulty into consideration in the day of judgment.

But am I really speaking with a believer whom has 'Christianity' truly handled? Do you really get it, while others are mistaken about their faith? It's funny how so many Christians seem to think that their interpretation is the correct one. How can one skeptic be so lucky, so often? You have yet to present a convincing case of this assertion, however.

There are several ways to classify Christian believers and Christian theology. As I said to another non-believer, it doesn't matter which theology makes sense to you, so long you choose to trust Jesus. I may consider Some theology to be really bad, Baptist theology for example, but I believe they can be saved.

I, on the other hand, have demonstrated how the LoL do not follow, how belief is not a choice, how free will is violated, etc... Which means, I reject such assertions. Does this mean I know what happens after natural death? Of course not. But I'm fairly confident the claims to Christianity do not follow 'logically.'

I suspect the claims you call "Christianity" are Baptist beliefs. If you reject Christianity because you don't like one faction, or one video, you make a mistake. And I feel sorry for you.

 

[cvanwey]

Do you think it's just a little bit arrogant to assume that you and me understand the Bible better than the Pope? I can understand objecting to things related to tradition but not objecting to Bible interpretation, at least without giving biblical references. But in this particular situation, I'll go with you and assume that heaven and hell are realms / locations.

In your prior response, you stated "Heaven and hell are most likely states rather than locations and they most likely lie on a continuum rather than being 2 separate destinations."

The Bible gives Verse, and describes these two 'realms'. Again, if the Bible merely stated that unbelievers do not reside with God, and leave it at that, then your assertion would lend some weight, or merit thought. But the Bible denotes specifics about this one other realm. -----> Remember what I continue to state about God being both the rule marker, as well as the rule enforcer. God could have set ANY stage for the ones whom 'choose' not to follow. He chose THIS one specifically, and created it. -----> The one mentioned in the NT. We will get into hermeneutics later, maybe?

Yes, I true dichotomy would be "with God" and "without God." To be away from God is torture / hell. God does not cause the torture, rather His absence causes the torture. But there is a block in you getting this idea. I need you to quote the verses that are confusing your view.

To be away from God is only torture because this is the specific scenario God created. He could have created additional realms. He chose to create a scenario where the only other realm to reside, ends in torture.

Furthermore, do we really need to go over and re-hash these Verses? Really?

"42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth"

"50 They will put the sinful people into a stove of fire where there will be loud crying and grinding of teeth.”

"8 But the cowardly, a]">[a]unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

"7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

"13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

That's enough for now...

Wikipedia offers the following definitions:
1) Free will

is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
2) Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events.

I think the 2nd definition makes better sense because there are always circumstances that impede certain actions. An amputee cannot walk unassisted. I cannot lift a 400 Ib bag. A carpenter cannot perform surgery, etc.

As I stated prior, 'free will' is a broad topic, for sure. We have yet to even delve into hard determinism vs libertarianism. However...

The LoL dictate some of your given outcomes. An amputee requires 2 legs to walk unassisted, by definition, for instance.

Now, take the prior Bible Verse I provided:

"16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

You see how this is different? The Verse could very well read as follows:

"16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be (X, or Y, or Z)."

I also mentioned prior about such terms; condemned, coercion, and ultimatum.

Addressing the Bible Verse above, is it reasonable to conclude that the author suggests coercion, or an ultimatum? If not, why not?

Again, it does not look to be confined by the LoL here. The 'not A' in this scenario can be alternative conclusions, not merely hell fire alone. This was God's choice, and no one else.

Again, I cannot discuss this any further without knowing your biblical basis. My guess is that you are familiar with Evangelical interpretations and that is not my theology, even though I attend Evangelical churches bec I like their style of worship.

I'm a skeptic, whom used to be a Christian for over 3 decades. What does it matter? Virtually no one agrees, otherwise you would not see many many many denominations. All of which, even conflict within their own specific doctrines/denominations.

You express another misunderstanding. When we Christians talk about belief / faith we're not talking about magical thinking, but rather we mean trusting God for healing our lives so that we may become His true image. If this is truly hard for some people and if God is truly righteous, I'm sure He will take the difficulty into consideration in the day of judgment.

Neither am I. 'Faith' can also be interchanged with both 'hope' and/or 'trust'. But belief is not a choice. And if you seem to think it is, please address my prior response: i.e.

Make yourself believe that when you let go of a pen, 3 inches directly above a table, it will not land on that table.

There are several ways to classify Christian believers and Christian theology. As I said to another non-believer, it doesn't matter which theology makes sense to you, so long you choose to trust Jesus. I may consider Some theology to be really bad, Baptist theology for example, but I believe they can be saved.

Faith/trust/hope can all be interchangable. But you cannot truly believe, without sufficient evidence.

I will give you an example I gave a fellow believer. Prior to 2016, I truly believed Trump would not win the presidency. I have no choice to believe he now is the president.

And to go one further about 'faith', I again have to quote good 'ol Bertrand Russell

'No one speaks of faith that 2 and 2 are 4, or that the earth is spherical. We speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.' 'Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith.'

I suspect the claims you call "Christianity" are Baptist beliefs. If you reject Christianity because you don't like one faction, or one video, you make a mistake. And I feel sorry for you.

I continue to feel sorry for you, because you do not seem to grasp the many points I continue to make, and also just assume that I am incompetent. Isn't this rather arrogant, as you would ask me?

 

[Andrewn]

I continue to feel sorry for you, because you do not seem to grasp the many points I continue to make, and also just assume that I am incompetent. Isn't this rather arrogant, as you would ask me?

Apologies. I shouldn't have written the last sentence. And you're right, I do have a hard time understanding why you're sticking to a certain Fundamentalist interpretation that you reject but still believe it is Christianity.

 

[cvanwey]

Apologies. I shouldn't have written the last sentence. And you're right, I do have a hard time understanding why you're sticking to a certain Fundamentalist interpretation that you reject but still believe it is Christianity.

I just addressed all your points, in detail. Is this all I get in return?

And besides, do the "fundi's" have it 'wrong'? That's interesting, since I have debated "fundi's" who were also educated in hermeneutics. I have also debated the most 'liberal' of Christians. Heck, my best friend is about as liberal as they come, as a 'Christian'. We have many 'talks'.

If you wish to throw in a cheap 'shot', and then duck and run, that's perfectly fine. But I spent some time addressing all your points....

The ball is in your proverbial court

 

[Andrewn]

The Bible gives Verse, and describes these two 'realms'. Again, if the Bible merely stated that unbelievers do not reside with God, and leave it at that, then your assertion would lend some weight, or merit thought. But the Bible denotes specifics about this one other realm. -----> Remember what I continue to state about God being both the rule marker, as well as the rule enforcer. God could have set ANY stage for the ones whom 'choose' not to follow. He chose THIS one specifically, and created it. -----> The one mentioned in the NT. We will get into hermeneutics later, maybe?

By saying that God is both "the rule maker as well as the rule enforcer" you're specifically talking about heaven and hell. And He is not doing a very good job saving people in heaven because there is not enough information to convince skeptics to believe. And then He turns around and punishes unbelievers in eternal hell, those poor souls who were not provided with enough reasons to believe. He basically puts smart people who require a logical approach in a catch 22. Did I express the dilemma in the right way?

To be away from God is only torture because this is the specific scenario God created. He could have created additional realms. He chose to create a scenario where the only other realm to reside, ends in torture. Furthermore, do we really need to go over and re-hash these Verses? Really?

Thank you for providing concrete examples from the Bible so we can look at what it says.

"42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth"

Mat 13:42 explains the Parable of the Weeds, the sons of the Evil One, which the Devil sowed in the world. This judgment comes at the end of the world. The sons of the Evil One are not defined as unbelievers but are defined in v. 41 as "all who cause sin and those who do evil." Those evil ones who steal what is owed to you, rape your daughter, and murder your mother will be punished.

"50 They will put the sinful people into a stove of fire where there will be loud crying and grinding of teeth.”

Mat 13:50 is also talking about punishment of "the wicked / evil" at the end of the world, not unbelievers.

"8 But the cowardly, a]">[a]unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Rev 21:8 is another end of the world scenario where evil people "will have their share" in the lake of fire.

"7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Jud 1:7 should be understood in light of Eze 16:

49-50 Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn’t support the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable acts before me, so I removed them when I saw this.

"13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Rev 20:15 says that "Anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

Whose name is not written in the Book of Life? This is explained in Rev 21:

27 Nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Conclusion: You did a great job finding representative verses about hell / the Lake of Fire. But the lack of more detailed information has resulted in a lot of speculation over the centuries. The Bible's concern is for the offer of salvation and eternal life.

Joh 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand.

Now, take the prior Bible Verse I provided: "16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." You see how this is different? The Verse could very well read as follows: "16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be (X, or Y, or Z)."

I see that verse as stating a fact "will be condemned" but lacking the "sentence" to which that person is condemned. What is he condemned to? Clearly, it's not to a pleasant state. When Saint John Chrysostom was asked why not everybody is saved, he said, "Because you yourselves do not want to [be saved]. Even though the grace is indeed the grace, and it saves, it only saves those who desire it, but not those who do not want it and turn away from it."Likewise, the Dread Judgment is dread not because someone will be put in hell against his will--but because that will be the final self-determination of each human.

I also mentioned prior about such terms; condemned, coercion, and ultimatum. Addressing the Bible Verse above, is it reasonable to conclude that the author suggests coercion, or an ultimatum? If not, why not? Again, it does not look to be confined by the LoL here. The 'not A' in this scenario can be alternative conclusions, not merely hell fire alone. This was God's choice, and no one else.

I consider it a loving warning but if one removes love from the equation it would sound like coercion or ultimatum, I agree. There is no Summerland away from the Source of Life.

Heb 2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was first spoken through the Lord and confirmed to us by those who heard.

I'm a skeptic, whom used to be a Christian for over 3 decades. What does it matter? Virtually no one agrees, otherwise you would not see many many many denominations. All of which, even conflict within their own specific doctrines/denominations.

I said before that God is not a rapist. He allows us to have free thinking and because of this I'm thankful that there are many many many denominations. I can choose my doctrines from this smorgasbord. I wonder how you left Christianity after 3 decades?

But belief is not a choice. And if you seem to think it is, please address my prior response: i.e. Make yourself believe that when you let go of a pen, 3 inches directly above a table, it will not land on that table.

That would be "magical thinking." God established the laws of physics, including gravity. Can God suspend the laws of physics? Jesus walked on water and calmed a storm and raised the dead, etc. Miracles happen, but they don't happen on demand.

Faith/trust/hope can all be interchangable. But you cannot truly believe, without sufficient evidence. I will give you an example I gave a fellow believer. Prior to 2016, I truly believed Trump would not win the presidency. I have no choice to believe he now is the president.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of realities not seen.

There is a subtle difference between faith / trust and hope. The word "substance" probably means "basis" or "assurance" in this verse.

Is belief a choice? I saw an interesting discussion of faith in posts #13 & 14 of the following thread. You may want to engage the writer, there:

Question for Reform Christians

And to go one further about 'faith', I again have to quote good 'ol Bertrand Russell 'No one speaks of faith that 2 and 2 are 4, or that the earth is spherical. We speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.' 'Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith.'

Russell is saying that emotion is the basis for faith. I believe other Christian participants have commented on the basis for faith. I'd say it is "mutual love." The experience of being loved by the universe, not a feeling. To quote Saint Faustus of Riez:

"We, however, maintain that whosoever is lost is lost by his own fault; yet, he could have obtained salvation through grace had he cooperated with it; and, on the other hand, whoever through grace attains to perfection by means of cooperation (synergy), might nevertheless, through his own fault, his own negligence, fall and be lost. We exclude, of course, all personal pride, since we insist that all we possess has been freely received from the Hand of God." (Concerning Grace, 1)

Is my 'God given logic' flawed? Should I instead shut down, and adhere to Romans 1:18-22?

Have you read the Book of Tao? This beautiful book, written by someone who never heard of Christianity, is proof that the Apostle Paul was making a valid point.

I'm sorry for this long post and hope I was able to address some of your thoughtful comments. I just added this 3 minute video to summarize everything I said.

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you for your response. And sorry in advance, it's long as well

By saying that God is both "the rule maker as well as the rule enforcer" you're specifically talking about heaven and hell. And He is not doing a very good job saving people in heaven because their is not enough information out their to convince skeptics to believe. And then He turns around and punishes unbelievers in eternal hell, those poor souls who were not provided with enough reasons to believe. He basically puts smart people who require a logical approach in a catch 22. Did I express the dilemma in the right way?

Though this is also a valid point, it was not what I was trying to convey. But since you brought up this little 'catch 22', what is your take?

**************

What I'm referring to here is quite different. When I repeat these sayings, we can use Mark 16:16 as an example.

God decided to create ONE destination for anyone whom does not abide by His rules. And this one destination is a place of torture.

God's created 'false dilemma' is as follows...

The ones He selects as 'saved' continue on into eternal bliss. The ones He selects or deems as 'unsaved' are sent to torture. The unsaved could merely cease existence, be placed into another realm - (not of torture), etc... The fact that the Bible goes out of it's way to clarify, in several passages, that many will burn, means God has designated a singular place of 'extreme never ending punishment'. God decided to create this specific scenario. It does not abide by the LoL. Because again, God's decided destination for all the unsaved could merely be not with Him. But God decided these people must burn specifically. If you watch the 6 minute video from this perspective, you might begin to see that God goes out of His way to assure anyone whom does not abide by His given rules, are to writhe in 'absolute pain' for eternity. And yet, He claims 'love'?? This appears to be a contradictory set of statements....

Mat 13:42 explains the Parable of the Weeds, the sons of the Evil One, which the Devil sowed in the world. This judgment comes at the end of the world. The sons of the Evil One are not defined as unbelievers but are defined in v. 41 as "all who cause sin and those who do evil." Those evil ones who steal what is owed to you, rape your daughter, and murder your mother will be punished.


Mat 13:50 is also talking about punishment of "the wicked / evil" at the end of the world, not unbelievers.


Rev 21:8 is another end of the world scenario where evil people "will have their share" in the lake of fire.


Jud 1:7 should be understood in light of Eze 16:

49-50 Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn’t support the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable acts before me, so I removed them when I saw this.


Rev 20:15 says that "Anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

Whose name is not written in the Book of Life? This is explained in Rev 21:

27 Nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Conclusion: You did a great job finding representative verses about hell / the Lake of Fire. But the lack of more detailed information has resulted in a lot of speculation over the centuries. The Bible's concern is for the offer of salvation and eternal life.

Joh 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand.

Trust me, I can re-purpose the given Verses as much as the next person. Are we merely saved by grace alone? Is it grace plus belief? Is it grace, belief, works? Is it other? But my point here is simple, and it stems off of what I also stated above. God provides a 'false dilemma'. An example is given from Matthew 25:31-46. He separates humans into two piles, 'sheep' and 'goats'. Does He clearly define who becomes 'sheep' and 'goats', I guess this could be highly debatable? HOWEVER, one thing appears abundantly clear...

The sheep reside with Him in bliss. All goats are placed in 'eternal punishment.' He goes out of His way to tell Bible readers that if they are not chosen, they will suffer. It's a recurring theme. This is coercion, by definition. Why do I have a 'beef' with this? Well...

As I have been stating, He could have stated that all, whom are not chosen, are not chosen and go elsewhere. But since He is the game maker, He purposefully decided to create a very specific realm of torture, which if God was to abide by the LoL, is not necessary. --> If I'm not accepted into Disney Land, for whatever reason, is my only other option a concentration camp? No. I'm not accepted into Disney Land. God states that anything outside His proverbial walls, is complete agony. Hence, is this what any 'logical' person would call 'love'?

I consider it a loving warning but if one removes love from the equation it would sound like coercion or ultimatum, I agree. There is no Summerland away from the Source of Life.

Heb 2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was first spoken through the Lord and confirmed to us by those who heard.

I hope my points above have now demonstrated how this response no longer applies? If not, we can discuss this further?

The two options, under the LOL are not either complete bliss, or complete torture.

I said before that God is not a rapist. He allows us to have free thinking and because of this I'm thankful that there are many many many denominations. I can choose my doctrines from this smorgasbord. I wonder how you left Christianity after 3 decades?

I would agree with you, in part. However, I mainly reject Christianity because I doubt His mere existence. Please remember what I stated in post #264. If God revealed Himself to me, I would have no choice but to not only acknowledge His existence, but then be presented with the choice of whether to follow, or be 'condemned.' I might then be arguing along side you?

All these other points we bring forth, though valid and worthy topics to explore, are to demonstrate that there looks to be inconsistencies in the claims of 'God's Word'. Which leads many, including myself, to conclude that the Bible was not inspired by anything other than humans, and their own fallible thinking; a long time ago.

Why did I leave after 3 decades? I asked for God's contact, and ultimately realized I was speaking to myself alone. If you care to explore this further, feel free to respond to the last post here. Everyone else seems too shy:

'Knowledge' of Existence

******************************

But to get back on point, God looks to be the direct purveyor of confusion. I even see this from within the 'fundi's, as well as within the 'liberals', and all in between. We can no doubt select virtually any Verse, find 'accredited scholars', and read differing translations among them. Is this really the best God could provide?

That would be "magical thinking." God established the laws of physics, including gravity. Can God suspend the laws of physics? Jesus walked on water and calmed a storm and raised the dead, etc. Miracles happen, but they don't happen on demand.

???

My point here is that God's criteria for the 'saved', has to do with a trait for which humans cannot control. ---> Belief. If we both agree that belief cannot be controlled, and God 'punishes' the non-believers eternally, is this 'logical'?

Or are you under the notion of what it states in Romans 1:18:22? That everyone believes, and some just suppress?

Heb 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of realities not seen.

There is a subtle difference between faith / trust and hope. The word "substance" probably means "basis" or "assurance" in this verse.

Is belief a choice? I saw an interesting discussion of faith in posts #13 & 14 of the following thread. You may want to engage the writer, there:

Question for Reform Christians

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/question-for-reform-christians.8169755/#post-75203835

I might look there later. But I'm more interested in hearing your take?

Is belief a choice? If it's not, seems "illogical" to permanently condemn accordingly.

Russell is saying that emotion is the basis for faith. I believe other Christian participants have commented on the basis for faith. I'd say it is "mutual love." The experience of being loved by the universe, not a feeling. To quote Saint Faustus of Riez:

"We, however, maintain that whosoever is lost is lost by his own fault; yet, he could have obtained salvation through grace had he cooperated with it; and, on the other hand, whoever through grace attains to perfection by means of cooperation (synergy), might nevertheless, through his own fault, his own negligence, fall and be lost. We exclude, of course, all personal pride, since we insist that all we possess has been freely received from the Hand of God." (Concerning Grace, 1)

I tried this approach for 3 decades. I had no feelings of contact from any external agency, ever. After 30 years, I gave up. So now what? Is it Romans 1:18-22? Am I blocked by 'sin'?

Do you agree with Russell? Do you speak of 'faith' about the assertions for which you feel are surrounded by 'solid' evidence? I doubt you do. So why compartmentalize God, or invoke special pleading, by polarizing 'faith'?

Have you read the Book of Tao? This beautiful book, written by someone who never heard of Christianity, is proof that the Apostle Paul was making a valid point.

I'm sorry for this long post and hope I was able to address some of your thoughtful comments.

I have not read this book. But it might help if you provide a direct quote, affirming your given point. Otherwise, we can all provide generalized book lists