God's Intervention

[lucaspa]

This kind of piggy-backs on another thread of mine, but I want to narrow this all down to one question.

My question assumes that :

a) God is real
b) God intervenes physically in our world
c) God seeks justice
d) God wants Earth to be "good", as it were to him directly after creation

If you disagree with my assumptions, address those first before the question. If you agree with my assumptions, let's move on to the question.

Rather than having to intervene in an action such as the flood, killing billions of his creation, why would God not intervene and just eliminate Satan from the Garden of Eden?

You have another assumption: Genesis 2-3 is literal history. What if that assumption is false? What if Genesis 3 is allegory as a story to assert that all people are, at some point, selfish and disobey God?

If that is the case, then your question answers itself.

Also, as it turns out, the serpent in Genesis cannot be Satan. For one thing, look at Job. Job comes way after Genesis 3, right? And in Job Satan and God are friends. Would that be possible if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3? The idea that the serpent in Genesis 3 is Satan comes from Revelations, where John has a vision and Satan is represented or symbolized as a snake.

Finally, what if the flood stories in Genesis 6-8 also are not worldwide? What if they have a theological message and not literal history? What if they represent, at most, a flood in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley?

What you are posing questions for is Biblical literalism. Not Christianity and not even the Bible. Instead, your question indicates that one particular interpretation of scripture (and not the correct one) has theological problems.

 

[pinkputter]

As stated in another thread, I am not on the side of the ideology that 1 human sacrifice can save every human in existence from eternal damnation.

For instance, say I beat a random child but I truly repent and ask Jesus to forgive me of my sin. Jesus has paid for that sin and I am relieved of it's burden. But what of the child that was beaten? What of the child's parents who had to deal with the psychological stress of having their child hurt? Is their pain taken away? Do they forget what happened? Is the child not traumatized for life? The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't save anybody from anything, we are all individually responsible for our actions, and we cannot transfer this responsibility. It's not moral, it's not just, and it's certainly not loving.

Instead of saying "These things don't make sense to me, but God is the greater reality and understands it", I say "These things don't make sense to me, this means I have no reason to believe they're true".

These things don't make sense to you so you don' believe them? You don't believe disease, violence, evil is a reality in our world, is that what youre saying? Then you are more delusional than a Pharisee who calls themselves christian ever was.

That very delima shows how badly this world DOES need Jesus, and I am not sure how you don't see that?

First of all, you negate the power of Calvary. How can you say what Jesus has done has no power? It's the most powerful thing done in the history of the universe. Dying for our salvation. Without Jesus there would be a LOT more disease and sin. NOT to take away all the pain of this fallen world we live in. But to give us hope in our salvation. To feel pain, and know that there is a greater purpose meant for us, which makes us stronger, and would hopefully urge us to do more good in this world. That is what Jesus is about.

 

[pinkputter]

[/B]



Also, as it turns out, the serpent in Genesis cannot be Satan. For one thing, look at Job. Job comes way after Genesis 3, right? And in Job Satan and God are friends. Would that be possible if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3? The idea that the serpent in Genesis 3 is Satan comes from Revelations, where John has a vision and Satan is represented or symbolized as a snake.

I'm sorry friend, but nowhere in the Bible has it EVER said that God and Satan were friends. HAHAHA that is laughable. Not in a condescending way, I'm just picturing that and pretty sure God would never allow that. In fact, the story of Job just PROVES they are not friends. God allows Satan in His presence, that is it. God allows Satan to "test'' Job to prove His point to Satan, and to make Job a stronger person. That is the "moral" of the story in the book of Job. You can call the snake in Genesis whatever you like, but that character will always be the enemy, just as Satan in our world today is the enemy.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents for clarity.

 

[lucaspa]

Before Satan, God was happy with his creation and saw that it was "good". It was "good" before we had choice/free will.

You are mixing the 2 creation stories and you can't validly do that. In Genesis 1 God creates men and women, both plural. There is no Adam and Eve in that story, there is no Garden and no temptation. Yes, at the end of the creation story in Genesis 1 God does say creation is "very good".

However, people always had free will. In the Genesis 2-3 we didn't get free will by disobeying God. We exercise our free will and oftentimes we exercise that free will to disobey God. Do you see the difference?

The Bible doesn't directly talk about free will at all, that's why you still haven't given me any references from scripture detailing this.

Not directly, but notice that in Genesis 1 humans are given dominion over the earth. Dominion is free will. Dominion involves making choices about what to do, or not do: kill the lion or let it live; plant the field with wheat or don't. It's like the phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase itself doesn't appear in the Constitution. But what the Constitution does say means separation of church and state.

Choosing to not follow God's commandments is an expression of our personal choice not to. Personal choice = free will.

Exactly. And so we had free will before the disobedience. Nice of you to refute your own argument and get the right answer.

Before Satan

, Eve didn't know she'd have the power of God by eating from the tree.

Before the serpent. Now you are getting one of the theological messages of Genesis 3. One of the major rival religions of the time was the Egyptian one. The Egyptian religion said that, if you as a human got enough knowledge, you would become a God. That is what the serpent is tempting Eve with. As it turns out, that information is false. Adam and Eve do not become gods. And that is one of the purposes of Genesis 3: saying the Egyptian religion is wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm sorry friend, but nowhere in the Bible has it EVER said that God and Satan were friends. HAHAHA that is laughable.

The rules for this forum prohibit Christians discussing with other Christians. But read Job 1. Satan is in good standing with God; his job is district attorney. And they are friends enough to set up a friendly wager. God gives Satan permission and power to torment Job. As you said, "God allows Satan to "test'' Job to prove His point to Satan, " See? You are acknowledging my points. Would God do that for an enemy? Would Satan, as an enemy, need God's permission?

You can call the snake in Genesis whatever you like, but that character will always be the enemy, just as Satan in our world today is the enemy.

The serpent can't be Satan. Remember the punishments. The serpent loses his legs and his descendents and Eve's descendents will hate each other always. Are you seriously going to tell us that modern snakes are Satan's descendents? We can get Satan's DNA from snakes?

Just wanted to add my 2 cents for clarity.

And I've rebutted the 2 cents. If you want to continue this further, we need to move it to an appropriate forum. Perhaps General Theology.

 

[bling]

This kind of piggy-backs on another thread of mine, but I want to narrow this all down to one question.

My question assumes that :

a) God is real
b) God intervenes physically in our world
c) God seeks justice
d) God wants Earth to be "good", as it were to him directly after creation

If you disagree with my assumptions, address those first before the question. If you agree with my assumptions, let's move on to the question.

Rather than having to intervene in an action such as the flood, killing billions of his creation, why would God not intervene and just eliminate Satan from the Garden of Eden?

Instead of killing off billions of life which was his creation, he would only have to kill off one evil entity. There would be no temptation, no original sin, and no need for a bloody human sacrifice. Adam & Eve would remain happily naked and then would multiply and make more happily naked people. We would be abundant on the Earth, God would see that it was good (just like he did), and we'd all live in harmony.

Please only directly respond to the question I bolded.

The earth is “good” in that it is providing what it always was intended to provide. The “earth” was never going to be the permanent home of Adam and Eve because they were going to eventually sin.

Heaven is our home, but earth is a place where we can fulfill our earthly objective that cannot be completed in heaven.

As far as satan goes:

Satan like tragedies, hell and sin all have the earthly purpose of helping willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective (everything is objective driven).

God could get rid of satan at any time and as soon as his purpose runs out God will.

It is truly unfortunate that we (willing humans) have to have Christ to go to the cross, satan to roam the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell and sin to help us fulfill our simple objective.

 

[lucaspa]

As stated in another thread, I am not on the side of the ideology that 1 human sacrifice can save every human in existence from eternal damnation.

Well, it's not just a human sacrifice. Remember, Jesus is fully divine. So it is also a divine sacrifice. But I'm curious, how many sacrifices do you think it should take?

For instance, say I beat a random child but I truly repent and ask Jesus to forgive me of my sin. Jesus has paid for that sin and I am relieved of it's burden. But what of the child that was beaten? What of the child's parents who had to deal with the psychological stress of having their child hurt? Is their pain taken away? Do they forget what happened? Is the child not traumatized for life?

This is about the forgiveness of sin. It's not about changing reality. To take your questions in order:
The consequences of the beating is real. The child has whatever injuries you inflicted.
Yes, the parents have to deal with the psychological stress. That too is a consequence of your actions.
Their pain is not "magically" taken away. But God offers them all the assistance He can to help them cope. I forgot to look: are you married? Have a girlfriend? I'm sure you have hurt your significant other at some point; they have pain. You ask forgiveness. Is their pain immediately taken away? Does your spouse forget what has happened? Probably not, but she is able to move past it and continue her life, even her relationship with you.

The child may be traumatized. Again, God doesn't leave the victim hanging. God is there to comfort and help the victim and to aid them in overcoming the injury.

The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't save anybody from anything,

It saves us the sinner. It saves you the child beater. It's not meant to stop us from doing bad things. It's a road back after we have done the bad things.

we are all individually responsible for our actions, and we cannot transfer this responsibility. It's not moral, it's not just, and it's certainly not loving.

It's not about removing your responsibility. It's about forgiveness. It may not seem "just" in that you are not punished like you think you ought to be punished. But that is the point: mercy, love, and forgiveness.

When you screw up with your significant other, isn't part of love having her forgive you? When she screws up, isn't part of your love for her forgiving her? You seem to have a weird idea about what constitutes "loving".

Or think about your relationship with your parents. I'm sure you have hurt them emotionally over the years. Don't they always forgive you because they love you?

I say "These things don't make sense to me, this means I have no reason to believe they're true".

I think you say "these things don't make sense to me, so I won't bother thinking about how they do make sense, I'll just say they aren't true." No critical thinking there; no sense in straining your brain. It's just much easier to rationalize your faith.

 

[drich0150]

I guess I didn't interpret your response accurately, I understand what you are saying here though. I still don't think it makes sense given the time line of Genesis 1-3. God created everything perfectly, saw it was good, ??? period of ??? years, and then we're given the option to choose to love him or not.

Why not? That is what is recorded. The Choice was given to man when He place the tree of knowledge with in our reach. We were told the tree was placed in the garden before man was.This means the "choice" we were to eventually make was always apart of the plan.

While I've never experienced a world without evil, I can imagine what one might be like and I will tell you I'd choose that over this in a heartbeat.

Good! then simply accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior and you will know an existence without sin and the pain it brings.

If I had a choice between living on the current Earth, or living on a perfect planet with no disease, natural disaster, or mental disparity...it's a no-brainier.

This is what is offered by God through Christ after this life is over.

I have no problem not following Satan if I'm granted a perfect world to live in.

When man failed in the garden the earth defaulted to Satan. In a sense this is the best He/Satan can offer you and to this point all you have done is complain and blame God. If following Satan is your thing, just know you will get more of the same.

OK, so God saw that what he made was acceptable. Then he lets Satan into the picture, knowing that Satan would corrupt the entire world. I don't see the point.

Satan represents choice. He is the other end of what God offers. One can not have a true choice without options. Satan is option "B"

Maybe.

If you are using the bible to condemn God, you must also use and accept it when it vindicates Him. Because the same bible that describes the original choice you are so ruffled over, tells us that what we are choosing is an eternity with God with out sin. Learn to look at everything as a whole, and do not just nit pick over what what fuels your own sense of righteousness.

Some plan. God knew that Plan B would fail miserably, yet he pressed on with it.

Big picture here is that God wanted us to live in perfect harmony, but knew a sentient being would need to explore all options. This life facilitates that exploration, so when we are presented with our eternal lives we will be able to live in the assurance that we have chosen the best course of action.

So you don't have any definition of free will in the Bible, okay.

Not what I said. I said YOUR definition of free will is Not in the bible. And I also point out that you are in complete agreement with the biblical understanding of that term via your own definitions. It's just you have spoken where the bible is silent, when you try and add your freedom of thought doctrine.

Again, the fall of man demonstrates one thing that can result from our free will, not everything.

Then again point to the scripture where the definition of "Free will" is expanded beyond the ability to sin. If you can not then know the definition of "free will" as being the ability to sin begins and ends with the authority written in scripture. More over in the account of the Fall of Man.

Free will is not only the ability to commit sin, it's the ability to make any choice you want to make.

Again if you are going to teach this "doctrine" you must show us scriptural proof of this extension or addition of the definition of freewill. Which mean you will need to bring Book chapter and verse to this discussion.

Sinning is a personal choice, so you could say "Free will is the ability to commit a personal choice", and it would still be accurate.

Not from a biblical stand point. if you believe you can say this, then please Give me book chapter and verse that opens "freewill" to all personal choice.

Therefore, freedom of personal choice is free will, and God could create that without needing evil.

Either you can prove this concept biblically or you can not. Know I need to see book chapter and verse to verify this as a scriptural teaching or we will have to dismiss this concept as just another point in secular philosophy.

Book, Chapter, And verse please!

I've already said that the Bible doesn't directly talk about free will. It does mention the choice we have to either follow God or not follow him, but that does not represent the entirety of free will.

Then show me with book chapter and verse.

I am saying free will is not just the ability to sin. I can't prove a negative.

This is an easy fix. Then show me where it is anything other than the ability to sin... Show me where anyone anywhere defines a personal choice as "free will." I'm not asking you to prove a negative here. I am asking you to represent your affirmation that free will is indeed a system of personal choice by providing me with book Chapter and verse.

If you cannot then concede the point the your version of "free will" is not scripturally backed.

No, as I would be full and have no physical need or mental desire for more food.

So if you were Satisfied then I could not tempt you with food?

No, as my thirst would be quenched.

So if your thirst had been quenched I could not tempt you with more water?

No, if it is the house of my dreams then I have no reason to want to live outside of my dream house.

Then you mean to say, if you had all that you wanted then I could not TEMPT you with something that you did not want?

This is why I can say that Satan's efforts would fall on deaf ears if Eve was completely satisfied with what God gave her. She was tempted and fell into temptation because she want more, She wanted what God had... This was the original sin/choice.

Eve was the first woman to ever exist, and she was tricked by the devil via deception.

Again if you had the house of your dreams could i "trick" you into living into something you did not want?

That's like telling a child "Don't eat candy, it will make you sick" and then having an uncle say "It's okay kid, the candy tastes great and will make you super strong! Trust me, you're fine eating it." Obviously the child will go for the candy, not because they "desire more", but because they are a child. It's very easy to deceive children and take advantage of their undeveloped psyche.

You are assuming something not written in scripture. As I have already pointed out Adam and Eve could have been in the Garden for quite a while, and she may not have been the babe in the woods you believe her to be. Which invalidates your assumption.

What scientists do you follow? Homo sapiens (man) have only been around for 200,000 years max.

.. but the earth was around for much much much much longer right? If creation only took six days to complete and our scientist say the earth is a 400 million years old then if you use simple logic and combine the two accounts, it means that Adam and eve were in the garden for alot longer than man has been around.

If Adam and Eve were living on Earth for millions of years, my God how stupid are they?

If you and your husband (not your fellow man) were placed or confined a 2 or 3 thousand square mile plot of land for an indefinite amount of time would you have unlocked all the secrets of the universe? (Before your pride allows you to answer, allow me) No you could not. At best you knowledge would be limited to the region you live in. As witnessed by the different cultures that currently populate the world today.

Even if Adam and eve knew all that "we" do. how do you suppose they transfer all of the knowledge they gain over what could be a half a billion years to their children and their children's children?? You are over looking the infrastructure that allows the seamless transition of knowledge that we (apparently) don't even know that is there. This is something two people would not be able to do on their own. What they "knew" was lost.

They couldn't develop round Earth theory or ANY form of science? Look what we've done in the past 100 years.

Again "we" as a collective and not as two individuals. Even now if it were all taken back with everything we had now, to two people and humanity had to start over how long do you think before all that "we" have amassed is lost again, and we return to the stone age?

That's all irrelevant anyways. As literally as we're taking Genesis, the Earth is only a few thousand years old OR God severely distorted our laws of physics and then gave us tons of false evidence that the Universe is in fact billions of years old.

It appears you completely misunderstand my explanation. Here is the simplified version:

The genesis account happened just as recorded, but it took place when our scientists think it did 400,000,000+ years ago. Remember Adam and eve were placed in a garden and lived their alone with God for all of that time till one day eve got bored, or want more, or whatever happened to make Satan's offer look tempting. She took it, and convinced Adam to do the same thus picking the story back up in genesis at the fall of man. From that point we can discern the fall happened about 6000 years ago. This does not mean the earth is that old.

 

[humblehumility]

Nowhere does the Bible say "go ahead and randomly beat some child and ... all is well."

Where did I say the Bible tells us that? Is your "logical fallacy" based on something I didn't even say?

I said the Bible (through Christ) can forgive us for beating children, and Christ can take that sin (responsibility) to the cross and bear it for us. Like I said, this does nothing for the child that is beaten, and it is a ludicrous and immoral thought that we are not responsible for our actions if only we ask Christ to forgive us of them.

 

[humblehumility]

[/B]
You have another assumption: Genesis 2-3 is literal history. What if that assumption is false? What if Genesis 3 is allegory as a story to assert that all people are, at some point, selfish and disobey God?

The story doesn't make sense then. Adam & Eve are given a chance to live in paradise, in a perfect world without natural disaster, sin, or disease. We as regular humans are not given that chance, we are born into a sinful, disease ridden world with no chance at experiencing paradise.

Also, as it turns out, the serpent in Genesis cannot be Satan. For one thing, look at Job. Job comes way after Genesis 3, right? And in Job Satan and God are friends. Would that be possible if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3? The idea that the serpent in Genesis 3 is Satan comes from Revelations, where John has a vision and Satan is represented or symbolized as a snake.

Satan and God were friends? This is news to me.

Finally, what if the flood stories in Genesis 6-8 also are not worldwide? What if they have a theological message and not literal history? What if they represent, at most, a flood in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley?

That would mean all of the human race (and animals) were centralized in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Regardless, there's no Biblical evidence for your claim.

What you are posing questions for is Biblical literalism. Not Christianity and not even the Bible. Instead, your question indicates that one particular interpretation of scripture (and not the correct one) has theological problems.

Who are you to determine the correct interpretation of scripture? Do you have the mind of God? Do you know how God intended us to interpret the Bible? You only think you do, just like Biblical literalists think they're interpreting it correctly too.

 

[humblehumility]

These things don't make sense to you so you don' believe them? You don't believe disease, violence, evil is a reality in our world, is that what youre saying? Then you are more delusional than a Pharisee who calls themselves christian ever was.

...of course I believe that disease, violence, and evil is a reality.

I don't believe Biblical ideologies because not only do they make no sense, it makes complete sense that the opposite is true.

That very delima shows how badly this world DOES need Jesus, and I am not sure how you don't see that?

Way to completely ignore the point I was making with that dilemma. Jesus CANNOT BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MY ACTIONS. It is immoral and completely defines injustice. While it may save me, the sinner, it does nothing for the person I committed the sin on. Does that make sense? The child rapist is saved, but the child is still raped and traumatized for life? Hence, Jesus doesn't "save" anybody from anything.

Without Jesus there would be a LOT more disease and sin.

Prove it.

To feel pain, and know that there is a greater purpose meant for us, which makes us stronger, and would hopefully urge us to do more good in this world. That is what Jesus is about.

Ah, so it's a good thing for children to be raped, because their pain shows them the salvation that awaits after they die.

 

[humblehumility]

Exactly. And so we had free will before the disobedience. Nice of you to refute your own argument and get the right answer.

Not exactly. My point in saying that was that you can have free will without having evil. God could have made the world exist without evil, temptation, and deception. He could have altered our (already imperfect) chemical balances and brain functions to not feel pain, remorse, jealousy, greed, etc. I would have much rather lived in that world.

Instead, our world sucks and is filled with natural disaster, disease, and human-caused disaster.

 

[humblehumility]

Well, it's not just a human sacrifice. Remember, Jesus is fully divine. So it is also a divine sacrifice. But I'm curious, how many sacrifices do you think it should take?

Zero. Sacrifice doesn't do anything for anybody. When ancient Egyptians sacrificed cows and humans to their gods, all that happened was that they lost cows and humans. When Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross, all that happened was we lost Jesus from our planet. There's no point to sacrifice.

But God offers them all the assistance He can to help them cope. I forgot to look: are you married? Have a girlfriend? I'm sure you have hurt your significant other at some point; they have pain. You ask forgiveness. Is their pain immediately taken away? Does your spouse forget what has happened? Probably not, but she is able to move past it and continue her life, even her relationship with you.

"Coping" doesn't remove the scars left by the abuse (or loss) of a child.

Not married, but I had a long-term girlfriend that I used to get into arguments with. No, her pain was not taken away but more importantly I was not freed from my responsibility of what I did. I took the consequences of my actions, and did my best to make it right. Asking for forgiveness literally does nothing...nothing.

The child may be traumatized. Again, God doesn't leave the victim hanging. God is there to comfort and help the victim and to aid them in overcoming the injury.

Big ****ing deal. While the child abuser is getting away scot-free thanks to the forgiveness of Jesus, the child remains beaten and traumatized. Again, the "comfort" of God cannot take away physical scars and physical memories. That's because God does not intervene in our physical world. It really couldn't be more clear.

It's not about removing your responsibility. It's about forgiveness. It may not seem "just" in that you are not punished like you think you ought to be punished. But that is the point: mercy, love, and forgiveness.

That's a disgusting and immoral point, truly it is. You do not have to claim responsibility for your actions, as long as you ask Jesus to forgive you. This is the reason why atheists are "angry", it actually [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es me off that people like you believe a murderer can be completely freed from their actions simply by asking a person in the sky for forgiveness. It's absolutely sickening.

When you screw up with your significant other, isn't part of love having her forgive you? When she screws up, isn't part of your love for her forgiving her? You seem to have a weird idea about what constitutes "loving".

It depends on the situation. If we get into a small verbal conflict, it's easy to take a step back, talk things out, and arrive to a conclusion where we either put it in the past and move on, or break up. If I beat her, she has every right to leave me and hate me forever. I wouldn't blame her.

The analogy isn't relevant either, as you're describing a scenario in which both involved parties come to consensus on a minor conflict.

Or think about your relationship with your parents. I'm sure you have hurt them emotionally over the years. Don't they always forgive you because they love you?

How is that even relevant? Neither my parents nor I are seeking forgiveness from Jesus, a complete third party that has nothing to do with the situation. Both my parents and I are taking responsibility for our own actions.

I think you say "these things don't make sense to me, so I won't bother thinking about how they do make sense, I'll just say they aren't true." No critical thinking there; no sense in straining your brain. It's just much easier to rationalize your faith.

No, I understand how you think they make sense. My line of thinking is "These things don't make sense, but the complete opposite makes perfect sense. Therefore, I have no reason to believe in the thing that doesn't make sense to me."

 

[lucaspa]

The story doesn't make sense then. Adam & Eve are given a chance to live in paradise, in a perfect world without natural disaster, sin, or disease. We as regular humans are not given that chance, we are born into a sinful, disease ridden world with no chance at experiencing paradise.

It makes sense as allegory. Adam and Eve are close to God. They disobey God and are cut off from Him. This stands for each and every one of us, since we all disobey God at some point (sin) and are cut off. The Garden represents the closeness to God: a special place where their physical needs are met. When they disobey, they are cut off from God, symbolized by their ejection from the Garden.

Nowhere in scripture does it say the world is "perfect" without natural disaster or disease. The Garden is not the whole world. Nor is the Garden a place "without sin". Sin is what humans do. So a place cannot be without sin.

Genesis 3 is an allegory explaining the condition we find ourselves in: committing sin. We are close to God, commit sin, and then are cut off from God.

Satan and God were friends? This is news to me.

I told you to read Job 1. Did you? You find that Satan is simply the prosecuting district attorney for humans. That's his job. Otherwise, he and God have pleasant conversation and make a friendly wager over the devotion of Job.

That would mean all of the human race (and animals) were centralized in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Regardless, there's no Biblical evidence for your claim.

Again, you are arguing a literal Bible, not Christianity in general. What it means is that was the "whole world" to them. In Luke 2:1 we find that the text says that the "entire world" was enrolled in Caesar's census. We use extrabiblical knowledge to realize that the phrase refers only to the "entire world" as the Romans knew it: the Roman Empire.

I'm not surprised that, as an atheist, you are trying to insist we Christians all be Fundamentalists. After all, it's the only way to attack Christianity. But that is neither honest nor good critical thinking. The point is that we are not Biblical literalists. We allow evidence from God's second book to help us interpret scripture. See the first quote in my signature.

Who are you to determine the correct interpretation of scripture? Do you have the mind of God? Do you know how God intended us to interpret the Bible? You only think you do, just like Biblical literalists think they're interpreting it correctly too.

And who are you? You are an atheist that doesn't believe in God. We can determine the correct interpretation by applying the Rules of Interpretation: http://www.digistat.com/gcf/8rules.htm
Apologetics research resources on religious cults and sects - The Eight Rules of Bible Interpretation
Apologetics research resources on religious cults and sects - Bible Interpretation

These rules apply to all texts, not just the Bible. The literal interpretation is contradicted not only by the extrabiblical evidence, but by the text itself. After all, if literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 contradict one another, then that shows that the literal interpretation is not correct.

As I say, you have an ulterior motive for insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Especially these verses. Don't you think it immoral to insist on such an interpretation only to serve your selfish ends? Atheists do have morals, right?

 

[lucaspa]

Zero. Sacrifice doesn't do anything for anybody.

So the soldiers and Marines sacrificing their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't doing anything for you? When the Union soldiers sacrificed their lives in the Civil War, that didn't do anything for African-Americans? When I sacrifice some of my income (and thus lifestyle) to pay for my children's college tuition, that does nothing for my children?

All these instances and countless more shows that sacrifice does do good for others.

"Coping" doesn't remove the scars left by the abuse (or loss) of a child.

The people can heal and thus no scars. Sometimes they don't and the scars are there. In that case, with help we can learn to compensate for the scars and live normal, happy lives.

No, her pain was not taken away but more importantly I was not freed from my responsibility of what I did. I took the consequences of my actions, and did my best to make it right. Asking for forgiveness literally does nothing...nothing.

Wasn't part of "making it right" asking for forgiveness? You never asked her to forgive you? You never forgave her? No wonder she is an ex-girlfriend.

Part of seriously asking forgiveness is to take responsibility. Getting forgiveness doesn't remove the responsibility. It's forgiveness

While the child abuser is getting away scot-free thanks to the forgiveness of Jesus, the child remains beaten and traumatized. Again, the "comfort" of God cannot take away physical scars and physical memories. That's because God does not intervene in our physical world. It really couldn't be more clear.

Not the way you want. Apparently you want God to go around behind us and miraculously correct every bad thing any human being does. But if God does that, that means removing responsibility from us. So that would violate something you want us to do. Hey, if I know God will miraculously erase the bad consequences of anything I do, then I don't have to take responsibility. This is what happens to children whose parents "fix" anything bad that they do. Those kids never learn responsibility. And you want God to foster irresponsibility?

Also, who we are depends on how we react to things that happen to us. It's what gives our lives meaning. If God erases everything bad that happens, then we have only good things to react to. It stifles our emotional growth, just as spoiled children have stunted emotional growth.

Apparently you want God to run a prison camp for child molesters and anyone who has ever done a bad thing to someone else. And we have all done bad things to other people. Even those who repent of what they have done and want to lead better lives

That's a disgusting and immoral point, truly it is. You do not have to claim responsibility for your actions, as long as you ask Jesus to forgive you.

You can't ask for forgiveness until you accept responsibility. Don't you get that? If you ask forgiveness without accepting responsibilty, that is not "sincere". And you set up the criteria (as does Christianity) that the request must be sincere.

What you seem to be obsessing over is compensation. God does not require you to compensate the child you have beaten. However, God is asking you to help others, so while you are not compensating that particular victim, you are helping others.

Now, that is how it goes in most of Christianity. I have to say that some of the extreme forms of Calvinism seem to say that, once you are a believer, you are automatically forgiven sins -- "once saved always saved". The denomination I belong to, and most Christian denominations, strongly disagree with that.

people like you believe a murderer can be completely freed from their actions simply by asking a person in the sky for forgiveness. It's absolutely sickening.

"freed from their actions"? Most Christians believe in secular punishment. But this isn't about the relationship of the murderer to the rest of humanity: it's about the murderer's relationship with God. Am I supposed to dictate to God that He can't forgive people? Why? What if the victim's family forgives the muderer? Is that bad? Is that also "sickening"?

It depends on the situation. If we get into a small verbal conflict, it's easy to take a step back, talk things out, and arrive to a conclusion where we either put it in the past and move on, or break up.

How do you "move on"? Isn't part of the "moving on" process forgiving the offender?

If I beat her, she has every right to leave me and hate me forever. I wouldn't blame her.

But must she hate you forever? Does she have to exercise the right to "hate you forever"? That's the position you are putting God into. You say God can NEVER forgive. You are saying that the forgiveness is wrong.

How is that even relevant? Neither my parents nor I are seeking forgiveness from Jesus, a complete third party that has nothing to do with the situation. Both my parents and I are taking responsibility for our own actions.

God/Jesus is not a third party. The sin of beating a child is also against God, not only against the child. Your failure to honor your parents not only involves them, but also God. In Christian theology, you should be seeking forgiveness from Jesus, just as you are seeking forgiveness from your parents.

So, when we are talking forgiveness here, it is between you and God. You seem to think it is only between you are the humans involved. That is one of the errors. Another is the bizarre idea that forgiveness means you are not responsible for your actions. How you got that one is beyond me. A third is the idea that God is supposed to make everything better for the victim. Isn't that your responsibility? But somehow you think being forgiven by God gets you off the hook for that. There are other logical and reasoning errors involved, but those seem to be where we can start.

 

[lucaspa]

Not exactly. My point in saying that was that you can have free will without having evil. God could have made the world exist without evil, temptation, and deception.

How? How can you have true free will without the ability to choose evil?

He could have altered our (already imperfect) chemical balances and brain functions to not feel pain, remorse, jealousy, greed, etc. I would have much rather lived in that world.

but then you don't have free will! You have the ultimate in brain washing! Sorry, but I don't want to live in that world.

I suppose you are one of those that would sacrifice all our freedoms so we are perfectly safe from terrorists. This is a subset of what you are asking for above: you will sacrifice your freedom and let yourself be brainwashed and mentally castrated so you can't have any bad thoughts. If you want to be a zombie, I guess you can want to. Not me. I'll deal with the consequences of true free will and be my own person in the owner of my thoughts, thank you.

Instead, our world sucks and is filled with natural disaster, disease, and human-caused disaster.

Aww. Poor baby. You want big daddy in the sky to coddle you, protect you, and make it so that nothing bad can ever happen to your poor little baby self. You want big daddy in the sky to kiss it and not only make it better, but make it so it is never bad for you.

Grow up.

 

[ktyler]

you can have free will without having evil.

How can you even define "evil" without a religion, or at least a universal philosophy, to draw the line?

More and more it is obvious that "evil" is not universal, but relative. It is a convenient categorization, a circular file to place unwanted people and events. Usually it is defined as "things we don't like", or, at best, "things that are bad for us."

No one has ever said, in seriousness, that they were evil. No one thinks of themselves as evil, except perhaps in regret or insanity. Even Hitler believed he was making the world a beautiful place -- certainly not an evil goal. In fact he believed the Holocaust was an elimination of evil. Much like some far-right Christians believe Muslims to be evil. Muslims certainly don't think of themselves as evil. You name an evil, I can find someone who thinks that particular evil is a good thing. Etc.

So this talk of "God could have made the world without evil" is like saying "God could have made the world without ugliness" or intelligence, or skill, or any other relative word. It's a non-starter.

 

[humblehumility]

There's too much to respond to and I'm in the middle of the work day, so I'll have to pick and choose for now.

All these instances and countless more shows that sacrifice does do good for others.

This type of "sacrifice" is much different than the sacrifice of Jesus. A soldier fights for the freedom that we enjoy. It's objective, it's tangible, and it's real. Jesus sacrificed himself to save all of humanity from...what exactly? Sin? Because he certainly didn't do that (evidence: the world we live in).

If Jesus died for all of us, then we should all be saved and it should not require a massive leap of faith.

Apparently you want God to go around behind us and miraculously correct every bad thing any human being does.

Is it too much to ask of God not to plague us with brain cancer? Is it too much to ask that God just didn't create ticks, which contribute nothing but disease and death to us?

But if God does that, that means removing responsibility from us.

God does do that, just not physically.

Apparently you want God to run a prison camp for child molesters and anyone who has ever done a bad thing to someone else.

No, but I don't want a God that offers complete and instant forgiveness just by asking for it.

You can't ask for forgiveness until you accept responsibility. Don't you get that? If you ask forgiveness without accepting responsibilty, that is not "sincere". And you set up the criteria (as does Christianity) that the request must be sincere.

Accepting responsibility is a subjective thought. So rather than saying "God, please forgive me", we just have to add a couple of words and say "God, I accept my responsibility for the actions I've done, please forgive me".

However, God is asking you to help others, so while you are not compensating that particular victim, you are helping others.

This does no good to the victim

How do you "move on"? Isn't part of the "moving on" process forgiving the offender?

Sure, but moving on in that case involves communicating with each other and working out a solution. In God's case, you cannot communicate with someone that does not intervene in our physical world (as communication is physical).

But must she hate you forever? Does she have to exercise the right to "hate you forever"? That's the position you are putting God into. You say God can NEVER forgive. You are saying that the forgiveness is wrong.

No, she doesn't have to hate me forever. She can get over it and move on...but that doesn't mean she forgives me for doing it do her and I wouldn't blame her.

God/Jesus is not a third party. The sin of beating a child is also against God, not only against the child. Your failure to honor your parents not only involves them, but also God. In Christian theology, you should be seeking forgiveness from Jesus, just as you are seeking forgiveness from your parents.

Alright, there's nothing I can really say to this point. I don't believe that God is even there and since there's no physical evidence, I have no reason to believe he's a party in a physical conflict.

Another is the bizarre idea that forgiveness means you are not responsible for your actions. How you got that one is beyond me.

You're held responsible until you ask for forgiveness. After that point, the responsibility is no longer yours, but Christ's. That's my entire point...you will always be responsible for your actions and you can never simply transfer that responsibility by asking for it.

 

[razeontherock]

Jesus CANNOT BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MY ACTIONS.

That's right. He doesn't. He is our Judge.

Make more sense?

 

[humblehumility]

but then you don't have free will! You have the ultimate in brain washing! Sorry, but I don't want to live in that world.

How is it "brainwashing" to create a world and a species without evil? If you were born not knowing what evil was or that it was even possible to be evil, would you lose all your free will to do anything not evil? God created the chemical properties in our brains, he could have just created them to all be kind. We wouldn't be like robots at all, we'd be nice people. We can still choose eggs or pancakes for breakfast. We could still have accidental death (say a car crash), but have no desire to intentionally kill another human.

If you want to see true brainwashing, watch Jesus camp. Or millions of Muslims gathered together praying to Allah. Or millions of Hindus gathered together praying to Vishnu.

I suppose you are one of those that would sacrifice all our freedoms so we are perfectly safe from terrorists. This is a subset of what you are asking for above: you will sacrifice your freedom and let yourself be brainwashed and mentally castrated so you can't have any bad thoughts. If you want to be a zombie, I guess you can want to. Not me. I'll deal with the consequences of true free will and be my own person in the owner of my thoughts, thank you.

If you want to call it brainwashing, fine. I'd rather be brainwashed and live in a LOVING world created by a LOVING God. Ignorance is bliss my friend.

Aww. Poor baby. You want big daddy in the sky to coddle you, protect you, and make it so that nothing bad can ever happen to your poor little baby self. You want big daddy in the sky to kiss it and not only make it better, but make it so it is never bad for you.

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

God knows what we would do with "total free will" if you want to put it that way. Yet he pressed on, created us the way we are, and here we are now. There are highlights and high points to humanity, but generally the human race has been a major failure as far as humanity and morality goes.

It's beyond me why an all loving Creator would create mentally defective humans that want to kill other innocent humans. Or earthquakes to pointlessly kill people. I just can't come to believe that an all loving God would allow such a thing to happen to his children, which is one of the reasons why I believe that God doesn't exist. I have all the proof in the world to back that statement up.