Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And your solution is something that makes no sense biblically...My issue is that the church has historically rejected the only solution that works and, even today, still hasn't officially and publicly accepted it aside from the concessions of maybe a couple of noted scholars. They haven't repented, they haven't recanted, of a doctrine that, for almost 2,000 years, has extrapolated unto a monstrous God. Hence most Christians in the pew still, even today, are only being taught one unsatisfactory version of theodicy.
Nope. I can only give you my definition in Controversial Theology.Please explain to us how it (suffering or some suffering) is necessary in how you have come to define God, or your god then...?
And don't beat around the bush or play this silly little game either OK...?
And please tell us what makes your definition of God different and right above and beyond any others or anyone else's please...?
And tell us who he is please...?
Or instead of clinging steadfast to a theology that contradicts God's goodness, we could opt for a position that actually does resolve theodicy-related logical contradictions, such as the version of Adam that I've espoused.
Please don't tell me it's unanswerable if I've already given you an answer.
I don't understand why you feel that way. Suppose I assumed that biological evolution is true. I'm an OEC in profound disagreement with that assumption - in fact I think that Christians buy wholesale into evolution mostly due to a serious misunderstanding of God - but anyway for the moment let me provisionally accept evolution. I would then claim, for the sake of theodicy, that all men prior to Adam were animals for lack of a real conscience. Adam was the first 'man' because he was the first humanoid on this planet endued with a conscience. And he could either be an evolved humanoid or a work of special creation.
Of course you can object - but why let all those animals suffer, both pre-Adam and post-Adam? Simple. Although animals do not sin (as their cerebral systems don't foster conscience), what were their souls doing BEFORE God put them into animal bodies? My theory is those souls are fallen angels, either whole angels or subsections of material angels (similar to how I defined our relationship to Adam).
P.S. On judgment day I think you'll find Genesis to be a lot more literal than you suppose.
When did we talk about martyrs? I don't remember but I'll try and do a quick search...You did no such thing with regards to the suffering of martyrs.
Oh you don't believe in fallen angels? Do you believe that devil exists? Had followers? I'm confused.Discipline and training are not necessarily punishment. The less mythology we rely on, the better. "Fallen angels?" Pure speculation and imagination.
I didn't find anything. I don't understand your argument. Sounds like one I responded to already.You did no such thing with regards to the suffering of martyrs.
Mostly because I am asking each reader to conduct an exercise in personal theological consistency. He is to say to himself, 'Here's my definition of love/kindness and deviation from it would mean..." (and so on).Awful lot of I, MY, and myself in this posting ....
Oh you don't believe in fallen angels? Do you believe that devil exists? Had followers? I'm confused.
I read the entire OP first post. It's theological philosophical oatmeal.You should know that if you don't read the entirety of someone's OP, you will probably misunderstand his position.
The obvious solution is that God only made one material soul named Adam (even Eve was a physical subsection extracted from Adam's ribs). After Adam sinned, God removed most of that material soul from his body unto a place of suspended animation. When each of us was later conceived, God mated a separate microscopic portion of that sin-stained soul to each of our bodies. In other words, YOU are 100% Adam (not a mixture). YOU are the one who freely chose to eat of the forbidden fruit (although none of us currently remember doing so).
Sorry that doesn't make sense. The post 12 was solid. If I can't be sure what "love" and "kindness" mean for God, His promises become cause for alarm and thereby undermine Christian hope.I think you mean "already replied". if it were refuted this would be a far shorter thread. when we are speaking of God's kindness on humans then we are talking about divine kindness, divine justice, divine mercy, etc.... but we are not talking about human kindness, human justice, human mercy, etc... What's the difference? well, that's the riddle, you seem to demand it fits a human theory of justice, and I would argue this saying it stems from the divine and whatever human element is a part of it acts to complement but not to enforce.
Why do you think that's a problem for me? It's an exercise in logical consistency. If you can start with a different definition of love than mine, hold God to your standard with consistency, and end up without endangering Christian hope, then you've achieved consistency. In which case my objection at post 12 doesn't apply to you.You seem to read the bible and see conflicting characteristics of God and your conclusion is to reconcile them in your specific world view and for some reason, this satisfies truth to you. Your world view is relative so whatever conclusions you form from it would also be relative and this infamous post 12 you keep talking about is relative as well. You say "if God's definition of virtues isn't the same as mine, all Christian hope is thereby undermined" well what happens when my definition of virtues isn't the same as yours and I claim the same redemption under Christ as you do?
You're perhaps correct that we tend to presume more about angels than we should. Since I'm not an expert on the angelology of Scripture, I'll (tentatively) concede you that much. But one thing I'm pretty sure of - the proper definition of justice. You don't rightly punish someone just because he's not God, but rather base on it whether he's made a free conscious choice to engage in wrongdoing (i.e. has violated his conscience). And therefore you certainly don't pronounce him guilty or allege that he needs atonement, if he hasn't done so.I don't know, I'm not an angel and I don't presume to know the promises given or not given to them but logically it would be the same in terms of the demand for atonement not in terms of the method of atonement. For all I know angels are created already surrounded in atonement, this is however out of the scope of biblical revelation and our knowledge so all we can do is guess on this and it would be irresponsible to claim you know anything more.
We originated from one divisible soul. In terms of directionality of thought and conscious experience and volition, and memory, we are now diverged due to the segregation/separation into parts, and thus have no recollection of having previously been one composite soul.So we are made of one divisible soul?
The issue is whether God is right to punish us for the sins of an ancestor. Suppose my grandfather is still alive and, tomorrow morning,commits a sin. Should I be punished for it? What's your view?True love will MATURE you to your BEST SELF.
True love will not leave you a BABY.
Growth involves some level of suffering.
Ever heard of GROWING PAINS ... ???
We originated from one divisible soul. In terms of directionality of thought and conscious experience and volition, and memory, we are now diverged due to the segregation/separation into parts, and thus have no recollection of having previously been one composite soul.
So if you're asking whether we are STILL one soul, I don't think that's really an accurate description of the current state of affairs (admittedly a semantically challenging issue). Obviously I'm not you, we no longer have a shared consciousness, nor do we jointly make decisions anymore. You are not responsible for my current sins since you aren't complicit, and vice versa.
Most mature persons agree pretty much on the definitions of LOVE and KINDNESS.Mostly because I am asking each reader to conduct an exercise in personal theological consistency. He is to say to himself, 'Here's my definition of love/kindness and deviation from it would mean..." (and so on).
Yes. It would be Vincent, someone other than Lucifer. And?
Suppose I planned to have 10 kids. And God have me two options to pick from:
(A) You can pick batch-A. In this batch, five will freely choose to sin and wind up in hell.
(B) You can pick batch-B. In this batch, all ten will remain righteous and wind up in heaven.
Wouldn't you go with option-B? Isn't this a no-brainer? At least from the standpoint of kindness?
That's not what I said. I postulated Vincent as an angel foreknow to choose righteousness. He has free choice.
Right. See batch-B above. No-brainer.
I chose batch-B. I can't fathom any other choice.
God is not punishing you for your ancestor's sins. He is working with you to address YOUR OWN sinfulness ...The issue is whether God is right to punish us for the sins of an ancestor. Suppose my grandfather is still alive and, tomorrow morning,commits a sin. Should I be punished for it? What's your view?
God is not punishing you for your ancestor's sins. He is working with you to address YOUR OWN sinfulness ...
LOL. The problem of evil is nonsense? Chistianity 101 is a good idea, but History 101 and Philosophy 101 might actually be useful as well. Historically, the problem of evil is the atheist's number one objection to the existence of God. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:I read the entire OP first post. It's theological philosophical oatmeal.
It's argument for argument sake.... There are so many important things to discuss... this is creation of nonsense.
Even in the last paragraph the OP says "Why did God allow temptation"? I mean, seriously... if you have to ask that question... you should be taking a Christianity 101 program.
Not on Protestant assumptions anyway. In the Protestant and Catholic view, all men are born guilty by representation on account of Adam's sin.All souls are given freewill. All souls, initially are innocent.
You're skating over the larger question as to why an infinitely self-sufficient being would need that kind of pleasure at our expense, and eventually at His own Son's expense as well. But that's the larger issues which I cannot really discuss in depth on this forum. Mostly here I'm focusing on Adam.If you are a creator and you create a being that you would like to fellowship with you for eternity... How are you going to know if it really loves you?
And then you punish 100 billion people for the sin of Adam? What sort of monster do you think God is?Easy... You give it this free will and you tempt it to go against you.. to defy your love.. A love so great that you give your son to die in it's place.
Except our hearts are so hardened and polluted by this awful world and sinful nature that such might be impossible without special grace from the Holy Spirit. You're not doing very well here, in terms of theodicy.If we were never tempted.... we would never have been tested as to whether we love God or ourselves more..
Even at the end of the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ, Satan will be loosed to tempt those souls...
Thing is.. since we all fail the test. We are all tempted and lose, we sin... There is a second test. A make up test... All we have to do is swallow the pride that convicted us.. and accept the free gift that pardons us..by Faith.
Hardly. Why not show kindness from the outset, or abstain from making us at all? I would have accepted one of those options, if it were up to me.All of this is necessary.
The majority of atheists (including my own brother) make that claim, and it 's clearly not preposterous. You are evidently in denial - and if tomorrow you found out that your salvation wasn't secure (hypothetically speaking), you'd be the first to suspect the possibility of monstrosity in such theodicy.To say God was evil to do this is preposterous. God can do this because He is the ultimate of righteousness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?