- Oct 7, 2018
- 11,188
- 9,230
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
God's love for us is unsatisfactory?Unsatisfactory, but to explain why, I would need to answer in the Controversial Theology forum. Sorry I can't address that here.
So then when leading evangelical scholar Millard J. Erickson speaks of a material soul and claims that 'We were all physically present in Adam, such that we all sinned in his act", you'd be equally dismissive of him? You'd insist that his position is bogus and without foundation?Truly i dont. God bless.
That's a rhetorical question.God's love for us is unsatisfactory?
Your missing the point of all of it. You are straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. I do not know Erickson or "leading evangelical" whatever. Im just a simple guy with a bible. Would that we all be. By Gods grace. And i have not dismissed you. We
have talked haven't we? Be easy.
Faith is not based on human logic or the wisdom of man from which God humbles the brilliant and lifts the foolish. For what is foolish to the world is life to us who believe. Faith is from The Spirit of the Most High God. You are wrong from the outset. Your propositions are not christianity. And if you were sincere in your questions, seeking God, you would seek them in God and not debating on an online forum your ideas about what "makes sense." Philosophy does not contain The Truth.
I'm too much of a literalist to take that kind of statement seriously.Adam is a Jewish mythological figure who has nothing to do with our actual human predicament.
Ok let's use the term disapproving. You still didn't answer the question. Are you equally disapproving of Erickson's words? And I'd take it you'd consider those evanglical seminaries to be in the wrong for having accepted his book?That is not dismissive. That is quite attentive. That is me taking the time to addresss you and think on your thoughts. Its not dismissive, irs disagreeing. When i joined here i didn't understand what the. No "Goading" terms were all about. Now, i understand.
You are not controversial, just misguided and lacking the knowledge of the character of God. Nothing to be alarmed about, you just need to seek Him out with a more pure heart. When you do that, He will unveil Himself to you. For now you will just find Him distasteful until you relinquish and repent.That's a rhetorical question.
Maybe I can couch my response in these terms. If I myself were God as traditionally defined, I wouldn't find it necessary to create this kind of world. And therefore as an act of kindness - not only to the world but to spare my Son from suffering - I would have made a world without temptation.
You'll say, God wanted free will. But why would an infinitely self-sufficient God need us to exhibit free will? He doesn't need it,right? So, as an act of kindness to us, and to His own Son, couldn't He have abstained from this kind of world? Is God maximally kind or not?
I'm doing my best here to answer you but, to answer in full, I'd need to go to Controversial Theology.
My understanding of God is NOT distasteful. I found God unpalatable back when I first got saved, when all I knew was the traditional understanding of God.You are not controversial, just misguided and lacking the knowledge of the character of God. Nothing to be alarmed about, you just need to seek Him out with a more pure heart. When you do that, He will unveil Himself to you. For now you will just find Him distasteful until you relinquish and repent.
(1) Evil magnifies the love of God? A better question, what is the best way to glorify God? Evil? When Scripture says to go forth and bear fruit to the Father's glory, it means evil fruit? And the more evil, the more God is glorified?The existence of evil magnifies the love of God. Consider the immense patience the sin-hating God endures towards us sin-lovers.
(1) Robots. You don't mean that literally, right? Is it morally wrong to have a computer/robot? I don't see why. You're not being clear.Because keeping us as robots or love slaves is wrong?
My final answer.
With God anything goes, then? He can be as evil and unjust as He wants to be but, because He is God, we still have to call it 'kindness' ? I refuted that semantic contradiction at post 12.God is not comparatively evil or evil in any way. While wicked man may cry you made me this way, the reality is that sin is not authored by God. He may use the wicked for his purposes but he is not the author of their evil. Furthermore, the entire basis for this argument is that mankind is owed something by God. In reality God owes us nothing and would be totally justified in sending every last one of us to Hell for all eternity.
Right, but the issue is to where does YOUR understanding of Adam extrapolate. If it IMPLIES (even in an indirect manner) that God is something less than maximally kind, you should look for a better position, such as I have proposed.
Unborn fetuses deserve what? They deserve to inherit Adam's horrible sinful nature? Tell me, what did they do to deserve THAT catastrophe?From my understanding thats why God sent Jesus. So that we didnt have to suffer eternally for the sins of Adam, or for our own sin, although we definately do deserve it, because we all sin.
Actually the answer is simple, obvious, and a logical necessity, although I'd have to explain why on the Controversial Theology forum, not here. What it boils down to is replacing the traditional understanding of God with one that makes a a lot more sense.Why would God allow temptation in the first place?
I dont think anyone really knows the answer to that question.
If you think I regard God as evil, you misunderstood the OP, and everything else I've written.Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?
No, is the correct answer...
Even if God made us as robots, "even if", He would still not be evil, even then, and if you cannot see that, I feel very sorry for you...
God Bless!
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?