Theory on the origin of evil

[The Righterzpen]

Me either, but does "chaos" have to do with potentialities?

Ehh.... I don't know? Ya lost me here.

 

[Tone]

Ehh.... I don't know? Ya lost me here.

Oh yeah, I remember where I was going with it. I was associating imagination (the womb of fantasy) with potentialities, i.e., what could be if organized. So, I guess, I was asking if this somehow fits in with chaos (total disorder).

 

[The Righterzpen]

Oh yeah, I remember where I was going with it. I was associating imagination (the womb of fantasy) with potentialities, i.e., what could be if organized. So, I guess, I was asking if this somehow fits in with chaos (total disorder).

What potential does someone's imagination have if organized? Is that the same thing as total disorder?

 

[Tone]

What potential does someone's imagination have if organized? Is that the same thing as total disorder?

Well, all the technological breakthroughs begin with imagination, even Einstein said it (in so many words), but that potentiality had to be organized in order (pun intended) to be able to manipulate it. No, total disorder is when it remains in a state (or non-state) of potential...with no follow through.

 

[childeye 2]

What sends people first to hell and ultimately to the lake of fire?

I believe this requires two separate answers. What sends people to hell/death was Adam and Eve partaking of the knowledge of good and evil wherefore sin entered into all of mankind through one man’s disobedience and we all have sinned and die. As far as I know, what sends people to the lake of fire is not believing in the Christ, and/or not being found in the book of life.

And who's (WHO) the one who (ONE WHO) condemns them?

I've already stated the condemnation, John 3:19. Essentially we condemn ourselves.

At the great white throne judgement - WHO'S the ONE sitting on the throne?

God.

What does "payment for sin" mean?

It can mean either to "atone" for a wrong I have done by doing something to make reparations and/or under Old Testament law to make a sin/guilt offering to appease my conscience as a form of recompense unto God.

I don't see how experiencing God's wrath atones for anything.​

Is Jesus paying Satan?

No. I believe that would be a mischaracterization of what Christ’s atonement is accomplishing. It’s the law that we would be in bondage to through fear of death. But unlike all prior sacrifices under the law that were meant to cleanse the conscience, this sacrifice made by Jesus was a onetime payment for all sins so as to end the Old Testament by dedicating a New Testament. Therefore since I believe that Satan was administering the Old Testament, I believe the power of death was taken away from Satan by ending the Old Testament.

If payment for sin has nothing to do with addressing the fact that sin offends God; than why go to the cross. Why die?

I think your question should be rephrased. I never felt God approved of sin, if that's what you mean to imply. There are multiple answers as to why Jesus came to die, but primarily to taste death for all men so as to be a High priest of the highest order and to bring forth a New and everlasting Covenant.

Yeah, the atonement frees sinners from the domain of Satan; but Satan is not your primary enemy on account of your sin. God is!

I’m not sure what you mean by this. I don’t believe God was ever our enemy per'se. I do believe Satan was and still is.

Satan is a tool used to ultimately accomplish God's ends.

I could see how that could be true in the big picture.

Now why is "Divine love being tested beyond the limits of human comprehension". If atoning for sin has nothing to do with the Father; why'd the Father forsake Him?

Again your question contains a problematic premise. I never said atoning for sin had nothing to do with the Father. I said that I don't believe that God crucified Jesus to work off His wrath. I do not know why Jesus asked God why He had forsaken him, and I don't even know that God even did. I will say that I do believe he felt that way.

I think Divine Love is being proved beyond the limits of human comprehension so as to be witnessed to through the Gospel. Hence this is the True Image God has sent for us to believe in when being witnessed to.

Does feeling sorry for Jesus make you stop sinning; because of all the "mean things Satan did to him"?

It made me see a spiritual darkness behind mankind's wickedness which cannot be defeated by returning evil for evil. As I began to walk in that spirit, it was also putting my flesh to death.

When I think about Jesus taking on punishment for sin for a bunch of people (me included) who would not even think they need atoning for in the first place - I stand with Job. "I place my hand over my mouth" and shut up because I don't have anything to say.

That’s understandable.

Now here's the million dollar question for you. Do you deserve God's wrath? If you say "no" to that question; you (at the very least) don't understand the atonement!

I think it’s for God to say conclusively. I have no problem confessing that I too walked after the flesh before I understood and believed the Gospel according to God’s grace and was by nature a child of wrath. But I also have no problem with saying that God has chosen His children in Christ before the foundation of the earth to be Holy and blameless.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I believe this requires two separate answers. What sends people to hell/death was Adam and Eve partaking of the knowledge of good and evil wherefore sin entered into all of mankind through one man’s disobedience and we all have sinned and die. As far as I know, what sends people to the lake of fire is not believing in the Christ, and/or not being found in the book of life.

What does Adam and Eve, have to do with your personal sin? Do you believe you still sin?

Unbelief is not the unpardonable sin. We are all in a state of unbelief at some point or another.

I've already stated the condemnation, John 3:19. Essentially we condemn ourselves.

You are correct. Our own sin condemns us. Yet who is the one passing judgment?

God.

God is sitting at the great white throne passing judgement. Why?

I don't see how experiencing God's wrath atones for anything.

Jesus Endured Wrath: Acts 2:27-31, Psalm 16:10

"lowest hell": Psalm 86:13

"lowest pit" - Ps 88:6 &7 &14 &15

"pit" = wrath of God - Rev 20:10

"cup" = wrath of God - Ps 75:8, Rev 14:8 & 108:11

Jesus had - Matt 26:39

"counted as a transgressor" - Ps 88:4, Mk 15:28, Is 53:12

"wine press" = wrath of God - Jesus tread it alone - Is 53:3, Rev 19:15

"Low I come in the volume of the book it is written of me to do thy will, 0 God"

Ps 40: 68, Heb 10:7

But unlike all prior sacrifices under the law that were meant to cleanse the conscience, this sacrifice made by Jesus was a onetime payment for all sins

".... made one time payment for all sins." WHY? What does that mean?

I think your question should be rephrased. I never felt God approved of sin, if that's what you mean to imply.

Obviously if God is offended by sin; He doesn't approve of it! Not sure how you got that interpretation out of this phrase:

If payment for sin has nothing to do with addressing the fact that sin offends God; than why go to the cross. Why die?

I don’t believe God was ever our enemy per'se.

What does Romans 5:10 mean then?

I never said atoning for sin had nothing to do with the Father.

So, you confess that it does have something to do with the Father; you just don't know what.

I do not know why Jesus asked God why He had forsaken him, and I don't even know that God even did. I will say that I do believe he felt that way.

To endure wrath means to be separated from God.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Matthew 25:41

Jesus endured wrath to atone for sin. In doing so, He was severed from the rest of the God head. This is why He said "Why have you forsaken me?" To suggest Jesus was not really forsaken, but only "thought" He was; would be to make Him a liar.

I have no problem confessing that I too walked after the flesh before I understood and believed the Gospel according to God’s grace and was by nature a child of wrath.

Do you still sin? If you claim you don't; than you are a liar and the truth is not in you.

1 John 1:10

But I also have no problem with saying that God has chosen His children in Christ before the foundation of the earth to be Holy and blameless.

Election and predestination is a different (yet related) subject from the wrath of God. The wrath has been atoned for and this is why someone is elect.

 

[childeye 2]

What does Adam and Eve, have to do with your personal sin?

Adam and Eve has to do with my personal sin because sin entered into all mankind through one man's disobedience. For example, when I was about five years old, for the first time I played a game with my brother and our babysitter. I ended up losing, and for the first time in my life I felt a darkness come upon my heart that gave me the worst feeling I had ever experienced in my life. It was akin to the terror of hearing my parents fight, but only it was on the inside of me manifesting a horrible hatred. I know now that it was vanity. But it was such a terrible experience that I never wanted to play a game again. I didn't will for this darkness to come, nor could I simply will for it to be gone. I say this to point out that sin was in me somehow, with the power to move me to despise being the loser in the eyes of my peers, and to rejoice over someone else losing instead of me.

Do you believe you still sin?

I have not sold everything I have and given it to the poor. I have a house where I am warm and sleep in comfort while others are without and must try to sleep in the cold. I have an abundance of food whereas others go hungry and search dumpsters for something to eat. I am therefore still a sinner.

Unbelief is not the unpardonable sin. We are all in a state of unbelief at some point or another.

Please understand that I'm trying to traverse the semantic pitfalls that exist for me in how you phrase your questions. I'm answering directly to the question of what sends people to the lake of fire. I believe the scripture says that everyone whose name is not found in the book of life goes into the lake of fire. Why they are not found in the book of life to begin with is an answer that only God would know. However I do believe that those not found in the book of life would not have followed Christ.

You are correct. Our own sin condemns us. Yet who is the one passing judgment?

I'm saying that I believe we condemn ourselves as we condemn others. Jesus said that we will be judged by what measure we use to judge others. Hence God opens the books where is written everything we said and thought and did, and He judges according to what is written there.

God is sitting at the great white throne passing judgement. Why?

Because He has the books and knows all things that we have ever said, and thought and done, and He alone has the wisdom to judge justly. I also believe His judgment will determine our place in the order of the Eternal Kingdom.

Jesus Endured Wrath: Acts 2:27-31, Psalm 16:10

These scriptures do not say that Jesus endured God’s wrath. They say that God would not abandon Jesus in the realm of the dead nor would his body see decay. It seems that because Jesus died and was in the realm of the dead, you are equating that with experiencing God’s wrath.

"lowest hell": Psalm 86:13

Same with this one.

"lowest pit" - Ps 88:6 &7 &14 &15

While this Psalm speaks of God’s wrath, I am not sure this song is about Jesus’ experience. It seems to me this psalm is about a person who was sick from his youth and may have counted it as God’s wrath, which he says he experienced on a daily basis throughout his life. Lowest pit also can mean greatest sorrow. Note: Matthew 26:38,Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,

"pit" = wrath of God - Rev 20:10

This scripture speaks of the lake of fire or the second death, and Satan and the false prophet. Perhaps you meant verse 3 where it speaks of the bottomless pit which is not the lake of fire. But again you’re equating God’s wrath with a pit like a dungeon, and this verse is not about the Christ. I would also note that the vials of God’s wrath=wrath which is poured out upon the earth, hence these vials are not a pit.

"cup" = wrath of God - Ps 75:8, Rev 14:8 & 108:11

Cup =something you must go through good or bad. Psalm 75:8 says that the wicked will drink from the dregs of a mixed cup. The cup in Revelation 14:8 is not referring to Jesus and His cross. There is no Rev 108:11. I figured you were pointing to a psalm but nothing in that psalm indicates a cup or wrath.

Jesus had - Matt 26:39

cup=experiencing something. In this case carrying a cross and suffering a crucifixion, but not necessarily God’s wrath. Note: Matthew 10:38, And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. This is why I said in my last post, that as I walk in this spirit my flesh is put to death.

Matthew 20:22-23, But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Philippians 3:10 , That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

It seems to me that if we are to find fellowship with Christ through his sufferings, and if Jesus suffered God's wrath, then so also would we suffer God's wrath.

"counted as a transgressor" - Ps 88:4, Mk 15:28, Is 53:12

Psalm 88:4 doesn’t say transgressor, it says I am counted with those that go down in the pit, which of course the dead do. I’m not saying that Jesus wasn’t counted as a transgressor. Indeed he was by those administering the law and/or by wicked people. I don’t believe that Isaiah 53:12 is saying that God counted Jesus as a transgressor. I think it’s saying that wicked people counted him as a transgressor. Hence he bore our sins and suffered our transgressions. Elsewhere it says that he went to the slaughter in silence and became sin so that we could become the righteousness of God through belief in him. Being without sin he then was able to intercede for the transgressors.

"wine press" = wrath of God - Jesus tread it alone - Is 53:3, Rev 19:15

I don't see Isaiah 53:3 speaking about a winepress or the wrath of God. However I do see the winepress as God’s wrath upon the grapes of wrath. Revelation 14:19

The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath.

".... made one time payment for all sins." WHY? What does that mean?

A thorough response would require more than what I feel prepared to offer at this moment. Suffice it to say that it means that all members of his body carry on the work of atonement that he did in this world. The Old Testament was not able to make a person righteous through fear of death. Love is what actually fulfills the law, and not fear of being punished with death. The New Testament is the liberty wherein we walk in the Spirit of God through the gift of the Holy Spirit wherein perfect Love casts out all fear. The New Testament is about having God's Spirit dwelling in us, and that Spirit is a Love that endured a cross for the sake of the sinner.

My experience is that as I forgive others their sins against me, I put my own flesh to death on my own little cross. The thought of sin being something worthy of doing is therefore controverted by my willingness to suffer the sins of others in realization that they were either blind or weak when doing so. Hence Paul says how can we live anymore for sin when we are already dead to sin. In essence our suffering the sins of others upon ourselves could be seen as an atonement for our sins by God and also show that we are blameless by doing so. Hence a one time atonement of Christ's blood is all that's necessary for Jesus to enter into heaven and begin an everlasting priesthood.

Obviously if God is offended by sin; He doesn't approve of it! Not sure how you got that interpretation out of this phrase:

If payment for sin has nothing to do with addressing the fact that sin offends God; then why go to the cross, Why Die?

Being "offended by sin" contains nuances that are eliminated with "does not approve of sin". For example: We know that Jesus the son is the True Image of the Father. They are the same person and in them is no darkness. Now notice that the Pharisees asked why Jesus was sitting with the sinners. The Pharisees were clearly offended by sin. But Jesus was not offended, for such was his compassion and knowledge, that he explained to the Pharisees, “the sick need a doctor”. Jesus does not approve of sickness but he is not personally offended. So I changed the narrative of your question since I didn’t want to promote any premise that would equate the Father with the same mindset as the Pharisees instead of with the Christ.

Why go to the cross and die? To show God's Love towards us. Because all sin is/was based upon believing a lie that God did not Love us but loved Himself.

What does Romans 5:10 mean then?

It means that there is/was an enmity between mankind and God that was based upon mankind believing a lie about God.

So, you confess that it does have something to do with the Father; you just don't know what.

I know that the one-time atoning for sin performed by the Christ has everything to do with the Father since He sent Jesus to do exactly that. I do not know why Jesus asked why God had forsaken him.

To endure wrath means to be separated from God.


2 Thessalonians 1:9

Matthew 25:41

Certainly all sin is separation from God which carries it's own consequences which end in depravity. It seems to me that if this separation is God's wrath, then if a person were to be separated from God forever, then God would be angry forever. I'd rather believe that there’s a point when His longsuffering is being abused to a point of no return, and so He uses these souls as a reminder of the abominations that we become in the flesh when separated from Him.

Jesus endured wrath to atone for sin. In doing so, He was severed from the rest of the God head. This is why He said "Why have you forsaken me?" To suggest Jesus was not really forsaken, but only "thought" He was; would be to make Him a liar.

Well the fact is, I don’t know what Jesus meant by “Why have you forsaken me”. I consider that he could have been speaking on behalf of mankind as a whole. He said it on the cross, and I also consider that he understandably might have felt abandoned by all. But that doesn't mean I should jump to believing that being forsaken means God was visiting His wrath upon His son.

The story of the vineyard, the ephod of the priest having similar gems and stones as Lucifer, the imagery of the dragon waiting to devour the child in the book of Revelation, and Satan entering Judas, all point to a wickedness from spiritual powers of darkness in authority at Jerusalem, that crucified the Christ. Not only that, but it's no coincidence that all the apostles were persecuted or killed for preaching the Gospel. Therefore I believe that Satan crucified the Christ.

Jesus knew that he would be among the dead for three days and nights, where he preached the Gospel to the dead there. And he also knew of the scripture that said God would not abandon Jesus in the realm of the dead, nor would his body see decay. Jesus believed he would rise from the grave and ascend into heaven. So if you're saying that Jesus experienced death so that we don't have to, I can agree with that. But I can’t say that God forsook him in the sense that he was left in the pit of hell forever.

Do you still sin? If you claim you don't; than you are a liar and the truth is not in you.


1 John 1:10

I would be a liar to say there is no vanity left in me since losing my first game, perhaps even as a needful reminder that it is God Who sanctifies us. So yes, I still sin even as the Holy Spirit lovingly convicts me and shows me and teaches me.

But I do learn wherein I was blind and with humility where I am weak. So I sin less and less, thanks be to God and His Christ. And He also causes me to atone for my sin through being understanding and forgiving towards others who sin against me, and also by doing acts of Love which I feel that I owe for the harm I have done in the past. I will continue in doing those good works even after I am paid up since they should be done regardless, so it’s not like it matters to be keeping an account. I am forever a debtor to Christ unto His glory.

The Holy Spirit does not ever move me to wrath, so it bothers me that you believe that God visited His wrath upon Jesus. This is contrary to the God I know through Christ, Who taught me to see the nature of sin and how it’s all based on a subtle lie. Hence scripture says that the Truth is what sets a man free. This Truth says that in God's eyes, the greatest are those who serve the rest. And in belief of that, I am able to rejoice in being the loser in the eyes of the world.


16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Again this post is long, for which I apologize.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Adam and Eve has to do with my personal sin because sin entered into all mankind through one man's disobedience. For example, when I was about five years old, for the first time I played a game with my brother and our babysitter. I ended up losing, and for the first time in my life I felt a darkness come upon my heart that gave me the worst feeling I had ever experienced in my life. It was akin to the terror of hearing my parents fight, but only it was on the inside of me manifesting a horrible hatred. I know now that it was vanity. But it was such a terrible experience that I never wanted to play a game again. I didn't will for this darkness to come, nor could I simply will for it to be gone. I say this to point out that sin was in me somehow, with the power to move me to despise being the loser in the eyes of my peers, and to rejoice over someone else losing instead of me.

I have not sold everything I have and given it to the poor. I have a house where I am warm and sleep in comfort while others are without and must try to sleep in the cold. I have an abundance of food whereas others go hungry and search dumpsters for something to eat. I am therefore still a sinner.

Please understand that I'm trying to traverse the semantic pitfalls that exist for me in how you phrase your questions. I'm answering directly to the question of what sends people to the lake of fire. I believe the scripture says that everyone whose name is not found in the book of life goes into the lake of fire. Why they are not found in the book of life to begin with is an answer that only God would know. However I do believe that those not found in the book of life would not have followed Christ.

I'm saying that I believe we condemn ourselves as we condemn others. Jesus said that we will be judged by what measure we use to judge others. Hence God opens the books where is written everything we said and thought and did, and He judges according to what is written there.

Because He has the books and knows all things that we have ever said, and thought and done, and He alone has the wisdom to judge justly. I also believe His judgment will determine our place in the order of the Eternal Kingdom.

These scriptures do not say that Jesus endured God’s wrath. They say that God would not abandon Jesus in the realm of the dead nor would his body see decay. It seems that because Jesus died and was in the realm of the dead, you are equating that with experiencing God’s wrath.

Same with this one.

While this Psalm speaks of God’s wrath, I am not sure this song is about Jesus’ experience. It seems to me this psalm is about a person who was sick from his youth and may have counted it as God’s wrath, which he says he experienced on a daily basis throughout his life. Lowest pit also can mean greatest sorrow. Note: Matthew 26:38,Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,

This scripture speaks of the lake of fire or the second death, and Satan and the false prophet. Perhaps you meant verse 3 where it speaks of the bottomless pit which is not the lake of fire. But again you’re equating God’s wrath with a pit like a dungeon, and this verse is not about the Christ. I would also note that the vials of God’s wrath=wrath which is poured out upon the earth, hence these vials are not a pit.

Cup =something you must go through good or bad. Psalm 75:8 says that the wicked will drink from the dregs of a mixed cup. The cup in Revelation 14:8 is not referring to Jesus and His cross. There is no Rev 108:11. I figured you were pointing to a psalm but nothing in that psalm indicates a cup or wrath.

cup=experiencing something. In this case carrying a cross and suffering a crucifixion, but not necessarily God’s wrath. Note: Matthew 10:38, And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. This is why I said in my last post, that as I walk in this spirit my flesh is put to death.

Matthew 20:22-23, But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Philippians 3:10 , That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

It seems to me that if we are to find fellowship with Christ through his sufferings, and if Jesus suffered God's wrath, then so also would we suffer God's wrath.

Psalm 88:4 doesn’t say transgressor, it says I am counted with those that go down in the pit, which of course the dead do. I’m not saying that Jesus wasn’t counted as a transgressor. Indeed he was by those administering the law and/or by wicked people. I don’t believe that Isaiah 53:12 is saying that God counted Jesus as a transgressor. I think it’s saying that wicked people counted him as a transgressor. Hence he bore our sins and suffered our transgressions. Elsewhere it says that he went to the slaughter in silence and became sin so that we could become the righteousness of God through belief in him. Being without sin he then was able to intercede for the transgressors.

I don't see Isaiah 53:3 speaking about a winepress or the wrath of God. However I do see the winepress as God’s wrath upon the grapes of wrath. Revelation 14:19

The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath.

A thorough response would require more than what I feel prepared to offer at this moment. Suffice it to say that it means that all members of his body carry on the work of atonement that he did in this world. The Old Testament was not able to make a person righteous through fear of death. Love is what actually fulfills the law, and not fear of being punished with death. The New Testament is the liberty wherein we walk in the Spirit of God through the gift of the Holy Spirit wherein perfect Love casts out all fear. The New Testament is about having God's Spirit dwelling in us, and that Spirit is a Love that endured a cross for the sake of the sinner.

My experience is that as I forgive others their sins against me, I put my own flesh to death on my own little cross. The thought of sin being something worthy of doing is therefore controverted by my willingness to suffer the sins of others in realization that they were either blind or weak when doing so. Hence Paul says how can we live anymore for sin when we are already dead to sin. In essence our suffering the sins of others upon ourselves could be seen as an atonement for our sins by God and also show that we are blameless by doing so. Hence a one time atonement of Christ's blood is all that's necessary for Jesus to enter into heaven and begin an everlasting priesthood.

If payment for sin has nothing to do with addressing the fact that sin offends God; then why go to the cross, Why Die?

Being "offended by sin" contains nuances that are eliminated with "does not approve of sin". For example: We know that Jesus the son is the True Image of the Father. They are the same person and in them is no darkness. Now notice that the Pharisees asked why Jesus was sitting with the sinners. The Pharisees were clearly offended by sin. But Jesus was not offended, for such was his compassion and knowledge, that he explained to the Pharisees, “the sick need a doctor”. Jesus does not approve of sickness but he is not personally offended. So I changed the narrative of your question since I didn’t want to promote any premise that would equate the Father with the same mindset as the Pharisees instead of with the Christ.

Why go to the cross and die? To show God's Love towards us. Because all sin is/was based upon believing a lie that God did not Love us but loved Himself.

It means that there is/was an enmity between mankind and God that was based upon mankind believing a lie about God.

I know that the one-time atoning for sin performed by the Christ has everything to do with the Father since He sent Jesus to do exactly that. I do not know why Jesus asked why God had forsaken him.

Certainly all sin is separation from God which carries it's own consequences which end in depravity. It seems to me that if this separation is God's wrath, then if a person were to be separated from God forever, then God would be angry forever. I'd rather believe that there’s a point when His longsuffering is being abused to a point of no return, and so He uses these souls as a reminder of the abominations that we become in the flesh when separated from Him.

Well the fact is, I don’t know what Jesus meant by “Why have you forsaken me”. I consider that he could have been speaking on behalf of mankind as a whole. He said it on the cross, and I also consider that he understandably might have felt abandoned by all. But that doesn't mean I should jump to believing that being forsaken means God was visiting His wrath upon His son.

The story of the vineyard, the ephod of the priest having similar gems and stones as Lucifer, the imagery of the dragon waiting to devour the child in the book of Revelation, and Satan entering Judas, all point to a wickedness from spiritual powers of darkness in authority at Jerusalem, that crucified the Christ. Not only that, but it's no coincidence that all the apostles were persecuted or killed for preaching the Gospel. Therefore I believe that Satan crucified the Christ.

Jesus knew that he would be among the dead for three days and nights, where he preached the Gospel to the dead there. And he also knew of the scripture that said God would not abandon Jesus in the realm of the dead, nor would his body see decay. Jesus believed he would rise from the grave and ascend into heaven. So if you're saying that Jesus experienced death so that we don't have to, I can agree with that. But I can’t say that God forsook him in the sense that he was left in the pit of hell forever.

I would be a liar to say there is no vanity left in me since losing my first game, perhaps even as a needful reminder that it is God Who sanctifies us. So yes, I still sin even as the Holy Spirit lovingly convicts me and shows me and teaches me.

But I do learn wherein I was blind and with humility where I am weak. So I sin less and less, thanks be to God and His Christ. And He also causes me to atone for my sin through being understanding and forgiving towards others who sin against me, and also by doing acts of Love which I feel that I owe for the harm I have done in the past. I will continue in doing those good works even after I am paid up since they should be done regardless, so it’s not like it matters to be keeping an account. I am forever a debtor to Christ unto His glory.

The Holy Spirit does not ever move me to wrath, so it bothers me that you believe that God visited His wrath upon Jesus. This is contrary to the God I know through Christ, Who taught me to see the nature of sin and how it’s all based on a subtle lie. Hence scripture says that the Truth is what sets a man free. This Truth says that in God's eyes, the greatest are those who serve the rest. And in belief of that, I am able to rejoice in being the loser in the eyes of the world.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Again this post is long, for which I apologize.

I read through all your responses and it's obvious to me that you just don't want to see that people face the wrath of God because of sin. Nor do you understand that Jesus faced the wrath of God to pay for sin, because that is how sin is paid for.

Yet you rightly understand, given this following statement about being angry when other people won games; what it means to be dead in trespass and sin.

I didn't will for this darkness to come, nor could I simply will for it to be gone. I say this to point out that sin was in me somehow, with the power to move me to despise being the loser in the eyes of my peers, and to rejoice over someone else losing instead of me.

Yet, in this next statement; apparently you think that being poor and homeless, living in the street searching dumpsters for food would somehow make you "no longer a sinner"?

Jesus Himself never sinned, yet even He for the majority of His life lived in a house, didn't eat out of dumpsters and held down a job.

I have not sold everything I have and given it to the poor. I have a house where I am warm and sleep in comfort while others are without and must try to sleep in the cold. I have an abundance of food whereas others go hungry and search dumpsters for something to eat. I am therefore still a sinner.

 

[Tom 1]

Origins of Evil Theory

I've often wondered about the origins of evil? Many church fathers and people in Christian circles believe that evil began with Satan. This may be true, depending on your definition of "Satan"; but if we look closely at the first few verses of Genesis, we'll see that this can not be. If we believe Satan is a fallen angel; (as much of church history has taught) than we know for a fact that evil did not begin with him, since it was present before angels were ever created. Darkness (destruction) was "upon the face of the deep" from the first time God had uttered "Let there be light."

The first words of Genesis start out with "In the beginning". This phrase is in "construct state" and has a "Beth" prefixed preposition to it. The construct state declares that the state of one noun is dependent upon the action of another. In this case the state of heaven and earth are dependent upon the action of God. (Yeah, I know that's an "uh duh" type of observation.)

Now as for the Beth prefixed preposition, it indicates the location or instrumentality of the action. So in other words, the action of what happened "in the beginning" began with God. (Yeah, I know; another "no brainer".) This is important to understand though, because what it is really saying is that all subsequent happenings (including the presence of evil) did not exist before the beginning!

In a prior study I did concerning what had occurred "in the beginning"; I'd stated that I didn't know where evil came from. (I'm still not sure I know?) In that study, it appeared to me that evil was already present from the point that God began the creation process. I'd thought that it may have even predated creation itself. From a little closer look at this word / phrase "in the beginning" though it seems that from the very commencement of any action of God - evil appeared.

Interesting - now why is that?

Here is another point where I'm not sure I have the answer to this question but I'm gonna give it a crack with a theory that's been kicking around in my head here. Now admittedly, this theory isn't "my theory" - no, it's actually part of physics. "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Now let's back up here from "the beginning" to before the beginning. Before any action of creating ever commenced; there eternally existed God. No action brought God into existence. He was just always ...there! So because there was no "action" that created God; there was no "reaction" to His existence. He as an entity is "something" and the opposite of "something" is "nothing". So, in eternity, besides God there was nothing and so any opposite of God that would have "existed" - did so in theory only.

Of course being omniscient; God knew this. He knew that as soon as He "did" something; there would be an equal and opposite reaction to what ever He did. (Note I'm not saying "equal an opposite reaction" to what God is!) He knew that what ever action He took; it would bring this theoretical opposite of Him into the created reality. (Because to every action is an equal and opposite reaction.) This is what I believe was the knowledge of good and evil that God possessed.

So, for as much as an oxymoron as this is going to sound like: this created a "dilemma" for God. He had to come up with a plan to adequately compensate for the opposite that would come as a result of His action. Now God being good, holy, righteous, just etc - the opposite of such would be evil, sin, wickedness, injustice etc.

So how could God overcome this "reaction"?

Well, since God is eternally existent; it would seem to me that His incorporating His own presence into His original action (i.e. being incarnated into His own creation, sending His Spirit etc.) does not create another "reaction" because God always existed.

So thus is the nuts and bolts of my "scientific" theory. (Admittedly, likely still needs some refining!) Evil was inherent in the act of creation itself because it was the opposite reaction to God's action.

Could God have created a world where there would be no reaction to His action?

I don't know; maybe on some other dimension or level He has? As for us though and what we understand of our physical universe; we could not exist without these contrasting duel addition to this though; this theory also lends explanation to why God could create something He knew was going to fall and still legitimately call it good. (Which the "good" in Hebrew really means "pleasant". I.E. God was happy with what He'd made. It "pleased" Him; which there is another whole dimension to that application - which maybe I'll tackle later.) Any how; ultimately God is not responsible for the fall; because He did not create evil, nor did He plant within man the seed that would lead to transgression. All that transpired was a byproduct of the act of creation itself.

The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

What of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil than? The tree was just the vehicle that clued man into what was already present in his world. It simply opened the door to the knowledge of both good and evil; but it didn't create either! Remember it's the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; not the "tree of good and evil".

The tree was necessary for that knowledge though; and that knowledge was necessary in order for humanity to truly know God. You see, it was still possible for Adam and Eve to behave in ways that displeased God; they just had no knowledge of it because they had no commandments. The only instruction they'd specifically had from God was to take care of the garden and not to eat the fruit off this tree. (All of carbon based creation was commanded to be fruitful and multiply.) See "evil" had entered into the world even though sin had not, because sin is disobedience to God! So long as Adam and Eve didn't disobey; sin didn't enter, even though "evil" was still present.

Kinda weird huh

In regards to sin itself. Even if there was no tree; God would eventually given them a commandment that they wouldn't have kept. Think of all the trouble a person could get themselves into out of sheer ignorance. God is not simply going to sit back and ignore actions that offend Him. So, as long as they obeyed; the knowledge of any offense of action they may have done was hidden from them. As far as any offenses they'd committed against God? Up until the point they actually disobeyed; apparently they had done (or failed to do) something that warranted God to tell them to care for the garden. Once He had instructed them to do so; obviously they obeyed, so still sin hadn't entered.

The word "good" in Genesis:

OK, now that we know "good" in Genesis didn't mean "unable to be corrupted". What did it mean? "Now I didn't really plan on putting "this" "here" but it's a good place for it. I'll explain what the word "good" means in the Hebrew and how the applied to Genesis and even the current underpinnings of how this creation is constructed.

This word "good" basically means "pleasing"; although pleasing in a natural way, not so in the connotation of lust or perverse desire for something. It's the same word used to describe Abraham's wife Sarah; she was "beautiful" she was "pleasant (or pleasing) to look at". She appealed to other men as an object of physical beauty. This word, or derivatives there of; is used in description of attractive men too and even other living things; i.e. physical qualities that would make them attractive - like health, strength, vigor, vitality of complexion / hair etc.

We see this concept of "good / pleasing" being inherent in the biology of the physical world. Some researchers at one point did an international study to come up with a composite of what human beings considered to be physically attractive or desirable in other human beings. The point of the study was to see if there was an underlying consistency in who people would consider to be the opposite parent to their individual future offspring. Of course, on account of the nature of this study - it only included heterosexual individuals of a probable reproductive age.

The questions were posed with line drawings of human forms and the findings were interesting. The consensus was that people preferred a reproductive mate that was not too fat or too thin, who's body was symmetrically proportional and who's skin and hair had a healthy appearance. The next most important attribute for both genders was the appearance of the face and head. Was the face symmetrical and did the head appear to have the proper skull capacity to be associated with good intelligence. Another attribute that was some what of a surprise to the researchers, yet none the less important to both genders was the appearance of a person's hands. Hands were generally thought of in relation to a person's propensity to be industrious.

Contrary to what the western fashion industry portrays to us; men generally were not attracted to women who were too much taller than they, who's breasts were either too large or too small and who's hips appeared too narrow. Both these portions of anatomy were considered vital to reproductive capacity: a pelvis who's breadth was adequate to safely deliver a baby and breasts that would produce the appropriate amount of milk to feed the child. The "universal ratio" came out to be an hour glass figure where the waist was roughly 10 inches smaller than the bust and hips.

For women, proportion was also of notable interest. Women ranked higher in considering the size and shape of a man's head as intelligence was generally believed to be related to temperament. (An ill-tempered strong man doesn't make a good mate.) That ranked just as high for women as a man who's body appeared to be healthy and physically fit. The "ideal shape" for men was the diamond (or kite) shape; head, neck, shoulders being the top of the diamond and chest, abdomen, hips being the bottom. Interestingly enough, even in industrial societies the size and shape of man's pelvis were considered important too. Even though women in industrial societies couldn't identify why a man's ability to run well seemed important; they considered it to be an attractive attribute. In hunter gatherer type societies - obviously this was attributed to a man's ability to catch food.

Now as for the reproductive attractiveness of people who have less than perfect bodies; this is where personality became much more important. This was especially true of people born with handicapping genetic defects. Here is where perseverance and the development of a specific skill set became vital to these individuals' survival.

So as interesting as all this research was - what does it have to do with the word "good" in Genesis?

It goes to show us that what we find to be naturally "pleasing" or "attractive" is inherent in the make up of creation itself. Our inclinations and natural drives toward these things are there in us because they first existed in God. The good pleasure of God was made inherent in the world He created. (It's reflected in the reproductive process of every thing on this planet.) What is "good" gives us joy, just as the creation God had made gave Him pleasure. This goodness and joy we see extended even in areas of our lives that have nothing to do with our own sexuality. We find good pleasure in our children, our pets, our friends and family, our hobbies, the outdoors - what ever gives us pleasure.

Of course there is a "flip side" to this too. Our "good pleasure" can be corrupted into something perverse. This is where there is addiction to substances, sexual behavior, the pursuit of wealth or power and prestige.

None of these things (drugs, alcohol, sex, money, authority, respect) are evil in and of themselves; but the corrupted desire for them is. This corrupted desire is what makes evil apparent in this world. Born out of corrupted desires comes hatred, jealousy, malice, envy, strife, prejudice, greed etc. Their manifest deeds being: criminal violence, theft, lies, unjust treatment, inequality, immoral behavior etc. These culminate in death and destruction; the final say of it all being the wrath of God.

The knowledge of good and evil had a profound impact upon this universe!

Interesting. I tend to think that evil has its origins in beings with some level of self awareness realising that they can leverage circumstances to their own advantage, one up from just instintively fighting for dominance or control. For example I remember reading about a chimp (I can't remember where, I'll add a link if I can find it) that was observed faking a warning call to cause another chimp to run for the trees, so that it could steal that chimp's food. It might be rather comical to call that an evil act, but I think that is basically where the potential for evil starts, where we become aware of an advantage we can gain by misleading or doing violence to someone else.

 

[childeye 2]

Interesting. I tend to think that evil has its origins in beings with some level of self awareness realising that they can leverage circumstances to their own advantage, one up from just instintively fighting for dominance or control. For example I remember reading about a chimp (I can't remember where, I'll add a link if I can find it) that was observed faking a warning call to cause another chimp to run for the trees, so that it could steal that chimp's food. It might be rather comical to call that an evil act, but I think that is basically where the potential for evil starts, where we become aware of an advantage we can gain by misleading someone else.

This is an interesting post. Now I wonder how long that chimpanzee will rejoice over his trickery when it's done to him, and also when other chimpanzees end up becoming prey because they learn to no longer trust any warnings, nor trust one another.

Fundamentally, I find that all things are built upon faith while distrust tears down. Hence evil shows a hypocritical reasoning at work formed in an ignorance of the long term repercussions, and is not only a disservice to others but a disservice to one's own self.

 

[childeye 2]

I read through all your responses and it's obvious to me that you just don't want to see that people face the wrath of God because of sin.

Respectfully you are mistaken as to what you say is obvious. If you recall, I acknowledged that God's wrath is revealed from heaven in that mankind when knowing God, mankind did not esteem God as God. Becoming vain and unthankful to God for wisdom, thinking they were wise of themselves, they became fools and changed the image of God from a Holy image to a corruptible one and made the Truth of God into a lie. This false imagery of God then manifested into all manner of sin we see today. I have also acknowledged in this last post that the vials of God's wrath are poured out upon the earth in the appointed time of His wrath and comes upon the wicked and that there are indeed grapes of wrath. Finally I acknowledged why there is wrath despite God's longsuffering, due to wanton ignorance in not accepting the Truth of God's Holy Character, preferring to believe a lie about God.

Nor do you understand that Jesus faced the wrath of God to pay for sin, because that is how sin is paid for.

Respectfully, I don't believe you're being fair in concluding that I don't understand the concept you are proposing. I have tried to show why I do not agree with such an imagery of God. I've tried to show that you are equating/conflating death (being sent to hell or the pit) with wrath. Conflating terms is always a mistake in formulating sound reasoning. I've tried to show that death is the consequence that came from partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and not the actions of God's wrath.

To shorten our posts, we should focus our discussion on the central question of whether or not sin must be paid and can only be paid for through God's wrath. I don't believe it does. For example Jesus said that one act of Love can cover a multitude of sins. Hence atoning can come through Love.

To that end, I must forthrightly point out that we are actually discussing two different imageries of God/god. I'm hoping that I am wrong, but the image you project, is one that comes across as a person that either must have vengeance upon sin as if it's a personal insult, or is a god/God who believes that people will ultimately always choose sin over goodness if not properly motivated by fear of wrath. Are either one of these or both or none of these what you believe in?

I would add that I believe in the Christ as the True Image of God, and he does not show any of the Character traits above. In Christ, wrath is more about not accepting God's gracious and merciful and self sacrificing Character as True.

Yet, in this next statement; apparently you think that being poor and homeless, living in the street searching dumpsters for food would somehow make you "no longer a sinner"?

Respectfully, that's misconstruing what I said. Actually, I prefer that everyone have the basic necessities to survive. In practical application, loving others as I would want to be loved is what makes me no longer a sinner. Therefore I feel that if I were cold hungry and homeless I would hope someone would show compassion and let me in their house to get warm and maybe let me shower eat something and sleep. Wanting to be homeless and eating out of dumpsters would not fulfill loving others as I would want to be loved.

Jesus Himself never sinned, yet even He for the majority of His life lived in a house, didn't eat out of dumpsters and held down a job.

Well there are no scriptures that would make clear whether he worked, or what he owned or didn't own his entire life. But since you have misunderstood my meaning it really doesn't matter.

 

[childeye 2]

double

 

[The Righterzpen]

Interesting. I tend to think that evil has its origins in beings with some level of self awareness realising that they can leverage circumstances to their own advantage, one up from just instintively fighting for dominance or control. For example I remember reading about a chimp (I can't remember where, I'll add a link if I can find it) that was observed faking a warning call to cause another chimp to run for the trees, so that it could steal that chimp's food. It might be rather comical to call that an evil act, but I think that is basically where the potential for evil starts, where we become aware of an advantage we can gain by misleading or doing violence to someone else.

Your illustration with the chimp here raises an interesting point about the affect of the fall on the rest of creation.

Obviously monkeys aren't created in God's image and the major difference between the animal kingdom and humanity is the development of language to communicate complex thoughts that convey moral understanding of something.

Although it's true that other animals (mammals in particular) display quite a bit of cognizant thoughtful intelligence. Obviously animals can think and they can decision make based on observation, perception and / or predicability of other animals, humans, or the environment itself. They can also problem solve in some ingenious ways in this context.

There's a certain type of bird in Japan. (I think its some type of pigeon) that when the food source in the city became scarce, they discovered certain types of tree nuts were good for food. Problem was, they didn't have big enough or strong enough beaks to crack open the nuts. So what they'd do is sit on power lines and traffic lights and drop the nuts into the intersection and when the cars would run them over. They'd fly down and scoop up the nuts.

The birds got so good at it, that they knew exactly where to drop the nuts so the cars would run them over and they learned to watch the traffic patterns and particularly when the humans were in the crosswalks; so they knew when it was safe to retrieve the nuts. On top of this, the birds began to teach each other this trick.

Now obviously it takes some kind of ability to remember and recognize traffic patterns to be able to use that to their advantage; and which one of these birds first realized that the cars running over the nuts provided a means to get food? So, talk about the creation of intelligent life! Creation is filled with all kinds of geniuses in their own rights!

Still though, because language patterning creates the ability to determine and decipher concepts that are of the moral and ethical realms; animals are not capable of articulating a structured understanding of that. They know cooperation increases their chances of survival, and this is why of both domesticated and wild animals in captivity; we see animals begin to (or have) developed some strikingly humanly recognizable behavioral characteristics.

Yet this is also seen in the wild. Which raises an interesting question? When animals in the wild know they are being observed by humans; does that impact their behavior? It's an interesting question because we can say with surety that the animals are aware they are being watched. Even those who become aware of cameras in the environment; somewhere they recognize that object represents the presence of humans. I find that interesting, because usually when they discover these things, they will begin to play with them.

Language though, and the ability to think in terms that can communicate abstract concepts is what makes humans accountable for their sin when animals aren't. It's quite fascinating because there are a few places in the Scripture that talk about animals and the land "sinning". Now how does a field "sin" - I don't know? (I think it really means that what ever it is that's being spoken of, is going against God's intention for it; but it's interesting that the Bible does indeed use the term "sin".)

So in light of this theory of "darknesses" presence in the creation; this does make sense. Yes, it does take intelligence to transgress; but understanding what that means in moral and ethical terms, isn't necessary to transgress.

Do you follow me on that?

Evil is still present even when the choices made aren't done out of moral understanding - i.e. animals here being the example.

Fascinating! Glad you brought up the monkeys.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Respectfully you are mistaken as to what you say is obvious. If you recall, I acknowledged that God's wrath is revealed from heaven in that mankind when knowing God, mankind did not esteem God as God. Becoming vain and unthankful to God for wisdom, thinking they were wise of themselves, they became fools and changed the image of God from a Holy image to a corruptible one and made the Truth of God into a lie. This false imagery of God then manifested into all manner of sin we see today. I have also acknowledged in this last post that the vials of God's wrath are poured out upon the earth in the appointed time of His wrath and comes upon the wicked and that there are indeed grapes of wrath. Finally I acknowledged why there is wrath despite God's longsuffering, due to wanton ignorance in not accepting the Truth of God's Holy Character, preferring to believe a lie about God.

I agree with your premise here. The manifestation of that "wanton ignorance" as you've describe it; is what the Scripture calls sin.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Respectfully, I don't believe you're being fair in concluding that I don't understand the concept you are proposing. I have tried to show why I do not agree with such an imagery of God. I've tried to show that you are equating/conflating death (being sent to hell or the pit) with wrath. Conflating terms is always a mistake in formulating sound reasoning. I've tried to show that death is the consequence that came from partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and not the actions of God's wrath.

Now to be fair here; I didn't say you didn't understand what I was saying. I said you didn't want to see that people face the wrath of God because of sin. That, I don't see as a matter of intellectual ability to grasp; it's more a matter of "I don't want to believe this."

So if death doesn't have anything to do with the wrath of God; than why do we die and why is God angry?

And would you acknowledge that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was sin? The Scripture says that.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Note what this is saying. The evidence that death still reigned from Adam to Moses (before written Scripture was transmitted) was evident in the world (people still died) even though the people between Adam and Moses did not sin in the same way as Adam did.

So death is related to sin. This passage makes that connection.

Here are more passages stating the wrath of God is related to disobedience.

Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (suppress) the truth in unrighteousness;

Proverbs 11:4
4 Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death.

(The righteousness of Christ delivers sinners from the wrath of God. It does so because He took on that wrath in their stead.)

Psalm 2:12
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Ephesians 5:6
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Romans 2:5
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

John 3:36
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Now maybe you are correct; maybe I have been unfair to you? The question now becomes? Do you not want to see this because you just refuse to believe it; or are you not wanting to see it because down in side, you know it's true and you're really scared to death?

If you're just of an impetuous heart and you just don't want to be confronted with the reality of God's wrath; that's one thing. Yet, but if deep down inside you're scared - that's actually a good thing!

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Psalm 111:10

To shorten our posts, we should focus our discussion on the central question of whether or not sin must be paid and can only be paid for through God's wrath. I don't believe it does. For example Jesus said that one act of Love can cover a multitude of sins. Hence atoning can come through Love.

And do you understand why love covers a multitude of sin? How does God demonstrate so great a love? Answer: That He took on His own wrath so men could escape the coming judgement!

And you are absolutely correct here; the decision to atone sprung out of God's love.

To that end, I must forthrightly point out that we are actually discussing two different imageries of God/god. I'm hoping that I am wrong, but the image you project, is one that comes across as a person that either must have vengeance upon sin as if it's a personal insult, or is a god/God who believes that people will ultimately always choose sin over goodness if not properly motivated by fear of wrath. Are either one of these or both or none of these what you believe in?

Sin is a personal insult to God and absolutely deserves His vengeance. The Scripture is very clear about that.

What motivates someone to follow God?
1. "Oh God loves me and doesn't care what I do; so long as I try hard enough." (That's not God, that's Santa Claus.)

2. "Despite the fact that I'm a sinner worthy of His wrath, God loved me and showed that by atoning for my sin." (This is what I believe.)

I would add that I believe in the Christ as the True Image of God, and he does not show any of the Character traits above. In Christ, wrath is more about not accepting God's gracious and merciful and self sacrificing Character as True.

There were absolutely times that Jesus even in the flesh got angry.

Mark 3:1-6 - The passage actually states Jesus is angry. (He's angry at the hardness of heart of the leaders of the nation.)

John 2:15-17 - talk about His actions in the temple. "Zeal" means anger.

Mark 10:13-14 - King James describes Jesus as "much displeased" the Greek word actually means "indignant" (which means to be angry over injustice).

In practical application, loving others as I would want to be loved is what makes me no longer a sinner.

1 John 1:
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Therefore I feel that if I were cold hungry and homeless I would hope someone would show compassion and let me in their house to get warm and maybe let me shower eat something and sleep. Wanting to be homeless and eating out of dumpsters would not fulfill loving others as I would want to be loved.

There are many people who are compassionate to the homeless. Homelessness in industrialize wealthy countries is a complicated issue. A high percent of the homeless are mentally ill and they are homeless because they can not / do not comply with medication regimens or psychiatric care. They also exhibit a high rate of substance abuse. The rates of homelessness in the US increased exponentially when states emptied their institutions and asylums in the 1970's

Well there are no scriptures that would make clear whether he worked, or what he owned or didn't own his entire life.

Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 - The people acknowledge they recognize Jesus as "the carpenters son". They acknowledge His mother and brothers and sisters. He lived in a family.

Matter of fact; the story about the wedding in Canna. The passage says His mother Mary was "in attendance". That phrase doesn't mean she was simply there. She was an "attendant" to the wedding. She was partially responsible for it. This is why she says to Jesus - the groom's family has run out of wine. Jesus says: What concern is that of mine? That portion of the wedding arrangement was not that family's responsibility. The groom and his family paid for the wedding. The bride's family provided her a dowry. The bride would have been Jesus's youngest sister (or at least the last sister to get married).

Once Joseph died, Jesus as the oldest son became responsible to provide for the rest of the family; if mom didn't get remarried. This is why Jesus was almost 37 years old before He started preaching. What was Jesus doing for about 18 years between Himself being 18 and He starting preaching? He was helping his mother raise His siblings.

But since you have misunderstood my meaning it really doesn't matter.

So is it my "misunderstanding (your) meaning" or do you ultimately stand on what the Scriptures say?

Are you just unaware of what the Scriptures actually say?
Are you angry at God over the reality of His wrath?
Or are you scared?

 

[childeye 2]

I agree with your premise here. The manifestation of that "wanton ignorance" as you've describe it; is what the Scripture calls sin.


Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I’m sorry to have to say this, but no. Respectfully you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Please try to understand that I do my very best to not conflate terms. Ignorance and sin are two different words denoting two different things with two different meanings. So when I say wanton ignorance it is meant to describe a type of ignorance that is averse to being informed. I view ignorance as being uninformed as pertains to knowledge of what is true. So in jest, I am going to say that if you refuse to acknowledge that conflating terms only confounds sound reasoning, then you are displaying a wanton ignorance.

Now to be fair here; I didn't say you didn't understand what I was saying. I said you didn't want to see that people face the wrath of God because of sin. That, I don't see as a matter of intellectual ability to grasp; it's more a matter of "I don't want to believe this."

This is what you had said that prompted my remark about being unfair:



Nor do you understand that Jesus faced the wrath of God to pay for sin, because that is how sin is paid for.

So if death doesn't have anything to do with the wrath of God; than why do we die and why is God angry?

To be clear God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest they die. Even as He is the God of Life, He gave them life and he wanted them to live. God’s anger is against His enemy, Satan, and those who do his works. Wherefore Satan is called a murderer from the beginning.

And would you acknowledge that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was sin? The Scripture says that.

If I were to imagine God as the Light of Truth, then I would say that one definition of sin would be any direction that heads away from the Truth of God in separation from God. Hence any action in disobedience to God would be sin. So why did I give this definition? Why didn’t I just simply answer yes? Three reasons:



1) The Truth that is the Light of God is the Identity/Character of His Person. And since He is our light, He is also the true identity of our person.

2) Because I need to point out that once an act of sin has been committed, then a consequence of that action is going to be that the person now finds themselves farther from God Who is their light, and subsequently have entered into darkness as pertains to our person/mind/heart/will.

3) Since the Light of Truth is the Identity/Character of His Person, so also is darkness an identity/character of a person/mind/heart/will that God is not. This is why sin is sometimes described in scripture as a person, an intellect, or a corrupt person/mind/heart/will in scripture. For example:



Genesis 4:7, and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.


Romans 7:11 , For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.


Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Now in view of my description of sin, I hope you understand that when I see scripture saying sin entered in through one man’s disobedience I’m seeing much more than just sin being disobedience to God.

Romans 5:14

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.



Note what this is saying. The evidence that death still reigned from Adam to Moses (before written Scripture was transmitted) was evident in the world (people still died) even though the people between Adam and Moses did not sin in the same way as Adam did.


So death is related to sin. This passage makes that connection.

I agree that sin and death are related. Only I would ask that you try to also keep in mind how and why I see that they are related, even while applying my own description of sin/darkness that I provided above.


I mean, there’s a reason why these scriptures are referencing Adam. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit that God said would bring death if they ate. He did not say to Adam “your disobedience would bring death”, even though it did. Hence sin entered in and death also with sin when Adam and Eve ate. This reasoning does not disagree with scripture that sin and death entered in through one man’s disobedience. But it does keep mindful that Adam and Eve were changed when they lost their innocence. They now felt shame at their nakedness, much like I was changed when I lost my first game and experienced vanity and experienced darkness in my heart as a child. Notice also that nakedness requires a covering.


Moreover I note that Paul takes the time to mention that Adam was the figure of him that was to come, alluding to the Christ (The True Image of God sent by God, who is without sin so that we may believe and be saved). I point this out only because I must stress that God is our true identity/character/person/mind/heart/will, even because He is our light. And so also is darkness/sin an identity/character or a person/mind/heart/will that God is not. Hence through belief in the Christ we can be reborn/healed/quickened, renewed in heart mind and soul.

Here are more passages stating the wrath of God is related to disobedience.


Romans 1:18

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (suppress) the truth in unrighteousness;


Proverbs 11:4

4 Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death.



Psalm 2:12

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.


Ephesians 5:6

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.


Romans 2:5

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;


John 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


(The righteousness of Christ delivers sinners from the wrath of God. It does so because He took on that wrath in their stead.)

Okay, in the above statement you are now relating disobedience to wrath. I like this approach rather than equating wrath with disobedience. Relate and equate are two different things.


Yes God is angry that we do not show proper reverence to His Light and how His Light is what makes us whole or keeps us from sin/corruption and death. Please consider that He is angry because we harm ourselves and others when we disobey Him and follow sin (a person). However His anger is therefore not based upon any form of vanity as we might be moved to assume. It’s based on preserving our souls as His children.


Here is where I do not agree: “It does so because He (Christ) took on that wrath in their stead”. Respectfully, This is how I would say it: The righteousness of Christ delivers sinners from death and wrath, because through belief in Christ a person shows the faith to become like God again, therefore removing the cause for God’s anger.

The question now becomes? Do you not want to see this because you just refuse to believe it; or are you not wanting to see it because down in side, you know it's true and you're really scared to death?


If you're just of an impetuous heart and you just don't want to be confronted with the reality of God's wrath; that's one thing. Yet, but if deep down inside you're scared - that's actually a good thing!


The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Psalm 111:10

I would be an idiot to not be scared of the wrath of God. But understanding why He is angry and taking action to alleviate the cause of His anger is more important to me than trying to save my own skin. Therefore, it profits me nothing to believe that Jesus took my due punishment. I want to please Him. Therefore I greatly desire to carry my own cross and share in the same sufferings just as Jesus did.

And do you understand why love covers a multitude of sin? How does God demonstrate so great a love? Answer: That He took on His own wrath so men could escape the coming judgement!


And you are absolutely correct here; the decision to atone sprung out of God's love.

Well, that’s your answer and not mine. My answer is that an act of Love that covers a multitude of sins is to be forgiving of others who trespass against me, so as to carry my own cross and practice the same Love revealed in the Christ.

Sin is a personal insult to God and absolutely deserves His vengeance. The Scripture is very clear about that.

Obviously sin is a personal insult towards God, since sin rejects His Person. But I believe that God is longsuffering towards us understanding that mankind was tricked by Satan into accepting a false image of Himself to begin with. Therefore He knows that sin is based upon a lie and He is not personally diminished in any way by such insults.


His vengeance is therefore not because He feels insulted. His vengeance is against those who after being shown, they continue in wanton ignorance spreading the same deceitful lies that lead to death through sowing distrust in His Holy Character and His Holy ones. Hence Satan who deceived the whole world is the one whose works Jesus ultimately came to destroy.


In fact I would caution against saying His vengeance comes because He was insulted. That could be mistaken to mean that God is like a corruptible human displaying a carnal vanity. I believe His vengeance will be against those who murdered God’s servants for speaking the Truth about God without remorse.

What motivates someone to follow God?

1. "Oh God loves me and doesn't care what I do; so long as I try hard enough." (That's not God, that's Santa Claus.)


2. "Despite the fact that I'm a sinner worthy of His wrath, God loved me and showed that by atoning for my sin." (This is what I believe.)

I don’t have any problem with what you say here. I’m only stressing that for us to be in the same Spirit of Christ, we also must carry our own cross and forgive others just as Jesus did. Hence our Lord says to love others as I have loved you. Otherwise we do not know him and he has not known us.


Here is where we differ greatly. I believe that Satan crucified the Christ, not God. Therefore I said, that God’s vengeance is against those who persecuted the servants of God (including the Christ) for speaking the Truth. Nor do I believe that the cross was Jesus’ suffering the wrath of God in our stead.

There were absolutely times that Jesus even in the flesh got angry.


Mark 3:1-6 - The passage actually states Jesus is angry. (He's angry at the hardness of heart of the leaders of the nation.)


John 2:15-17 - talk about His actions in the temple. "Zeal" means anger.


Mark 10:13-14 - King James describes Jesus as "much displeased" the Greek word actually means "indignant" (which means to be angry over injustice).

Well I feel like we’re talking past one another here. These are the character traits I was referencing concerning wrath:


a person that either must have vengeance upon sin as if it's a personal insult, or is a god/God who believes that people will ultimately always choose sin over goodness if not properly motivated by fear of wrath.


For the sake of semantics I have already described in this post that God’s wrath against sin is not because He is personally insulted like in a carnal vanity type of way wherein subjectively a person feels diminished by someone’s insults. However objectively speaking, of course sin is insulting to Him Personally only because in practical application sin rejects His Person.


Having said that. neither of the traits I described are being displayed here where Jesus gets mad. Jesus’ anger is against all practices that would make his Father’s house into a den of thieves, or in other words a means for making monetary profit.


Also zeal does not always mean anger. More accurately it implies passion which sometimes anger is. Hence if I say that I have a zeal for God it would not infer anger.

1 John 1:

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:


7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I don’t understand how these scriptures are applicable to what I said. They certainly would find no conviction in me since my statement stemmed from confessing myself as a sinner.

Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 - The people acknowledge they recognize Jesus as "the carpenters son". They acknowledge His mother and brothers and sisters. He lived in a family.


Matter of fact; the story about the wedding in Canna. The passage says His mother Mary was "in attendance". That phrase doesn't mean she was simply there. She was an "attendant" to the wedding. She was partially responsible for it. This is why she says to Jesus - the groom's family has run out of wine. Jesus says: What concern is that of mine? That portion of the wedding arrangement was not that family's responsibility. The groom and his family paid for the wedding. The bride's family provided her a dowry. The bride would have been Jesus's youngest sister (or at least the last sister to get married).


Once Joseph died, Jesus as the oldest son became responsible to provide for the rest of the family; if mom didn't get remarried. This is why Jesus was almost 37 years old before He started preaching. What was Jesus doing for about 18 years between Himself being 18 and He starting preaching? He was helping his mother raise His siblings.

Your conjecture may be correct and maybe not. The fact is we don’t know that Jesus practiced carpentry and we don’t know about what he did before he began his ministry.

So is it my "misunderstanding (your) meaning" or do you ultimately stand on what the Scriptures say?

Respectfully, this question sounds like a false dichotomy. I don’t see these two things as being mutually exclusive.


I feel that you were misunderstanding my meaning when I said I had not sold all my possessions and given them to the poor. I meant that it is righteousness to share my abundance with those who are without, and you were wondering if I meant that being without made me righteous.

Are you just unaware of what the Scriptures actually say?

Kind of a strange question. I mean who is ever aware of what they would be unaware of?

Are you angry at God over the reality of His wrath?

Or are you scared?

I’m not angry at His wrath. I would think it unwise to question it’s legitimacy. I’m not scared though. I believe in God’s son and I forgive others who have done any wrongs to me. Therefore I don’t believe that I will be a recipient of God’s wrath.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Radrook]

True, darkness is used in the Bible in reference to evil. But in the Genesis case it is merely used to describe tha absence of literal light. In short it isn't being used in a figurative sense but only in the literal one.

In short, Just because something is literally dark doesn't mean that it is evil or associated with evil. Is night, which provides us with a time for rest and a chance to observe God's marvelous creation of the heavens evil? Are the depths of the ocean where certain animals rside evil because light doesn't reach that far? Are the Ethiopeans mentioned in the Bible evil because their skin is dark? Earth was in a transitional stage of creative development during that early stage. God's holy spirit was present and being used in the creative process as it moved over the surface of the dark waters. That is all it means.

Job 38:9
when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

 

[The Righterzpen]

I’m sorry to have to say this, but no. Respectfully you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Please try to understand that I do my very best to not conflate terms. Ignorance and sin are two different words denoting two different things with two different meanings. So when I say wanton ignorance it is meant to describe a type of ignorance that is averse to being informed. I view ignorance as being uninformed as pertains to knowledge of what is true. So in jest, I am going to say that if you refuse to acknowledge that conflating terms only confounds sound reasoning, then you are displaying a wanton ignorance.

This is what you had said that prompted my remark about being unfair:



Nor do you understand that Jesus faced the wrath of God to pay for sin, because that is how sin is paid for.




To be clear God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest they die. Even as He is the God of Life, He gave them life and he wanted them to live. God’s anger is against His enemy, Satan, and those who do his works. Wherefore Satan is called a murderer from the beginning.


If I were to imagine God as the Light of Truth, then I would say that one definition of sin would be any direction that heads away from the Truth of God in separation from God. Hence any action in disobedience to God would be sin. So why did I give this definition? Why didn’t I just simply answer yes? Three reasons:



1) The Truth that is the Light of God is the Identity/Character of His Person. And since He is our light, He is also the true identity of our person.

2) Because I need to point out that once an act of sin has been committed, then a consequence of that action is going to be that the person now finds themselves farther from God Who is their light, and subsequently have entered into darkness as pertains to our person/mind/heart/will.

3) Since the Light of Truth is the Identity/Character of His Person, so also is darkness an identity/character of a person/mind/heart/will that God is not. This is why sin is sometimes described in scripture as a person, an intellect, or a corrupt person/mind/heart/will in scripture. For example:



Genesis 4:7, and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.


Romans 7:11 , For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.


Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Now in view of my description of sin, I hope you understand that when I see scripture saying sin entered in through one man’s disobedience I’m seeing much more than just sin being disobedience to God.



I agree that sin and death are related. Only I would ask that you try to also keep in mind how and why I see that they are related, even while applying my own description of sin/darkness that I provided above.


I mean, there’s a reason why these scriptures are referencing Adam. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit that God said would bring death if they ate. He did not say to Adam “your disobedience would bring death”, even though it did. Hence sin entered in and death also with sin when Adam and Eve ate. This reasoning does not disagree with scripture that sin and death entered in through one man’s disobedience. But it does keep mindful that Adam and Eve were changed when they lost their innocence. They now felt shame at their nakedness, much like I was changed when I lost my first game and experienced vanity and experienced darkness in my heart as a child. Notice also that nakedness requires a covering.


Moreover I note that Paul takes the time to mention that Adam was the figure of him that was to come, alluding to the Christ (The True Image of God sent by God, who is without sin so that we may believe and be saved). I point this out only because I must stress that God is our true identity/character/person/mind/heart/will, even because He is our light. And so also is darkness/sin an identity/character or a person/mind/heart/will that God is not. Hence through belief in the Christ we can be reborn/healed/quickened, renewed in heart mind and soul.




Okay, in the above statement you are now relating disobedience to wrath. I like this approach rather than equating wrath with disobedience. Relate and equate are two different things.


Yes God is angry that we do not show proper reverence to His Light and how His Light is what makes us whole or keeps us from sin/corruption and death. Please consider that He is angry because we harm ourselves and others when we disobey Him and follow sin (a person). However His anger is therefore not based upon any form of vanity as we might be moved to assume. It’s based on preserving our souls as His children.


Here is where I do not agree: “It does so because He (Christ) took on that wrath in their stead”. Respectfully, This is how I would say it: The righteousness of Christ delivers sinners from death and wrath, because through belief in Christ a person shows the faith to become like God again, therefore removing the cause for God’s anger.





I would be an idiot to not be scared of the wrath of God. But understanding why He is angry and taking action to alleviate the cause of His anger is more important to me than trying to save my own skin. Therefore, it profits me nothing to believe that Jesus took my due punishment. I want to please Him. Therefore I greatly desire to carry my own cross and share in the same sufferings just as Jesus did.





Well, that’s your answer and not mine. My answer is that an act of Love that covers a multitude of sins is to be forgiving of others who trespass against me, so as to carry my own cross and practice the same Love revealed in the Christ.


Obviously sin is a personal insult towards God, since sin rejects His Person. But I believe that God is longsuffering towards us understanding that mankind was tricked by Satan into accepting a false image of Himself to begin with. Therefore He knows that sin is based upon a lie and He is not personally diminished in any way by such insults.


His vengeance is therefore not because He feels insulted. His vengeance is against those who after being shown, they continue in wanton ignorance spreading the same deceitful lies that lead to death through sowing distrust in His Holy Character and His Holy ones. Hence Satan who deceived the whole world is the one whose works Jesus ultimately came to destroy.


In fact I would caution against saying His vengeance comes because He was insulted. That could be mistaken to mean that God is like a corruptible human displaying a carnal vanity. I believe His vengeance will be against those who murdered God’s servants for speaking the Truth about God without remorse.

I don’t have any problem with what you say here. I’m only stressing that for us to be in the same Spirit of Christ, we also must carry our own cross and forgive others just as Jesus did. Hence our Lord says to love others as I have loved you. Otherwise we do not know him and he has not known us.


Here is where we differ greatly. I believe that Satan crucified the Christ, not God. Therefore I said, that God’s vengeance is against those who persecuted the servants of God (including the Christ) for speaking the Truth. Nor do I believe that the cross was Jesus’ suffering the wrath of God in our stead.


Well I feel like we’re talking past one another here. These are the character traits I was referencing concerning wrath:


a person that either must have vengeance upon sin as if it's a personal insult, or is a god/God who believes that people will ultimately always choose sin over goodness if not properly motivated by fear of wrath.


For the sake of semantics I have already described in this post that God’s wrath against sin is not because He is personally insulted like in a carnal vanity type of way wherein subjectively a person feels diminished by someone’s insults. However objectively speaking, of course sin is insulting to Him Personally only because in practical application sin rejects His Person.


Having said that. neither of the traits I described are being displayed here where Jesus gets mad. Jesus’ anger is against all practices that would make his Father’s house into a den of thieves, or in other words a means for making monetary profit.


Also zeal does not always mean anger. More accurately it implies passion which sometimes anger is. Hence if I say that I have a zeal for God it would not infer anger.

I don’t understand how these scriptures are applicable to what I said. They certainly would find no conviction in me since my statement stemmed from confessing myself as a sinner.

Your conjecture may be correct and maybe not. The fact is we don’t know that Jesus practiced carpentry and we don’t know about what he did before he began his ministry.
Respectfully, this question sounds like a false dichotomy. I don’t see these two things as being mutually exclusive.


I feel that you were misunderstanding my meaning when I said I had not sold all my possessions and given them to the poor. I meant that it is righteousness to share my abundance with those who are without, and you were wondering if I meant that being without made me righteous.




Kind of a strange question. I mean who is ever aware of what they would be unaware of?



I’m not angry at His wrath. I would think it unwise to question it’s legitimacy. I’m not scared though. I believe in God’s son and I forgive others who have done any wrongs to me. Therefore I don’t believe that I will be a recipient of God’s wrath.

So..... basically what you're now saying in all this is that you agree with me.

 

[The Righterzpen]

True, darkness is used in the Bible in reference to evil. But in the Genesis case it is merely used to describe tha absence of literal light. In short it isn't being used in a figurative sense but only in the literal one.

In short, Just because something is literally dark doesn't mean that it is evil or associated with evil. Is night, which provides us with a time for rest and a chance to observe God's marvelous creation of the heavens evil? Are the depths of the ocean where certain animals rside evil because light doesn't reach that far? Are the Ethiopeans mentioned in the Bible evil because their skin is dark? Earth was in a transitional stage of creative development during that early stage. God's holy spirit was present and being used in the creative process as it moved over the surface of the dark waters. That is all it means.

You miss the intent that the word in Genesis implies something that is acting in rebellion against God. It is not talking about the mere "absence of light" or the color of something.

 

[Radrook]

You miss the intent that the word in Genesis implies something that is acting in rebellion against God. It is not talking about the mere "absence of light" or the color of something.

 

[Radrook]

The scripture that I posted in Job shows God himself confessing that he himself created that darkness as a swaddling band around the Earth.

Job 38:9
when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

Other relevant scriptures:

Darkness » Created by God

Isaiah 45:7
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these

Psalm 104:20
You appoint darkness and it becomes night, In which all the beasts of the forest prowl about.