Why Not Bypass Earth?

[98cwitr]

i can attest that i don't and get things twisted do to my perspective...thus the reason I come to this site and go to church

Coder, I hate to be a thread killer here but I don't think a single human being on Earth knows why God created Earth in the first place...Genesis does not elude to why, it only says that He did. He created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, so it only eludes to the separation of the two, yet there is free will in both, otherwise Lucifer would have not fallen.

 

[ebia]

I don't either. That's why I asked. There has to be something that makes sense to the average person. All of the poetic talk of redemption just confuses me more because it can't be quantified or compared to anything tangible. I wonder how many people who recite it actually understand it as well...?

Some things are better described in poetry, metaphor and analogy. Theology is one of those things. It's beyond our capacity to talk about in any other way.

 

[CoderHead]

Genesis does not elude to why, it only says that He did. [...] there is free will in both, otherwise Lucifer would have not fallen.

This is my problem. I find it very difficult to believe in an anthropomorphic deity with the attributes specified in the Bible who created curious beings and expects them to just take things on faith. I'm curious! I want to know.

As for Lucifer falling, doesn't anybody see the problem with God allowing him to stick around and wreck His creation? Why wait 2,000+ years to destroy Lucifer when He could have done it just by saying the words? It doesn't add up...

Some things are better described in poetry, metaphor and analogy. Theology is one of those things.

And this is why I struggle with seeing religion as anything more than a devout following of popular literature. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for believing it, I'm just saying that if you don't understand it enough to describe it logically, then it seems no more real to me than The Hobbit. It's an honest-to-goodness struggle.

 

[Van]

Hi Coderhead, your personal incredulity precludes communication. I say there is nothing wrong with 2 + 2 = 4, and you say I said 2 + 2 = 5. Then you say you are not following me. Play 101 from the atheist playbook is pretend you do not understand the rebuttal.
Your question, why not bypass the earth, has been answered. So you replace it with "I am not feeling God's love...." Note that puts you in the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Personal incredulity and nothing more.

Next we see the charge, "you do not understand what I am saying" after saying you did not understand me. This does not move the football.

Did God call His creation "bad." Or did He refer to the behavior of mankind bad? So after making unsupported claims, I expect you will charge me with making unsupported claims.

I do not need to talk to fellow Christians to discover the flavor of Omniscience you use to disparage Christianity, it is in my opinion a false doctrine and I said as much from the get go. As for back up for the alternate view I hold, I have two lines of evidence: First God is all-powerful, Omnipotent if you will. So He can know whatever He chooses to know or else He would not be all powerful. And the second, He does not know everything - recall that He forgives our sins and remembers them no more forever - so He can choose not to know things.

And lastly, you say "How has it (God makes mistakes) been rebutted? God was sorry He had made mankind because of all the sin mankind had done. But since man's ability to sin was part of creation, the sin was not an unanticipated outcome. God did choose to wipe out the sinners, except for eight, but as I said, this provided an illustration of the ark of Christ.

At the end of the day, you seem to want to get to heaven without sacrificing yourself.
Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[CoderHead]

Hi Coderhead, your personal incredulity precludes communication.

OK, whatever. Yet you choose to keep participating in this discussion.

I say there is nothing wrong with 2 + 2 = 4, and you say I said 2 + 2 = 5. Then you say you are not following me.

But I'm seeing "4" right here in front of me in the tangible universe. You're adding to it by attempting to describe things on an ethereal plane of which you and I have no knowledge. So to you, 2 + 2 = [more than 4].

Play 101 from the atheist playbook is pretend you do not understand the rebuttal.

Ah, the old "atheist playbook" again. You're so smart, you must be looking over my shoulder. What page am I on now?

Your question, why not bypass the earth, has been answered. So you replace it with "I am not feeling God's love...." Note that puts you in the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Personal incredulity and nothing more.

It's been answered with, "so we can choose to love God and bring Him glory." So I'm trying to figure out how being put into an Earth like this is a display of God's love. You're just attacking me with no reason. So who's playing judge, jury, and executioner, really?

Of course it's personal incredulity. I'm being asked to accept things on faith that don't correlate to my personal experience. And then others say, "but it makes perfect sense to me." I'm not you. I don't think the way you do - obviously. So why don't you just belittle me some more?

Next we see the charge, "you do not understand what I am saying" after saying you did not understand me. This does not move the football.

I don't even know how to address this. It's ridiculous.

Did God call His creation "bad." Or did He refer to the behavior of mankind bad? So after making unsupported claims, I expect you will charge me with making unsupported claims.

Yes, He referred to mankind's behavior as bad. But then He wiped out every man, woman, animal, and plant from the face of the Earth. So was it mankind that was bad, or was it everything on Earth that He had created? Certainly not all of the animals and plants were sinful. It just seems like an inefficient way to correct what seems to have been a mistake. I know you see it differently, but you aren't helping me understand it by being condescending and sarcastic.

I do not need to talk to fellow Christians to discover the flavor of Omniscience you use to disparage Christianity, it is in my opinion a false doctrine and I said as much from the get go.

So you are the one who decides what's right and what's not? Is God omniscient or isn't He? Did He know that this sinful world that needs rebuilding was a possible outcome? If so, why not create it differently so that the outcome was favorable? He's omnipotent too, right?

As for back up for the alternate view I hold, I have two lines of evidence: First God is all-powerful, Omnipotent if you will. So He can know whatever He chooses to know or else He would not be all powerful. And the second, He does not know everything - recall that He forgives our sins and remembers them no more forever - so He can choose not to know things.

OK fine. I just hear it differently from other Christians. That's all I'm saying. You can see my confusion when trying to figure out who to accept as an authority on the matter?

God was sorry He had made mankind because of all the sin mankind had done. But since man's ability to sin was part of creation, the sin was not an unanticipated outcome. God did choose to wipe out the sinners, except for eight, but as I said, this provided an illustration of the ark of Christ.

Like I said, why not make it so the outcome was favorable? And why did the attempt to "wipe out the sinners" fail? After the flood, there were still sinners. And now He has to do it all over again. I just don't understand the line of reasoning - especially for an all-powerful being.

At the end of the day, you seem to want to get to heaven without sacrificing yourself. Let me know how that works out for you.

Wow, a condescending Christian, what a novel concept. All I'm saying is I want to make an informed decision.

 

[Van]

Hi Coderhead, play 102 from the playbook is play the victim.

"Yes, He referred to mankind's behavior as bad. But then He wiped out every man, woman, animal, and plant from the face of the Earth. So was it mankind that was bad, or was it everything on Earth that He had created? Certainly not all of the animals and plants were sinful. It just seems like an inefficient way to correct what seems to have been a mistake. I know you see it differently, but you aren't helping me understand it by being condescending and sarcastic."

Did God really wipe out Noah? That is news. And since you agree the plants and animals were not "bad" then wiping them out does not suggest a mistake. Game, set and match. But the flood and the ark does suggest the ark of Christ. And Christ was the plan before the beginning. So it all fits together.

My point with the math example was to illustrate your contention that doing stuff the right way does not make a person a mindless zombie. Rather than address that, you rewrote my argument, using your own words, and addressed your strawman. Then you charge me with malfeasense. I think you have the play book memorized.

Is God omniscient? It depends on how you define omniscient. Using my view, yes God is omniscient. Did He know man would fall? Yes, but that was part of the plan. Why else put that tree in the garden?

You do not have to accept anyone as an authority on the matter. I demonstrated the reason why Omniscient as I presented it is the biblical view. You can accept it or reject the Biblical view. What I find disheartening, is that most atheists cling to false doctrines as representing Christianity because it gives them something to ridicule. Think about what that says. Who knows, maybe a light will shine in your heart.

 

[pgp_protector]

Hi Coderhead, play 102 from the playbook is play the victim.
...snip...

Anyone know where I can get a copy of this Playbook, I've never seen it.

 

[CoderHead]

Hi Coderhead, play 102 from the playbook is play the victim.

You're really coming off as pompous and unlikable. I hope that's not your goal.

Did God really wipe out Noah? That is news. And since you agree the plants and animals were not "bad" then wiping them out does not suggest a mistake. Game, set and match. But the flood and the ark does suggest the ark of Christ. And Christ was the plan before the beginning. So it all fits together.

And this is exactly what I don't understand. God creates man knowing that man will fall and that He'll have to set up a very elaborate mechanism for man's salvation - but that some men will not accept it. So if Christ was the plan from the beginning, that means God already knew how many people would end up in Hell. For me, this is a contradiction in God's stated, loving nature. This is what I'm trying to figure out.

And I'm still confused as to how there were still evil sinners in the world after God's flood rid the world of them, save eight people who found favor in His eyes. If the plan was still to have to sacrifice His son to save humans, what was the purpose of the flood? Why not just send Jesus Christ right then and there? Of course, I suppose this is just another page out of the "atheist's playbook." I'm really tiring of your arrogance.

My point with the math example was to illustrate your contention that doing stuff the right way does not make a person a mindless zombie. Rather than address that, you rewrote my argument, using your own words, and addressed your strawman. Then you charge me with malfeasense. I think you have the play book memorized.

I charged you with nothing, other than inserting an intangible concept of a spiritual plane about which we know nothing. To me, that's altering the equation. My brain exists in the physical world. How do you (or God) expect me to grasp the unknowable spiritual world?

Is God omniscient? It depends on how you define omniscient. Using my view, yes God is omniscient. Did He know man would fall? Yes, but that was part of the plan. Why else put that tree in the garden?

How does God, in the Bible, define omniscient? I'm not asking for your view or your opinion.

Yes, my question exactly! Why plant the tree in the Garden? You're suggesting that man could have gone on forever making choices that didn't lead to disobedience or evil, but that God intentionally planted the tree so that they would. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy! If I were to say, "you're going to yell" right before I kick you in the shins, how does that make my kicking you in the shins noble?

You do not have to accept anyone as an authority on the matter. I demonstrated the reason why Omniscient as I presented it is the biblical view.

You presented it as your view. Here, let me show you:

Using my view, yes God is omniscient.

See?

What I find disheartening, is that most atheists cling to false doctrines as representing Christianity because it gives them something to ridicule.

No. Most atheists can't understand all of the disparate doctrines coming from the innumerable denominations of Christian who all claim to have it "right." So, confused and ill-informed, we try to make sense of it and cannot. And then people like you come along to ridicule us for not understanding it and further the notion that Christians are arrogant and exclusionary. Thanks for that.

Any atheist who ridicules Christians does so because all of the different "types" of Christians can't even agree on what the Bible says. I could talk to five of you and get five different interpretations. Have you seen AV's posts on the creation story? Couple that with stories that appear to a reader as fictional as Harry Potter and you've got a recipe for humor.

Think about what that says. Who knows, maybe a light will shine in your heart.

Whatever that means.

 

[Van]

Hi Coderhead, it seems there is an endless list of "things" you are trying to figure out.
The question posed in your opening post has been answered, so you post another and another and so forth and so on.

Christ was the plan from the beginning, but since God had not yet chosen those who believe in Christ it is not clear to me whether Christ knew who He would not choose.
And again, you refer to those who end up in Hell, as if they received something less than perfect justice. But I do not think there is a basis for that implication.

Yes, it is the same page, why did God do what He did, rather than ... insert alternate plan.

Next you side step admitting you inserted a strawman argument, and simply repeat it.
So that fits with charging me with arrogance.

As I told you, the bible defines omniscience as God knows all He has chosen to know. It says He is all powerful, and that He can remember no more forever our sins.

No, I am not suggesting man could have gone on forever, I am suggesting God arranged the fall, since Christ was the plan from before the beginning.

Did I really ridicule you for not understanding Christianity? Or is that yet another effort to play the victim. If a person adopts what he or she believes is the biblical view, then the view can be referred to as their view and the biblical view. For you to profess this is difficult for you grasp, brings to mind that line - me thinks thou protest too much.

May the light of God shine in your heart - now that is my last incomprehensible statement for you Coderhead.

 

[CoderHead]

Hi Coderhead, it seems there is an endless list of "things" you are trying to figure out.

Obviously. It's difficult to grasp any of this. Thanks for (not) helping.

 

[Aesjn]

Yet another oft restated question. Why did God do it the way He did it, and not some other way that makes more sense to ME! And for the umpteenth time, God created us with the capacity to choose God or not, in order that when a person makes that autonomous choice, they bring glory to God. Otherwise we would be sorta like a pull string doll that says "I love you."

You know that's exactly what angels are right? There's some whose sole existence for eternity is to say "You are holy holy holy" or something like that, according to the bible. Imagine having a kid and bringing them up just to say "you're awesome awesome awesome" until you die.

 

[ebia]

And this is why I struggle with seeing religion as anything more than a devout following of popular literature. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for believing it, I'm just saying that if you don't understand it enough to describe it logically, then it seems no more real to me than The Hobbit. It's an honest-to-goodness struggle.

Despite the enlightenment's assertion that's become ingrained in modern western culture, not everything reduces to its kind of thinking. Not just theology but art, relationships, beauty, philosophy, even mercy and justice.

In reality even science has to resort to metaphor, analogy and philosophy.

 

[Van]

Hi Aesjn, no that is not what angels are (pull string dolls). I have no interest in discussing angels, unless they play in Orange county , because exploring Christianity should be focused on exploring Christ. Now I know some folks like to make fun of angels, but according to God's word, that is not a wise thing to do. See the book of Jude for more detail.

 

[Aesjn]

Hi Aesjn, no that is not what angels are (pull string dolls). I have no interest in discussing angels, unless they play in Orange county , because exploring Christianity should be focused on exploring Christ. Now I know some folks like to make fun of angels, but according to God's word, that is not a wise thing to do. See the book of Jude for more detail.

Er, no that is exactly what some of them are. I'm not making fun of them, that's what the bible says the angels around god's throne do.

 

[CoderHead]

If a person adopts what he or she believes is the biblical view, then the view can be referred to as their view and the biblical view.

Isn't this the equivalent of saying, "whatever I think the Bible says is exactly what the Bible says?" If this is the case, does the Bible even have any true meaning? More confusion. Oh, so much confusion!

Er, no that is exactly what some of them are. I'm not making fun of them, that's what the bible says the angels around god's throne do.

But you have to understand, Van's personal view is the Biblical view. So you're wrong.

 

[Van]

Hi Aesjn, Angels are not pull string dolls. You claim is without foundation in scripture. To say they are pull string dolls and then say you are not making fun of them reflects absurdity. I suspect you are referring to the four "living creatures" of Revelation 4:6-11.

While there are conflicting theories concerning just who or what are these "living ones" I accept the view that they are indeed angels, in fact the highest order of angels - cherubim. But to conclude that these 4 "worship team" members do not rotate with other cherubim, so that they all share various opportunities of service misses the point of their description.

 

[pgp_protector]

Hi Aesjn, Angels are not pull string dolls. You claim is without foundation in scripture. To say they are pull string dolls and then say you are not making fun of them reflects absurdity. I suspect you are referring to the four "living creatures" of Revelation 4:6-11.

While there are conflicting theories concerning just who or what are these "living ones" I accept the view that they are indeed angels, in fact the highest order of angels - cherubim. But to conclude that these 4 "worship team" members do not rotate with other cherubim, so that they all share various opportunities of service misses the point of their description.

Revelation'sdoesn't point to any rotation.

Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
"You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being."

Day & Night they never stop.
Also the 24 Elders also never stop, as the 4 creatures never stop giving glory & honor & thanks, so then the 24 elders who worship every time also can never stop.

 

[98cwitr]

But you have to understand, Van's personal view is the Biblical view. So you're wrong.

rotfl

Human perception and the Truth of the Bible are for the most part separate. What we have to do is put the whole bible into perspective, and then find commonalities that are extractable as pure truth common to all persons, because the entire Bible must be taken into consideration. You cannot pick and choose which verses to apply to yourself and which ones don't and expect to find truth in that approach.

 

[Van]

Hi Pgp, yet another voice from the darkness. If a group day and night never stops saying Holy, Holy, Holy, what is the minimum periodicity of the repetition? Once during the day and once during the night. Now they could say it more often, but not less.

Revelation does not point to rotation? Did you miss the part about "misses the point of their description." Do you not grasp that the four types refers to four capacities and functions?

Folks, again what we have here are pagans "assuming" an unlikely view, then claiming dogmatically that is the only view possible. And to what point? Since they are ostensibly "exploring Christianity.

 

[CoderHead]

Folks, again what we have here are pagans "assuming" an unlikely view, then claiming dogmatically that is the only view possible.

And you're not portraying your personal interpretation as absolute truth?