Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:44 am
Is the God who created us and who is described as the 'God of love' also responsible for world conditions?

Jesus would have us understand differently, as he said in John 14:30:"I shall not speak much with YOU anymore, for the ruler of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me."

It seems that, at least in this respect, the bible identifies a different culprit.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,545 • Replies: 41
No top replies

 
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 12:06 pm
The Bible calls Satan the ruler (or prince, I'd have to look up the exact wording) of the air Neo. Satan is the god of the world. Dominion over it was given to him after the fall in the Garden of Eden.

But, that will soon end!
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 12:18 pm
The drooling over the end of time, while certainly expected, remains psychotic.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 12:22 pm
And the drooling over the end of days has been in the works since the first century of this era . . .

So, if Satan is the author of all the evil in the world, who created Satan? If your imaginary friend created the cosmos and everything in it, that means Satan, too.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 05:57 pm
Setanta wrote:
And the drooling over the end of days has been in the works since the first century of this era . . .

So, if Satan is the author of all the evil in the world, who created Satan? If your imaginary friend created the cosmos and everything in it, that means Satan, too.
Satan created himself. Satan, as you know is not a name, but a title. When he decided to rebel, he became a rebel; when he decided to slander, he became a slanderer.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:02 pm
My Catholic upbringing begs to differ with the parthenogenesis of satan. I believe that the PAul dude give some accounts in Timmy and Corinthians
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:09 pm
farmerman wrote:
My Catholic upbringing begs to differ with the parthenogenesis of satan. I believe that the PAul dude give some accounts in Timmy and Corinthians
Let US in on it, please.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:03 pm
Satan was originally an angel. He thought he should be as exalted as God. God created Satan. God did create the propensity for evil. That cannot be denied. However, the decision to follow evil or not lies with the individual.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:07 pm
Give Arella a cigar.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:07 pm
SA-10
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:10 pm
Laughing farmerman.

what is SA-10?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 08:56 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
what is SA-10?
"Into Thy Hands", Lester del Rey (Astounding, August 1945)


A story about three robots left behind after the destruction of humanity whom end up recreating the human race and acting out the roles of Adam & Eve.

The Adam robot gets religion, but because his model number is SA-10 he thinks he is satan. The other robot who was chartered to protect mankind has to literally recreate humanity after they die out from war.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 10:08 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
Satan was originally an angel. He thought he should be as exalted as God. God created Satan. God did create the propensity for evil. That cannot be denied.
Yes, it can.

God created us (and the angel we now call Satan) with free will. He understood, of course, that some might use free will to rebel. However, it is incorrect to aver that he knew in advance the suffering his creation would endure. He is under no compulsion to know all of our moral outcomes. If he did, we would not truly have free will and it could be said that all the evil we now observe at one time existed only within the mind of God; and he unleashed it upon his creation in an act of cosmic sadism.
Arella Mae wrote:
However, the decision to follow evil or not lies with the individual.[/color]
Right. While we are yet imperfect, we can still make a decision to strive to serve God or give in to his enemy.
0 Replies
 
anton bonnier
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 11:21 pm
I still chose to think Alice In Wonderland could be a true story. at lest it made sense... I also believe and I have faith in my choice.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 06:11 am
Joe Nation, in another thread, wrote:
See, Neo, we are trying to understand Creationism? If you start tossing in new portions of information without providing some background, I, for one, get a little confused.

Your task here is offer proof that this existence had a creator.
Has?
Had one and now is under new management?
Please help.

You or Real Life can end this discussion with a few keystrokes.

Joe(I look forward to it.)Nation
Under new management.

Clever.

That pretty much sums up the world situation since the Garden of Eden.

Happily the lease is about to expire.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 06:26 am
Neo,

God is omniscient. I believe He does know and He did know. The Bible says "predestined according to FOREKNOWLEDGE....". To me, that says He knew. I can get the verse if you'd like.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 06:34 am
neologist wrote:
Happily the lease is about to expire.


Yeah, suckers like you and MOAN just shiver with anticipation of soon enjoying your divine reward. At your age, Neo, aren't you starting to get a little anxious?

*********************************************

It's really pathetic the way the holy rollers assert that their imaginary friend created absolutely everything, including the "propensity to evil," and yet rush to absolve that puerile @sshole of all responsibility for the vicious, idiotic, capricious and abitrary games he/she/it plays. That whole dog and pony show in the "Garden of Eden" is a prime example. I refer to the exact description in the text, and not the spin doctor treatment the bible thumpers are always obliged to subject it to.

Ninety-five percent of theology is an exercise in intellectual contortion, to make out that scripture means what it patently does not say, but which the holy rollers want to believe.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 07:08 am
neologist wrote:
God created us (and the angel we now call Satan) with free will. He understood, of course, that some might use free will to rebel. However, it is incorrect to aver that he knew in advance the suffering his creation would endure. He is under no compulsion to know all of our moral outcomes. If he did, we would not truly have free will and it could be said that all the evil we now observe at one time existed only within the mind of God; and he unleashed it upon his creation in an act of cosmic sadism.

If the nature of God did compel him to know all of our moral outcomes, would it still be "God" to you? Or would you abandon him for being something you don't want him to be?

This creative limitation you have placed on omniscience seems to be a rationalization for protecting your concept of God from your perception of sin. The idea of "limited omniscience" seems very strained, especially when it exists merely to prop up the assumed morality of a deity.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 07:35 am
Setanta wrote:
That whole dog and pony show in the "Garden of Eden" is a prime example. I refer to the exact description in the text, and not the spin doctor treatment the bible thumpers are always obliged to subject it to.

For what it's worth, here's my "non-bible thumper" interpretation of the whole Garden of Eden thing....

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the key to the story, it's what the authors of that section wanted to observe about humanity.

Despite the fact that the people who wrote that section were thousands of years less advanced than we are in science, they apparently knew the true nature of humanity as a consciousness which had risen from a more primitive form.

I believe that the Garden story describes a point in natural history which must have occurred when humanity first acquired self awareness and the ability to apply Judgements to the world around us.

The Garden begins by representing the innocence of the purely animal though process (ignorance is bliss). Humans at one point in their history were like animals, and didn't apply judgements to actions, so no matter what happened in the world it wasn't good or evil because our minds didn't yet possess the ability to apply those thoughts.

But then at some point in human history our minds did acquire the ability to apply judgement to the world around us, and in essence, we ate the apple. Once that event occurred, the innocence and perfection of "the garden" was shattered forever, not because the garden was changed, but because we had changed. In acquiring the capacity for human thought, the bliss of ignorance was forever lost to us.

There are two sad aspects to this story. For one, humanity really had no choice about eating the apple or not. If we hadn't, then we would not be human, or at least, the thinking creatures that we are. And lastly, it appears that our primitive ancestors who wrote the bible, had observed something profound about the natural world (the birth of human thought), but the meaning of the story they wanted to tell has been lost right along with our appreciation of the wisdom and vision of the men who wrote it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 09:38 am
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
God created us (and the angel we now call Satan) with free will. He understood, of course, that some might use free will to rebel. However, it is incorrect to aver that he knew in advance the suffering his creation would endure. He is under no compulsion to know all of our moral outcomes. If he did, we would not truly have free will and it could be said that all the evil we now observe at one time existed only within the mind of God; and he unleashed it upon his creation in an act of cosmic sadism.

If the nature of God did compel him to know all of our moral outcomes, would it still be "God" to you? Or would you abandon him for being something you don't want him to be?

This creative limitation you have placed on omniscience seems to be a rationalization for protecting your concept of God from your perception of sin. The idea of "limited omniscience" seems very strained, especially when it exists merely to prop up the assumed morality of a deity.
You mean, what If I believed as does Arella:
Arella Mae wrote:
Neo,

God is omniscient. I believe He does know and He did know. The Bible says "predestined according to FOREKNOWLEDGE....". To me, that says He knew. I can get the verse if you'd like.
I'll have to come back to this. But I assume you expect an explanation of this: ". . . just as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love. 5 For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. . . "(Ephesians 1:4,5)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Which God?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/21/2021 at 07:17:22