Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think this has to do with the way the Trinity is portrayed. God didnt save us from himself but from the sin he allowed to enter the garden. So he is culpable to some degree. Man is 100 percent not responsible for that sin, as portrayed by Awareness’s instance of God hardening Pharoah’s heart not of his free will, it seems, and the curious walking serpent he allowed in the garden. Seems like the serpent has free will too. Yes free will makes things more interesting but does it cause more harm than good? Why would God allow that? I wish there was some middle ground here, where God allows free will but which you have to wonder if it was free will or a God who just wants His way with divine retribution.

He used his son to save us, everything can be fixed through simple sacrifice. Just like Isaac and Abraham. and Abel’s offerings. He is still a God who loves sacrifices (atonements is a word ilwith more positive connotations), no better than the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. Dont get me wrong, I thank God for sacrificing his son to atone for our sins, but it’s like dealing with a bipolar Dad. One minute he’s angry, and the next minute he forgives. Now that, I dont understand because it sounds like an emotionally abusive dad. Please God, why cant I understand?

I fully agree on the issue of the portrayal of the Trinity. Since this is Alt-views I can say freely that I think the Trinity is..........not really what the Bible tells us.

This is my viewpoint: There is God the Father. He is the "one true God". There is one God, the Father. God the Father has a Son. The Son of God. We all understand that a father and a son in every possible instance on this earth are two separate beings. Jesus tells us He and the Father are one, but this doesn't mean they are the same or they are each other. They are just one in purpose, in goal, etc. On other threads on this topic, who the Son of God is gets hotly debated - some say He's not God. Some say He is God. I say that as the Son of God, He can't also be that same God.....but as the Son of God He is clearly divine or of god-kind. Just like a human father and his son are different people but are both of mankind, they are just not the same man.

This view takes away the "God came to save us from Himself" thing. The Bible tells us God sent His Son, not sent Himself. And His Son took our punishment of death upon Himself, so that when we succumb to physical death, we know we are not also facing the total extinguishing of our soul too.

I've also had the same thought of "why did the serpent have to be there" and tried to blame it on God. But follow my logic for a second: If God had ONLY given man the prohibition to not eat the TOTKOGAE, then man would have been influenced one way. The only influence would have been God. That's not truly free will so much as it is "influenced will". With the serpent, Adam and Eve had two inputs - God's and the serpent. This "balanced the scale" so to speak, and so Adam and Eve were truly free to choose, not overly influenced one way or the other. Input A and input B. So as strange as it may sound, I'm of the strong opinion that the serpent made it MORE fair than it otherwise would have been.