The Problem of Evil

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But it's a very big gap. The Bible doesn't tell us what went on in that gap, but the scientists have the answer : The gap is 13.5 billion yrs long. Therefore if anything is in a gap, that would be the human race ... a very small gap indeed, by comparison. Humans are nothing compared to that little gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, but big gap in time. And a lot was created during that gap.

Awareness, glad to see you have finally come around and accepted the 13.5 billion yrs long Gap in Genesis 1. You never did like that 6 Millennia version of history that Evangelical and Ken Ham are peddling.

The scientists don't know what happened either, they just extrapolated some enormous time frame based on some timing scheme. Or are you privy to some ancient Dinosaurean Calendar?

Do you really think humans would read all that happened during the 13.5 billion yrs long GAP, if God had provided it, if they don't want to accept what He did provide for the last 6 Millennia or so?

Whatever was created during that 13.5 billion yrs long GAP has become little more than fossil fuels to keep us warm today and keep our cars running. Do you find that so much more interesting than our own history?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Gap answers all my questions about the history of creation.

The scientist are still trying to figure out what happened in the gap of 13.5 billions years. Maybe when they do they'll find it all started from the word of a supreme being. Who knows? According to Nee the Bible is beyond question. All your questions my be answered but not so the scientist's.

They may, when they scratch to the bottom of creation, find a voice, a word, started it all, and they may not. And Nee is likely wrong that the Bible is beyond question. It hasn't been so far.

Moody Blues - Question (The metaphysician-musician's of the hippie days):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP9iOqdxS8c

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The gap theory is not just to reconcile evolution with a 7 day creation but also to explain why Satan was on the Earth in the first place, where do dinosaurs come from, and where do demons come from.

You may not be aware of this but it is believed that a pre-Adamic human-like race with the dinosaurs roamed the earth between verse 1 and 2. During the gap it is believed there was a cataclysmic battle between the forces of God and Satan and the pre-Adamic humans, resulting in the destruction of the Earth by verse 2. God decided then to reform the Earth, create humans and populate the earth with humans. God's instructions to man to rule and multiply was to take back the Earth for God which had previously been under the control of Satan and the pre-Adamics.

During this gap period, was the time when Satan and a third of angels fell from heaven. The souls of the pre-adamic human race became what we know today as demons (this explains why demons like to inhabit human bodies). God's judgement on the pre-adamic humans for their rebellion was to roam the Earth as demons.

Thus, all the dinosaur fossils and ape-man bones found in the Earth are actually from this pre-Adamic period. Proponents of the gap theory will normally believe in a difference between demons and fallen angels. Demons are the souls of the ape-men seeking to inhabit humans to regain back their physical form.

Well just blow me away Evangelical. Wow! Just where do you come by this material? Some of it smacks of Enoch, but not all of it. Sounds extra-Biblical to me. Could you source it, please?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well just blow me away Evangelical. Wow! Just where do you come by this material? Some of it smacks of Enoch, but not all of it. Sounds extra-Biblical to me. Could you source it, please?

That's from Pember's book. Have you never read it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Awareness, glad to see you have finally come around and accepted the 13.5 billion yrs long Gap in Genesis 1. You never did like that 6 Millennia version of history that Evangelical and Ken Ham are peddling.

No doubt I can be slow to catch on sometimes. Took me 10 yrs to catch on to the local church (hopeless).

But there's all kinds of theories, ideas, and beliefs, 'out there' concerning the creation of man. For example, I had one Primitive Baptist preacher tell me, in his distinctive southern hillbilly drawl : "I believe in evolution. The black man evolved from apes. The white man was created by God." So I guess that explains the question of why Bible creation goes back only 6000 yrs, and science says 13.5 billion. The black man goes back to the apes in the gap age, while the white man was created 6000 yrs ago. There. The gap in Genesis answers all the discrepancies between the Bible and science.

Amen hallelujah. Cognitive dissonance becomes cognitive consonance. Shalom. Peace is found in the valley.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's from Pember's book. Have you never read it?

Pember gets so out there that it sounds like science fiction. I like the gap theory, but couldn't buy into all the rest of his, demons, spirits, evil angels, disembodied spirits, blaming it on Spiritualism, Theosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all other religions but Christianity.

I may as well believe there's a monster under my bed. I guess all the fire and brimstone sermons I heard growing up in the Southern Baptist church anaesthetised me, or maybe I should say inoculated me to all that spirit and spooks talk.

Still, I have the book in Kindle and would like some sources, like page numbers, or something. Evangelical seems well sourced in it, and apparently you too. Come help this old fart that read Pember way back in my LC days. I guess I could search the book myself.

Well I did a quick search in the book for 'dinosaurs' and 'pre-Adamic,' and found nothing. Help this dummy please.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The scientist are still trying to figure out what happened in the gap of 13.5 billions years. Maybe when they do they'll find it all started from the word of a supreme being. Who knows? According to Nee the Bible is beyond question. All your questions my be answered but not so the scientist's.

They may, when they scratch to the bottom of creation, find a voice, a word, started it all, and they may not. And Nee is likely wrong that the Bible is beyond question. It hasn't been so far.

Moody Blues - Question (The metaphysician-musician's of the hippie days):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP9iOqdxS8c

Considering all the wild cyber-imaginations on the Alt-Views forum, I would think that Legend of the Mind would be more appropriate for you. (Sounds best with headphones on, Extra loud)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well just blow me away Evangelical. Wow! Just where do you come by this material? Some of it smacks of Enoch, but not all of it. Sounds extra-Biblical to me. Could you source it, please?

Of course it is extra-Biblical, that's why I roll my eyes when someone says "I follow the Bible alone" or "the Bible is my only authority". Christianity is full of extra-Biblical stuff. Even the Trinity doctrine is extra-biblical. The canon of Scripture is extra-biblical (in the sense that the bible does not say what books should be in the holy Scriptures), and all of the creeds and sofs - Nicene, apostles creed, Westminster statement of faith etc. Christmas and Easter is extra-biblical as well. No one ever celebrated Jesus's birthday in the bible (this was a pagan tradition, not Jewish), it doesn't even tell us the proper day Jesus was born. In a sense even Christianity is extra-biblical when compared to the scriptures of Jesus's day - the old testament. Largely the reason why Jews don't accept Christianity as a legitimate religion.

There is Pember as Ohio mentioned but also "Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee which is largely just paraphrasing Pember. Nee writes:

These demons or spirits probably were a preadamic race who inhabited the former world. They either assisted Satan in rebellion or else they followed him afterwards. And thus they were destroyed by God by their being disembodied.

In modern times the gap theory can be found in writings of people such as Billy Graham, John Hagee, Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn who believe in it. This book by Benny Hinn is basically presenting the gap theory:
http://www.bennyhinn.org/shop/prophecy/angels-and-demons/

It was in the audio version of this book that Benny Hinn discussed dinosaurs. So we could say that all of these preachers are extra-biblical because they believe in the gap theory.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Considering all the wild cyber-imaginations on the Alt-Views forum, I would think that Legend of the Mind would be more appropriate for you. (Sounds best with headphones on, Extra loud)

I was in love with the Moodies years before the local church, and after all I've gone thru, I still am.

Back in those days, when I came from Michigan to visit family and friends in Kentucky, none knew anything about hippies, or their music. I came down and brought the music. I became friends with one of my cousin's paramours (they eventually married) and turned him onto the Moodies. He instantly fell in love with them.

Since then he went thru similar life changes as I religion wise. 'Cept he went thru becoming a fanatical Independent (Consevative) Baptist Church Christian, believing every word in the Bible was the very words of God, and I went thru the local church, believing the same thing but with the true interpretation of those words - haha.

Down thru the years we've had many disagreements -- to say the least - I was in the true church, he wasn't ... haha -- 'cept for one thing, he always thought of me as the one that turned him onto the Moody Blues. All those years and all those changes, he never stopped enjoying the Moodies. He and I still consider listening to the Moodies a enriching spiritual experience ; turn it up, lay back, close your eyes, and go on a inner spiritual journey with the Moodies.

Anyway bro Ohio, you mentioned "all your questions are answered by the gap," or some such, and the Moodies came to mind.

Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was in love with the Moodies years before the local church, and after all I've gone thru, I still am.

Back in those days, when I came from Michigan to visit family and friends in Kentucky, none knew anything about hippies, or their music. I came down and brought the music. I became friends with one of my cousin's paramours (they eventually married) and turned him onto the Moodies. He instantly fell in love with them.

Since then he went thru similar life changes as I religion wise. 'Cept he went thru becoming a fanatical Independent (Consevative) Baptist Church Christian, believing every word in the Bible was the very words of God, and I went thru the local church, believing the same thing but with the true interpretation of those words - haha.

Down thru the years we've had many disagreements -- to say the least - I was in the true church, he wasn't ... haha -- 'cept for one thing, he always thought of me as the one that turned him onto the Moody Blues. All those years and all those changes, he never stopped enjoying the Moodies. He and I still consider listening to the Moodies a enriching spiritual experience ; turn it up, lay back, close your eyes, and go on a inner spiritual journey with the Moodies.

Anyway bro Ohio, you mentioned "all your questions are answered by the gap," or some such, and the Moodies came to mind.

Thanks.

For good reason. I'm not big on love songs, but "Forever Autumn" is just incredible.

_________________________________


I see you have started to quote Donald J. Repeat after me, "we will build the wall."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course it is extra-Biblical, that's why I roll my eyes when someone says "I follow the Bible alone" or "the Bible is my only authority". Christianity is full of extra-Biblical stuff. Even the Trinity doctrine is extra-biblical. The canon of Scripture is extra-biblical (in the sense that the bible does not say what books should be in the holy Scriptures), and all of the creeds and sofs - Nicene, apostles creed, Westminster statement of faith etc. Christmas and Easter is extra-biblical as well. No one ever celebrated Jesus's birthday in the bible (this was a pagan tradition, not Jewish), it doesn't even tell us the proper day Jesus was born. In a sense even Christianity is extra-biblical when compared to the scriptures of Jesus's day - the old testament. Largely the reason why Jews don't accept Christianity as a legitimate religion.

Well blow me down again bro. Point well taken. When we start adding up all the extra-Biblical stuff in Christianity the pile never stops growing.

Originally Posted by EvanG

So we could say that all of these preachers are extra-biblical because they believe in the gap theory.

What hits my funny bone is that the gap theory seeks to align the Bible with science, and seems those that embrace it jump into spirits and demons, which does not align with science.

And by the way, all y'all evolution deniers, let's just say, evolution was true during those gap days, during the pre-Adamic days, surely. There ; Another cognitive consonance found, between the Bible and science. Hallelujah!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What hits my funny bone is that the gap theory seeks to align the Bible with science, and seems those that embrace it jump into spirits and demons, which does not align with science.

And by the way, all y'all evolution deniers, let's just say, evolution was true during those gap days, during the pre-Adamic days, surely.

The question for you is simple: Did God create, or did man evolve?

What say ye?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The question for you is simple: Did God create, or did man evolve?

What say ye?

Thanks for askin' bro Ohio. I say :

I can't scientifically prove it, and it's not told in the Bible as to how the first creation -- that pesky gap period -- came about, only wild imagination required to fill that gap.

So I say : BOTH bro Ohio BOTH.

Does that suit yer fancy? What say ye?

But I get it. Evolution is disappointing. I think a third arm would be useful, and eyes in the back of my head. What's the deal evolution? What say YEEEEEEE? If you're such a big deal surely you can talk. Or did you make us to do your talking fer ya? And look what you ended up with. Evolution, you are a failure.

Evolution causes evil. But somehow escapes the POE. Why? How? It escapes the POE but God doesn't. Why? How? I call, NOT FAIR.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Evolution is disappointing. I think a third arm would be useful, and eyes in the back of my head.

Someone told me that chick from the Charlie's Angels remake had eyes in the back of her head.

Turns out she just has a Cameron Diaz.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The question for you is simple: Did God create, or did man evolve? What say ye?

Originally Posted by awareness

So I say : BOTH bro Ohio BOTH. Does that suit yer fancy? What say ye?

I have an old PhD friend from the LC, a professor who also wrote a book on the subject, who felt that God created through evolution. Since he taught evolutionary concepts in the university, the following quote is relevant, "it is very hard for a man to know the truth when his job is paying him to not know it."

Another brother I knew, also a PhD, and from MIT, felt that he could not accept such a compromise, saying evolution is evolution, whether we ascribe the "chance" changes to God or not. Lots of smart folks here, way brighter than I, will never come to an agreement, so I have no delusions about convincing you or others.

John's Gospel opens up saying that "In the beginning was the Word, who was God, and was with God; All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being."

I for one am going with that. I'd rather trust Jesus than thousands of arguing scientists. I figure if I'm wrong, it hasn't cost me a thing. The infinite odds required for chance evolution to occur are not worth the risk. The problem I have with embracing evolution is simple. Most of those who do feel it excludes the possibility of the existence of God. Basically it goes like this: if we evolved, then we were not created. If we were not created, then God does not exist. If God does not exist, then there is no after life. If there is no after life, then we are not accountable to anyone. This concerns me.

What say ye?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have an old PhD friend from the LC, a professor who also wrote a book on the subject, who felt that God created through evolution. Since he taught evolutionary concepts in the university, the following quote is relevant, "it is very hard for a man to know the truth when his job is paying him to not know it."

"You tell me whar a man gits his corn-pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is." - Mark Twain

Originally Posted by Ohio

John's Gospel opens up saying that "In the beginning was the Word, who was God, and was with God; All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being."

Suppose evolution came into being thru him?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I for one am going with that. I'd rather trust Jesus than thousands of arguing scientists.

Is that red letter in your Bible? It's not in mine.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The problem I have with embracing evolution is simple. Most of those who do feel it excludes the possibility of the existence of God. Basically it goes like this: if we evolved, then we were not created. If we were not created, then God does not exist.

So what about what started evolution? If it's true, and it is, as true as the earth being round, and not the center of the universe, then it didn't start from nothing. It didn't begin out of nowhere.

Originally Posted by Ohio

If God does not exist, then there is no after life. If there is no after life, then we are not accountable to anyone.

Oh c'mon, we are too accountable, if we get caught, or don't own up. Are you saying that God is sitting to judge, just for those that didn't get caught sinning.

If God is so concerned, to be up into everyone's business, why isn't He up into the business of the POE? He cares about everyone's little sins, but completely overlooks, or turns a blind eye, to the POE?

That's not very god like.

What think ye?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well blow me down again bro. Point well taken. When we start adding up all the extra-Biblical stuff in Christianity the pile never stops growing.


What hits my funny bone is that the gap theory seeks to align the Bible with science, and seems those that embrace it jump into spirits and demons, which does not align with science.

And by the way, all y'all evolution deniers, let's just say, evolution was true during those gap days, during the pre-Adamic days, surely. There ; Another cognitive consonance found, between the Bible and science. Hallelujah!

It does align with science - demonology is a science. Theology is also a science.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It does align with science - demonology is a science. Theology is also a science.

Yes, the same motivation that was behind the gap creation theory is still at work today. And science is even a bigger problem than it was for Chalmers, Pember, Nee, and Lee ... and even for possibly you. I don't know.

It all starts out with one premise, that, the Bible is the very word of God and is true. Like Nee stated, science can be questioned, but the Bible is beyond question.

So now that science seems to be a truer revelation than those from ancient Biblical days, let's just claim that not only is the Bible a book of science, but also claim that demonology and theology are sciences as well. Then, cognitive consonance for Bible worshipers is found again.

All this proves is that, in the battle between the Bible and science, science is winning ... even in the minds of the Bible worshipers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, the same motivation that was behind the gap creation theory is still at work today. And science is even a bigger problem than it was for Chalmers, Pember, Nee, and Lee ... and even for possibly you. I don't know.

It all starts out with one premise, that, the Bible is the very word of God and is true. Like Nee stated, science can be questioned, but the Bible is beyond question.

So now that science seems to be a truer revelation than those from ancient Biblical days, let's just claim that not only is the Bible a book of science, but also claim that demonology and theology are sciences as well. Then, cognitive consonance for Bible worshipers is found again.

All this proves is that, in the battle between the Bible and science, science is winning ... even in the minds of the Bible worshipers.

Did some scientist die for your sins? Have you decided to cast your lot with scientists?

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? God has turned the wisdom of the world into nonsense, hasn't He? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, the same motivation that was behind the gap creation theory is still at work today. And science is even a bigger problem than it was for Chalmers, Pember, Nee, and Lee ... and even for possibly you. I don't know.

It all starts out with one premise, that, the Bible is the very word of God and is true. Like Nee stated, science can be questioned, but the Bible is beyond question.

So now that science seems to be a truer revelation than those from ancient Biblical days, let's just claim that not only is the Bible a book of science, but also claim that demonology and theology are sciences as well. Then, cognitive consonance for Bible worshipers is found again.

All this proves is that, in the battle between the Bible and science, science is winning ... even in the minds of the Bible worshipers.

If science is winning, why have they not yet solved the problem of death? By the way, you can trust me, I'm like a scientist only better, because I deal with things that are pure and are always true. The idea of things happening by chance is crazy. It's basically believing that everything came into being via a casino.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did some scientist die for your sins? Have you decided to cast your lot with scientists?

Without qualifications, no to both.

Originally Posted by Paul the apostle

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, . . .."

Thanks for this bro Ohio. You have inadvertently brought up a reason for the POE. A few verses further down Paul says :

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men

One reason I have a problem with God as depicted in the OT is because I can't think of God in that way.

But Paul points out that God has a foolish side. That answers a lot of my problems with the OT, and explains the POE.

Thanks bro. Some new cognitive consonance achieved. Screw those scientists.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Without qualifications, no to both.


Thanks for this bro Ohio. You have inadvertently brought up a reason for the POE. A few verses further down Paul says :

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men

One reason I have a problem with God as depicted in the OT is because I can't think of God in that way.

But Paul points out that God has a foolish side. That answers a lot of my problems with the OT, and explains the POE.

Thanks bro. Some new cognitive consonance achieved. Screw those scientists.

Glad I could help.

Have a happy holiday! And, as Trump would say, "Merry Christmas."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can remember Lee (Revelations Training?) asking for others to research and develop the precious stones in the Bible.

So he didn't like what turned up?

That call was probably contrived. I had already been sharing lots of testimonies in Houston concerning the stones, Ray Graver probably relayed this to WL, it was at the same time he was writing his book. But as a result of that call I put together a 20 page report on the 12 stones.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That call was probably contrived. I had already been sharing lots of testimonies in Houston concerning the stones, Ray Graver probably relayed this to WL, it was at the same time he was writing his book. But as a result of that call I put together a 20 page report on the 12 stones.

You still have it? I'd like to give it a read. Start a thread. Drop it into it.

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If science is winning, why have they not yet solved the problem of death? By the way, you can trust me, I'm like a scientist only better, because I deal with things that are pure and are always true. The idea of things happening by chance is crazy. It's basically believing that everything came into being via a casino.

What science allows is for observations and predictions about the natural world. And many natural things involve probabilities. How are you better than science for disliking reality?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

What science allows is for observations and predictions about the natural world. And many natural things involve probabilities. How are you better than science for disliking reality?

Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science. So religion can do what science cannot.

Many natural things exhibit chaos and randomness. But chaos and randomness cannot create new things.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science. So religion can do what science cannot.

Many natural things exhibit chaos and randomness. But chaos and randomness cannot create new things.

This is an interesting discussion but should be on the thread created by Jesus4Me titled "Science v. the Bible."

Might I suggest ya copy this response there ... I'd do it, but don't want to thwart yer free will.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science. So religion can do what science cannot.

Many natural things exhibit chaos and randomness. But chaos and randomness cannot create new things.

That's exactly what the stories of YHWH defeating Leviathan in the Hebrew Bible represent: how God brought order to chaos, much as we now understand that natural law brings orderly structure to the universe that would be chaotic without it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's exactly what the stories of YHWH defeating Leviathan in the Hebrew Bible represent: how God brought order to chaos, much as we now understand that natural law brings orderly structure to the universe that would be chaotic without it.

The chaos, out of which God brought order, is the beginning of the problem of evil. And since it's believed that, God is in control of everything, whether the earth "became" or not, He had to have created chaos.

So once again God is behind the problem of evil, and one or more of His Omni's are in question.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The chaos, out of which God brought order, is the beginning of the problem of evil. And since it's believed that, God is in control of everything, whether the earth "became" or not, He had to have created chaos.

So once again God is behind the problem of evil, and one or more of His Omni's are in question.

I think you're mistaken. According to the ancient mythical pattern, the hero-god brings order to pre-existing chaos. Like quantum soup of modern cosmology the chaos is timeless and uncreated. Creation ex nihilo was read into Genesis chapter one later by orthodox absolutists. Your insistence on creation ex nihilo is based on orthodox presupposition.

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth," is a summary of the chapter.

"the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." describes the state of things before YHWH begins to create the universe.

"Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light." is YHWH's first act of creation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth," is a summary of the chapter.

This is your addition, and not precipitated by other writings of scripture.

Originally Posted by zeek

"the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." describes the state of things before YHWH begins to create the universe.

How can there be "the face of the deep" before anything was created. Creation, by definition, means to materialize something out of absolutely nothing. If something was already there, then it was restored, not created.

Originally Posted by zeek

"Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light." is YHWH's first act of creation.

This is your interpretation, saying "first act."

More definitely it was an act of restoration.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is your addition, and not precipitated by other writings of scripture.

I haven't added anything. Interpreters have traditionally looked at the verse the way I did there and some still do. The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version of 1985 offers further support for my interpretation. It translates the first three verses of Genesis this way:

“1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3a God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can there be "the face of the deep" before anything was created. Creation, by definition, means to materialize something out of absolutely nothing. If something was already there, then it was restored, not created.

No, people create art out of pre-existing materials everyday. You know this. Creation only means creation out of nothing when it refers to this orthodox monotheistic doctrine.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is your interpretation, saying "first act."

Obviously it's my interpretation. But, there long history of orthodox Christians interpreting the text that way prior to Chalmers who was reacting to geological evidence of deep time.

Originally Posted by Ohio

More definitely it was an act of restoration.

That's your interpretation. Or, more accurately the gap creationist interpretation. What it has in common with the interpretation I am now suggesting is that it describes YHWH ordering chaos. Pember himself notes that many of the ancient cosmogonies describe creation as an emergence of order from chaos.

The ancient poet Hesiod [perhaps about 900 B.C.] tells us that the first thing in existence was Chaos ; that is, according to its etymology, " the yawning and void receptacle for created matter." But the word soon lost its strict meaning, and was used for the crude and shapeless mass of material out of which the heavens and the earth were supposed to have been formed.

Ovid thus describes it : " There was but one appearance of nature throughout the whole world : this they called Chaos, an unformed and confused bulk " (Metam. i. 6, 7). And in his Fasti he makes Janus, whom he identifies with Chaos, speak as follows :- " The ancients used to call me Chaos : for a primeval being am I. See of how remote an age I shall recount the events ! This air, full of light, and the three remaining elements, fire, water, and earth, were a confused heap. As soon as this mass was separated through the discord of its component parts, and had dissolved and passed away into new positions, the flame ascended upwards ; a nearer place-that is, nearer to earth-received received the air ; the earth and the sea settled down to the bottom. Then I, who had been but a mass and shapeless bulk, passed into a form and limbs worthy of a god " (Fasti i.103-I I2).

Thus, according to the cosmogonies of Greece and Rome, the universe sprang from Chaos. Uranus, or Heaven, was supposed to have been the first supreme god. But he was driven from power by his son Cronos or Saturn, who afterwards received the same treatment at the hands of his son Zeus or Jupiter. Chaos was the first thing in existence, and the transient series of gods came subsequently into being.

G. H. Pember. Earth's Earliest Ages (Kindle Locations 289-299). Kindle Edition.

Dogmatic adherence to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo prevented Pember from recognizing that the Hebrew text was derived from the same tradition as the Greek texts he cites above.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dogmatic adherence to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo prevented Pember from recognizing that the Hebrew text was derived from the same tradition as the Greek texts he cites above.

I hate to butt into this interesting conversation but my curiosity got the best of me.

This tradition you speak of, that the Hebrew and Greek texts derived from, originated where?

I'm wondering, were the Hebrews and Greeks drawing from Egyptian tradition?

Sorry for the intrusion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

No, people create art out of pre-existing materials everyday. You know this. Creation only means creation out of nothing when it refers to this orthodox monotheistic doctrine.

This word struck me. We use the term "create" when we combine two or three elements for the first time. What we are really focused on is that it is something "unique", hence we "created" it.

But that is not what speaking not being as being means.

If I give you ten words there are 3,628,800 ways to combine these words. The fact that you are the first person to combine them a certain way is not equivalent to creating something out of nothing.

There is not anyone who creates stuff out of nothing "everyday".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This word struck me. We use the term "create" when we combine two or three elements for the first time. What we are really focused on is that it is something "unique", hence we "created" it.

But that is not what speaking not being as being means.

If I give you ten words there are 3,628,800 ways to combine these words. The fact that you are the first person to combine them a certain way is not equivalent to creating something out of nothing.

There is not anyone who creates stuff out of nothing "everyday".

What does creation have to do with the POE?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

What does creation have to do with the POE?

I thought the basic premise of the POE is that God created a universe with Evil when He could have created it without evil.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought the basic premise of the POE is that God created a universe with Evil when He could have created it without evil.

You get a gold star. But okay, since chaos is considered to be of pre-existence, did it, does it, pre-exist God? Or did God create it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I hate to butt into this interesting conversation but my curiosity got the best of me. This tradition you speak of, that the Hebrew and Greek texts derived from, originated where?

That's a great question. Based on what I have read, nobody knows the answer. But, creation myths centered on the theme of a hero-god conquering chaos were common among the societies surrounding ancient Israel and thus probably influenced the Hebrew Bible stories

The creation story entitled the Enuma Elish was written in Babylon in the 7th century BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1

It's the story of how the male sky god Marduk battled against the older female sea monster Tiamat. Marduk shot Tiamat with arrows and then crushed her head. [He "crushed the head of the serpent." Sound familiar?] Tiamat represented the dark depths of the sea. [Compare with Genesis 1:2's "formless void and darkness [that] covered the face of the deep"] To a patriarchal society like Babylon a strong female deity like Tiamat was a perfect personification of evil.

The Canaanites had their Baalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal who "smote Lotan the ancient dragon" a "twisting serpent" with seven heads. The name Lotan is related to the Hebrew word "Leviathan" who is in turn related to the seven headed dragon of Revelation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotan

The Epic of Gilgamesh is another creation myth about a hero god conquering chaos. The earliest Gilgamesh stories date from as early as the Third dynasty of Ur around 2100–2000 BCE. Gilgamesh overcomes the monster Huwawa. Although often compared with the Noah flood story, The Gilgamesh bears striking similarity to other creation myths and clearly symbolizes the world order or the cosmos overcoming chaos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

The emerging civilizations of the Near East intuited that evil originated in the primeval darkness which had preceded their world order i.e chaos threatening cosmos. These myths were corporate expressions of that intuition. I find that understandable; don't you?

I'm wondering, were the Hebrews and Greeks drawing from Egyptian tradition?

Perhaps. It wouldn't be surprising, regardless of the historicity of Biblical story of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, given that at one time Egypt controlled most of the Near East as vassal states and would have had a huge influence on indigenous cultures there including Israel's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You get a gold star. But okay, since chaos is considered to be of pre-existence, did it, does it, pre-exist God? Or did God create it?

No. It is a product of rebellion. God created a universe in which people (or creatures) would choose to worship and obey Him. In such a universe there is peace and harmony when they choose to worship and obey. But since it is a choice they can also choose to rebel, which is what Satan did, and as a result there was chaos.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No. It is a product of rebellion. God created a universe in which people (or creatures) would choose to worship and obey Him. In such a universe there is peace and harmony when they choose to worship and obey. But since it is a choice they can also choose to rebel, which is what Satan did, and as a result there was chaos.

I won't ask for Bible backing of "this solution" to chaos. I'll go with it and see where it leads.

So according to this answer, chaos is a product of rebellion. But wouldn't that mean that, if there existed rebellion, or that ability, chaos was already existing before the rebellion? It was pre-spiced in, so to speak.

Let's not mention the idea that God did all this to be obeyed and worshipped. Glossing over that for now, let me just asked this, and you can clear me up if I get it wrong.

Okay, at first there was just one thing, if I may call it that : God. There was nothing else. Not even a vacuum, or waste and void. Just God.

And let's go with 'speaking' cuz it's handy. So the lone nothing-else-God, out of the nothing that itself didn't exist, said "Let there be." We don't need to go into all the details, we can see what "He' has 'spoken' into being, or enough of it anyway.

My point is that, God spoke all this out of nothing. At that point nothing existed, not even nothing, and out of that no nothing, came all of this, both good and bad, chaos and order, good and evil, and even Lucifer. It all has one source. And that is God.

Am I right so far?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I won't ask for Bible backing of "this solution" to chaos. I'll go with it and see where it leads.

So according to this answer, chaos is a product of rebellion. But wouldn't that mean that, if there existed rebellion, or that ability, chaos was already existing before the rebellion? It was pre-spiced in, so to speak.

Let's not mention the idea that God did all this to be obeyed and worshipped. Glossing over that for now, let me just asked this, and you can clear me up if I get it wrong.

Okay, at first there was just one thing, if I may call it that : God. There was nothing else. Not even a vacuum, or waste and void. Just God.

And let's go with 'speaking' cuz it's handy. So the lone nothing-else-God, out of the nothing that itself didn't exist, said "Let there be." We don't need to go into all the details, we can see what "He' has 'spoken' into being, or enough of it anyway.

My point is that, God spoke all this out of nothing. At that point nothing existed, not even nothing, and out of that no nothing, came all of this, both good and bad, chaos and order, good and evil, and even Lucifer. It all has one source. And that is God.

Am I right so far?

You are doing quite well. You have rightly connected the word of God with ex nihilo creation.

Is the explanation of the Big Bang alternative really more acceptable?

But, that's a different thread, so back to the POE, why do you have so much difficulty accepting that creation is not "perfect," only God is?

The description of the creation, status, and splendor of Lucifer implies perfection on some level, yet by possessing a free will, all his incredible assets proved dangerous for the rest of creation. The bigger question would be why would God take such a risk?

I propose redemption is the ultimate answer. The Lamb slain before the beginning of time, before the creation of the world. (Revel. 13.8) Reject that and this thread will never end. The POE then will be the neverending conundrum.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a great question. Based on what I have read, nobody knows the answer. But, creation myths centered on the theme of a hero-god conquering chaos were common among the societies surrounding ancient Israel and thus probably influenced the Hebrew Bible stories

Let's face it, the Hebrews didn't spring up out of a vacuum. And they certainly weren't the earliest civilization. In fact, they weren't a civilization. They were desert nomads.

That aside, Egypt was around at least 2000 yrs before the book of Genesis was written. So the book, and all the writings of the Jews (the whole 66 book Bible) could not help but be influenced not just by Egyptian mythology, but by all the surrounding nations and cultures. In short, their stories didn't just drop out of heaven, like many inerrantists believe they came from today.

I've been looking into the development of monotheism. The Jews weren't the first to cook it up. That honor goes to : Amenophis IV (Akhenaten), was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who ruled for 17 years and died perhaps in 1336 BC or 1334 BC.

Early Hebrews were around then, and could have picked up the idea from Amenophis IV. They were certainly exposed to it. And their monotheism is just about as aggressively exclusive (Nee-Lee-Local church-Darby-et al) as the monotheism of king Amenophis IV.

There's evidence there that the Hebrew stories were influenced by their association with the Egyptians. Which means, the Hebrews stole more than just gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, and clothing from the Egyptians.

Originally Posted by Zzzstir

The creation story entitled the Enuma Elish was written in Babylon in the 7th century BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1

Written around the same time as Genesis. I particularly like this entry in the wiki article :

"The Enûma Eliš was recognized as being related to the Hebrew Genesis creation account from its first publication (Smith 1876).
In one interpretation, Genesis 1:1-3 can be taken as describing the state of chaos immediately before God's act of creation:[5]"

Originally Posted by zeek

Perhaps. It wouldn't be surprising, regardless of the historicity of Biblical story of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, given that at one time Egypt controlled most of the Near East as vassal states and would have had a huge influence on indigenous cultures there including Israel's.

Egypt had an influence on the history of the world. We could say that they were early on in the evolution of mythology up to today. Same with Hebrew mythology, that Israel is living out on the world stage today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's face it, the Hebrews didn't spring up out of a vacuum. And they certainly weren't the earliest civilization. In fact, they weren't a civilization. They were desert nomads.

That aside, Egypt was around at least 2000 yrs before the book of Genesis was written. So the book, and all the writings of the Jews (the whole 66 book Bible) could not help but be influenced not just by Egyptian mythology, but by all the surrounding nations and cultures. In short, their stories didn't just drop out of heaven, like many inerrantists believe they came from today.

I've been looking into the development of monotheism. The Jews weren't the first to cook it up. That honor goes to : Amenophis IV (Akhenaten), was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who ruled for 17 years and died perhaps in 1336 BC or 1334 BC.

Early Hebrews were around then, and could have picked up the idea from Amenophis IV. They were certainly exposed to it. And their monotheism is just about as aggressively exclusive (Nee-Lee-Local church-Darby-et al) as the monotheism of king Amenophis IV.

There's evidence there that the Hebrew stories were influenced by their association with the Egyptians. Which means, the Hebrews stole more than just gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, and clothing from the Egyptians.


Written around the same time as Genesis. I particularly like this entry in the wiki article :

"The Enûma Eliš was recognized as being related to the Hebrew Genesis creation account from its first publication (Smith 1876).
In one interpretation, Genesis 1:1-3 can be taken as describing the state of chaos immediately before God's act of creation:[5]"



Egypt had an influence on the history of the world. We could say that they were early on in the evolution of mythology up to today. Same with Hebrew mythology, that Israel is living out on the world stage today.

Does the religion of ancient Egypt shed any light on the problem of evil?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does the religion of ancient Egypt shed any light on the problem of evil?

Needless to say the problem of evil has been around since the dawn of human history, and before that too.

I'm far from being an expert on Egyptian history, religion, and/or mythology. I depend on Egyptologists for any and all info on ancient Egypt.

Right now I'm reading "Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the rise of Monotheism" by the Egyptologist Jan Assmann.

But before offering anything on Egypt and the POE I'd like to offer this nugget I just came across:

In discussing canonization of holy writ, Assmann (sic) points out that with canonization of holy texts :

The prophet gave way to the scribe. The interpreter of Scripture replaced the interpreter of the will of God. Text and professional philological competence replaced authority based on vision and divine commission."
~ Jan Assmann. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism (George L. Mosse Series) (Kindle Locations 1341-1343). Kindle Edition.

In other words, The Bible replaced the movement of God on the earth, by replacing and usurping the Spirit. In my words : The Bible killed God. Now all we've got is : a book "about" God ... and what God use to do.

Sorry, I've waxed tangential. Back to the POE with next post.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Needless to say the problem of evil has been around since the dawn of human history, and before that too.

I'm far from being an expert on Egyptian history, religion, and/or mythology. I depend on Egyptologists for any and all info on ancient Egypt.

Right now I'm reading "Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the rise of Monotheism" by the Egyptologist Jan Assmann.

But before offering anything on Egypt and the POE I'd like to offer this nugget I just came across:

In discussing canonization of holy writ, Assmann (sic) points out that with canonization of holy texts :

The prophet gave way to the scribe. The interpreter of Scripture replaced the interpreter of the will of God. Text and professional philological competence replaced authority based on vision and divine commission."who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
~ Jan Assmann. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism (George L. Mosse Series) (Kindle Locations 1341-1343). Kindle Edition.

In other words, The Bible replaced the movement of God on the earth, by replacing and usurping the Spirit. In my words : The Bible killed God. Now all we've got is : a book "about" God ... and what God use to do.

Sorry, I've waxed tangential. Back to the POE with next post.

Right "...the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Yet, knowing this intellectually doesn't prevent us making the mistake over and over. What a subtle evil it is. And yet, it is precisely this evil of missing the One Spirit that results in the very dispute that so often divides us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right "...the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Yet, knowing this intellectually doesn't prevent us making the mistake over and over. What a subtle evil it is. And yet, it is precisely this evil of missing the One Spirit that results in very dispute that divides us.

Now, does this phenomena i.e. mistaking dead letter for Spirit point to a free will? Or is it a product of our "Sin Nature.?" There are arguments on both sides, but no clear winner.

Evolutionary psychology explains the "Sin Nature" in terms of natural selection. Our brains evolved on the African savannas.

But, with respect to the theological POE does that make any difference to the free will defense? It does insofar as evolution implies biological and psychological determinism.

It is what Kant called an "antimony" i.e." the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason that are proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it." Wikipedia

In other words, it's a mystery. Science and the Bible not withstanding, we humans remain mysteries to ourselves.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now, does this phenomena i.e. mistaking dead letter for Spirit point to a free will? Or is it a product of our "Sin Nature.?" There are arguments on both sides, but no clear winner.

Evolutionary psychology explains the "Sin Nature" in terms of natural selection. Our brains evolved on the African savannas.

But, with respect to the theological POE does that make any difference to the free will defense? It does insofar as evolution implies biological and psychological determinism.

It is what Kant called an "antimony" i.e." the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason that are proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it." Wikipedia

In other words, it's a mystery. Science and the Bible not withstanding, we humans remain mysteries to ourselves.

And we've been a mystery even before our ability to question our own mystery. The POE has also been just as much a mystery going back into before history disappears.

Life eats life. What a mystery ; that life is it's own evil. It's an ouroboros. The life that manages to avoid the evil of life, by say, removing from the food chain of life, wins.

Still life has to avoid the evil of other life -- out to eat it -- to remain living. Then maybe life can have the leisure time to contemplate the mystery of its existence ... while hopefully holding evil of all kinds at bay.

This has been going on since the beginning of life. The POE was born when life was born.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And we've been a mystery even before our ability to question our own mystery. The POE has also been just as much a mystery going back into before history disappears.

OK.

Life eats life. What a mystery ; that life is it's own evil. It's an ouroboros.

Which wasn't perceived to be a problem until self-consciousness emerged. The advent of self-consciousness was simultaneously a great leap forward and a fall. It was the true "Fall of Man." It is represented in the Eden story statement they saw that they were naked and were ashamed. With self-consciousness came subjectivity... the inner life, but also the awareness of evil and sin.

The life that manages to avoid the evil of life, by say, removing from the food chain of life, wins. Still life has to avoid the evil of other life -- out to eat it -- to remain living. Then maybe life can have the leisure time to contemplate the mystery of its existence ... while hopefully holding evil of all kinds at bay. This has been going on since the beginning of life. The POE was born when life was born.

The Fall then is the Fall into existence. But, it isn't recognized for what it is until the advent of self consciousness. Still, the POE we are discussing here is the theological problem of evil. Where is God in this picture?

Self consciousness is a fall from pre-conscious oneness with nature. To exist as a conscious living entity is to understand that you are separate from that oneness. You see that you are sinful and that the natural world is evil. Religion is about getting back to the oneness. But, since we have seen that nature has an evil side, the oneness must not be that, it must be something higher, something perfect, something "omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent"---the ultimate source of everything.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And we've been a mystery even before our ability to question our own mystery. The POE has also been just as much a mystery going back into before history disappears.

Life eats life. What a mystery ; that life is it's own evil. It's an ouroboros. The life that manages to avoid the evil of life, by say, removing from the food chain of life, wins.

Still life has to avoid the evil of other life -- out to eat it -- to remain living. Then maybe life can have the leisure time to contemplate the mystery of its existence ... while hopefully holding evil of all kinds at bay.

This has been going on since the beginning of life. The POE was born when life was born.

We look at a peaceful, serene picture of nature and we see balance, stability, and think this is how it has been forever and will be forever.

But the reality is that our "stability" is not static, it is the stability of a bicycle in motion. Every little creature from the single cell all the way to the top of the pyramid is in a constant flux and motion. 99% of their ancestors have gone extinct, and in a short period of time 99% of them will be extinct as well.

This is the way it is, this is how we got here. You can view it as cold and cruel, or you can view it as awesome that you and your ancestors got this far.

I heard a story from a caddie who caddied for Greg Norman and Tom Watson. He said that when Greg Norman hit a long drive, straight down the fairway that then rolled into a divot he would turn to the caddie and say "can you believe my bad luck". When Tom Watson did the same thing he would say "Watch this".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We look at a peaceful, serene picture of nature and we see balance, stability, and think this is how it has been forever and will be forever.

But the reality is that our "stability" is not static, it is the stability of a bicycle in motion. Every little creature from the single cell all the way to the top of the pyramid is in a constant flux and motion. 99% of their ancestors have gone extinct, and in a short period of time 99% of them will be extinct as well.

This is the way it is, this is how we got here. You can view it as cold and cruel, or you can view it as awesome that you and your ancestors got this far.

I heard a story from a caddie who caddied for Greg Norman and Tom Watson. He said that when Greg Norman hit a long drive, straight down the fairway that then rolled into a divot he would turn to the caddie and say "can you believe my bad luck". When Tom Watson did the same thing he would say "Watch this".

Great post ZNP. So the POE is not devastating. We're here! Which proves the POE is not all that bad.

Until you ask why God does it. Then it becomes a problem for those that believe in a loving God.

The existential problem of the POE is a glass half full/half empty kinda thing.

The existential problem of the POE and God can't be a glass half full or half empty thing. With God the glass has to be always full. The POE brings God down ... to at least three quarters full/three quarters empty.

[zeek]

I'm interested in how Biblical theodicies changed over time. The Book of Daniel seems to mark a radical change is eschatology. Wikipedia says this about the dating of Daniel:

The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. [Collins, John J. (1984). Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802800206.]

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.[ Hammer, Raymond (1976). The Book of Daniel. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521097659]

.
That places the writing of Daniel around the 2nd century BC when Jewish apocalyptic literature flourished.

Older sections of the First Book of Enoch(mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC. [Fahlbusch E., Bromiley G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P–Sh page 411, ISBN 0-8028-2416-1 (2004)].

The Book of Jubilees was probably written around 160–150 BC. [ VanderKam, "Jubilees, Book of" in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford University Press (2000), Vol. I, p. 435.]

The Life of Adam and Eve also known as The Apocalypse of Moses is supposed to have been written around the first century AD. [Johnson, M.D. (1985). "Life of Adam and Eve, a new translation and introduction". In Charlesworth, J.H. the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2. ISBN 0-385-18813-7.]

The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls so it probably dates from somewhere between the 2nd century BCE and prior to the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 CE when the Qumran community disappeared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of...ns_of_Darkness

My point is that the New Testament has a similar apocalyptic eschatology to these writings. There is evidence that the NT authors were aware of these and similar apocalyptic material and influenced by it. In terms of a theodicy to address the problem of evil, the apocalyptic writings of that time including the New Testament attribute the existence of evil to demonic powers. In this regard they are distinct from most of the earlier writings of the Hebrew Bible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm interested in how Biblical theodicies changed over time. The Book of Daniel seems to mark a radical change is eschatology. Wikipedia says this about the dating of Daniel:

.
That places the writing of Daniel around the 2nd century BC when Jewish apocalyptic literature flourished.

Older sections of the First Book of Enoch(mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC. [Fahlbusch E., Bromiley G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P–Sh page 411, ISBN 0-8028-2416-1 (2004)].

The Book of Jubilees was probably written around 160–150 BC. [ VanderKam, "Jubilees, Book of" in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford University Press (2000), Vol. I, p. 435.]

The Life of Adam and Eve also known as The Apocalypse of Moses is supposed to have been written around the first century AD. [Johnson, M.D. (1985). "Life of Adam and Eve, a new translation and introduction". In Charlesworth, J.H. the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2. ISBN 0-385-18813-7.]

The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls so it probably dates from somewhere between the 2nd century BCE and prior to the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 CE when the Qumran community disappeared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of...ns_of_Darkness

My point is that the New Testament has a similar apocalyptic eschatology to these writings. There is evidence that the NT authors were aware of these and similar apocalyptic material and influenced by it. In terms of a theodicy to address the problem of evil, the apocalyptic writings of that time including the New Testament attribute the existence of evil to demonic powers. In this regard they are distinct from most of the earlier writings of the Hebrew Bible.

When speaking of the end times, apocalyptic literature generally included chronologies of events that will occur and frequently places them in the near future, which gives a sense of urgency to the prophet’s broader message. Though the understanding of the present is bleak, the visions of the future are far more positive, and include divinely delivered victory and a complete reformation of absolutely everything. Many visions of these end times mirror creation mythologies, invoke the triumph of God over the primordial forces of chaos, and provide clear distinctions between light and dark, good and evil. In such revelations, humankind is typically divided into a small group that experiences salvation, while the wicked majority is destroyed. Since the apocalyptic genre developed during the Persian period, this dualism may have developed under the influence of Persian thought.[12] The imagery in apocalyptic literature is not realistic or reflective of the physical world as it was, but is rather surreal and fantastic, invoking a sense of wonder at the complete newness of the new order to come.[13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

When speaking of the end times, apocalyptic literature generally included chronologies of events that will occur and frequently places them in the near future, which gives a sense of urgency to the prophet’s broader message. Though the understanding of the present is bleak, the visions of the future are far more positive, and include divinely delivered victory and a complete reformation of absolutely everything. Many visions of these end times mirror creation mythologies, invoke the triumph of God over the primordial forces of chaos, and provide clear distinctions between light and dark, good and evil. In such revelations, humankind is typically divided into a small group that experiences salvation, while the wicked majority is destroyed. Since the apocalyptic genre developed during the Persian period, this dualism may have developed under the influence of Persian thought.[12] The imagery in apocalyptic literature is not realistic or reflective of the physical world as it was, but is rather surreal and fantastic, invoking a sense of wonder at the complete newness of the new order to come.[13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature

If you are going to talk about Trump's inaugural speech why not do it in the thread on "he takes the wise in their craftiness" or in the Box 13 thread?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

When speaking of the end times, apocalyptic literature generally included chronologies of events that will occur and frequently places them in the near future, which gives a sense of urgency to the prophet’s broader message. Though the understanding of the present is bleak, the visions of the future are far more positive, and include divinely delivered victory and a complete reformation of absolutely everything. Many visions of these end times mirror creation mythologies, invoke the triumph of God over the primordial forces of chaos, and provide clear distinctions between light and dark, good and evil. In such revelations, humankind is typically divided into a small group that experiences salvation, while the wicked majority is destroyed. Since the apocalyptic genre developed during the Persian period, this dualism may have developed under the influence of Persian thought.[12] The imagery in apocalyptic literature is not realistic or reflective of the physical world as it was, but is rather surreal and fantastic, invoking a sense of wonder at the complete newness of the new order to come.[13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature

Right, by the time of Jesus, the apocalypticism had become the prevalent world view among the Jews. While there are few mentions of Satan in the Hebrew Bible, apocalyptic literature is full of them. As Ehrman puts it:

Jewish apocalypticists were dualists. That is to say, they maintained that there were two fundamental components to all of reality: the forces of good and the forces of evil. The forces of good were headed by God himself, the forces of evil by his superhuman enemy, sometimes called Satan, or Beelzebub, or the Devil. On the side of God were the good angels; on the side of the Devil were the demons. On the side of God were righteousness and life; on the side of the Devil were sin and death. These were actual forces, cosmic powers to which human beings could be subject and with which they had to be aligned. No one was in neutral territory. People stood either with God or with Satan, they were in the light or in darkness, they were in the truth or in error.

Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Kindle Locations 2265-2270). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

What caused the change in thinking among the Jews? Foreign influences. The dualism came from Zoroastrianism as practiced by their Persian rulers and the words diabolos and daimon [devil and demon] came from from their Greek rulers. Add to that the desperation that came from suffering under centuries of successive foreign rulers with little realistic hope of overcoming and the apocalyptic world-view begins to make sense.

[zeek]

duplicate post

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you are going to talk about Trump's inaugural speech why not do it in the thread on "he takes the wise in their craftiness" or in the Box 13 thread?

Like you said, ZNP : "...out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." No one connected Trump to apocalypticism but you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Like you said, ZNP : "...out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." No one connected Trump to apocalypticism but you.

Apocalyptic believers desperately want to cleanse what they see as a corrupt and sinful world. While they are not all violent, the more imminent the apocalypse is believed to be, the more potential for destructive actions, says Richard Landes, the former head of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University. “Apocalyptic thought is unbelievably disruptive,” he says. The title of Robert Jay Lifton’s book about the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which hoped to provoke Armageddon with a 1995 nerve gas attack on a Tokyo subway, was: “Destroying the World to Save it.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d4093a5722aa)

Donald Trump

[Discourse of Salvation]
“Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”

[rage at a perceived humiliation]
“We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.
But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future. We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.”

[conspiracism]
“For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.”

[We are God's agents]
“January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.”

The activists claim: 'we are God's agents and have to bring about the apocalyptic transformation.' When they believe that the apocalypse calls for cataclysmic destruction, they deem they can 'save the world by destroying it.' Often their first and most feared targets are Jews and Judaism.
"Hitler's aim for a thousand year 'Reich' - a millennial kingdom - represented the quintessence of the most negative aspects of violent, apocalyptic action. Nazism exploded from a toxic cocktail of conspiracism, rage at a perceived humiliation of the German people, and complete contempt for human life, all the while using the discourse of the salvation of the Aryan race to win over converts. It could thereby inspire 'modern' people, capable of handling sophisticated technology, to engage in the most inhumane activities with a good conscience. The Holocaust was an apocalyptic deed." (http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-24.htm)

I think it is very clear that I am not the first to make this connection. Anyone who has compared Trump to Hitler has made this connection. The marches on Saturday were stunning in their scope (worldwide -- major cities and small towns. My sister was in Denver, my brother in Boston, a friend in NY, and my Mom in a small town in upstate NY also had a march). As the day approaches we will have those, like yourself, who bury their head in the sand. This is a person who has advocated the use of torture, blowing up families to "get the bad guys", and grabbing women by the genitals. I don't think you can rule out inhuman actions and violence as a possibility. Or am I the first person to be offended and take notice of this? I mean, if 1.5 million people were at the inauguration I think it is equally factual to say that 1.5 million have noted these signs.

[zeek]

ZNP---I was referring to this thread. Harold wasn't referring to Trump nor was anyone else.

But, thanks for supplying an example of hysterical apocalyptic speculation. I thought Obama was the Anti-Christ. Now it's Trump?

Wait, what about Bill Clinton? Wait, what about George W.H. Bush with his New World Order?

This kind of speculation has been going on for a couple thousand years. The historical church grew tired of it and turned to focusing on heaven when you die. That trend had already started by 100AD. The Gospel of John is devoid of apocalypticism.

But, during times of rapid social upheaval like the one we are in apocalypticism appeals to people particularly when their anxiety evokes a need for an instant immediate answer. Apocalyptic literature like the Book of Revelation is vague enough that definite identification would be impossible.

Yet it is endlessly enticing to a certain mind-set. Then too there is the underlying intuition based on human finitude that we are doomed.

Based on science, the sun is an average size star that eventually flame out and go extinct. If we haven't already destroyed ourselves or been destroyed by an asteroid, that will do it.

But, of course, by then we might have an interstellar Ark. Hope springs eternal.

[awareness]

I have two questions:

1) Why did the New Testament explode with apocalypticism?

2) Is it related to the POE?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP---I was referring to thus thread. Harold wasn't referring to Trump nor was anyone else.

But, thanks for supplying an example of hysterical apocalyptic speculation. I thought Obama was the Anti-Christ. Now it's Trump?

Wait, what about Bill Clinton? Wait, what about George W.H. Bush with his New World Order?

This kind of speculation has been going on for a couple thousand years. The historical church grew tired of it and turned to focusing on heaven when you die. That trend had already started by 100AD. The Gospel of John is devoid of apocalypticism.

But, during times of rapid social upheaval like the one we are in apocalypticism appeals to people particularly when their anxiety evokes a need for an instant immediate answer. Apocalyptic literature like the Book of Revelation is vague enough that definite identification would be impossible.

Yet it is endlessly enticing to a certain mind-set. Then too there is the underlying intuition based on human finitude that we are doomed.

Based on science, the sun is an average size star that eventually flame out and go extinct. If we haven't already destroyed ourselves or been destroyed by an asteroid, that will do it.

But, of course, by then we might have an interstellar Ark. Hope springs eternal.

Yes, that is part of the point. You can't run a presidential campaign without a discourse of salvation, a rage at humiliation, a hint of conspiracism, and an element of God's agents.

What distinguishes ISIS, KKK, and Hitler from the rest is their willingness to resort to extreme violence and destruction.

I think Trump has certainly given people reason for concern and to be extremely vigilant, but at this point there is nothing to suggest more than a need for concern.

If you are in the military and the commander in chief has said that he will order you to torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva conventions, that is without a doubt a concern. These conventions were written in response to Hitler, so it would certainly be "Hitleresque" to violate this treaty in this way. Why the mock surprise, I am pretty sure that 1.5 million people have already realized this.

[zeek]

ZNP, I'll give you this much, Trump seems to think he is the messiah. I saw the video of him speaking at CIA Headquarters. He said

And I said “well it was almost raining”. The rain should have scared them away. But God looked down and he said “we’re not going to let it rain on your speech”.

In fact, when I first started I said “oh no”. First line, I got hit by a couple of drops. And i said “oh, this is too bad, but we’ll go right through it”. But the truth is: that it stopped immediately. It was amazing. And then it became really sudden, and then I walked off and it poured right after I left - it poured. https://www.lawfareblog.com/presiden...a-headquarters

He declared his inauguration day a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion." The guy is delusional and he's taking the nation along on his massive Ego Trip. Step aside Jesus, the New Messiah has arrived.

[Evangelical]

Trump supports Israel, and in the minds of many Christians that is all that matters.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Trump supports Israel, and in the minds of many Christians that is all that matters.

Are not there many scripture to support this support?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have two questions:

1) Why did the New Testament explode with apocalypticism?

Like I said: What caused the change in thinking among the Jews? Foreign influences. The dualism came from Zoroastrianism as practiced by their Persian rulers and the words diabolos and daimon [devil and demon] came from from their Greek rulers. Add to that the desperation that came from suffering under centuries of successive foreign rulers with little realistic hope of overcoming and the apocalyptic world-view begins to make sense.

Around the time of the Maccabean revolt, when the oppressive policies of Antiochus Epiphanes became too much for many Jews in Palestine to bear, when they were forbidden on pain of death from keeping the Law of Moses, some of them came up with another solution. In their view, the suffering of God’s people could not be explained as a penalty for their sin. God surely would not punish his people for doing what was right, for keeping his laws, for example. Why, then, did the people suffer?

There must have been some other supernatural agency, some other superhuman power that was responsible. God was not making his people suffer; his enemy, Satan, was. According to this new way of thinking, God was still in control of this world in some ultimate sense. But for unknown and mysterious reasons he had temporarily relinquished his control to the forces of evil that opposed him. This state of affairs, however, was not to last forever. Quite soon, God would reassert himself and bring this world back to himself, destroying the forces of evil and establishing his people as rulers over the earth. When this new Kingdom came, God would fulfill his promises to his people.

Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Kindle Locations 2254-2262). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Originally Posted by awareness

2) Is it related to the POE?

Of course. It proposes an explanation for the existence of evil of cosmic proportions. As you are aware, Ehrman details the numerous historical problems with this theodicy in his book "God's Problems: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer."

An even more basic problem is why an all-powerful God would allow Satan and his demons to reign in the first place. The free will defense really doesn't answer the question because with Satan and his demonic hordes plus our unchosen inherited sin nature, the cards are stacked against us. The New Testament answer seems to be that God stacked the deck against us so that there would be only one viable choice--accept Jesus Christ His Son or suffer for eternity. Do I have that right? Is that the dilemma an all-powerful, all-wise, omni-benevolent God would set before an individual? And, if so, why?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are not there many scripture to support this support?

Yes, there is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP, I'll give you this much, Trump seems to think he is the messiah. I saw the video of him speaking at CIA Headquarters. He said

He declared his inauguration day a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion." The guy is delusional and he's taking the nation along on his massive Ego Trip. Step aside Jesus the New Messiah has arrived.

Your chronic liberalism is a mental disorder.

Perhaps ZNP has some Biblical "antibiotics" that could help you.

.

At least when Trump mentions the name of God, he refers to the Lord Jesus. The last guy had allah on his mind.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Trump supports Israel, and in the minds of many Christians that is all that matters.

He is also anti abortion, which to many is the most important issue. This is especially important seeing as he will be nominating 2 or even 3 Supreme court justices.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Trump supports Israel, and in the minds of many Christians that is all that matters.

Well there is that one other thing. But yes, and matters more than their love of their neighbors. Israel matters more than human life to them. The Jesus killers are somehow the good guys now. They love those of the synagogue of Satan.

This is evil. Don't know if this politic stuff belongs here, but this all in for Israel thing, among Evangelicals, proves that, the Bible can produce the POE.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well there is that one other thing. But yes, and matters more than their love of their neighbors. Israel matters more than human life to them. The Jesus killers are somehow the good guys now. They love those of the synagogue of Satan.

This is evil. Don't know if this politic stuff belongs here, but this all in for Israel thing, among Evangelicals, proves that, the Bible can produce the POE.

I think this horrible P.O.E. only exists on this little forum in alt-cyber-space.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are not there many scripture to support this support?

A couple of Psalms? Maybe another OT verse?

How many are in the NT? And how many of those OT verses are repeated or underscored in the NT?

I am not in favor of abandoning Israel. But I am not so sold on the claim that there is blessing in the NT age for the support of Israel due to an OT verse.

Are there really "many" supporting this?

Is it really true that "every promise in the book is mine"?

[zeek]

As I pointed out below, one of apocalyptic texts that influenced the New Testament writers was The Book of Enoch. Enoch is quoted in Jude 14:

ENOCH 2 Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

JUDE 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.

According to Wikipedia:

This first section of the Book of Enoch describes the fall of the Watchers, the angels who fathered the Nephilim (cf. the bene Elohim, Genesis 6:1–2) and narrates the travels of Enoch in the heavens. This section is said to have been composed in the 4th or 3rd century BC according to Western scholars.

In case anyone has forgotten Genesis 6:1-2 says

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

Enoch calls the "Watchers" because they they liked to look at human females. But, they did more than watch them . They copulated and impregnated them and produced the Nephalim.

The Watcher Angels were led by an angel named Smyaza. They taught humans all kind of wicked things including astrology and the art of enchantment. They taught women to wear make-up. According to Enoch The fallen watcher angels, their offspring the Nephalim and the humans that follow them will face Judgment and be punished.

The Nephalim are described this way:

And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three hundred ells:[69] Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood.

Enoch also refers to the devil as Gadreel whom he blames for leading Eve astray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadreel

The Book of Enoch is also linked by some to First Peter.

ENOCH 1:6 … Judgment shall come upon all, even upon all the righteous.

I PET. 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

The link between the apocalyptic Book of Enoch and New Testament demonology is thus established.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP, I'll give you this much, Trump seems to think he is the messiah. I saw the video of him speaking at CIA Headquarters. He said

He declared his inauguration day a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion." The guy is delusional and he's taking the nation along on his massive Ego Trip. Step aside Jesus the New Messiah has arrived.

Yer a funny guy bro Ohio. That "antibiotics" crack hit my funny bone.

But doesn't politics and political party's expose our dualistic thinking ; a white hat/black hat ; a black and white ; a good and evil ; a God and Satan ; kind of thinking?

Why do we fall for that? Dualism creates evil actions, or at least evil thoughts, toward "the other," and does not represent the love Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount.

Jesus could have led a band of insurrectionists against Rome but he didn't. Jesus could have gotten into the politics of his day but he didn't. Jesus was a man of peace (the Jesus of the gospels, that is, not so much the Jesus of Revelation).

Jesus was an apocalypticist. He believed not in violence but that God would intervene in history, to settle the score with Rome, and ring in His kingdom.

But it didn't. So : "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me."

Still today believers are waiting. But Jesus never expected that there would ever be a 21st century. He thought God would intervene shortly.

Luk 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


To Jesus, the POE was soon to be done away with, by God's intervention into history, in his generation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The link between the apocalyptic Book of Enoch and New Testament demonology is thus established.

But why? Why the need to embrace apocalypticism? I posit that they had to believe that God would rescue them eventually ; that God wouldn't abandon them, and had a fix sometime in the near future.

So coming decades after Jesus, near the end of the first century, we have Revelation, that opens up in the very first verse saying : "things which must shortly come to pass." And ends with, "Surely I come quickly."

What means "shortly?" And what means "quickly?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are not there many scripture to support this support?

Originally Posted by OBW

A couple of Psalms? Maybe another OT verse?

How many are in the NT? And how many of those OT verses are repeated or underscored in the NT?

I am not in favor of abandoning Israel. But I am not so sold on the claim that there is blessing in the NT age for the support of Israel due to an OT verse.

Are there really "many" supporting this?

Read God's covenant to Abraham (beginning in Gen 12.3) which is regularly repeated, then confirmed again to Isaac, Jacob, then to Israel and the corporate Israel. Read the Prophets. This promise of Yahweh to "bless those who bless you, and curse them who curse you" resounds on nearly every page of scripture.

The blessing of the NT age is spiritual and heavenly in Christ. Our covenant as a people of faith is a better covenant, with better blessings. Our covenant with God was secured on the cross by the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God. The New Covenant differs from the Old in one remarkable way -- we are blessed by enduring unrighteousness and persecution, even martyrdom. We are even commanded to love and forgive our enemies while they put us to death.

But God has not forgotten His promises to Israel. Soon the times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled. God will restore Israel, her land, her temple, and her sacrifices.

Personally I believe that the most significant event of the 21st century occurred 2 days before Christmas, when Obama surreptitiously orchestrated U.N. Resolution 2334. Apparently the US Gov't stabbed Israel in the back, but I believe God will use it for good. That corrupt resolution by a worthless organization removed once for all the possibility of trading land for peace for a two-state solution, and also stole the land of the temple mount with the "wailing wall" from Israel and gave it to their enemies. Israel will never permit this. I also think that this Resolution will one day be used by many nations, under the auspices of the UN, to attack Israel at Armageddon, causing their Messiah to physically return again to the Mount of Olives.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But why? Why the need to embrace apocalypticism? I posit that they had to believe that God would rescue them eventually ; that God wouldn't abandon them, and had a fix sometime in the near future.

So coming decades after Jesus, near the end of the first century, we have Revelation, that opens up in the very first verse saying : "things which must shortly come to pass." And ends with, "Surely I come quickly."

What means "shortly?" And what means "quickly?"

"Shortly" and "quickly" mean for us to get ready, to prepare ourselves, since tomorrow is never guaranteed to us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Jesus could have led a band of insurrectionists against Rome but he didn't. Jesus could have gotten into the politics of his day but he didn't. Jesus was a man of peace (the Jesus of the gospels, that is, not so much the Jesus of Revelation).

Jesus was an apocalypticist. He believed not in violence but that God would intervene in history, to settle the score with Rome, and ring in His kingdom.

But it didn't. So : "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me."

It did not happen .... yet!

And Jesus quoted David on the cross as He became a curse on the cross for your sins.

[Evangelical]

Every decision Trump will make, some based on the Bible, some based on stupidity, will cause a problem of evil. He is basically making the USA into a North Korea - kill trade deals, build a wall, under the mantra of self-sufficiency and isolationism. We all know how self-sufficiency worked out for the North Koreans.

It is clear to me that Trump is trying to bring about the next financial crisis as quickly as possible, he is trying to cause evil.

This has been the agenda of the Global Elite's for some time, and Trump is part of the Global Elite for sure. A global reset is the only way to fix the world economy, and America's.

There is a book by Jim Rickards:

The Road to Ruin: The Global Elites’ Secret Plan for the Next Financial Crisis

https://lfb.org/ice-9-jim-rickards-r...-ways-protect/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/indias-...lution/5561601

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Every decision Trump will make, some based on the Bible, some based on stupidity, will cause a problem of evil. He is basically making the USA into a North Korea - kill trade deals, build a wall, under the mantra of self-sufficiency and isolationism. We all know how self-sufficiency worked out for the North Koreans.

It is clear to me that Trump is trying to bring about the next financial crisis as quickly as possible, he is trying to cause evil.

This has been the agenda of the Global Elite's for some time, and Trump is part of the Global Elite for sure. A global reset is the only way to fix the world economy, and America's.

The Global Elites just love Trump, that's why they unleashed every weapon they have at him.

Trump wants trade deals that benefit the USA. I guess that makes him the next kim-jong-un.

Maybe you should stick to defending the LCM.

Trump is a patriot, a friend of Israel, and an DC outsider, perhaps that is why he is so hated.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But why? Why the need to embrace apocalypticism? I posit that they had to believe that God would rescue them eventually ; that God wouldn't abandon them, and had a fix sometime in the near future.

So coming decades after Jesus, near the end of the first century, we have Revelation, that opens up in the very first verse saying : "things which must shortly come to pass." And ends with, "Surely I come quickly."

What means "shortly?" And what means "quickly?"

Did you read post#1064?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Global Elites just love Trump, that's why they unleashed every weapon they have at him.

Trump wants trade deals that benefit the USA. I guess that makes him the next kim-jong-un.

Maybe you should stick to defending the LCM.

Trump is a patriot, a friend of Israel, and an DC outsider, perhaps that is why he is so hated.

The parallels between Trump and the LCM are remarkable, I am amazed you do not see it. What Trump has done is similar to what you believe Lee did with the LSM. Attract followers by portraying himself as anti-institutionalized religion/denominations, only to raise up a new institution (LSM) with himself and family at the head. One global elite replaces another.

You are speaking of one faction of the Global Elites, Hillary and co. But Trump is from the other faction. He is friend of Israel for a reason. Look up Trump's connection to the Rothschilds and who supported his business dealings and his 30 year campaign to be President. Trump is not supporting Israel just because he read how much God loves Israel in the Bible. It is because his friends own most of it. Most if not all Republicans are connected in one way or another to the Rothschilds and for that reason typically support Israel. Trump has already proved himself to be a liar on many things. He portrays himself as being anti-global elite and anti-establishment, and he is where it concerns one faction. But that does not mean he is not part of the global elite - you would have to research his financiers and backers over the last decades to see what he is really about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The parallels between Trump and the LCM are remarkable, I am amazed you do not see it. What Trump has done is similar to what you believe Lee did with the LSM. Attract followers by portraying himself as anti-institutionalized religion/denominations, only to raise up a new institution (LSM) with himself and family at the head. One global elite replaces another.

You are speaking of one faction of the Global Elites, Hillary and co. But Trump is from the other faction. He is friend of Israel for a reason. Look up Trump's connection to the Rothschilds and who supported his business dealings and his 30 year campaign to be President. Trump is not supporting Israel just because he read how much God loves Israel in the Bible. It is because his friends own most of it. Most if not all Republicans are connected in one way or another to the Rothschilds and for that reason typically support Israel. Trump has already proved himself to be a liar on many things. He portrays himself as being anti-global elite and anti-establishment, and he is where it concerns one faction. But that does not mean he is not part of the global elite - you would have to research his financiers and backers over the last decades to see what he is really about.

Some evangelicals say Trump is the present day Cyrus, king of Persia. He was part of the global elite, wasn't he? God can use even the global elites of the world.

Many believers prayed for this election. Do you think our heavenly Father gave them a scorpion?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some evangelicals say Trump is the present day Cyrus, king of Persia. He was part of the global elite, wasn't he? God can use even the global elites of the world.

Many believers prayed for this election. Do you think our heavenly Father gave them a scorpion?

It's possible. The Israelite's insisted on having a king and God begrudgingly gave it to them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yer a funny guy bro Ohio. That "antibiotics" crack hit my funny bone.

But doesn't politics and political party's expose our dualistic thinking ; a white hat/black hat ; a black and white ; a good and evil ; a God and Satan ; kind of thinking?

It is worse in the US now because of gerrymandering. When they rig the jurisdiction this way to get safe districts for Republicans and Democrats the result is that Republicans have to move to the right to get elected and Democrats have to move to the left.

Originally Posted by awareness

Why do we fall for that? Dualism creates evil actions, or at least evil thoughts, toward "the other," and does not represent the love Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount.

Dualism? Any complex issue has two sides. Think of the death penalty, I can think of 3 or 4 great reasons why this should be outlawed, and 3 or 4 even better reasons why it shouldn't. What creates evil actions is when you promote extreme policies that are beyond what could be considered reasonable. Imprisoning people the way we do today is completely unreasonable 4,000 years ago.

Originally Posted by awareness

Jesus could have led a band of insurrectionists against Rome but he didn't. Jesus could have gotten into the politics of his day but he didn't. Jesus was a man of peace (the Jesus of the gospels, that is, not so much the Jesus of Revelation).

Jesus was an apocalypticist. He believed not in violence but that God would intervene in history, to settle the score with Rome, and ring in His kingdom.

But it didn't. So : "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me."

Still today believers are waiting. But Jesus never expected that there would ever be a 21st century. He thought God would intervene shortly.

Luk 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


To Jesus, the POE was soon to be done away with, by God's intervention into history, in his generation.

OK, a different example of how a complex issue can have two sides. You clearly have one side on this that I can see, and yet disagree with.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But why? Why the need to embrace apocalypticism? I posit that they had to believe that God would rescue them eventually ; that God wouldn't abandon them, and had a fix sometime in the near future.

So coming decades after Jesus, near the end of the first century, we have Revelation, that opens up in the very first verse saying : "things which must shortly come to pass." And ends with, "Surely I come quickly."

What means "shortly?" And what means "quickly?"

I think "shortly" and "quickly" are from the perspective of the Jesus Christ, the incarnated God.

In God's point of view human history is about 6 days long. From that view perspective his coming will be "shortly" and "quickly".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Every decision Trump will make, some based on the Bible, some based on stupidity, will cause a problem of evil. He is basically making the USA into a North Korea - kill trade deals, build a wall, under the mantra of self-sufficiency and isolationism. We all know how self-sufficiency worked out for the North Koreans.

It is clear to me that Trump is trying to bring about the next financial crisis as quickly as possible, he is trying to cause evil.

This has been the agenda of the Global Elite's for some time, and Trump is part of the Global Elite for sure. A global reset is the only way to fix the world economy, and America's.

There is a book by Jim Rickards:

The Road to Ruin: The Global Elites’ Secret Plan for the Next Financial Crisis

https://lfb.org/ice-9-jim-rickards-r...-ways-protect/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/indias-...lution/5561601

This is not at all clear to me. What I think is clear is that he begins his negotiating by staking out the most extreme position that can be believed. From there he will "negotiate" which is just another word for compromise.

This approach is precisely the approach the Chinese have used with us for years.

You need to read "the Art of the Deal" if you want to get an insight on what he is doing. "The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead." (Donald Trump). He is going to renegotiate our trade with China and instead of appearing desperate he will appear as though he is set on protectionism (that may seem stupid to you, but catastrophic to China).

You should also be aware that he did take over a boondoggle in NY, the ice skating rink in Central park, and he got it done on time and under budget.

This is also what he is doing with Abortion. He has to make 2 Supreme court nominees, taking this strong anti abortion stance now gives him leverage in negotiating with senators and congressmen. He can appear to compromise with them on his nominees in exchange for them to work with him on some of his other issues. In the end the pro death camp can come away feeling like "it could have been worse" whereas the pro life will say "hey, we couldn't have done better than this".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some evangelicals say Trump is the present day Cyrus, king of Persia. He was part of the global elite, wasn't he? God can use even the global elites of the world.

Many believers prayed for this election. Do you think our heavenly Father gave them a scorpion?

He is definitely focused on his "economic battle" with China. As a result he cannot afford to have too many battles, hence embracing Evangelicals, Israel, Russia, Unions, etc. In this respect the situation is not that different from Cyrus.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Global Elites just love Trump, that's why they unleashed every weapon they have at him.

Trump wants trade deals that benefit the USA. I guess that makes him the next kim-jong-un.

Maybe you should stick to defending the LCM.

Trump is a patriot, a friend of Israel, and an DC outsider, perhaps that is why he is so hated.

I am praying for him.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is not at all clear to me. What I think is clear is that he begins his negotiating by staking out the most extreme position that can be believed. From there he will "negotiate" which is just another word for compromise.

This approach is precisely the approach the Chinese have used with us for years.

You need to read "the Art of the Deal" if you want to get an insight on what he is doing. "The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead." (Donald Trump). He is going to renegotiate our trade with China and instead of appearing desperate he will appear as though he is set on protectionism (that may seem stupid to you, but catastrophic to China).

You should also be aware that he did take over a boondoggle in NY, the ice skating rink in Central park, and he got it done on time and under budget.

This is also what he is doing with Abortion. He has to make 2 Supreme court nominees, taking this strong anti abortion stance now gives him leverage in negotiating with senators and congressmen. He can appear to compromise with them on his nominees in exchange for them to work with him on some of his other issues. In the end the pro death camp can come away feeling like "it could have been worse" whereas the pro life will say "hey, we couldn't have done better than this".

I don't think the adversarial and rude approach like Trump does is the Chinese way. The book also reveals how he hired con men, thieves, and sanctions swearing at children, and hitting on married women. It's all in the book too. His tactic is to use every filthy word he can think of, and make every threat he can think of. That's what he suggests is a good approach to get things done. The Chinese do not use that tactic as a rule, they are much more subtle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think the adversarial and rude approach like Trump does is the Chinese way.

You are kidding right? Prostitution is run by the state in China. Even in the 1980s they used women to serve tea. Wang Yo Chen, one of the richest men in Taiwan and roughly analogous to Trump has several mistresses that he keeps in various villas. That is the expected behavior of a billionaire in China. It is my experience, living in Taiwan for 8 years, that the Chinese are very rude and insulting. Yes, they can put on a show of politeness, but to a foreigners face will completely insult them in Chinese. As I learned to speak Chinese and learned more about how the country worked my American sensibilities were shocked to say the least.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The book also reveals how he hired con men, thieves, and sanctions swearing at children, and hitting on married women. It's all in the book too. His tactic is to use every filthy word he can think of, and make every threat he can think of. That's what he suggests is a good approach to get things done. The Chinese do not use that tactic as a rule, they are much more subtle.

So then we can agree that he is following his game plan.

The Chinese are much more subtle when working with the US because so far all of the US leaders have been very poor negotiators, though for some that was by design. We gave China very favorable deals as an incentive for them to make the difficult transition from communism to capitalism. We have been subsidizing this transition. So I don't blame Nixon or Kissinger. But, let's be real, the Chinese are not going to abandon capitalism now, and they certainly don't need us to subsidize their economy anymore.

But have the Chinese really been so subtle when dealing with Taiwan or Japan?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is not at all clear to me. What I think is clear is that he begins his negotiating by staking out the most extreme position that can be believed. From there he will "negotiate" which is just another word for compromise.

This approach is precisely the approach the Chinese have used with us for years.

You need to read "the Art of the Deal" if you want to get an insight on what he is doing. "The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead." (Donald Trump). He is going to renegotiate our trade with China and instead of appearing desperate he will appear as though he is set on protectionism (that may seem stupid to you, but catastrophic to China).

You should also be aware that he did take over a boondoggle in NY, the ice skating rink in Central park, and he got it done on time and under budget.

This is also what he is doing with Abortion. He has to make 2 Supreme court nominees, taking this strong anti abortion stance now gives him leverage in negotiating with senators and congressmen. He can appear to compromise with them on his nominees in exchange for them to work with him on some of his other issues. In the end the pro death camp can come away feeling like "it could have been worse" whereas the pro life will say "hey, we couldn't have done better than this".

Obama promised to balance the budget -- then he doubled the deficit, exceeding the debt of 43 prior Presidents.

Obama promised a "purple" nation without partisanship, color blind to race -- instead we got "black lives matter" leaders with daily access to the White House. Police officers gunned down for their uniform.

Obama promised complete bi-partisan transparency -- instead we got legislation without Republicans even allowed to read it.

Obama promised he would always have Israel's back -- instead he stabbed them in the back. His final executive action was sending money to the Palestinians.

Obama promised health insurance savings -- instead he pushed the law thru the SCOTUS claiming it was a tax increase along.

Obama gave us Stimulus pork barrel projects, Operation Fast and Furious, IRS targeting conservatives, Benghazi murders, private servers, Pigford, NSA spying, trading Taliban generals for the traitor Bergdahl, release of Gitmo terrorists, funding Iranian nukes, polluting Colorado rivers, VA death lists, lavish spending, secret service parties, maximum pain on Americans when the House tried to reduce spending, Planned Parenthood body parts for sale, etc.

Trump: I have never seen a President take such decisive action -- exactly matching campaign promises. Imagine that -- a President whose campaign promises actually meant something to him. How refreshing! How much better for the country to have a president who owns golf courses than to have one who loves to play on them!

So the liberals have decided to attack his wife and children. They pay their professional rioters to disrupt and scare off the Inauguration guests, and then claim few people even showed up to watch. Obama removes the bust of Churchill, but then Trump is falsely accused of removing MLK.

Deception, it's all about deception. And even those who claim to be Evangelical Christians get hung up on his distasteful comments.

That's the real POE.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's possible. The Israelite's insisted on having a king and God begrudgingly gave it to them.

Israel wanted a king because the sons of Samuel (Witness Lee's so-called "Acting God") the prophet were as bad as Eli's sons.

Sounds more like the politics at LSM than currently at the White House.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trump: I have never seen a President take such decisive action -- exactly matching campaign promises. Imagine that -- a President whose campaign promises actually meant something to him. How refreshing! How much better for the country to have a president who owns golf courses than to have one who loves to play on them!

So the liberals have decided to attack his wife and children. They pay their professional rioters to disrupt and scare off the Inauguration guests, and then claim few people even showed up to watch. Obama removes the bust of Churchill, but then Trump is falsely accused of removing MLK.

Deception, it's all about deception. And even those who claim to be Evangelical Christians get hung up on his distasteful comments.

That's the real POE.

“If Trump carries out his campaign pledge, China’s exports to the U.S., worth $483 billion in 2015, could collapse. Needless to say, American exports to China, estimated at $116 billion as of 2015, will plunge as China retaliates.” (http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-china-trade/)

Our GDP is $16.7 Trillion in 2013 so we are talking about losing less than 1% of our economy. No doubt losing the cheap imports would cause a certain level of inflation here in the US. But, and this is important to understand 3d printers and robotics are going a long way to replacing cheap labor. If instead of one factory a company had a number of smaller factories spread around the country with 3d printers they might be able to offset the cheap Chinese labor with “just in time” manufacturing that takes place as the order is made, quicker delivery and less transportation costs.

By comparison China’s GDP is $10 Trillion, so $483 billion would be 5%. If they lost this they would have 0 growth in their economy and it would be a minor miracle if they didn’t go into a recession if not full blown depression. But without growth they cannot grow their capital, and without the capital they cannot invest in the high tech 3d printers and robotics we just discussed. The only option they would have to “stop” Trump would be to go nuclear and cash all of the US debt they have amassed. That would definitely put the world into a depression. That would be worst case scenario for US, a return to the good old days of FDR. But for China it would be a return to the good old days described in “The Good Earth”: famine and cannibalism. The Chinese leaders are still very much aware of the cultural revolution, I feel very confident that they have a very healthy fear of the worst case scenario. Besides, Trump could threaten to declare bankruptcy which would mean they would get pennies on the dollar for their debt.

Instead, they could opt for the best case scenario. Renegotiate, primarily by letting their money be accurately valued. That would result in a more level playing field for the rest of the world, a better standard of living for many Chinese, lower growth in China, a relative devaluing of our debt, etc. It would be difficult for them to achieve world domination, but it would still be a lot better than eating your neighbors kid for dinner.

Who would sweat more, China at the thought that we would replace them, or us over the inflation and short term loss of cheap goods at Walmart? Also, the people who voted for Trump would be the ones getting those nice jobs with the 3d printers and robots.

I think Trump can pull this off, but we are definitely heading into some very rough seas and it is going to be thrilling to watch.

[Evangelical]

Taking action is one thing, taking the right action is another. Rather they take time to consider the actions than rush headstrong into it. That's what Bush did when deciding to take out Saddam, based upon no or faulty intelligence. We all know what that resulted in.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read God's covenant to Abraham (beginning in Gen 12.3) which is regularly repeated, then confirmed again to Isaac, Jacob, then to Israel and the corporate Israel. Read the Prophets. This promise of Yahweh to "bless those who bless you, and curse them who curse you" resounds on nearly every page of scripture.

I'm pretty much Bible ignorant. So could you point out how Gen 12:3 is on nearly every page of scripture. I've read it from cover to and didn't and don't see what you are seeing on every page.

And Gen 12:3 says "thee" and I don't think applies to Israel to all times. That's just stretching and torturing that verse way far too out of shape.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Taking action is one thing, taking the right action is another. Rather they take time to consider the actions than rush headstrong into it. That's what Bush did when deciding to take out Saddam, based upon no or faulty intelligence. We all know what that resulted in.

I like sailing analogies for Presidents and world leaders. We have seen this storm growing and growing ever since I was in Taiwan.

If you are in a boat and a storm is coming you have two choices

1. You can run from it if you have enough time to find a safe port.

otherwise

2. You have to hit it head on.

There is no other choice. You cannot run with a storm, the waves will carry you into the rocks. You cannot hit the waves at an angle, they will flip your boat. Some of these monster waves are 60 feet high. Well, this storm with China is going to be a monster.

Let's be realistic, we had two possible captains -- Clinton or Trump. Clinton is someone who was running from the waves. She (Obama and Bill) were willing to give away the store rather than deal with this. They were "wringing their hands" with China but it was clear they weren't going to tackle this head on. Also she was incapable of bluffing, there was way too much track record for anyone to believe that.

With Trump will he be willing to declare bankruptcy? Will he really slap 45% tariff on them? Does he really think the US can move manufacturing back to the US?

No one knows, but so far it seems he plans on following up on every promise he made.

When I lived in Taiwan I was impressed by how close to the edge the Chinese live. Every summer they use the entire military to bring the harvest in from the country side to the cities. They have to co opt the trains to make this work. Just a slight disruption in that transportation results in food shortages in the city. If they were to go to war with Taiwan there would be massive disruption to that supply line (the Taiwanese are already on the mainland in sleeper cells).

My point is that Chinese leaders put on a strong face but they hang on by a thread and they know it. Shutting down $486 billion worth of business, even temporarily, is not an option for them. We are concerned about soup kitchens, they are concerned about the famines you read of in history books.

Are you really going to compare the "faulty intelligence" of WMD's with the intelligence involved in GDP, World Trade, and Trade deficits? No one is rushing headlong, this was something that should have been dealt with 8 years ago. It would not have been appropriate for Bush, right after 911.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm pretty much Bible ignorant. So could you point out how Gen 12:3 is on nearly every page of scripture. I've read it from cover to and didn't and don't see what you are seeing on every page.

And Gen 12:3 says "thee" and I don't think applies to Israel to all times. That's just stretching and torturing that verse way far too out of shape.

I don't understand, maybe you can help me with this. Why would anyone be against blessing Israel?

It seems to me, and again maybe you can clear this up, but if you were to curse Israel that would be equivalent to cursing ourselves. I cannot visualize the Middle East without Israel and by extension the US. Especially since the Bible has laid out a simple path to peace. Why wouldn't we take it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Taking action is one thing, taking the right action is another. Rather they take time to consider the actions than rush headstrong into it. That's what Bush did when deciding to take out Saddam, based upon no or faulty intelligence. We all know what that resulted in.

We know that Saddam used chemical weapons on whole cities of Kurds. Chemical weapons are WMD, are they not?

Bush's failure was hoping to bring democracy to an islamic country.

[zeek]

Here is a link to the text of The Book of Enoch http://www.futurerevealed.com/enoch/BookEnoch.pdf

Key concepts in Enoch are found in the New Testament, including Son of Man, the Chosen One, Paradise, hell, and a coming day of judgment by fire. In Luke 9:35 is an important concept of the Book of Enoch, that of the "Chosen One": "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." The word translated "beloved" is ἐκλελεγμένος which means The Elect One or The Chosen One, a term found fourteen times in Enoch and is one of the key concepts of the book. Luke understood Jesus of Nazareth to be the Chosen One prophesied in The Book of Enoch. Here, for example is Chapter 45 of the book:

—And this is the second Parable concerning those who deny the name of the
dwelling-place of the holy and of the Lord of the spirits. 2. They will not ascend to heaven,
and will not come on the earth; such will be the portion of the sinners who deny the name
of the Lord of the spirits, who are thus preserved to the day of suffering and sorrow. 3. On
that day the Chosen One will sit upon the throne of glory, and will choose among their [i.e.
men’s] deeds and places without number, and their spirit will become strong in them when
they see my Chosen One and those who have called upon my holy and glorious name. 4.
And on that day I will cause my Chosen One to dwell among them, and will transform
heaven and make it a blessing and a light eternally. 5. And I will transform the earth and
make it a blessing, and will cause my chosen ones to dwell thereon; and those who have
committed sins and crimes will not step on it. 6. For I have seen and satisfied with peace my
just ones, and have placed them before me; but for the sinners there awaits before me a
judgment, that I may destroy them from the face of the earth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here is a link to the text of The Book of Enoch http://www.futurerevealed.com/enoch/BookEnoch.pdf

Key concepts in Enoch are found in the New Testament, including Son of Man, the Chosen One, Paradise, hell, and a coming day of judgment by fire. In Luke 9:35 is an important concept of the Book of Enoch, that of the "Chosen One": "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." The word translated "beloved" is ἐκλελεγμένος which means The Elect One or The Chosen One, a term found fourteen times in Enoch and is one of the key concepts of the book. Luke understood Jesus of Nazareth to be the Chosen One prophesied in The Book of Enoch. Here, for example is Chapter 45 of the book:

—And this is the second Parable concerning those who deny the name of the
dwelling-place of the holy and of the Lord of the spirits. 2. They will not ascend to heaven,
and will not come on the earth; such will be the portion of the sinners who deny the name
of the Lord of the spirits, who are thus preserved to the day of suffering and sorrow. 3. On
that day the Chosen One will sit upon the throne of glory, and will choose among their [i.e.
men’s] deeds and places without number, and their spirit will become strong in them when
they see my Chosen One and those who have called upon my holy and glorious name. 4.
And on that day I will cause my Chosen One to dwell among them, and will transform
heaven and make it a blessing and a light eternally. 5. And I will transform the earth and
make it a blessing, and will cause my chosen ones to dwell thereon; and those who have
committed sins and crimes will not step on it. 6. For I have seen and satisfied with peace my
just ones, and have placed them before me; but for the sinners there awaits before me a
judgment, that I may destroy them from the face of the earth.

Now that's interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong but Enoch was written starting around 300 B.C.E, with sections written around 100 C.E. So it preceded Daniel by a hundred years.

This seems to be around the time that Judaism was becoming apocalyptic. It's obvious by references in the New Testament that at least some, if not all, the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the book of Enoch. Did the book of Enoch open up the door of apocalypticism, first to the Jews, then to the Christian writers, that has come down to us today? Were the books of Daniel and Revelation influenced by the book of Enoch?

I read the book of Enoch some time ago. It looks and smells like Daniel and Revelation.

In the end, given the violence in the books, these books are covered up with the POE.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We know that Saddam used chemical weapons on whole cities of Kurds. Chemical weapons are WMD, are they not?

Bush's failure was hoping to bring democracy to an islamic country.

I think the Arab uprising in Egypt proves that they would welcome democracy.

I think our problem is our approach. We will spend any amount to blow things up, yet when it is time to rebuild what then?

I think our military should have a sixth branch (instead of a pentagram make it a star of David). This sixth branch should get 1/6th of the Pentagon's budget. It should be the Peace corp. They will have bulldozers, engineers, construction foremen, teachers, etc. They go into so many of these third world countries and they do whatever is necessary. Dig wells, build schools, roads, etc. If we had done this in Iraq it would have been a very different story. We defeated Saddam's army, left everyone unemployed with large stockpile of weapons and then left.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the Arab uprising in Egypt proves that they would welcome democracy.

I think our problem is our approach. We will spend any amount to blow things up, yet when it is time to rebuild what then?

I think our military should have a sixth branch (instead of a pentagram make it a star of David). This sixth branch should get 1/6th of the Pentagon's budget. It should be the Peace corp. They will have bulldozers, engineers, construction foremen, teachers, etc. They go into so many of these third world countries and they do whatever is necessary. Dig wells, build schools, roads, etc. If we had done this in Iraq it would have been a very different story. We defeated Saddam's army, left everyone unemployed with large stockpile of weapons and then left.

At the core of islamic culture is the requirement that their secular leader and their religious leader be the same. This exists no where in the western world. This is perhaps the number one frustration to democracy.

The uprisings in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and almost Syria proved that once a moderate yet strong leader is removed, then in his place a more radical form of islam emerges, not some movement towards democracy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the core of islamic culture is the requirement that their secular leader and their religious leader be the same. This exists no where in the western world. This is perhaps the number one frustration to democracy.

The uprisings in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and almost Syria proved that once a moderate yet strong leader is removed, then in his place a more radical form of islam emerges, not some movement towards democracy.

I think what we are seeing here is an environmental catastrophe. that is what has happened in most of these places though Iraq and Iran were also facilitated by war. It is akin to Mad Max.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read God's covenant to Abraham (beginning in Gen 12.3) which is regularly repeated, then confirmed again to Isaac, Jacob, then to Israel and the corporate Israel. Read the Prophets. This promise of Yahweh to "bless those who bless you, and curse them who curse you" resounds on nearly every page of scripture.

A little presumptuous to think that a reference to those who bless Abraham is a forever blessing now related to Israel.

Again, I am not suggesting withdrawing support. But I think that we are putting too much importance on something that a secular nation is doing with respect to who we are and what we do as Christians.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The blessing of the NT age is spiritual and heavenly in Christ. Our covenant as a people of faith is a better covenant, with better blessings.

Yes. And none of those blessings relate to America's treatment of Israel.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But God has not forgotten His promises to Israel. Soon the times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled. God will restore Israel, her land, her temple, and her sacrifices.

Soon.

As in "this generation will not pass away until . . . ." There have been good reasons to believe in every generation that the time was close, or "soon."

I am not saying to despair or to assume that it is not soon. It is best to simultaneously assume both soon and not in my lifetime. Assume soon so that you do not slack-off in diligence in our charge as those of the kingdom. But not in this lifetime that we do not ignore now pining for the great by-and-by in in that miss the charge for this age.

While I agree that God has not forgotten his promises to the Children of Israel, whether that translates simply into the support for the modern nation of Israel is not a given. And not forgetting his promise to Israel is not the same as retaining the promise of blessing for those that support the nation of Israel.

But whether or not your position on it is correct, I do not see what it really does for me, a believer who is striving to keep my walk according to the Spirit, and bear the image of God in this age. It is quite possible that support for Israel, or at least the position in favor of that, will come from such a life. But I do not see a need to seek out the application of an ancient blessing not repeated in the past 2,400 years and not clearly applicable. And crying out in despair over the actions of someone who is not a Christian (or is at least questionable as to being one) or the actions of a nation is not my charge in this life. My charge is not to make everyone follow my rules without first deciding to follow the Maker of those rules.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

A little presumptuous to think that a reference to those who bless Abraham is a forever blessing now related to Israel.

God has established a few tests in scripture.

How Israel is treated is one test.

How we treat Christ is another test.

How we treat His brothers is another test.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that's interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong but Enoch was written starting around 300 B.C.E, with sections written around 100 C.E. So it preceded Daniel by a hundred years.

This seems to be around the time that Judaism was becoming apocalyptic. It's obvious by references in the New Testament that at least some, if not all, the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the book of Enoch. Did the book of Enoch open up the door of apocalypticism, first to the Jews, then to the Christian writers, that has come down to us today? Were the books of Daniel and Revelation influenced by the book of Enoch?

I read the book of Enoch some time ago. It looks and smells like Daniel and Revelation.

In the end, given the violence in the books, these books are covered up with the POE.

Correction. The book of Enoch was written between 300 B.C.E and 100 B.C.E. Not 100 C.E. as I wrote. Sorry. My bad.

But more. Enoch is indeed full of imagery like Daniel and Revelation, and is full of demons and spirits, and apocalyptic themes.

In the Hebrew legacy in the OT demons were not so big and prominent as in the book of Enoch. Then, 100 years later this Enoch like demonology continues in the New Testament.

So, if Jude was reading Enoch, how many other of the NT writers were reading Enoch? Is that why we find Enoch like demonology in the NT? And also similar apocalyptic themes?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God has established a few tests in scripture.

How Israel is treated is one test.

How we treat Christ is another test.

How we treat His brothers is another test.

Are these tests, since seeming so important, spelled out clearly in a doctrinal cohesive discourse somewhere in the Bible, or are they of your own making, or that of others?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are these tests, since seeming so important, spelled out clearly in a doctrinal cohesive discourse somewhere in the Bible, or are they of your own making, or that of others?

The Bible provides little "doctrinal cohesive discourse."

I already quoted Genesis 12.3 for the first one.

I'll let you find the second.

The third one is found in Matthew 25.32-46.

Perhaps others exist too.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible provides little "doctrinal cohesive discourse."

I already quoted Genesis 12.3 for the first one.

I'll let you find the second.

The third one is found in Matthew 25.32-46.

Perhaps others exist too.

Thanks bro Ohio for additional verses. I must be blind tho. I don't see Gen 12:3 in the verses you provided. Perhaps you made a mistake and led me to the wrong verses. Can you double check it and give me the right verses?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks bro Ohio for additional verses. I must be blind tho. I don't see Gen 12:3 in the verses you provided. Perhaps you made a mistake and led me to the wrong verses. Can you double check it and give me the right verses?

3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Seems very straightforward.

Why didn't you answer my question? For what reason would the US not want to bless Israel?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God has established a few tests in scripture.

How Israel is treated is one test.

How we treat Christ is another test.

How we treat His brothers is another test.

Tests of what?

Do you really see anything that directs the Gentiles (Christians) to make any kind of special deference to the nation of Israel? (from 400BC forward)

I find verses that indicate I need to believe in Christ or I am "out."

I find instructions that we are to treat all those in Christ like, well, all those in Christ. And that is commonly phrased in such a way as to indicate that those in Christ are part of a family. They used the term "brothers" a lot.

I even find that we are supposed to treat any "neighbor" like I would treat myself. Or more accurately stated, love them as I love myself. And since I don't hate myself, I do not rail on them because they (or at least some of them) are sinners — especially those "horrible" sinners. Problem is that I love myself too much to be that harsh on myself, therefore I do not treat them that way.

And in doing all of that, I note that if you think the OT rule applies, the only problem was if you curse Abraham or Isaac, or Jacob (Israel) or his children. Blessing them got a blessing. Cursing them got a curse. Doing nothing got . . . what exactly? So not sending them aid . . . do you call that a curse?

And all of this is predicated on the presumption that because God said it in the OT it remains true now. One of those "every promise in the book is mine" kind of things. Like the Prayer of Jabez. Is there really any God-ordained principle at work in that? On what basis do we declare that the nation of Israel has actually existed since about 70 AD. Is it definite that the promise carries over to the UN-created country that has existed since about 1948 (and at war from day 1)?

Does providing any kind of aid to those various nations surrounding Israel constitute a curse on Israel? (Most all have national laws designed to see the nation of Israel wiped off the earth.) If so, then how does providing aid to Israel actually offset that? Or does it just return us to neutral?

Seems to me more like the religious looking for excuses for national problems or national prosperity. But the prosperity of America has gone up and down in cycles since day one. And they are not tied to Israel. Israel wasn't even around most of the life of this country. To what do we blame or credit the more distant past?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Tests of what?

Do you really see anything that directs the Gentiles (Christians) to make any kind of special deference to the nation of Israel?

They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
- Romans 15:27 (NIV)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Seems very straightforward.

Why didn't you answer my question? For what reason would the US not want to bless Israel?

Because of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Real Christians, living by the teaches of Jesus, can't support that kind of treatment ... almost like Nazi Germany treat the Jews. When they (Israelis) say, "Never again" they obviously don't mean other people, but only them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
- Romans 15:27 (NIV)

Again, you are seeing things that aren't there. Paul is talking about he saints in Jerusalem, and bringing them money. He's not talking about Israel.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Real Christians, living by the teaches of Jesus, can't support that kind of treatment ... almost like Nazi Germany treat the Jews. When they (Israelis) say, "Never again" they obviously don't mean other people, but only them.

They have returned to Israel, I have no issue with that, they were being obedient and it was seen as critical for their survival.

The Palestinians did not welcome them but rather attempted to wipe them out, so I don't take issue with Israel fighting for their survival.

However, even if it was justified at some point, they continued to steal property from the Palestinians long after it was a matter of survival. They moved the Palestinians into refugee camps, put them behind barbed wire and walls, and forced them to live as refugees in their own land and as second class citizens. Partly this is due to very bad stewardship by the Palestinian leadership and the misplaced belief that the surrounding nations would destroy Israel.

Still Israel's treatment of this people is not righteous, it is not according to the word of the Bible and they will not have peace until they are obedient to what the Bible says. But I think it would be easy for the US to step in bless Israel, bless the Palestinians, and be blessed as well.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Real Christians, living by the teaches of Jesus, can't support that kind of treatment ... almost like Nazi Germany treat the Jews. When they (Israelis) say, "Never again" they obviously don't mean other people, but only them.

Hogwash!

The Palestinians are victims here, but not by the Israelis, rather they are victims of their own evil leaders.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hogwash!

The Palestinians are victims here, but not by the Israelis, rather they are victims of their own evil leaders.

The situation is not righteous. Dealing with it in a way that is right is not the same as "cursing Israel".

Anyone who reads the history knows that the Palestinians are victims of inept and evil leadership. But that doesn't change the fact that they are victims and the current situation is not righteous. Until we are obedient to what the Bible says there will be no peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Again, you are seeing things that aren't there. Paul is talking about he saints in Jerusalem, and bringing them money. He's not talking about Israel.

There's no distinction made in the scripture. Paul went to the temple. You can't distinguish Israel from the saints here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They have returned to Israel, I have no issue with that, they were being obedient and it was seen as critical for their survival.

The Palestinians did not welcome them but rather attempted to wipe them out, so I don't take issue with Israel fighting for their survival.

However, even if it was justified at some point, they continued to steal property from the Palestinians long after it was a matter of survival. They moved the Palestinians into refugee camps, put them behind barbed wire and walls, and forced them to live as refugees in their own land and as second class citizens. Partly this is due to very bad stewardship by the Palestinian leadership and the misplaced belief that the surrounding nations would destroy Israel.

Still Israel's treatment of this people is not righteous, it is not according to the word of the Bible and they will not have peace until they are obedient to what the Bible says. But I think it would be easy for the US to step in bless Israel, bless the Palestinians, and be blessed as well.

Well amen to all that. Except the "The Palestinians did not welcome them but rather attempted to wipe them out." It is Israel that have the weapon power to wipe out, from us ... because Christians here have an obsessive fetish for Israel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen to all that. Except the "The Palestinians did not welcome them but rather attempted to wipe them out." It is Israel that have the weapon power to wipe out, from us ... because Christians here have an obsessive fetish for Israel.

Because a few Christians here have a love for Israel, based on the scripture, then it becomes some "obsessive fetish."

Puleeeese.

God help us!

Save us from abusive MOTA's!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because a few Christians here have a love for Israel, based on the scripture, then it becomes some "obsessive fetish."

Puleeeese.

God help us!

Save us from abusive MOTA's!

Lol ... Why do I say obsessive fetish?

I was born the year Israel became a state. All my life I've heard from Christians : "Israel, Israel, Israel." (I'm hearing it now.) If it were just love for Israel it wouldn't be a problem, but it's way way more than that. To them if you don't support Israel you're not a Christian. Which is strange, coming from gentiles. Jesus came to the Jews. They rejected him. It went to the gentiles. The church is now the real Israel. Not the state of Israel. That's clearly of men, not God. That can be confirmed by the history of the founding of Israel. So why this obsession with Israel, that goes beyond love for it?

Example:
I have a cousin here. We've always gotten along marvelously. We use to talk everyday, and meet for lunch from time to time. He's a Sunday school teacher at a Southern Baptist church. I attended his class a few times. He was kind enough to tell me that I didn't belong in the Baptist church. That wasn't a problem for him.

One day we got on the subject of Israel. When he found I wasn't a blind supporter of Israel he quoted Gen. 12:3 and that was the end of our friendship. He won't talk to me any more. I guess to him if I don't support Israel I'm worse than an atheist. He's fine if I not a Baptist, but not fine with me not being a blind supporter of Israel. Gen. 12:3 has made him superstitious about Israel.

And that to me is an obsessive fetish.

[awareness]

I don't like the word fetish either. So I'm changing it to "obsessive bewitching." In that, Christians have been bewitch by what the book of Revelation calls, "the synagogue of Satan."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen to all that. Except the "The Palestinians did not welcome them but rather attempted to wipe them out." It is Israel that have the weapon power to wipe out, from us ... because Christians here have an obsessive fetish for Israel.

Because I support Israel, thus I have "an obsessive fetish for Israel"?

You did say "Christians here" on this forum, and then you "prove" it by telling us some story about your cousin, who cut off your friendship. I'm thinking there's much more to the story than you're letting on. Perhaps you disrupted his Sunday School class on every visit? Sounds like the kind of thing you might do, all the while chuckling under your breath. I would like to hear his side of the story.

Fetish is defined as "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc." Yup, that accurately defines my support for Israel, based on Genesis 12.3 and other verses.

Perhaps your disdain for Israel has clouded your judgment? Perhaps it is you who have some secret "fetish" for them mooslems. Do you fantasize over Moohammud? No doubt, these are serious questions demanding extensive inquiry.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
- Romans 15:27 (NIV)

Paul is not talking about the nation of Israel, but the Christians who were Jews living in Jerusalem. Not really meaningful to the question raised.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Paul is not talking about the nation of Israel, but the Christians who were Jews living in Jerusalem. Not really meaningful to the question raised.

I really don't see the difference between blessing the Jews in Jerusalem and blessing Israel. Do you really think that God had those distinctions in mind when He spoke Gen 12.3 et. al. to Abraham and his descendants?

Do you also see huge distinctions between merely cursing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and cursing Israel?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really don't see the difference between blessing the Jews in Jerusalem and blessing Israel. Do you really think that God had those distinctions in mind when He spoke Gen 12.3 et. al. to Abraham and his descendants?

Do you also see huge distinctions between merely cursing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and cursing Israel?

It was not a gift to Jews in general, but to the Christians in Jerusalem. That is very different from the nation of Israel.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen to all that. Except the "The Palestinians did not welcome them but rather attempted to wipe them out." It is Israel that have the weapon power to wipe out, from us ... because Christians here have an obsessive fetish for Israel.

The weapons given to Israel were not from "christians" but from the US government, a secular government that is separated from Christianity.

Our government didn't give them weapons because of Bible prophecy, we gave them weapons because they are an absolutely crucial military base for maintaining peace between Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Israel's success as an economic power has given them the clout to purchase weapons to defend themselves, a right that every single nation has and exercises, and given the history of Israel since 1948 they would be idiotic to not exercise.

Nor have we given Israel aid to the exclusion of others. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have both received huge amounts of military hardware from the US.

Why do you think it is that every single president supports Israel, because of the Bible or because of the strategic importance?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Lol ... Why do I say obsessive fetish?

I was born the year Israel became a state. All my life I've heard from Christians : "Israel, Israel, Israel." (I'm hearing it now.) If it were just love for Israel it wouldn't be a problem, but it's way way more than that. To them if you don't support Israel you're not a Christian. Which is strange, coming from gentiles. Jesus came to the Jews. They rejected him. It went to the gentiles. The church is now the real Israel. Not the state of Israel. That's clearly of men, not God. That can be confirmed by the history of the founding of Israel. So why this obsession with Israel, that goes beyond love for it?

Example:
I have a cousin here. We've always gotten along marvelously. We use to talk everyday, and meet for lunch from time to time. He's a Sunday school teacher at a Southern Baptist church. I attended his class a few times. He was kind enough to tell me that I didn't belong in the Baptist church. That wasn't a problem for him.

One day we got on the subject of Israel. When he found I wasn't a blind supporter of Israel he quoted Gen. 12:3 and that was the end of our friendship. He won't talk to me any more. I guess to him if I don't support Israel I'm worse than an atheist. He's fine if I not a Baptist, but not fine with me not being a blind supporter of Israel. Gen. 12:3 has made him superstitious about Israel.

And that to me is an obsessive fetish.

I'm still not clear about which definition of fetish you are using. Is it the "abnormal sexual desire" or is it the "worship of an inanimate object"?

Either way, I think you are hanging around some very strange Christians and this could really explain a lot.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really don't see the difference between blessing the Jews in Jerusalem and blessing Israel. Do you really think that God had those distinctions in mind when He spoke Gen 12.3 et. al. to Abraham and his descendants?

Do you also see huge distinctions between merely cursing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and cursing Israel?

Did awareness ever explain why anyone would want to curse Israel?

If they don't want to curse them then why do they have a problem with the US blessing them?

[zeek]

Israel plays an important role in Christian apocalyptic theodicy. When I was in the LCM, Jesus was supposed to return by 1988 within a generation from the founding of modern Israel in 1948 based on Jesus' fig tree parable and his "this generation shall not pass away" prophesy.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Israel plays an important role in Christian apocalyptic theodicy. When I was in the LCM, Jesus was supposed to return by 1988 within a generation from the founding of modern Israel in 1948 based on Jesus' fig tree parable and his "this generation shall not pass away" prophesy.

There was some discussion on this point some time back (either here or on the old Berean forum). I thought that the year Lee pushed was something like 96 or 97.

At the time I noted that this is about the point that Lee died. Didn't have to be stoned for a false prophecy. He just died of old age, or whatever it was that was ailing him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You did say "Christians here" on this forum, and then you "prove" it by telling us some story about your cousin, who cut off your friendship. I'm thinking there's much more to the story than you're letting on. Perhaps you disrupted his Sunday School class on every visit? Sounds like the kind of thing you might do, all the while chuckling under your breath. I would like to hear his side of the story.

No, he said I was a pleasant contributor. What's funny is that after his class I was attending a Baptist church down by the lake. One of my customers told me that the preacher was a Bapitecostal. I was curious of what meant. I attended there for about 8 months, both adult Sunday school class, and worship service. What's funny is that the teacher of the class lived up the road from me, and I was invite to cookouts at his house. He told me that someone was inquiring about me. It turned to be my cousin. He want to know if I disrupted the class. He was told the same thing that, I was a pleasant addition to the class.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps your disdain for Israel has clouded your judgment? Perhaps it is you who have some secret "fetish" for them mooslems. Do you fantasize over Moohammud? No doubt, these are serious questions demanding extensive inquiry.

You're a funny guy bro Ohio. My cousins brother gave me a book entitle "The 100 most influential people in history." I was surprised. I thought it would be Jesus. But number one was Mohammad. Why. Because he proselytized his religion and Jesus didn't.

Have I fantasized about that? Do I have a Mohammad fetish? No. I never met the guy.

But I've noticed something about Gen. 12:3. It doesn't even hold up in the Bible, much less recently and currently. What kind of blessing do you expect for blessing the state of Israel? Does it make your life better, and solve all your problems? Is God pouring out His blessings on you because you bless the state of Israel?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

There was some discussion on this point some time back (either here or on the old Berean forum). I thought that the year Lee pushed was something like 96 or 97.

At the time I noted that this is about the point that Lee died. Didn't have to be stoned for a false prophecy. He just died of old age, or whatever it was that was ailing him.

I'm not surprised that Lee would find reasons to push the date forward. But I understand that the theory started with a former NASA rocket engineer named Edgar Whisenant who wrote a book entitled, Eighty-eight Reasons Why the Rapture Will Occur in 1988. Do you suppose their still printing that one?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Either way, I think you are hanging around some very strange Christians and this could really explain a lot.

People are strange. Christian or otherwise.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did awareness ever explain why anyone would want to curse Israel?

If they don't want to curse them then why do they have a problem with the US blessing them?

I don't want to curse Israel. I just don't think we should be sending weapons, like phosphorus bombs, as Obama did when Israel was attacking Gaza, and killing children. And we shouldn't be sending billions to support them, like we do every year. The Palestinians were created equal by their creator to. To Israel they are Amalekites, who deserve to be treated any way Israel wants to treat them, like killing them and stealing their lands and homes, or mowing them down with bulldozers.

Don't tell me the modern world is no longer determined by mythology. The Jews, most who have no blood ties to Abraham, or the Bible, and no right to "take the promised land" are using ancient Bible mythology that gives them the right to :

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

And Christians, because it has to do with their magic book, just fall for it ... thinking if Israel takes all the land and rebuilds the temple they'll get their precious Jesus back, no matter the cost of the neighbors they are suppose to be loving.

Don't tell me we aren't mythologically determined, even today. That's a joke.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't want to curse Israel. I just don't think we should be sending weapons, like phosphorus bombs, as Obama did when Israel was attacking Gaza, and killing children. And we shouldn't be sending billions to support them, like we do every year. The Palestinians were created equal by their creator to. To Israel they are Amalekites, who deserve to be treated any way Israel wants to treat them, like killing them and stealing their lands and homes, or mowing them down with bulldozers.

Don't tell me the modern world is no longer determined by mythology. The Jews, most who have no blood ties to Abraham, or the Bible, and no right to "take the promised land" are using ancient Bible mythology that gives them the right to :

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

And Christians, because it has to do with their magic book, just fall for it ... thinking if Israel takes all the land and rebuilds the temple they'll get their precious Jesus back, no matter the cost of the neighbors they are suppose to be loving.

Don't tell me we aren't mythologically determined, even today. That's a joke.

Well, perhaps sending them phosphorous weapons is cursing them.

Don't you think that making peace with the Palestinians would bless Israel?

How many times do you guys fall for this stuff. The Bible says to bless Israel so regardless of what we do they will sell it as "blessing Israel" and wrap themselves in God's word. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

This is why I say we should be obedient to what the Bible says. For someone who has argued that there is no reference to bacteria in the Bible despite all of the very obvious references, where exactly does the Bible say that giving phosphorous bombs is equivalent to "blessing someone"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't want to curse Israel. I just don't think we should be sending weapons, like phosphorus bombs, as Obama did when Israel was attacking Gaza, and killing children. And we shouldn't be sending billions to support them, like we do every year. The Palestinians were created equal by their creator to. To Israel they are Amalekites, who deserve to be treated any way Israel wants to treat them, like killing them and stealing their lands and homes, or mowing them down with bulldozers.

Don't tell me the modern world is no longer determined by mythology. The Jews, most who have no blood ties to Abraham, or the Bible, and no right to "take the promised land" are using ancient Bible mythology that gives them the right to :

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

And Christians, because it has to do with their magic book, just fall for it ... thinking if Israel takes all the land and rebuilds the temple they'll get their precious Jesus back, no matter the cost of the neighbors they are suppose to be loving.

Don't tell me we aren't mythologically determined, even today. That's a joke.

There's some serious anti-semitism here clouding your views. Let me get this straight:

Israel kills Palestinian children with bulldozers based on a verse in Deuteronomy.

Christians are all deluded by mythology based on their "magic book."

The fake Jews in Israel have no right to the "promised land."

Did I miss something?

[ZNPaaneah]

.....What kind of God would allow this to happen?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Attachment 182.....What kind of God would allow this to happen?

That's the Problem of Evil! Double Cheeseburgers!

[awareness]

Judaic views of the Amalekites
In Judaism, the Amalekites came to represent the archetypal enemy of the Jews. In Jewish folklore the Amalekites are considered to be the symbol of evil. This concept has been used by some hassidic rabbis (particularly the Baal Shem Tov) to represent atheism or the rejection of God. Nur Masalha, Elliot Horowitz and Josef Stern suggest that Amalekites have come to represent an "eternally irreconcilable enemy" that wants to murder Jews, and that Jews in post-biblical times sometimes associate contemporary enemies with Haman or Amalekites, and that some Jews believe that pre-emptive violence is acceptable against such enemies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, perhaps sending them phosphorous weapons is cursing them.

Well that's penetrating. Thanks for that. But it depends. As a Christian indiscriminate killing, such as phosphorous bombs inflict (they are illegal btw) is wrong because it goes against following Jesus. But as a Jew, following the Torah, when taking the Promised Land, they are obeying God. However, the Torah also teaches fairness and care for others, and God could be angry at them for the way they are treating the Palestinians, and so will actively curse them, like He's done so many times in the Old, and even New, Testament.

I guess we don't know. But should be careful. We don't know what God is feeling. But blind support of Israel may not match what's in the heart of God. God may be true to Gen. 12:3 when it comes to Abraham and his kids, but He clearly has not been true to it when it comes to Israel. And there's no legitimate reason to think that Gen. 12:3 applies to the state of Israel today.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Don't you think that making peace with the Palestinians would bless Israel?

Yes.

How many times do you guys fall for this stuff. The Bible says to bless Israel so regardless of what we do they will sell it as "blessing Israel" and wrap themselves in God's word. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

This is why I say we should be obedient to what the Bible says. For someone who has argued that there is no reference to bacteria in the Bible despite all of the very obvious references, where exactly does the Bible say that giving phosphorous bombs is equivalent to "blessing someone"?

Literally laughing out loud. Good one bro. You're a funny wack-a-noodle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that's penetrating. Thanks for that. But it depends. As a Christian indiscriminate killing, such as phosphorous bombs inflict (they are illegal btw) is wrong because it goes against following Jesus. But as a Jew, following the Torah, when taking the Promised Land, they are obeying God. However, the Torah also teaches fairness and care for others, and God could be angry at them for the way they are treating the Palestinians, and so will actively curse them, like He's done so many times in the Old, and even New, Testament.

I guess we don't know. But should be careful. We don't know what God is feeling. But blind support of Israel may not match what's in the heart of God. God may be true to Gen. 12:3 when it comes to Abraham and his kids, but He clearly has not been true to it when it comes to Israel. And there's no legitimate reason to think that Gen. 12:3 applies to the state of Israel today.

4 “Do not think in your heart, after the Lord your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out from before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 6 Therefore understand that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stiff-necked people.

There is a misperception that Israel is righteous, but that is not true. What is true is that these nations practiced infanticide and abortion (sacrifices to Moloch and Baal, babies were sacrificed for the sake of fornication and careers). But today Israel's laws concerning abortion are as liberal as virtually any nation.

Regardless of what the argument in favor of it is, it is a human sacrifice, something that we associate with Pagan worship.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But today Israel's laws concerning abortion are as liberal as virtually any nation.

Regardless of what the argument in favor of it is, it is a human sacrifice, something that we associate with Pagan worship.

This just can't be true. Bro Ohio has expressed extreme negative views on abortion. But he clearly supports Israel. So Israel can't be liberal towards abortion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This just can't be true. Bro Ohio has expressed extreme negative views on abortion. But he clearly supports Israel. So Israel can't be liberal towards abortion.

This just can't be true.

Bro awareness loves children and says phosphorus weaponry is evil, but he still lives in America (perhaps kentucky has left the Union?) which murders the unborn and used phosphorus on the Iraqis.

He also supported Obama who preferred to blow people up with drones rather than extract valuable life-saving information by getting these folks a little wet. Maybe there is a Trudeau in his future?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Literally laughing out loud. Good one bro. You're a funny wack-a-noodle.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This just can't be true.

Bro awareness loves children and says phosphorus weaponry is evil, but he still lives in America (perhaps kentucky has left the Union?) which murders the unborn and used phosphorus on the Iraqis.

He also supported Obama who preferred to blow people up with drones rather than extract valuable life-saving information by getting these folks a little wet. Maybe there is a Trudeau in his future?

This must be the alternative facts I've been hearing about.

[Evangelical]

As we are seeing, another example of evil instigated by Trump, is Syrian Christian families turned away at airports because of Trump's travel bans. Trump's policy is causing untold suffering on families, regardless of their religion, and will do little to stop terrorist attacks in America. This is therefore an example of unnecessary evil caused by the idiocy of one man.

The countries targeted include:

Iran
Iraq
Syria
Sudan
Libya
Yemen
Somalia

The problem is this will do little to stop terrorist attacks in America as this article explains: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...xecutive-order

Furthermore Trump chose the wrong countries to ban. The majority of 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt, Lebanon. Other countries where terrorism thrives is Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Strangely there are not bans on people from these countries. We can see from the global terrorism index that he is missing Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, which are higher on the list than Syria.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/t...t-attacks.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As we are seeing, another example of evil instigated by Trump, is Syrian Christian families turned away at airports because of Trump's travel bans. Trump's policy is causing untold suffering on families, regardless of their religion, and will do little to stop terrorist attacks in America. This is therefore an example of unnecessary evil caused by the idiocy of one man.

The countries targeted include:

Iran
Iraq
Syria
Sudan
Libya
Yemen
Somalia

The problem is this will do little to stop terrorist attacks in America as this article explains: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...xecutive-order

Furthermore Trump chose the wrong countries to ban. The majority of 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt, Lebanon. Other countries where terrorism thrives is Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Strangely there are not bans on people from these countries. We can see from the global terrorism index that he is missing Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, which are higher on the list than Syria.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/t...t-attacks.html

Do you have anything good to say about America, other than you can buy an expensive cemetery plot next to Witness Lee?

You already called America "Sodom," so perhaps Trump is only protecting these folks from all the evils here.

Trump was elected to secure the borders, and that is what he is doing. That is what the majority of Americans want.

"Untold suffering?" That's what happens when porous borders allow terrorists to kill and destroy our citizens.

Perhaps you are from California? I am beginning to think that a CalExit might be a good idea.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The countries targeted include:

Iran
Iraq
Syria
Sudan
Libya
Yemen
Somalia

The problem is this will do little to stop terrorist attacks in America as this article explains: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...xecutive-order

Furthermore Trump chose the wrong countries to ban. The majority of 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt, Lebanon. Other countries where terrorism thrives is Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Strangely there are not bans on people from these countries. We can see from the global terrorism index that he is missing Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, which are higher on the list than Syria.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/t...t-attacks.html

This ban is not about terrorism, it is about climate refugees.

Iran - Environmental catastrophe in the Ahwaz region (what we used to call the fertile crescent) http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/...-ahwaz-region/
Iraq’s environmental catastrophe worse than Hiroshima https://www.rt.com/op-edge/iraq-envi...hiroshima-533/
Syria’s uprising a result of Climate change https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-drought-study
Sudan — Conflict due to desertification http://postconflict.unep.ch/publicat..._disasters.pdf
Libya — Man made environmental catastrophe http://www.alternet.org/media/libya-...d-its-invasion
Yemen — Water crisis at catastrophic levels https://www.american.edu/cas/economi..._1-1_glass.pdf
Somalia — Severe drought http://www.somalilandpress.com/somal...e-catastrophe/

Don't tell me Trump doesn't believe in Climate change, actions speak louder than words.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This ban is not about terrorism, it is about climate refugees.

Iran - Environmental catastrophe in the Ahwaz region (what we used to call the fertile crescent) http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/...-ahwaz-region/
Iraq’s environmental catastrophe worse than Hiroshima https://www.rt.com/op-edge/iraq-envi...hiroshima-533/
Syria’s uprising a result of Climate change https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-drought-study
Sudan — Conflict due to desertification http://postconflict.unep.ch/publicat..._disasters.pdf
Libya — Man made environmental catastrophe http://www.alternet.org/media/libya-...d-its-invasion
Yemen — Water crisis at catastrophic levels https://www.american.edu/cas/economi..._1-1_glass.pdf
Somalia — Severe drought http://www.somalilandpress.com/somal...e-catastrophe/

Don't tell me Trump doesn't believe in Climate change, actions speak louder than words.

Well, that explains everything.

Trump surrogates today unveiled that those 7 countries were specifically identified as terroristic threats by the Obama administration.

And we know that Barak Obama was a High Priest in the Worldwide Church of Climate Change.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well, that explains everything.

Trump surrogates today unveiled that those 7 countries were specifically identified as terroristic threats by the Obama administration.

And we know that Barak Who's sane Obama was a High Priest in the Worldwide Church of Climate Change.

Terrorism is the excuse. This is made very clear if you read about Snowden. One revelation to him was that we collected twice as much data (emails, texts, phone calls) on Americans than on Russians.

It was very clear to him from his discussions with his bosses including the deputy director of the CIA that terrorism was merely an excuse.

Also the reason he went public was because of Obama. During the campaign Obama pledged to clean this up, instead things became much more intrusive. When he saw that he felt he had to go public.

Kind of reminds me of this extremely obscure preacher I knew who used "rebellions" as an excuse to do periodic purges of those who knew the truth.

In this case the truth is there is a gold mine, black gold, under the Arctic, just so long as we wall off the rest of the world suffering cataclysmic results of that black gold.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Terrorism is the excuse. This is made very clear if you read about Snowden. One revelation to him was that we collected twice as much data (emails, texts, phone calls) on Americans than on Russians.

It was very clear to him from his discussions with his bosses including the deputy director of the CIA that terrorism was merely an excuse.

Also the reason he went public was because of Obama. During the campaign Obama pledged to clean this up, instead things became much more intrusive. When he saw that he felt he had to go public.

I saw the movie Snowden. Brilliant guy.

Snowden was a patriot. Whistleblowers like him are true heroes.

They are doing the job the press should have done.

Climate change, like terrorism, is merely the excuse to push liberal intrusive agendas at us.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you have anything good to say about America, other than you can buy an expensive cemetery plot next to Witness Lee?

You already called America "Sodom," so perhaps Trump is only protecting these folks from all the evils here.

Trump was elected to secure the borders, and that is what he is doing. That is what the majority of Americans want.

"Untold suffering?" That's what happens when porous borders allow terrorists to kill and destroy our citizens.

Perhaps you are from California? I am beginning to think that a CalExit might be a good idea.

This chart and figures might help put things in perspective:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us...-gun-violence/

The fear of terrorists and immigration is irrational:
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-overinflated

The facts are a person is in much more danger from getting shot by an idiot with a gun than by a Syrian refugee family who has waited months to get visa approval and gone through all the necessary checks and balances. Although treating them this way might make them change their mind.

America is avoiding its global responsibility in accepting these refugees. America has a responsibility to these people given that they played a big part in causing the chaos in the first place.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I saw the movie Snowden. Brilliant guy.

Snowden was a patriot. Whistleblowers like him are true heroes.

They are doing the job the press should have done.

Climate change, like terrorism, is merely the excuse to push liberal intrusive agendas at us.

Snowden is a traitor, plain and simple. Did his leaks accomplish anything? No, not really. People are quite happy having their lives monitored - those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Snowden is a traitor, plain and simple. Did his leaks accomplish anything? No, not really. People are quite happy having their lives monitored - those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

I wonder why Ben Franklin said, "those who trade liberty for security, deserve neither."

Snowden acted according to conscience. His leaks exposed extensive government corruption. People are not happy with surveilance.

A healthy government fears its people, not the other way around. During the last century, over 150 million people died at the hands of their own government.

Obviously normal law-abiding citizens have much to fear from abusive governments.

I thought you might be a Christian? Have you never read how many genuine evangelical Christians have been tortured and killed for their faith at the hands of their leaders?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This chart and figures might help put things in perspective:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us...-gun-violence/

The fear of terrorists and immigration is irrational:
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-overinflated

The facts are a person is in much more danger from getting shot by an idiot with a gun than by a Syrian refugee family who has waited months to get visa approval and gone through all the necessary checks and balances. Although treating them this way might make them change their mind.

America is avoiding its global responsibility in accepting these refugees. America has a responsibility to these people given that they played a big part in causing the chaos in the first place.

America has no global responsibility to accept any refugees.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I saw the movie Snowden. Brilliant guy.

Snowden was a patriot. Whistleblowers like him are true heroes.

They are doing the job the press should have done.

Climate change, like terrorism, is merely the excuse to push liberal intrusive agendas at us.

You see the green's as "watermelons" (green on the outside and red on the inside).

I view these changes as inevitable. The power to collect and analyze all the data is there, just like Pandora's box, it has been released and can no longer be taken away. Likewise, the advantages of having modern technology far outweigh the disadvantages.

I view us as "stewards" of the land. The environmental catastrophes that have been man made are not "good stewardship". Our foreign policy which was not pushed by green's like Al Gore but rather by Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes has not created a more peaceful world.

In that sense I think the best foreign policy is one that makes peace. Smashing your "enemy" back to the Stone age has not made the world safer, but rather more terrifying.

I think we should go into these countries that Trump has declared to be outcasts and give them a peace offering that would make peace.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Snowden is a traitor, plain and simple. Did his leaks accomplish anything? No, not really. People are quite happy having their lives monitored - those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

Really? Nothing to fear? The movie tells a story of a Banker who should have had nothing to fear. But the CIA needed to "turn" someone, make an insider into their spy. So they saw that his teenage daughter had a boyfriend. They revoked the boyfriend's visa, having him deported. This in turn caused the girl to try and commit suicide with sleeping pills. They then took the banker out, promised to help get the boyfriend back, got him drunk, put him in his car and then called the police on him for DUI. Once again, he now needs them to help him not go to jail. They destroyed this man's life to make him their "female dog". How? Simply by the ability to figure out where the pressure points were in his life and push them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

America has no global responsibility to accept any refugees.

If the world were a family then the US should be viewed as one of the key elders of this family.

If we want to be a "light set on a hill" then we will help these nations.

If they are "climate refugees" as a result of climate change then we, along with all others who have been changing the climate, bear some responsibility.

A tribe of chimps does not bear responsibility for the survival of another tribe of chimps, but we are not chimps. We are men. Our tremendous success over chimps is due to our being eusocial. If we stop being eusocial we will stop being men.

That does not mean that accepting refugees is the solution. Most refugees would rather stay in their country. I view these countries as the canary in the coal mine. What is killing them will be killing us soon. https://www.yahoo.com/news/storms-pr...050419759.html

Therefore if we can solve the problem while it is still in Yemen and Syria we will be very thankful for that solution when it moves to the US.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You see the green's as "watermelons" (green on the outside and red on the inside).

I view these changes as inevitable. The power to collect and analyze all the data is there, just like Pandora's box, it has been released and can no longer be taken away. Likewise, the advantages of having modern technology far outweigh the disadvantages.

I view us as "stewards" of the land. The environmental catastrophes that have been man made are not "good stewardship". Our foreign policy which was not pushed by green's like Al Gore but rather by Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes has not created a more peaceful world.

In that sense I think the best foreign policy is one that makes peace. Smashing your "enemy" back to the Stone age has not made the world safer, but rather more terrifying.

I think we should go into these countries that Trump has declared to be outcasts and give them a peace offering that would make peace.

I see this earth as merely a temporary home for mankind. Its usefullness is short lived. Its resources are not sustainable long term. The global elites have known this for years, and that is why they have plans in place to reduce global populations by billions. They care little for the planet, only themselves. Al Gore is case in point. He is a preacher of tiny carbon footprints, yet his carbon footprint is as big as some whole countries.

I grew up being brainwashed by liberal ideology that mankind's bad behavior was expediting the next ice age. Visualize frozen wooly mammoths. Next was global warming. Now climate change. Wait till the big earthquake hits. Can't blame that on the oil industry.

The world will never know lasting peace until our Lord returns. Only the sovereignty of God has kept us from destroying ourselves, and will continue to do so until He is ready to send His Son to return.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If we want to be a "light set on a hill" then we will help these nations.

The U.S. is not a light set on a hill. Maybe a false beacon designed to lure ships into the rocks.

I am being a little facetious there. But to use the "light set on a hill" terminology is to grant a spiritual status that the nation known as the United States of America does not have nor has it ever had. It does boast a more open and honest means of governing. But despite the inclusiveness of its citizens in government through he vote, they do not truly rule the nation. Nor do the rules truly reflect the ideals that we would call moral and just. Some yes, others no. But not entirely yes, therefore not qualified to be the light on a hill. During almost all parts of its history it has denied some people true participation in the "land of the free." At our best, we all want certain ones to be suppressed. And therefore whoever is in power will be suppressing someone. We suppress the gays, or the bigots, or the Christians, or the Muslims, or the world-domination group, or the isolationists. And the wise people among the middle of all of that know that the suppression of anyone suppresses them.

Yes, our history, dark as some parts may seem to some, has been more positive for more people than all but a few others can boast. But it is still nothing more than a kingdom of the world. Our part (as Christians) is not necessarily to shape the best country that could be. It is to live as lights in this dark and evil age. Yes. Right here in America is still a dark and evil age. No mater who is the president and how moral you think our laws could become. Worrying about making the world right with God's morality without God is just providing a reason for them to think that they don't need God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see this earth as merely a temporary home for mankind. Its usefullness is short lived. Its resources are not sustainable long term. The global elites have known this for years, and that is why they have plans in place to reduce global populations by billions. They care little for the planet, only themselves. Al Gore is case in point. He is a preacher of tiny carbon footprints, yet his carbon footprint is as big as some whole countries.

I grew up being brainwashed by liberal ideology that mankind's bad behavior was expediting the next ice age. Visualize frozen wooly mammoths. Next was global warming. Now climate change. Wait till the big earthquake hits. Can't blame that on the oil industry.

The world will never know lasting peace until our Lord returns. Only the sovereignty of God has kept us from destroying ourselves, and will continue to do so until He is ready to send His Son to return.

Amen, amen, and amen.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see this earth as merely a temporary home for mankind. Its usefullness is short lived. Its resources are not sustainable long term. The global elites have known this for years, and that is why they have plans in place to reduce global populations by billions. They care little for the planet, only themselves. Al Gore is case in point. He is a preacher of tiny carbon footprints, yet his carbon footprint is as big as some whole countries.

I grew up being brainwashed by liberal ideology that mankind's bad behavior was expediting the next ice age. Visualize frozen wooly mammoths. Next was global warming. Now climate change. Wait till the big earthquake hits. Can't blame that on the oil industry.

The world will never know lasting peace until our Lord returns. Only the sovereignty of God has kept us from destroying ourselves, and will continue to do so until He is ready to send His Son to return.

And Donald Trump is doing God's will by hastening the day of Armageddon! This irresponsible way of looking at the world is why apocalypticism is so dangerous.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see this earth as merely a temporary home for mankind. Its usefullness is short lived. Its resources are not sustainable long term. The global elites have known this for years, and that is why they have plans in place to reduce global populations by billions. They care little for the planet, only themselves. Al Gore is case in point. He is a preacher of tiny carbon footprints, yet his carbon footprint is as big as some whole countries.

I grew up being brainwashed by liberal ideology that mankind's bad behavior was expediting the next ice age. Visualize frozen wooly mammoths. Next was global warming. Now climate change. Wait till the big earthquake hits. Can't blame that on the oil industry.

The world will never know lasting peace until our Lord returns. Only the sovereignty of God has kept us from destroying ourselves, and will continue to do so until He is ready to send His Son to return.

I view this world as a training ground for God's children to learn how to exercise dominion. Being a good steward is part of God's original commission to Adam. Creation is currently groaning about this.

Unfortunately the oil industry is responsible for earthquakes, at least where they do fracking.

Even though these things won't be resolved until the Lord returns, and even though the 1,000 years is also called "the restoration of all things" I still feel it is our responsibility to be good stewards.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The U.S. is not a light set on a hill. Maybe a false beacon designed to lure ships into the rocks.

I am being a little facetious there. But to use the "light set on a hill" terminology is to grant a spiritual status that the nation known as the United States of America does not have nor has it ever had. It does boast a more open and honest means of governing. But despite the inclusiveness of its citizens in government through he vote, they do not truly rule the nation. Nor do the rules truly reflect the ideals that we would call moral and just. Some yes, others no. But not entirely yes, therefore not qualified to be the light on a hill. During almost all parts of its history it has denied some people true participation in the "land of the free." At our best, we all want certain ones to be suppressed. And therefore whoever is in power will be suppressing someone. We suppress the gays, or the bigots, or the Christians, or the Muslims, or the world-domination group, or the isolationists. And the wise people among the middle of all of that know that the suppression of anyone suppresses them.

Yes, our history, dark as some parts may seem to some, has been more positive for more people than all but a few others can boast. But it is still nothing more than a kingdom of the world. Our part (as Christians) is not necessarily to shape the best country that could be. It is to live as lights in this dark and evil age. Yes. Right here in America is still a dark and evil age. No mater who is the president and how moral you think our laws could become. Worrying about making the world right with God's morality without God is just providing a reason for them to think that they don't need God.

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to something higher. Many people have considered the US to be a positive example to other countries.

"Worrying about making the world right with God's morality" is what Eleanor Roosevelt did in writing the universal declaration of human rights. This action was seen to essential after WWII.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

And Donald Trump is doing God's will by hastening the day of Armageddon! This irresponsible way of looking at the world is why apocalypticism is so dangerous.

Or maybe just hastening the day of his impeachment.

The bottom line is that "more of the same" is not a solution. It is easy to say he is wrong, but then you should tell us what right is.

Please explain how we, in the US, can bring peace to this troubled region?

Can't do that?

Then at the very least explain how the US Government can protect its citizens from the chaos of these regions?

Oops, can't even do that?

The only thing you can do is to cast aspersion. Give us the solution and then you will have the credibility to cast aspersion.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to something higher.

I do not argue against aspiring for better. But once you start wrapping it in the cloak of religion — even indirectly through the rhetoric used — it becomes a call to those who see unity of church and state as a good thing (for both state and religion). It is a misdirection for us from our call to bear God's image.

But history shows that the joining of church and state is not a good thing. It compromises the church while giving the state a false sense of purity and superiority.

In any case, for the purpose of our life a Christians, it is clearly better if we have our aspirations related to our higher kingdom and let the earthly kingdom be what it will be. Not saying to just ignore the earthly government. But it should not be an important part of our focus. It is, at its best, the world.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not argue against aspiring for better. But once you start wrapping it in the cloak of religion — even indirectly through the rhetoric used — it becomes a call to those who see unity of church and state as a good thing (for both state and religion). It is a misdirection for us from our call to bear God's image.

But history shows that the joining of church and state is not a good thing. It compromises the church while giving the state a false sense of purity and superiority.

In any case, for the purpose of our life a Christians, it is clearly better if we have our aspirations related to our higher kingdom and let the earthly kingdom be what it will be. Not saying to just ignore the earthly government. But it should not be an important part of our focus. It is, at its best, the world.

I have a different view on what History shows us.

Does history show that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light? yes.

But does history also show that you cannot separate the "rule of law" from "moral law"? Yes. This is what the Nuremberg trial concluded.

In the end our foreign policy must include diplomacy and making peace. The solution is to make peace. Bombs, and drones are not the solution, if they were the last 8 years would have seen a dramatic improvement in foreign relations, it hasn't.

If you are not saying to ignore our earthly responsibilities as citizens then I can not understand what you are saying.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I wonder why Ben Franklin said, "those who trade liberty for security, deserve neither."

Snowden acted according to conscience. His leaks exposed extensive government corruption. People are not happy with surveilance.

A healthy government fears its people, not the other way around. During the last century, over 150 million people died at the hands of their own government.

Obviously normal law-abiding citizens have much to fear from abusive governments.

I thought you might be a Christian? Have you never read how many genuine evangelical Christians have been tortured and killed for their faith at the hands of their leaders?

People that break the law to act according to conscience are called vigilantes. Whether it is a murderer, or a thief, or a traitor, vigilantism is to be condemned. Nothing about why Snowden did it makes it right. He still should be prosecuted for what he did against the laws of the US. Law-abiding citizens obey the laws of their country. Snowden didn't and you seem to be advocating that it is okay to break the law. You cannot say that is being "normal law-abiding citizen". Sympathizing with vigilantism is outside of the law. Anyway the leak accomplished nothing. Is not America still being monitored today by its own government? Is Trump going to stop doing that? Of course he won't.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

America has no global responsibility to accept any refugees.

The English Prime Minister would disagree. Are you really so stupid to think that America should expect other countries to clean up the consequences of their actions? I thought you might be a Christian and know something about receiving foreigners, orphans and widows as the Bible says to do.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really? Nothing to fear? The movie tells a story of a Banker who should have had nothing to fear. But the CIA needed to "turn" someone, make an insider into their spy. So they saw that his teenage daughter had a boyfriend. They revoked the boyfriend's visa, having him deported. This in turn caused the girl to try and commit suicide with sleeping pills. They then took the banker out, promised to help get the boyfriend back, got him drunk, put him in his car and then called the police on him for DUI. Once again, he now needs them to help him not go to jail. They destroyed this man's life to make him their "female dog". How? Simply by the ability to figure out where the pressure points were in his life and push them.

Movies are not reality. If Snowden had acted in the interest of another country he would be called a traitor. If Snowden acted on the basis of conscience, that makes him a vigilante. Neither traitor nor vigilante makes it right.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Movies are not reality. If Snowden had acted in the interest of another country he would be called a traitor. If Snowden acted on the basis of conscience, that makes him a vigilante. Neither traitor nor vigilante makes it right.

Which completely ignores my post. The point is that if the Government wants to turn you into a spy they can do it by hook and crook.

You can argue that the banker should have been smart enough to avoid the pitfalls, perhaps. But what about his teenage daughter? What about the boyfriend who has no idea what her father is involved in.

You said if you have nothing to hide you don't need to worry, but the story proves if you have something of value you need to worry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The English Prime Minister would disagree. Are you really so stupid to think that America should expect other countries to clean up the consequences of their actions? I thought you might be a Christian and know something about receiving foreigners, orphans and widows as the Bible says to do.

The consequence of their actions?

I expect the US to be responsible for the consequence of our actions. Climate change in part is a consequence of our actions, surely more than they are of Yemen or Syria. Saying that the ecological catastrophe in Iraq was worse than Hiroshima was a direct consequence of the US action of using depleted uranium as a weapon.

Iran's ecological disaster was a direct result of oil exploration and drilling. If we bought that oil we are partners in that destruction. Even if we didn't we are clearly responsible for quite a lot of ecologic disaster from oil exploration.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The consequence of their actions?

I expect the US to be responsible for the consequence of our actions. Climate change in part is a consequence of our actions, surely more than they are of Yemen or Syria. Saying that the ecological catastrophe in Iraq was worse than Hiroshima was a direct consequence of the US action of using depleted uranium as a weapon.

Iran's ecological disaster was a direct result of oil exploration and drilling. If we bought that oil we are partners in that destruction. Even if we didn't we are clearly responsible for quite a lot of ecologic disaster from oil exploration.

Right, my point is everyone is responsible and particularly the US and its allies. All major countries have a part to play and responsibility.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which completely ignores my post. The point is that if the Government wants to turn you into a spy they can do it by hook and crook.

You can argue that the banker should have been smart enough to avoid the pitfalls, perhaps. But what about his teenage daughter? What about the boyfriend who has no idea what her father is involved in.

You said if you have nothing to hide you don't need to worry, but the story proves if you have something of value you need to worry.

That fear is irrational, to such an extent that only an irrational person would be worried about that happening - or a person that knows they are of value or have something to hide. The chance of it happening to an average citizen is quite small. Put that worry in perspective, compared to say, a family in the neighborhood with an arsenal of weapons and a reclusive teenager with a mental illness. Trump and co. are dumb, not just because he ignores the science, and thinks fast food is healthy and denies climate change, but also because he can't make rational decisions. He cannot put fear into perspective, he cannot say, okay the chance of death by gun in the US is 1000 times greater than the chance of terrorist attack by Syrian woman who has gone through the long and arduous process of obtaining a visa as a refugee, or an Iranian doctor who wishes to use his expertise to benefit Americans. He cannot realize that he has just banned people from Muslim countries that have not conducted terrorist attacks on home soil over the past 40 years, and has failed to impose restrictions on countries that have (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc). Now, soon he will pull out of the Paris agreement, and ramp up oil, gas and coal production.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have a different view on what History shows us.

We can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Does history show that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light? yes.

Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But does history also show that you cannot separate the "rule of law" from "moral law"? Yes. This is what the Nuremberg trial concluded.

I did not suggest that the rule of law can be void of moral law. And even Germany had moral law. Just not at the level that the larger world society considered sufficient to allow them to do what they wanted. But neither was simply God's law. One was closer than the other.

Whether secular law must be brought in line with God's law in the minutia is quite a different question. God's law would oppose LGBT(and whatever more letters they now tack on) lifestyle but in secular society it is not a given that its moral code must agree. There is also a "morality" in allowing individuals there free will in areas we may not agree with. That is not God's morality. But he is fully capable of meting out judgment on those issues as he sees fit. And it might not come in this lifetime. That is not simply our choice to insist upon.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the end our foreign policy must include diplomacy and making peace. The solution is to make peace. Bombs, and drones are not the solution, if they were the last 8 years would have seen a dramatic improvement in foreign relations, it hasn't.

Wandering far from God's requirement to love your neighbor as yourself. I can make a moralistic argument that taking land by force and then forcing a religious system upon the inhabitants is something that moral people should not stand for.

But how we respond is not some obvious "foreign policy" edict for this or any other country. I am not near enough to being God to decide between a true "just war" and being hands off. Or somewhere in between. But governments will respond as they feel best to respond.

And before getting to your "ignore your earthly responsibilities" nonsense (which completely misrepresents what I said) I do not suggest that any particular course of action is clearly right or wrong. And I do not say that we should just stay out of it because we are Christians. But the way to take part is to do so in the same way that anyone else does. Make your case for a particular course of action (or inaction). Don't start marching in the streets decrying the need to step up to our God-given rights as the "light on a hill" and "turn the nation back to God." (not saying that you are proposing such a thing — but some do).

There is a place between the social isolationism that some Christians have undertaken in the past, and the curse-the-abortion-clinics-and-gays-and bomb-the-Muslims stance that the other extreme seems to go to. If you can't understand that, then you are helpless. That is where most of Christianity actually lives. And in that place, there are actually good Christians who voted for Hillary. It wasn't me. But I know some of them. And they are more about us living our Christian life than tilting at the Muslim, gay, abortionist, etc., windmills.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That fear is irrational, to such an extent that only an irrational person would be worried about that happening - or a person that knows they are of value or have something to hide. The chance of it happening to an average citizen is quite small. Put that worry in perspective, compared to say, a family in the neighborhood with an arsenal of weapons and a reclusive teenager with a mental illness. Trump and co. are dumb, not just because he ignores the science, and thinks fast food is healthy and denies climate change, but also because he can't make rational decisions. He cannot put fear into perspective, he cannot say, okay the chance of death by gun in the US is 1000 times greater than the chance of terrorist attack by Syrian woman who has gone through the long and arduous process of obtaining a visa as a refugee, or an Iranian doctor who wishes to use his expertise to benefit Americans. He cannot realize that he has just banned people from Muslim countries that have not conducted terrorist attacks on home soil over the past 40 years, and has failed to impose restrictions on countries that have (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc). Now, soon he will pull out of the Paris agreement, and ramp up oil, gas and coal production.

Tell that to Germans, or Russians, or Chinese, or 60% of the world's population. Tell that to the German leaders who know they are being tapped, or the leaders of any of our other allies. Why do we only need to worry about "average" citizens. Billionaires, senators, judges, etc.

The US represents about 5% of the world's population, and we have been a country for a little more than 200 years. For the other 5,800 years of human civilization and for the other 95% of the world's population for these 200 years it would be irrational to think any other way. The world is in a constant flux, like riding a bicycle. Just because we are upright at the moment that could change in a week. There is no guarantee that a madman doesn't take over our country and gain control of the awesome power of our NSA.

When asked why they rob banks a famous criminal said "because that is where the money is". If someone wants the power to rule the world they will try to take over the US, because that is where the power is.

BTW, is it irrational to want to see Trump's tax records? Is it irrational to ask where this close relation with Putin came from? Reagan said "trust but verify". Was he irrational?

Are we really going to compare a reclusive teenager with a gun to the NSA and their ability to capture every text, email, and phone call in the entire world? You really need someone to put that into perspective for you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

People that break the law to act according to conscience are called vigilantes. Whether it is a murderer, or a thief, or a traitor, vigilantism is to be condemned. Nothing about why Snowden did it makes it right. He still should be prosecuted for what he did against the laws of the US. Law-abiding citizens obey the laws of their country. Snowden didn't and you seem to be advocating that it is okay to break the law. You cannot say that is being "normal law-abiding citizen". Sympathizing with vigilantism is outside of the law. Anyway the leak accomplished nothing. Is not America still being monitored today by its own government? Is Trump going to stop doing that? Of course he won't.

No, that is NOT the definition of a vigilante.

By your definitions, America would be today chopped up into French, Dutch, Spanish, and British colonies.

Also, by your definitions, the gospel would never have been preached, since many broke the law by preaching it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The English Prime Minister would disagree. Are you really so stupid to think that America should expect other countries to clean up the consequences of their actions? I thought you might be a Christian and know something about receiving foreigners, orphans and widows as the Bible says to do.

Clean up the consequences of their actions? Are you serious? America is responsible for ISIS terrorism? Talk about being stupid!

Since you are such a loving Christian, why are you not hosting mooslem refugees at your home?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which completely ignores my post. The point is that if the Government wants to turn you into a spy they can do it by hook and crook.

You can argue that the banker should have been smart enough to avoid the pitfalls, perhaps. But what about his teenage daughter? What about the boyfriend who has no idea what her father is involved in.

You said if you have nothing to hide you don't need to worry, but the story proves if you have something of value you need to worry.

We all have "something of value." We all need to worry about oppressive governments.

Except for evangelical. He has nothing of value. He doesn't need to worry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Right, my point is everyone is responsible and particularly the US and its allies. All major countries have a part to play and responsibility.

According to your logic, Witness Lee should have been responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in all the LC's.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Or maybe just hastening the day of his impeachment.

The bottom line is that "more of the same" is not a solution. It is easy to say he is wrong, but then you should tell us what right is.

Please explain how we, in the US, can bring peace to this troubled region?

Can't do that?

Then at the very least explain how the US Government can protect its citizens from the chaos of these regions?

Oops, can't even do that?

The only thing you can do is to cast aspersion. Give us the solution and then you will have the credibility to cast aspersion.

I cast an aspersion on the attitude that peace is impossible without an apocalypse. Such an attitude has given sanction to the wanton destruction of the planet and the kind of political realism that keeps us in perpetual war. It's all OK as long as your right with the Lord in your heart. I don't accept that bull****. That's my solution.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

According to your logic, Witness Lee should have been responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in all the LC's.

Many on this forum seem to think so.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, that is NOT the definition of a vigilante.

By your definitions, America would be today chopped up into French, Dutch, Spanish, and British colonies.

Also, by your definitions, the gospel would never have been preached, since many broke the law by preaching it.

Snowden was not a gospel preacher. Why does Romans 13:1 not apply to Snowden? He was a government employee, he not only disobeyed his own government, but also stole things from his employer, things which did not belong to him.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Tell that to Germans, or Russians, or Chinese, or 60% of the world's population. Tell that to the German leaders who know they are being tapped, or the leaders of any of our other allies. Why do we only need to worry about "average" citizens. Billionaires, senators, judges, etc.

The US represents about 5% of the world's population, and we have been a country for a little more than 200 years. For the other 5,800 years of human civilization and for the other 95% of the world's population for these 200 years it would be irrational to think any other way. The world is in a constant flux, like riding a bicycle. Just because we are upright at the moment that could change in a week. There is no guarantee that a madman doesn't take over our country and gain control of the awesome power of our NSA.

When asked why they rob banks a famous criminal said "because that is where the money is". If someone wants the power to rule the world they will try to take over the US, because that is where the power is.

BTW, is it irrational to want to see Trump's tax records? Is it irrational to ask where this close relation with Putin came from? Reagan said "trust but verify". Was he irrational?

Are we really going to compare a reclusive teenager with a gun to the NSA and their ability to capture every text, email, and phone call in the entire world? You really need someone to put that into perspective for you?

Until it happens it's an irrational fear. The statistics don't lie, 400000 people killed by firearms on US soil since 2001. About 3000 deaths due to terrorism. Deaths due to NSA wire tapping, probably zero, I don't know, but the chance of it happening is about the same as being abducted by space aliens. People will fear the little old lady from Syria because she might be a terrorist, versus the potential dangers in their own neighborhood.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Clean up the consequences of their actions? Are you serious? America is responsible for ISIS terrorism? Talk about being stupid!

Since you are such a loving Christian, why are you not hosting mooslem refugees at your home?

It is pretty much a fact that the U.S. and its allies destabilized Iraq and Syria in turn, created safe havens for extremists that previously did not exist. That's what all the experts are saying and what leaked intel shows:
https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...0da#.j1c3cx7t6

Trump has basically admitted to this by saying they should have kept or taken the oil in Iraq so the ISIS could not be funded. Trump also knows that ISIS could have been finished much sooner had they taken action sooner. That's one good thing about Trump he is an action man.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I cast an aspersion on the attitude that peace is impossible without an apocalypse. Such an attitude has given sanction to the wanton destruction of the planet and the kind of political realism that keeps us in perpetual war. It's all OK as long as your right with the Lord in your heart. I don't accept that bull****. That's my solution.

So then, what is the path to peace? I do not fault someone who doesn't want a terrorist to blow up a bomb in their city, take a machine gun to their city, drive a truck through a crowd in their city or crash a plane in their city.

So then, how do you bring peace to this situation?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Snowden was not a gospel preacher. Why does Romans 13:1 not apply to Snowden? He was a government employee, he not only disobeyed his own government, but also stole things from his employer, things which did not belong to him.

When the Bible says to be subject is it referring to be subject to your boss or be subject to the Law? If your boss is breaking the law are you being subject to the government by being subject to a criminal, or if they are breaking the law are you being subject to the government by exposing the criminal?

When the head of the NSA lied to the senate about not knowingly gathering information of American citizens, which is a violation of the constitution for unlawful searches he was clearly not being subject to the authorities. His head was not "covered". Hence, to obey him and help him cover up his lie is not being obedient to the government.

The Nuremberg trial established that you are not free to break the law simply because you are "following orders". He knew that their surveillance was illegal, unconstitutional and that his bosses were lying about it to those that they report to.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Until it happens it's an irrational fear. The statistics don't lie, 400000 people killed by firearms on US soil since 2001. About 3000 deaths due to terrorism. Deaths due to NSA wire tapping, probably zero, I don't know, but the chance of it happening is about the same as being abducted by space aliens. People will fear the little old lady from Syria because she might be a terrorist, versus the potential dangers in their own neighborhood.

You don't know because it is top secret and they don't reveal that information. Snowden referred to a single field operation that he was involved in and that resulted in the suicide attempt of a teenage girl. It also revealed that this was not accidental, they had identified this girl as the "weak link" which they refer to as a "pressure point". They intentionally put the pressure on her to get to her father.

Second, since when is the standard for a crime whether or not a person died?

Third, why don't you read about Stuxnet. That is another branch of the NSA and the threat is seen as being far bigger than a nuclear bomb. Many people believe that it was the humiliation from Stuxnet that prompted the Russians to hack Clinton and bring her down. The NSA opened pandora's box, but you can be sure Iran, Pakistan, China, North Korea and Russia want to at the forefront of this demon hoard.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, what is the path to peace? I do not fault someone who doesn't want a terrorist to blow up a bomb in their city, take a machine gun to their city, drive a truck through a crowd in their city or crash a plane in their city.

And you suppose I fault such a person? So, if one doesn't accept Trump's ban on immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, one is faulting "someone who doesn't want a terrorist to blow up a bomb in their city, take a machine gun to their city, drive a truck through a crowd in their city or crash a plane in their city." I call that a false dilemma.

So then, how do you bring peace to this situation?

What situation? I'm talking about tested human strategies such as diplomacy that promote peace versus inciting war to put the planet on the path to Armageddon in order to bring the LORD back. I favor the former. Witness Lee's notion of preparing the Bride for the Bridegroom is benign by comparison to the latter.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You don't know because it is top secret and they don't reveal that information. Snowden referred to a single field operation that he was involved in and that resulted in the suicide attempt of a teenage girl. It also revealed that this was not accidental, they had identified this girl as the "weak link" which they refer to as a "pressure point". They intentionally put the pressure on her to get to her father.

Second, since when is the standard for a crime whether or not a person died?

Third, why don't you read about Stuxnet. That is another branch of the NSA and the threat is seen as being far bigger than a nuclear bomb. Many people believe that it was the humiliation from Stuxnet that prompted the Russians to hack Clinton and bring her down. The NSA opened pandora's box, but you can be sure Iran, Pakistan, China, North Korea and Russia want to at the forefront of this demon hoard.

If it is top secret and not revealed, then how do you know it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

And you suppose I fault such a person? So, if one doesn't accept Trump's ban on immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, one is faulting "someone who doesn't want a terrorist to blow up a bomb in their city, take a machine gun to their city, drive a truck through a crowd in their city or crash a plane in their city." I call that a false dilemma.



What situation? I'm talking about tested human strategies such as diplomacy that promote peace versus inciting war to put the planet on the path to Armageddon in order to bring the LORD back. I favor the former. Witness Lee's notion of preparing the Bride for the Bridegroom is benign by comparison to the latter.

Great, so give me the "tested human strategy" that we should take.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If it is top secret and not revealed, then how do you know it?

Because of whistleblowers like Snowden and because Stuxnet was discovered and became public knowledge.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great, so give me the "tested human strategy" that we should take.

How is that related to this?

• God exists.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's one good thing about Trump he is an action man.

Or action child. Who is signing EOs like writing tweets, and who puts them in classy leather binders and holds them up like a child showing how good he colors.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or action child. Who is signing EOs like writing tweets, and who puts them in classy leather binders and holds them up like a child showing how good he colors.

Never heard you complain about Obama using Executive Orders to release criminals and who knows what else.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm talking about tested human strategies such as diplomacy that promote peace versus inciting war to put the planet on the path to Armageddon in order to bring the LORD back. I favor the former. Witness Lee's notion of preparing the Bride for the Bridegroom is benign by comparison to the latter.

I have a Christian friend here that told me she voted for Trump precisely because he's most likely to bring Armageddon. She actually wants God to fry all "those evil people that the world is full of," and ring in His New Heaven and New Earth. My JW friend says basically the same thing.

After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.
James G. Watt - Interior Sec. under Reagan

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How is that related to this?

• God exists.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

After thousands of posts, you're still stuck on this?

Why don't you try reading your Bible for a change, rather than guys like Bart Ehrman who distorts the Bible with every word out of his mouth.

It might do you some good.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Never heard you complain about Obama using Executive Orders to release criminals and who knows what else.

I didn't like Obama's EOs either. Cuz I knew that the next president would use his example. I didn't count on Trump coming in and signing them in numbers like EOs on steroids. So you didn't like Obama's but are fine with Trump's?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After thousands of posts, you're still stuck on this?

Why don't you try reading your Bible for a change, rather than guys like Bart Ehrman who distorts the Bible with every word out of his mouth.

You're still stuck on Bart Ehrman? A leading Bible scholar you've never read?

[Ohio]

........................

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I didn't like Obama's EOs either. Cuz I knew that the next president would use his example. I didn't count on Trump coming in and signing them in numbers like EOs on steroids. So you didn't like Obama's but are fine with Trump's?

Obama was a reaction to Bush.

Trump is a reaction to Obama.

Each is swinging the pendulum further, undoing the policies of the previous prez. There seem to be no more moderates in DC. Obama got away with E.O. "murder" because the mainstream media slurped up his every move.

I'd hate to see the liberal that replaces Trump.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How is that related to this?

• God exists.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

If you are defining this as evil then show us what good looks like.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're still stuck on Bart Ehrman? A leading Bible scholar you've never read?

Bart Ehrman is a self-professed atheist, and you are calling him a "leading Bible scholar?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have a Christian friend here that told me she voted for Trump precisely because he's most likely to bring Armageddon. She actually wants God to fry all "those evil people that the world is full of," and ring in His New Heaven and New Earth. My JW friend says basically the same thing.

After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.
James G. Watt - Interior Sec. under Reagan

Well your friend is not one of the posters here. You keep painting us with the same brush. Believing that the world is headed for Armageddon is not the same as wanting it to happen. The world is condemned, that is a fact, it will be raised to the ground, that is a fact. The gospel is telling people to repent and leave the world. You can do all of that without "hastening the day".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I cast an aspersion on the attitude that peace is impossible without an apocalypse. Such an attitude has given sanction to the wanton destruction of the planet and the kind of political realism that keeps us in perpetual war. It's all OK as long as your right with the Lord in your heart. I don't accept that bull****. That's my solution.

Would you please discuss this with some of your liberal friends in the Senate, who are already painting the new SCOTUS appointee in apocalyptic terms.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I cast an aspersion on the attitude that peace is impossible without an apocalypse. Such an attitude has given sanction to the wanton destruction of the planet and the kind of political realism that keeps us in perpetual war. It's all OK as long as your right with the Lord in your heart. I don't accept that bull****. That's my solution.

Not accepting something is not a solution. The problem doesn't go away. You can't just argue that "I don't accept ISIS" or "I don't accept the drought in Syria". Give us your solution. If we can see what a "good" solution is to the problem it will really make it obvious that they have chosen the evil solution and then maybe we can understand this problem of evil.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Each is swinging the pendulum further . . . . There seem to be no more moderates in DC.

And the solution is for everyone, liberal or conservative, to find the most extreme pendulum swinger around and just keep the ship yawing from side to side. I'm expecting a "Pirates of the Caribbean" flip of the ship any day now.

And when that happens, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people may just perish from the face of the earth.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you are defining this as evil then show us what good looks like.

You're missing the point. Let me break it down for you.

You said

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Great, so give me the "tested human strategy" that we should take.

I replied

Originally Posted by zeek View Post
How is that related to this?
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

This thread is about the POE. What you asked me to do wasn't related to the POE. It was irrelevant to this discussion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not accepting something is not a solution. The problem doesn't go away. You can't just argue that "I don't accept ISIS" or "I don't accept the drought in Syria". Give us your solution. If we can see what a "good" solution is to the problem it will really make it obvious that they have chosen the evil solution and then maybe we can understand this problem of evil.

Unless you can show how your demand is related to the POE, I don't accept that it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bart Ehrman is a self-professed atheist, and you are calling him a "leading Bible scholar?"

That's because he is. Ehrman is ambiguous about calling himself an atheist. He prefers agnostic. But either way he still knows his Bible inside and out, and is a professor of it, and writes text books for other universities and seminaries on the Bible and early Christianity, and other early Christian writings. I don't hook my wagon to him, but I have to acknowledge that, he's got Bible bona fides coming out the ying yang.

Methinks perchance you dislike him because you consider him a traitor for starting out a born again fundamentalist and ending up an agnostic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'd hate to see the liberal that replaces Trump.

Me too. It sure does seem that each president takes it a little further. Bush got the Patriot Act, that shredded the constitution. And no one so far has repealed it. Maybe Trump will, and will replace it with some far better. We know how he likes to brag and inflate himself as our MOTA. Everything he does is great and better, so he claims over and over again.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's because he is. Ehrman is ambiguous about calling himself an atheist. He prefers agnostic. But either way he still knows his Bible inside and out, and is a professor of it, and writes text books for other universities and seminaries on the Bible and early Christianity, and other early Christian writings. I don't hook my wagon to him, but I have to acknowledge that, he's got Bible bona fides coming out the ying yang.

Methinks perchance you dislike him because you consider him a traitor for starting out a born again fundamentalist and ending up an agnostic.

So now he's an "agnostic" rather than an "atheist?" That means he just "don't know." Right?

Doesn't sound like he knows his Bible at all. Sounds he he only knows dead letters.

That's like going to a dentist who "don't know" what he's doing. Ouch!

I can't believe you would listen to any Bible professor, since you are so disenchanted with Christians, churches, and Bibles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're missing the point. Let me break it down for you.

You said

I replied

This thread is about the POE. What you asked me to do wasn't related to the POE. It was irrelevant to this discussion.

But maybe bro ZNP can relate the POG to the POE.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Me too. It sure does seem that each president takes it a little further. Bush got the Patriot Act, that shredded the constitution. And no one so far has repealed it. Maybe Trump will, and will replace it with some far better. We know how he likes to brag and inflate himself as our MOTA. Everything he does is great and better, so he claims over and over again.

Let's give Trump a chance. Maybe he can drain the swamp. Or die trying.

I heard Schumer had crocodile tears and Obama was enraged over this immigrant moratorium. I wish we all had the protections they have. And their health insurance program too.

These guys live in a bubble which Trump calls a swamp.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

And you suppose I fault such a person? So, if one doesn't accept Trump's ban on immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, one is faulting "someone who doesn't want a terrorist to blow up a bomb in their city, take a machine gun to their city, drive a truck through a crowd in their city or crash a plane in their city." I call that a false dilemma.



What situation? I'm talking about tested human strategies such as diplomacy that promote peace versus inciting war to put the planet on the path to Armageddon in order to bring the LORD back. I favor the former. Witness Lee's notion of preparing the Bride for the Bridegroom is benign by comparison to the latter.

Originally Posted by zeek

Unless you can show how your demand is related to the POE, I don't accept that it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

Let's break it down for you. You say you are talking about "tested human strategies such as diplomacy" because you find fault with Donald Trump's approach.

I said fine. What is your tested human strategy that would work better and then I can understand why you are taking issue with Donald Trump's strategy. I am trying to agree with you but you haven't given me anything to agree with.

You were the one who posted this on this thread, I assumed it was because you felt Donald Trump was an example of the POE. I have no issue with that if you can also show me the path that he should take.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Because of whistleblowers like Snowden and because Stuxnet was discovered and became public knowledge.

There's a reason why we as individuals keep secrets, and why governments keep secrets too. I consider the consequences of revealing secrets to be worse than the knowledge of what those secrets are. Why? Because revealing secrets has only caused damage. Nothing has changed since then. The public were initially shocked, now some are afraid and skeptical, and others are nonchalant or accepting of it. Without accomplishing anything positive, the release of this information only makes the public more skeptical and afraid of their government, and more likely to turn against them. This is exactly what the terrorists want.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's a reason why we as individuals keep secrets, and why governments keep secrets too. I consider the consequences of revealing secrets to be worse than the knowledge of what those secrets are. Why? Because revealing secrets has only caused damage. Nothing has changed since then. The public were initially shocked, now some are afraid and skeptical, and others are nonchalant or accepting of it. Without accomplishing anything positive, the release of this information only makes the public more skeptical and afraid of their government, and more likely to turn against them. This is exactly what the terrorists want.

Can we please stop with "this is exactly what the terrorists want".

The US constitution wanted to protect citizens from warrantless searches. If that is no longer a concern then change the constitution. But when you allow an organization to violate the law and lie about it to the legislative oversight then you have a serious problem that you need to deal with.

I am well aware of the "reason we keep secrets" and the real danger which was in revealing the sources. But I am not going to give those who were clearly criminal a pass because this guy blew the whistle on them.

[ZNPaaneah]

• God exists. — Yes and man does too.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. — Yes and man is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

Define evil —

I think what is more important to God is that He wants a man “in his image and after His likeness”. Man is not currently up to this standard, so the real question is how to “create man in His image and after His likeness”. Giving this man dominion indicates His goal is that this man can deal with evil.

• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

Yes, that would fall under the term “omniscient”. But as we have already pointed out, man is not omniscient. If he were you could give me an answer to my very simple question, how would you prevent the evil of Islamic terrorism.

• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

Yes He does, but He also has an even bigger power, which is to create a man in His image and after His likeness to which He can give dominion to. Once this man is in this image he can prevent evil like Islamic terrorism.

• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

Perhaps the best way to do that is to create millions, even billions of people in His image and after His likeness and give them dominion.

• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.

Once again you need to first define evil. Still have not done this.

• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Cannot come to this conclusion without defining evil.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can we please stop with "this is exactly what the terrorists want".

The US constitution wanted to protect citizens from warrantless searches. If that is no longer a concern then change the constitution. But when you allow an organization to violate the law and lie about it to the legislative oversight then you have a serious problem that you need to deal with.

I am well aware of the "reason we keep secrets" and the real danger which was in revealing the sources. But I am not going to give those who were clearly criminal a pass because this guy blew the whistle on them.

The American government, and its democracy, are flawed institutions. But our system offers legal options to disgruntled government employees and contractors. They can take advantage of federal whistle-blower laws; they can bring their complaints to Congress; they can try to protest within the institutions where they work. But Snowden did none of this. Instead, in an act that speaks more to his ego than his conscience, he threw the secrets he knew up in the air—and trusted, somehow, that good would come of it.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...den-is-no-hero

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

• God exists. — Yes and man does too.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. — Yes and man is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

Define evil —

I think what is more important to God is that He wants a man “in his image and after His likeness”. Man is not currently up to this standard, so the real question is how to “create man in His image and after His likeness”. Giving this man dominion indicates His goal is that this man can deal with evil.

• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

Yes, that would fall under the term “omniscient”. But as we have already pointed out, man is not omniscient. If he were you could give me an answer to my very simple question, how would you prevent the evil of Islamic terrorism.

• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

Yes He does, but He also has an even bigger power, which is to create a man in His image and after His likeness to which He can give dominion to. Once this man is in this image he can prevent evil like Islamic terrorism.

• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

Perhaps the best way to do that is to create millions, even billions of people in His image and after His likeness and give them dominion.

• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.

Once again you need to first define evil. Still have not done this.

• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Cannot come to this conclusion without defining evil.

If this is directed at me, it's false. I have repeatedly defined evil. If you are going to forget or falsely deny what I have said, you're just wasting my time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If this is directed at me, it's false. I have repeatedly defined evil. If you are going to forget or falsely deny what I have said, you're just wasting my time.

What post?

Post #4 Free will doesn't explain why children suffer and die from cancer or thousands die in earth quakes. In other words there are natural evils as well as moral human ones.

This suggests that when children die it is a natural evil. However, I don’t see the distinction between cancer and earthquakes. Is one a natural evil and the other a moral one or are they both natural evils and you have not given us an example of a moral one? Also, using examples is fine to help someone understand your definition but this is not a definition of evil.

Post #6 says “Creating Satan, an evil being, would conflict with the nature of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.” This suggests that the actions of Satan are “evil” and hence would act as our definition. But you don't say it is, you don't say that you are equating the actions of Satan with Cancer or earthquakes, and later you provide a different definition from Augustine, again not saying which one you embrace.

Post #59 The logical force of the argument depends on our assumption that we know what God, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence and evil mean. On closer examination we find that each of these terms are symbols that bring us to the limits of human understanding.
In this post you make it clear you understand the thread is useless without a clear definition of the terms, yet you don't provide a clear definition of evil.

Post #76 Philosophy is defined differently by different people. You haven't defined what you mean by the word, so I can't be sure what you mean by it.
In this post you make my point precisely. Unless you define evil so that I know what you mean then it is impossible to discuss this.

Post #106 It is a tautology because it claims absolute status for God's goodness. From that it follows logically that evil contradicts God's nature. This post suggests a definition of evil as "a contradiction of absolute good". Different from the definition of evil as "the actions of Satan", different from the definition of evil as a child's death due to earthquakes and cancer, and different from the definition you give from Augustine. Hence, my question, what is the definition?

Post #152 Another point I raised which no one here answered was the problem of natural evils such as disease, or natural disasters. Augustine had an answer: natural evils were the consequence of the fall on man. As he put it "There are two kinds of evil, sin and the penalty for sin.

This is a definition that is useful if we agree with the Bible's definition for what constitutes sin. If we do then we will certainly have a detailed, comprehensive, and well expounded definition. We also have the "penalty for sin", such as the crucifixion of Christ, which has also been raised.

So, once again, my question is "What is the definition for evil"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

• God exists. — Yes and man does too.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. — Yes and man is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

Define evil —

I think what is more important to God is that He wants a man “in his image and after His likeness”.

But what you think is motivated from a presupposed persuasion, taken from words written on papyrus thousands of years ago, that were taken from pre-existing mythologies, and taken also from presumptions developed from hundreds of thousands of years of human history & development. Moreover, if what is more important to God is that He wants a man “in his image and after His likeness” the duplication greatly failed, or the original had/has failures similar to ours, and that's why He, and we, create(s) evil.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Man is not currently up to this standard, so the real question is how to “create man in His image and after His likeness”. Giving this man dominion indicates His goal is that this man can deal with evil.

Not dominion to "deal" with evil, but dominion to "create" evil, just like Him. Omniscience should have come with this dominion, so we'd know how to properly administer it. It didn't. So we have just enough dominion to create evil and to destroy ourselves.

Originally Posted by zeek

• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

You contradict yourself. If we had/have dominion, like you claim, dealing with evil would be no problem. We'd have dominion over it. We don't.

I think your repeated question, "What is evil," is just a dodge of the POE, or you are way too ignorant to even be asking the question. Define evil? Bahahahahahaha.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If this is directed at me, it's false. I have repeatedly defined evil. If you are going to forget or falsely deny what I have said, you're just wasting my time.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So, once again, my question is "What is the definition for evil"?

I would define the Problem of Evil (POE) as finding fault with God.

This first began with the seduction of Eve in the garden. The Serpent seduced her with suspicions and doubt, finding fault with God Himself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But what you think is motivated from a presupposed persuasion, taken from words written on papyrus thousands of years ago, that were taken from pre-existing mythologies, and taken also from presumptions developed from hundreds of thousands of years of human history & development. Moreover, if what is more important to God is that He wants a man “in his image and after His likeness” the duplication greatly failed, or the original had/has failures similar to ours, and that's why He, and we, create(s) evil.

This is why we need a definition, if you are not going to go with the Bible's definition of sin and its consequences, then tell us what is the definition of evil. Until we agree on that this discussion is hopelessly mired in the mud of misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by awareness

Not dominion to "deal" with evil, but dominion to "create" evil, just like Him. Omniscience should have come with this dominion, so we'd know how to properly administer it. It didn't. So we have just enough dominion to create evil and to destroy ourselves.

You prove my point, on one hand you want to discredit the Bible as a source for discussion, on the other hand you want to distort the meaning of the Bible to fit a warped view of humanity.

Originally Posted by awareness

You contradict yourself. If we had/have dominion, like you claim, dealing with evil would be no problem. We'd have dominion over it. We don't.

You cannot make that claim until you have defined what evil is.

Originally Posted by awareness

I think your repeated question, "What is evil," is just a dodge of the POE, or you are way too ignorant to even be asking the question. Define evil? Bahahahahahaha.

What is dodgy is having a thread called "The Problem of Evil" and after more than 1,000 posts there is still not an accepted definition of what we are discussing when we say evil.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would define the Problem of Evil (POE) as finding fault with God.

That might be a decent way of putting it. At least as far as many of the participants in the discussion are concerned.

But the problem with the Problem of Evil is that it is an endeavor to find forensic proof in an environment that requires faith. Sometimes the logical attempts to prove or disprove God given the premise that has been posited will strike a chord with someone who will take a side on that basis.

But for others, it is just proof that the ways of God are not within our ability to understand or know and that faith is required. From that point they either find faith or do not.

Global climate change, whether natural or of human creation, does not prove or disprove God.

ISIS and the extremes of human evil do not prove or disprove God.

Disease, whether inflicted on the elderly or the newborn, does not prove or disprove God.

A hurricane destroying villages in the Caribbean, including hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, houses . . . everything . . . does not prove or disprove God.

If God is (and that is what I believe due to faith, not logic), then whether you are convinced that he is or is not by the POE analysis, he still is. If what is written was being the end for those who do not believe is true, it will happen even for those who do not believe.

And if it is the other way around, then I will have trusted for no reason. But will have found a level of peace that I would not have otherwise known.

Opiate of the masses? Maybe. But I don't believe so.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would define the Problem of Evil (POE) as finding fault with God.

This first began with the seduction of Eve in the garden. The Serpent seduced her with suspicions and doubt, finding fault with God Himself.

That sounds a little like Eve saying that "even if we touch it we will die". Asking the question does not seem to be far enough to be evil, if it were then we don't really have free will as asking these questions should be standard process for someone exercising free will.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is why we need a definition, if you are not going to go with the Bible's definition of sin and its consequences, then tell us what is the definition of evil. Until we agree on that this discussion is hopelessly mired in the mud of misunderstanding.



You prove my point, on one hand you want to discredit the Bible as a source for discussion, on the other hand you want to distort the meaning of the Bible to fit a warped view of humanity.



You cannot make that claim until you have defined what evil is.



What is dodgy is having a thread called "The Problem of Evil" and after more than 1,000 posts there is still not an accepted definition of what we are discussing when we say evil.

You sure are a lot of fun bro ZNP. I'll give you that.

What is evil? "We know it when we see it," or experience it, even tho we might not be able to define it. Sometimes we don't see it coming till it's gone.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would define the Problem of Evil (POE) as finding fault with God.

This first began with the seduction of Eve in the garden. The Serpent seduced her with suspicions and doubt, finding fault with God Himself.

Well now, that's an interesting supposition. I like it. It's cute.

But the POE is asking about objective evil. The evil we all know and disdain.

Still you might be right. God might not like us finding fault with Him -- it might offend His almighty ego -- and might rain evil down upon us, thereby proving He has at least one fault : being a cosmic sized childish ego. You know, Trump like.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

That might be a decent way of putting it. At least as far as many of the participants in the discussion are concerned.

But the problem with the Problem of Evil is that it is an endeavor to find forensic proof in an environment that requires faith. Sometimes the logical attempts to prove or disprove God given the premise that has been posited will strike a chord with someone who will take a side on that basis.

But for others, it is just proof that the ways of God are not within our ability to understand or know and that faith is required. From that point they either find faith or do not.

Global climate change, whether natural or of human creation, does not prove or disprove God.

ISIS and the extremes of human evil do not prove or disprove God.

Disease, whether inflicted on the elderly or the newborn, does not prove or disprove God.

A hurricane destroying villages in the Caribbean, including hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, houses . . . everything . . . does not prove or disprove God.

If God is (and that is what I believe due to faith, not logic), then whether you are convinced that he is or is not by the POE analysis, he still is. If what is written was being the end for those who do not believe is true, it will happen even for those who do not believe.

And if it is the other way around, then I will have trusted for no reason. But will have found a level of peace that I would not have otherwise known.

Opiate of the masses? Maybe. But I don't believe so.

Amen bro OBW. We may never solve the POE, but that does not kill faith.

Here's a couple of penetrating questions from Augustine :

1. If there is no God, why is there so much good?
2. If there is a God, why is there so much evil?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What post?

Post #4 Free will doesn't explain why children suffer and die from cancer or thousands die in earth quakes. In other words there are natural evils as well as moral human ones.

This suggests that when children die it is a natural evil. However, I don’t see the distinction between cancer and earthquakes. Is one a natural evil and the other a moral one or are they both natural evils and you have not given us an example of a moral one? Also, using examples is fine to help someone understand your definition but this is not a definition of evil.

Post #6 says “Creating Satan, an evil being, would conflict with the nature of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.” This suggests that the actions of Satan are “evil” and hence would act as our definition. But you don't say it is, you don't say that you are equating the actions of Satan with Cancer or earthquakes, and later you provide a different definition from Augustine, again not saying which one you embrace.

Post #59 The logical force of the argument depends on our assumption that we know what God, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence and evil mean. On closer examination we find that each of these terms are symbols that bring us to the limits of human understanding.
In this post you make it clear you understand the thread is useless without a clear definition of the terms, yet you don't provide a clear definition of evil.

Post #76 Philosophy is defined differently by different people. You haven't defined what you mean by the word, so I can't be sure what you mean by it.
In this post you make my point precisely. Unless you define evil so that I know what you mean then it is impossible to discuss this.

Post #106 It is a tautology because it claims absolute status for God's goodness. From that it follows logically that evil contradicts God's nature. This post suggests a definition of evil as "a contradiction of absolute good". Different from the definition of evil as "the actions of Satan", different from the definition of evil as a child's death due to earthquakes and cancer, and different from the definition you give from Augustine. Hence, my question, what is the definition?

Post #152 Another point I raised which no one here answered was the problem of natural evils such as disease, or natural disasters. Augustine had an answer: natural evils were the consequence of the fall on man. As he put it "There are two kinds of evil, sin and the penalty for sin.

This is a definition that is useful if we agree with the Bible's definition for what constitutes sin. If we do then we will certainly have a detailed, comprehensive, and well expounded definition. We also have the "penalty for sin", such as the crucifixion of Christ, which has also been raised.

So, once again, my question is "What is the definition for evil"?

This is the second time you have claimed that I haven't defined evil since I first defined it. And now you can't find the record of our previous dialogue on the issue? And you conclude your post by reiterating your question. Excuse me for a moment.



OK, I'm back. I defined evil on post #555. We discussed it and you countered my definition with one of your own.

On 11/26/16 you asked me if I had ever defined evil. On post #846 I pointed you to my definition in post #555 again.

Can you explain why this keeps happening?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That sounds a little like Eve saying that "even if we touch it we will die". Asking the question does not seem to be far enough to be evil, if it were then we don't really have free will as asking these questions should be standard process for someone exercising free will.

Asking questions is acceptable and commendable, and even demanded of real faith in God.

Finding fault with God is not. He proved Himself by sending His Son to the cross.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is the second time you have claimed that I haven't defined evil since I first defined it. And now you can't find the record of our previous dialogue on the issue? And you conclude your post by reiterating your question. Excuse me for a moment.


Can you explain why this keeps happening?

I know that the reason I have asked is because understanding the terms is where I begin. Since I am unable to find the "agreed on definition" in the first 100 posts I asked the first time. I guess I was unable to find the definition the second time and so asked again. I think it seems like I am asking over and over again because instead of just saying "see Post 555" it was more akin to pulling teeth.

Your definition from Post #555

Evil is the suffering caused by a morally wrong action of a free moral agent.


By this definition the action of Francisca Rojas, a woman who murdered her own two children and cut her own throat in an attempt to place the blame on another person would be defined as evil.

The man she accused was then tortured to get a confession, but he refused. As a result the inspector Eduardo Alvarez figured he could use fingerprints for the first time to solve the crime.

He was able to prove that the woman killed her children and the man was innocent.

On the one hand the man suffered from the false accusation and the torture, but this suffering worked out for good as it led to the discovery of fingerprints. This discovery, in turn, has made us to be more in the image and likeness of an omniscient God, and better able to exercise dominion.

So what you are calling “evil” is actually the process by which man is made into the image and likeness of God so that they can have dominion.

This is what Paul said when he said "all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to Purpose".

God has given us a free will, you can receive God or reject Him. If you receive Him the cross of Christ will work out for good, the water will be turned to wine. If you reject Him you choose a world without a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God. Without this God the world will become evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well now, that's an interesting supposition. I like it. It's cute.

But the POE is asking about objective evil. The evil we all know and disdain.

And what evil is that which we all agree on?

I doubt there is anything we all can agree on.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And what evil is that which we all agree on?

I doubt there is anything we all can agree on.

Well I can agree with that one.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well I can agree with that one.

Yeah, me too.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I know that the reason I have asked is because understanding the terms is where I begin. Since I am unable to find the "agreed on definition" in the first 100 posts I asked the first time. I guess I was unable to find the definition the second time and so asked again. I think it seems like I am asking over and over again because instead of just saying "see Post 555" it was more akin to pulling teeth.

Your definition from Post #555

Why did you need zeek's definition? The first post gave a rather detailed definition indirectly. It pointed to a Wikipedia entry on the POE (23 pages if extracted to Word . . . without the pages of references) that linked to a significant definition of evil. Much more complete than the one you just had to have from zeek.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

By this definition the action of Francisca Rojas . . . .

The man she accused was then tortured to get a confession, but he refused. As a result the inspector Eduardo Alvarez figured he could use fingerprints for the first time to solve the crime.

He was able to prove that the woman killed her children and the man was innocent.

On the one hand the man suffered from the false accusation and the torture, but this suffering worked out for good as it led to the discovery of fingerprints.

And here is where you go off the rails again.

At least if you are presuming that the fact of the discovery of fingerprints eliminates the evil suffered by the man who was tortured.

There is much evil in the torture of a man to coerce a false confession no matter how much societal good might ultimately come from it. And no amount of positive that came from discovering fingerprints can erase that evil. It is what it is. Plain and simple.

As for your suddenly saying "This is what Paul said when he said 'll things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to Purpose' " this is another of your classic redirects. zeek answers your question. You bring up an irrelevant story about someone who killed her children and blamed someone else who was tortured to confess but out of the other person's refusal to confess came fingerprinting and you can find it to be consistent with Paul's "all things work for good" statement.

Are you completely nuts? Might as well declare that God ordained that the man should be tortured so that fingerprinting would come out of it.

God is not ordaining everything. And just because something positive came out of the situation does not mean it was in any way about "those who are in Christ Jesus" or anything else concerning Paul's statement.

It was pure evil. No mitigating circumstances. No mulligan. No magic wand to waive over it and make it all better.

And it might be argued that it is evil to argue away evil. To always try to spin everything into something it is not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

At least if you are presuming that the fact of the discovery of fingerprints eliminates the evil suffered by the man who was tortured.

Fingerprints were first used over 100 years ago to solve a crime. At that time torture was standard procedure in solving crimes. We have stopped doing that because of the discovery of fingerprints and other techniques that are better at finding the truth. "Solving crimes" used to involve convicting innocent people at virtually the same rate as guilty, perhaps 50/50, certainly 1/3. Today that number has been reduced tremendously. Today the number is less than 5%. Really the main reason an innocent person is convicted today is because they cannot afford the best legal defense.

My point, which you missed, is that this terrible "evil" of 50% of the people being convicted of murder are in fact innocent has been eliminated by 90%. It is now down to 5%. That is a tremendous improvement in 100+ years. All of those innocent people who were never convicted because of the discovery of fingerprints, that is the "evil" that has been eliminated. Hence the torture that this man suffered was for a purpose, it worked out for good.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is much evil in the torture of a man to coerce a false confession no matter how much societal good might ultimately come from it. And no amount of positive that came from discovering fingerprints can erase that evil. It is what it is. Plain and simple.

Actually you again miss the point. The torture had nothing to do with discovery of fingerprints. No credit is being given to the torture. Instead, what I said is that the suffering that this man went through worked out for good, not because he was tortured but because we no longer torture others. Most people fold under the pressure, he wouldn't. Most of the police didn't care, this particular officer did. His conscience bothered him, he didn't want to convict an innocent man so it motivated him to find another way to prove who was guilty. I am giving credit to people standing up for the truth and with their conscience, not with torture. I did not suggest that torture is somehow valuable, what I said is that this is the path that led us from being clueless to being able to "hear the blood crying out to us". When man has the awesome responsibility to determine who was responsible for a murder (the covenant given to Noah concerning human government) it is a heavy responsibility which he is unable to bear. However, trying to fulfill that responsibility according to your conscience is what has led man to a place where we can now look at a bloody fingerprint and know for certain who the killer was.

It is very tiring responding to you, as much as possible I ignore your posts and comments. Either you are incapable of reading what I write in a coherent way or else it is intentional. Either way your twisting and distorting my words is highly objectionable.

Although I have a different opinion from Zeek who feels the Bible is completely about faith and you have missed the point when you talk fact, it is still possible to have rational conversation with him. He doesn't distort my posts, doesn't seem to have an agenda other than an honest discussion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why did you need zeek's definition? The first post gave a rather detailed definition indirectly. It pointed to a Wikipedia entry on the POE (23 pages if extracted to Word . . . without the pages of references) that linked to a significant definition of evil. Much more complete than the one you just had to have from zeek.
[/SIZE]

If you are referring to the link to the Catholic encyclopedia it is unwieldy, but had Zeek decided to use that I would be fine with it. Personally I think Zeek's definition is far more useful and elegant in this forum, but if you want to bring that definition in, have at it. As for me I will stick with Post 555 as our working definition.

Physical evil (one of the three aspects of evil in that definition that is not covered in Zeek's definition) being cancer or earthquakes as implied in the earliest posts is equally easy to refer to based on the reference to scientific advancement. How many people used to die from an infection from a cut before we discovered penicillin? Our advances in engineering and medicine have gone a very long way to eliminating this kind of "evil". Again, what you are calling "evil" is actually the road that we take going from a creature to a man in the image and likeness of God who has been given dominion.

Is it evil when an ant dies in the wild? Why is it evil if a human dies? We understand that these things are "preventable". We realize that we can build our buildings so that we don't die in an earthquake. We can study cancer and treat it so that we don't die from cancer. What you are defining as evil is actually the path that we take where the omnipotent and omniscient God makes us into His own image and likeness.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or action child. Who is signing EOs like writing tweets, and who puts them in classy leather binders and holds them up like a child showing how good he colors.

You may think you are joking but actually think about this. Obama was the first African-American President. At first I thought there was nothing ground breaking about Trump- until I realized that Trump is the first ever first-grader to be elected President.

"When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different." ~ Trump

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You may think you are joking but actually think about this. Obama was the first African-American President. At first I thought there was nothing ground breaking about Trump- until I realized that Trump is the first ever first-grader to be elected President.

"When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different." ~ Trump

Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said that talking to a voter for 5 minutes will make the strongest case against democracy.

Surely you understand that a representative government represents us. He wasn't elected by 20,000 lunatics on a Montana ranch. At least 40 million American citizens voted for him. No doubt one really good reason why they did this was because of how bad the other choice was. But what does it say about "President of the United States" when it has become a choice between the lesser of two evils?

If he is the "first ever 1st grader to be elected" and that is the "lesser of two evils" what does that say about us?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Your definition from Post #555

Evil is the suffering caused by a morally wrong action of a free moral agent.

Crucial to this definition, is the recognition that for evil to exist per se, there must be a subjectivity, a conscious being, who suffers. Likewise, there must be a morally free person [also conscious] who causes the suffering. The weather may be bad but it is not evil unless it is caused by a morally free agent and is experienced by a conscious [or at least potentially conscious] sufferer.

Having defined evil, we can use it to analyze the Biblical POE. For example:

2 Samuel 24:1 Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

The same story is told by two authors. In the first the free moral agent is the Lord. In the second the free moral agent is Satan. It says that Satan stood up against Israel not that God sent him.

Does the fact that the same act is performed by a different agent make it either good or evil? Or, did the authors' attribution of the act follow from their judgment of whether or not David numbering Israel was justifiable?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You may think you are joking but actually think about this. Obama was the first African-American President. At first I thought there was nothing ground breaking about Trump- until I realized that Trump is the first ever first-grader to be elected President.

"When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different." ~ Trump

Good one Evan ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

[/SIZE][/B]

Crucial to this definition, is the recognition that for evil to exist per se, there must be a subjectivity, a conscious being, who suffers. Likewise, there must be a morally free person [also conscious] who causes the suffering. The weather may be bad but it is not evil unless it is caused by a morally free agent and is experienced by a conscious [or at least potentially conscious] sufferer.

Having defined evil, we can use it to analyze the Biblical POE. For example:

The same story is told by two authors. In the first the free moral agent is the Lord. In the second the free moral agent is Satan. It says that Satan stood up against Israel not that God sent him.

Does the fact that the same act is performed by a different agent make it either good or evil? Or, did the authors' attribution of the act follow from their judgment of whether or not David numbering Israel was justifiable?

2 Samuel 24:1 Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

The word “again” refers to the Lord’s anger over Saul’s mistreatment of the Gibeonites. This was the breaking of a covenant and it was due to pride in thinking they were better than others. This pride resulted in a three year famine.

But this sin of pride rose up again. Based on the context we can see it was based on the feeling that David and Israel were coming to trust in the flesh after their victories and uplifting of men as “mighty men of valor”. So although these were genuine experiences of conquering by faith they incited the pride in the flesh. Numbering the people suggested that David felt he could depend on the flesh contrary to his many Psalms proclaiming that he needed to trust in God.

The antecedent of “It” would be “the anger of the Lord” and by extension the Lord. For example, a person might insult another person who in response to the insult might fire back with a remark that incited the first to action. Just the thought (God judges the hearts and minds) that their own arm had gotten them the victory was an insult to God. He responded with a comment that incited David to number Israel. He didn’t compel David. But if you tell me that your own arm got you the victory it is perfectly reasonable for me to respond “really, and exactly how strong is your arm?” That would incite David to count.

The thought that their own strength won the victory was when sin was conceived, deciding to count was when the sin came forth. Joab advised against this so it was obvious even to David’s close counselors that he was being “moved” by “Satan” (1 Chronicles 21:1). God did not plant the thought in David. The anger of the Lord burned against David and Israel when He heard this thought. The Lord had just finished rebuking them for their pride concerning the Gibeonites, and now this was the second time He had to deal with this. Finally, David was certainly humbled by the Lord. For all your strength how well did you do against the plague? Once again, exposing that man is not up to the standard of the image and likeness of God. But it also a crucial step on the path as this led to the ground on which the Temple was built. The ground that the temple is built is the repentance from trusting in the flesh and a turning to trust wholly in God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point, which you missed, is that this terrible "evil" of 50% of the people being convicted of murder are in fact innocent has been eliminated by 90%. It is now down to 5%. That is a tremendous improvement in 100+ years. All of those innocent people who were never convicted because of the discovery of fingerprints, that is the "evil" that has been eliminated. Hence the torture that this man suffered was for a purpose, it worked out for good.

Irrelevant to the discussion of POE

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Instead, what I said is that the suffering that this man went through worked out for good, not because he was tortured but because we no longer torture others.

But the suffering this man went through was still evil. It cannot be dismissed because of fingerprinting. He may or may not take some consolation that his holding strong was instrumental in causing someone to try to use fingerprints to convict or exclude him.

But it does not make what happened to him less than evil.

Some of the weakest arguments in the whole discussion. Arguing evil to be non evil. I guess a sort of "calls being as not being."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You may think you are joking but actually think about this. Obama was the first African-American President. At first I thought there was nothing ground breaking about Trump- until I realized that Trump is the first ever first-grader to be elected President.

"When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different." ~ Trump

Talk about stupid.

Temperament is God-given, with you your whole life. Like the color of your skin.

That was the point. Unfortunately you only see evil. What does that say about your temperament?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about stupid.

Temperament is God-given, with you your whole life. Like the color of your skin.

That was the point. Unfortunately you only see evil. What does that say about your temperament?

Bro Ohio, Witness Lee should have taught you not to become emotionally attached to a leader.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

God did not plant the thought in David.

How do you know this? II Samuel says that the Lord "incited David against Israel." In the KJV the word incited is moved. The Lord moved David against Israel. According to Strong's Concordance the same Hebrew word [5496e] is used when I Chronicles says that Satan moved or incited or provoked David. Whatever God did to David in Samuel 24:1, Satan did the same thing to him in Chronicles 21:1.

If you look at the texts of the first four verses of II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21 side by side you will that the structure of the texts are the same except Satan takes the place of the Lord. Your convoluted commentary rationalizes the text by adding to it what it doesn't actually say but, you suppose, must be true, that is, if the Lord did it, it must be good and if Satan did it must be evil.

A simpler explanation is that when the earlier text was revised, the scrupulous redactor objecting to the notion that the Lord would move David to do evil, changed the text to read Satan instead of Lord.

Since the same verb is used in either case, and the context of the story is structurally the same, there is no basis for your interpretation concluding that the act was different depending on whether Satan or the Lord did it. Of our competing hypotheses, mine should be selected because it strictly conforms to the texts and requires the fewer assumptions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, Witness Lee should have taught you not to become emotionally attached to a leader.

Huh?

You have often spoke of your emotional attachment to Mel Porter. Who taught you that?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Irrelevant to the discussion of POE

But the suffering this man went through was still evil. It cannot be dismissed because of fingerprinting. He may or may not take some consolation that his holding strong was instrumental in causing someone to try to use fingerprints to convict or exclude him.

But it does not make what happened to him less than evil.

Some of the weakest arguments in the whole discussion. Arguing evil to be non evil. I guess a sort of "calls being as not being."

By your understanding "going through suffering" is equivalent to "evil". Now you know why I asked Zeek for the definition. Everyone is operating under different definitions.

No one has argued "evil as not being evil". We have defined it as "the suffering caused by morally wrong action by a free moral agent". I have not denied that torture is a morally wrong action by a free moral agent. Hence, I have not denied that evil is evil.

What I have said is that this "evil" has worked out for good. That is undeniable. If you agree that torture is evil, then you also agree that eliminating it from the standard operating procedure of the police is good.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do you know this?

Because the verse says "Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel". The first time it burned against them was due to their arrogant behavior towards the Gibeonites. This second time we know was due to David's pride in the strength of his own arm. There was no action, but the pride was there and anyone who reads 2Samuel 23 would probably feel a tinge of pride as well. It is natural (and fleshly).

Originally Posted by zeek

II Samuel says that the Lord "incited David against Israel."

Yes and Charles Barkley recently incited Lebron James to curse him. He said that he was whiny. If David said in his heart "look how strong I am" then God's response "really, exactly how strong is that?" would have incited him. That is what the word "incite" means.

Originally Posted by zeek

In the KJV the word incited is moved. The Lord moved David against Israel. According to Strong's Concordance the same Hebrew word [5496e] is used when I Chronicles says that Satan moved or incited or provoked David. Whatever God did to David in Samuel 24:1, Satan did the same thing to him in Chronicles 21:1.

Not according to the Bible. According to the Bible the Lord "incited" and "Satan stood up against Israel and moved David". It wasn't the same.

Originally Posted by zeek

If you look at the texts of the first four verses of II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21 side by side you will that the structure of the texts are the same except Satan takes the place of the Lord. Your convoluted commentary rationalizes the text by adding to it what it doesn't actually say but, you suppose, must be true, that is, if the Lord did it, it must be good and if Satan did it must be evil.

A simpler explanation is that when the earlier text was revised, the scrupulous redactor objecting to the notion that the Lord would move David to do evil, changed the text to read Satan instead of Lord.

Your convoluted explanation always includes some "redactor" changing the word to cover up some indiscretion of God. I haven't added anything. There is very clearly something that caused the Lord's anger to burn again. The first time was the sin of pride. The second time we must conclude based on what follows that it is also the sin of pride. The Bible does not record any action that caused God's anger to burn, hence I conclude that it was something God knew that we didn't, hence a thought in the heart. But that doesn't change the basic record that there was something. What prompted God's anger predates his "inciting" David. I don't deny that the Lord incited (which some commentators do). No, if you say my interpretation is "convoluted" and "rationalizing" then I in turn can respond in kind. That response can be characterized as having "incited" you to whatever your next foolish post is. I didn't write it. I incited it.

Originally Posted by zeek

Since the same verb is used in either case, and the context of the story is structurally the same, there is no basis for your interpretation concluding that the act was different depending on whether Satan or the Lord did it. Of our competing hypotheses, mine should be selected because it strictly conforms to the texts and requires the fewer assumptions.

This is absurd. By looking at both accounts you get a very full record.

1. There was a sin that insulted God and caused His anger to burn against Israel. There is very strong basis to say this and I am in the company of virtually every commentator.

2. I suggest, as virtually every commentator does, that what caused His anger to burn was the sin of pride. The use of the word "again" is seen by every commentator as referring to the 3 year famine as a result of Saul's treatment of the Gibeonites.

3. When David spoke to Joab it was very clear that Joab saw that David was operating out of pride and tried to convince him not to act but he refused to listen to Joab. Based on the record in Chronicles I would say that was Satan "moving David". You can also say that David was "incited" by the Lord, but to equate "moving David to sin" with "inciting David" is an error. They both played a part in the story, but they were two different parts.

[Evangelical]

The US must abide by the Geneva refugee convention which requires countries to take in war refugees on humanitarian grounds. To abide by this convention is to be righteous, to refuse it is evil.

Yes terrorism is a problem, terrorism is evil. Yet we have responsibility to these people to take them in on humanitarian grounds. For Trump to not do for people from war torn countries, is itself an evil act, particularly when it is applied to those who have already gone through the process and been accepted under the previous administration.

The lesson of the Bible is to conquer evil with good. Terrorism = evil, accepting refugees = good. Trump's attempt to fight evil with evil will not work.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not according to the Bible. According to the Bible the Lord "incited" and "Satan stood up against Israel and moved David". It wasn't the same.

That's wrong. The Hebrew word you're translating incited with reference to the Lord and moved with reference to Satan is וַיָּ֨סֶת the same in both cases. There is no basis for saying it is different, except to confirm your presupposition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The US must abide by the Geneva refugee convention which requires countries to take in war refugees on humanitarian grounds. To abide by this convention is to be righteous, to refuse it is evil.

Yes terrorism is a problem, terrorism is evil. Yet we have responsibility to these people to take them in on humanitarian grounds. For Trump to not do for people from war torn countries, is itself an evil act, particularly when it is applied to those who have already gone through the process and been accepted under the previous administration.

The lesson of the Bible is to conquer evil with good. Terrorism = evil, accepting refugees = good. Trump's attempt to fight evil with evil will not work.

Fair enough -- the morally wrong action is to deny refugees despite the Geneva convention. Not allowing them to flee can be equated to causing suffering.

But this evil is motivating us to be peace makers. I think we can all agree that being a refugee is not nearly as good a solution as making peace. The reason we don't make peace is because we are not up to the image and likeness of God. But when we learn the simple, straightforward way to make peace then we will have been made into the image of the invisible God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's wrong. The Hebrew word you're translating incited with reference to the Lord and moved with reference to Satan is וַיָּ֨סֶת the same in both cases. There is no basis for saying it is different, except to confirm your presupposition.

The basis is that one verse refers to the Lord and the other to Satan. Were these words the same? There is no basis to say that the Lord and Satan were the same except to confirm your presupposition.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh?

You have often spoke of your emotional attachment to Mel Porter. Who taught you that?

Touche ... ya got me there.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The basis is that one verse refers to the Lord and the other to Satan. Were these words the same? There is no basis to say that the Lord and Satan were the same except to confirm your presupposition.

In both verses, II Sam 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1 David is "moved" [same Hebrew word in both cases] to number Israel. The only difference is that in the first, it is the Lord moving David and in the second it is Satan.

I'm not saying the Lord and Satan are the same. I'm saying that, according to the texts they occupy the same place in the narrative.

The act i.e. "moving" David to number Israel, is identical in both cases. Only the name has been changed from Lord to Satan.

The simplest explanation is the name was changed because the Chronicler rejected the notion of God inciting David to sin. A comparison of the two verses, shows evidence for the evolution of the concept of God in the Bible. In later texts, from the prophets on, the concept of divine will changed. God came to be identified with social justice antithetical to a God would incite sin as in II Samuel.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you look at the texts of the first four verses of II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21 side by side you will that the structure of the texts are the same except Satan takes the place of the Lord.

There's hundreds of years between the Samuel's and the Chronicles's. Chronicles was written around 300 BCE.

I find the Satan switch intriguing. This may bring us back to apocalypticism, and your curiosity of the emergence of demons like never before. Chronicles was written around the time the demon infested book of Enoch was written. Maybe that's why Chronicles switched it to Satan. The demons were in the air during that very time. So, maybe they didn't blame God, cuz they had all those demons handy, and so made the switch to blame Satan and his demons instead.

To be fair and honest, this is just my imagination. I just find the timeframe relation of Chronicles and Enoch, and the switcheroo, to likely be more than coincidental.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

In both verses, II Sam 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1 David is "moved" [same Hebrew word in both cases] to number Israel. The only difference is that in the first, it is the Lord moving David and in the second it is Satan.

I'm not saying the Lord and Satan are the same. I'm saying that, according to the texts they occupy the same place in the narrative.

The act i.e. "moving" David to number Israel, is identical in both cases. Only the name has been changed from Lord to Satan.

The simplest explanation is the name was changed because the Chronicler rejected the notion of God inciting David to sin. A comparison of the two verses, shows evidence for the evolution of the concept of God in the Bible. In later texts, from the prophets on, the concept of divine will changed. God came to be identified with social justice antithetical to a God would incite sin as in II Samuel.

The books of Samuel focus on how God changed the age. The books of Chronicles focuses on the Lord’s portion is his people. In Samuel we see that man’s transgression leads to prayer which is then answered by the Lord. In Chronicles we see that the Lord’s people were obedient and faithful to Him and we also see that they stumbled and fell due to their lusts and sins. The book Chronicles acts of faith and missteps.

The history of Samuel begins before he was born. He was accounted from the conception. In the same way this sin of pride in 2Samuel 24 is accounted before the birth, while it is still metaphorically in the womb. Samuel is introduced as a child of prayer. The books show how God answered man’s prayer and yet the flesh tries to take credit for what God did. Hence by the time we get to 2Samuel 24 there is no need to explain this anymore than just saying that the Lord’s anger burned again. This book shows us how God changed the age to the age of the kingdom. It required man to join with God in prayer and pay the price for the ground on which the temple would be built, a dwelling place for God and man. Samuel was born out of Hannah’s affliction. She experienced her rivals insolence and her husband’s kindness. It was God’s sovereignty, due to Elkanah’s transgression that Hannah’s rival was so peevish and made her life so miserable. In the same way the “mighty men of valor” mentioned in chapter 23 would not have been necessary if the people of the land had not been so peevish. If Hannah only had a kind husband without the thorn she might not have been driven to pray so earnestly for a child. If the inhabitants of the land had not fought so much with the Israelites they would not have been driven to trust in God by faith. Not only so but Hannah comes to “the temple”. Even though it is the tabernacle it has been fixed and is described as “the temple”. This entire book of the two Samuel’s “comes to the temple”. We see this book beginning with those suffering from transgression coming to the temple to pray and it ends with those suffering from transgression paying the price for the ground of the greater, more permanent temple.

And we see that all of this took place due to God’s instigation. He incited it.

But in Chronicles we are chronicling the examples of man being faithful to God and also of man’s missteps. In Samuel pride, trust in the flesh and envy are the key ingredients whether we are talking about Hannah, or Eli, of Saul, or Samuel choosing David, or David’s brothers, or Saul’s envy of David, or Saul’s mistreatment of the Gibeonites, or David’s pride, etc. The Lord understands this dynamic and uses it to motivate us to prayer and faith. In Samuel we learn that there is a price to pay. Hannah makes a vow which she keeps. David also pays the price of a peace offering.

In Chronicles David's sin is due to Satan pushing him. In Samuel David's sin is an important step bringing us to the Temple.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Irrelevant to the discussion of POE

But the suffering this man went through was still evil. It cannot be dismissed because of fingerprinting. He may or may not take some consolation that his holding strong was instrumental in causing someone to try to use fingerprints to convict or exclude him.

But it does not make what happened to him less than evil.

Some of the weakest arguments in the whole discussion. Arguing evil to be non evil. I guess a sort of "calls being as not being."

Spoken like a true accountant. No one is dismissing it. No one is cooking the books.

If you want to buy a house you have to pay the price. Paying that price is a "suffering" but it is necessary because it helps us value what we bought. Are you willing to pay this price? Is this something that you really want?

For us to build a temple where God and man can dwell together you must pay the price. What you call "evil" I call the mortgage on that temple. I am not arguing that it doesn't exist, I am not arguing that it does not involve suffering, What I am saying is that suffering paid the price so that we could dwell with God. The very definition of evil is Jesus crucifixion. There is no better example of a morally wrong action caused by a moral free agent to cause suffering. But from Jesus perspective He was "paying the price" for us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's hundreds of years between the Samuel's and the Chronicles's. Chronicles was written around 300 BCE.

I find the Satan switch intriguing. This may bring us back to apocalypticism, and your curiosity of the emergence of demons like never before. Chronicles was written around the time the demon infested book of Enoch was written. Maybe that's why Chronicles switched it to Satan. The demons were in the air during that very time. So, maybe they didn't blame God, cuz they had all those demons handy, and so made the switch to blame Satan and his demons instead.

To be fair and honest, this is just my imagination. I just find the timeframe relation of Chronicles and Enoch, and the switcheroo, to likely be more than coincidental.

What do you base the dates of Samuel and Chronicles on? The correlation between increased references to Satan and demons and later dates isn't just your imagination. A search of the words Satan or devil and demon on Bible Gateway or other search engine shows there's obviously more references to these terms in the New Testament compared to the Hebrew Bible. The NT is more likely to attribute the existence of evil to the devil than God. It's telling that the devil, who is scapegoated comes to be depicted as a goat! But, the practice of depicting Satan as a goat has Old Testament antecedents; as the following passage shows.

Thorns will grow up in its palaces,
weeds and brambles in its fortresses.
It will be a dwelling for jackals,
a home for ostriches.
14 Wildcats will meet hyenas,
the goat demon will call to his friends,
and there Lilith will lurk
and find her resting place.
Isaiah 34:13-15 Common English Bible

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In Chronicles David's sin is due to Satan pushing him. In Samuel David's sin is an important step bringing us to the Temple.

If Satan is pushing David in Chronicles, it's God pushing him in Samuel. It's what Kellyanne Conway would call an "alternative fact". Hey maybe Samuel and Chronicles are depicting alternative universes. Marvel Comics and DC Comics put their superheros in alternative universes all the time. The Bible was ahead of it's time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If Satan is pushing David in Chronicles, it's God pushing him in Samuel. It's what Kellyanne Conway would call an "alternative fact". Hey maybe Samuel and Chronicles are depicting alternative universes. Marvel Comics and DC Comics put their superheros in alternative universes all the time. The Bible was ahead of it's time.

If you are posting on LCD is Awareness? How about OBW? If one post says OBW posted it and another says Zeek posted it was that the result of some cover up to hide the fact that Zeek is actually OBW? Two different persons, two different agendas.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you are posting on LCD is Awareness? How about OBW? If one post says OBW posted it and another says Zeek posted it was that the result of some cover up to hide the fact that Zeek is actually OBW? Two different persons, two different agendas.

You're over-reaching. The Bible is not an internet forum. God didn't log into the Bible under Satan's name. The statements in 2 Samuel 24:1, and 1 Chronicles 21:1 are putative statements of fact. As such, they are contradictory.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you are posting on LCD is Awareness? How about OBW? If one post says OBW posted it and another says Zeek posted it was that the result of some cover up to hide the fact that Zeek is actually OBW? Two different persons, two different agendas.

We don't know if ZNP is wacky, but this post suggests it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're over-reaching. The Bible is not an internet forum. God didn't log into the Bible under Satan's name. The statements in 2 Samuel 24:1, and 1 Chronicles 21:1 are putative statements of fact. As such, they are contradictory.

You are overreaching. You are proposing that God and Satan are actually the same person in the Bible, that when God does something you don't like the Bible authors came in and sanitized the account changing the reference to Satan.

What is this based on? Essentially nothing. There verses in the NT that make it very clear that this is not the case, James says God does not tempt us with evil, a clear contradiction to your interpretation. Even so, your interpretation is based on a very few references that to the dim witted appear to indicate a problem. But under closer inspection is clearly not there. For example, this verse in 2Samuel 24

1. It is very clear that David and Israel did something that caused the Lord's anger to burn again.

Why doesn't it say what it is? My understanding is that the term "again" and the story that follows is enough information for someone to understand what it is. The entire account in 1st and 2nd Samuel deals with Man's pride, arrogance and trusting in his own strength. Surely again can be understood as a reference to the dealing with the Gideonites, or it can also be understood as "again, for the umpteenth time". How many cases did we see with Saul involving trusting in man's strength? Too many. Anyway there is no suggestion in this account that God tempted David to sin, only that this sinful thought caused a reaction for the Lord's anger to burn again.

2. It then says that the Lord "incited".

David insults the Lord who answered prayers and saved them and gave them a deliverance to give the credit to the flesh and their own strength. What is wrong with him responding -- "really? And exactly how strong is that arm of yours that saved you?" That is what it means to incite.

That does not mean that God stood against Israel. It doesn't mean that God tempted David to sin.

3. However, we do know that David sinned and in Chronicles it makes it clear that he fell for Satan's temptation. It also makes it clear that Satan's temptation is "against Israel".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

We don't know if ZNP is wacky, but this post suggests it.

Yes, complete wacko. I mean this interpretation is to have us believe that the writers of the Bible were more inept than Rose Mary Woods who we are led to believe erased 18.5 minutes by accidentally doing yoga in the Whitehouse for 18.5 minutes.

I mean what an inept coverup. You tell us those writing Chronicles change the account to Satan and yet leave it as the Lord in 2Samuel.

Now I have heard a lot of slander and smear jobs of the Bible before, but to say the writers of the Bible were more inept than the Nixon whitehouse? The same guys who bungled the watergate breakin, deep throat, Rose Mary Woods? Please, that is wacko!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What do you base the dates of Samuel and Chronicles on?

I copied down a listing of the dates of the books of the Bible some 20 years or more ago. It's a quick reference guide. However, dating the books of the Bible particularly the OT is difficult due to much editing that occurred after the original was written. Even the names of the Samuel's and Chronicles we have today weren't original. They were once just one book respectively. But important to my reference to Enoch Wiki confirms my dating of Chronicles.

Originally Posted by zeek

The correlation between increased references to Satan and demons and later dates isn't just your imagination. A search of the words Satan or devil and demon on Bible Gateway or other search engine shows there's obviously more references to these terms in the New Testament compared to the Hebrew Bible. The NT is more likely to attribute the existence of evil to the devil than God.

This applies to this POE thread because the attribution of the source of evil became ever more attributed away from God to the devil. And it makes sense. For the same reason many out here can't stand the problem of evil -- it denigrates God -- the source of evil had to be switched from God to the devil.

Originally Posted by zeek

It's telling that the devil, who is scapegoated comes to be depicted as a goat! But, the practice of depicting Satan as a goat has Old Testament antecedents; as the following passage shows.

Thorns will grow up in its palaces,
weeds and brambles in its fortresses.
It will be a dwelling for jackals,
a home for ostriches.
14 Wildcats will meet hyenas,
the goat demon will call to his friends,
and there Lilith will lurk
and find her resting place.
Isaiah 34:13-15 Common English Bible

Oh no you didn't. What's that inadvertent reference to Lilith?

In Jewish lore, Lilith is said to be the first wife of Adam, created along with Adam from the dust of the ground (Gene 1:27). But she ran off, left the garden, and coupled with the archangel Samael. Samael (Hebrew:, "Venom of God" or "Poison of God," or "Blindness of God" Sammael or Samil) is an important archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore, a figure who is an accuser (satan), seducer, and destroyer, and has been regarded as both good and evil.

So Lilith could be another source of human evil in the world, and early on in the garden.

God has a bad track record when it comes to creating women.

Good find in Isaiah.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are overreaching. You are proposing that God and Satan are actually the same person in the Bible,

That's false. I have proposed that two different authors attribute the same act to two different free moral agents, the Lord and Satan.

that when God does something you don't like the Bible authors came in and sanitized the account changing the reference to Satan.

Whether I like something is irrelevant. The fact is that the texts attribute the same act to two different actors. One is the Lord and the other is Satan. I didn't use the word "sanitize" but, from the standpoint of clearing God of responsibility, you picked an appropriate word for it.

What is this based on? Essentially nothing. There verses in the NT that make it very clear that this is not the case, James says God does not tempt us with evil, a clear contradiction to your interpretation.

The redactor of Chronicles apparently shared James belief that God doesn't tempt us. Hence, the need to change II Samuel 24:1. Much of the rest of your argument is merely circumlocution. But, I agree that II Samuel does not state that the Lord stood against Israel. In keeping with their respective Biblical characters God's motive is to discipline whereas Satan's was to harm. Only the act of moving David to number Israel is the same in both cases.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, complete wacko. I mean this interpretation is to have us believe that the writers of the Bible were more inept than Rose Mary Woods who we are led to believe erased 18.5 minutes by accidentally doing yoga in the Whitehouse for 18.5 minutes.

I mean what an inept coverup. You tell us those writing Chronicles change the account to Satan and yet leave it as the Lord in 2Samuel.

Now I have heard a lot of slander and smear jobs of the Bible before, but to say the writers of the Bible were more inept than the Nixon whitehouse? The same guys who bungled the watergate breakin, deep throat, Rose Mary Woods? Please, that is wacko!

We don't know if ZNP is wacky, but this post suggests it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

We don't know if ZNP is wacky, but this post suggests it.

Well, you're zany. Is that much different?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, you're zany. Is that much different?

I own it. Does ZNP own his?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I copied down a listing of the dates of the books of the Bible some 20 years or more ago. It's a quick reference guide. However, dating the books of the Bible particularly the OT is difficult due to much editing that occurred after the original was written. Even the names of the Samuel's and Chronicles we have today weren't original. They were once just one book respectively. But important to my reference to Enoch Wiki confirms my dating of Chronicles.

Problem is that without knowing how the dates were arrived at we can't independently gauge the certainty of the estimated dates.

This applies to this POE thread because the attribution of the source of evil became ever more attributed away from God to the devil. And it makes sense. For the same reason many out here can't stand the problem of evil -- it denigrates God -- the source of evil had to be switched from God to the devil.

According to Ehrman, the change in attribution would have occurred in consequence of Antiochus IV assuming the throne in 175 BCE. Antiochus attacked Jerusalem...

"...burning parts of it, tearing down houses, and taking captive women and children (1 Macc. 1: 29– 31). Then, in order to bring cultural unity to his entire kingdom, he sent out a message that everyone was to “give up their particular customs” (1 Macc. 1: 42); in particular, the sacrificial practices of the Jewish Temple were forbidden, the Temple was defiled, Jewish parents were forbidden to circumcise their baby boys, and no one was allowed to follow the dictates of the Mosaic Law, on pain of death (1 Macc. 1: 44– 50). Then began a horrible persecution: pagan sacrifices were offered in the Temple, altars to pagan gods were built throughout Judah,books of the Torah were collected and burned, anyone found with a Torah scroll was executed. And worse: “According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks” (1 Macc. 1: 59– 61).

Ehrman asks:

How was one to make sense of this horrifying situation? Here was a case of people suffering not because God was punishing them for breaking the Law but because God’s enemies were opposed to their keeping the Law. The old prophetic view seemed unable to accommodate these new circumstances. A new view developed, the one that scholars today call apocalypticism. This view is first clearly expressed in a book that was produced during the time of the Maccabean uprising, the final book of the Hebrew Bible to be written, the book of Daniel.
Ehrman, Bart D.. God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer (p. 208). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

So the theodicy was no longer that God was punishing them for their sins but that Satan and his demon horde were persecuting them because they WERE following God.

Oh no you didn't. What's that inadvertent reference to Lilith?
In Jewish lore, Lilith is said to be the first wife of Adam, created along with Adam from the dust of the ground (Gene 1:27). But she ran off, left the garden, and coupled with the archangel Samael. Samael (Hebrew:, "Venom of God" or "Poison of God," or "Blindness of God" Sammael or Samil) is an important archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore, a figure who is an accuser (satan), seducer, and destroyer, and has been regarded as both good and evil.So Lilith could be another source of human evil in the world, and early on in the garden. God has a bad track record when it comes to creating women. Good find in Isaiah.

Strong's translates וְשָׂעִ֖יר in Isaiah 34:14 as satyr. Lilith may be his consort. In any case the image of devil as goat seems to be planted here at least as far as the Bible is concerned.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's false. I have proposed that two different authors attribute the same act to two different free moral agents, the Lord and Satan.

Sorry if I am confused. You are saying the two different authors attribute the same act to two different free moral agents. So then you are not claiming that the Bible switched Satan for the Lord in this account in Chronicles? Nor are you asserting that this is the implication of "the same act" being attributed to two free moral agents?

If not then perhaps your view and my view and the view of several major Bible commentators is not that different. I am saying that the Lord "incited" David and that Satan "incited" David. The Lord was responding to the insult of David giving credit for the Lord's answered prayers to the flesh. The other was Satan trying to push David to sin.

I don't agree that the two authors were referring to the same act, but rather that Samuel focused on the Lord's work to change the age, whereas Chronicles focused on Man's obedience and / or failures. So although both were writing about David's numbering the people, the Lord's inciting of David was not the same act as Satan's inciting David. The Lord wanted David to repent for giving credit to the flesh and Satan wanted David to sin.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Whether I like something is irrelevant. The fact is that the texts attribute the same act to two different actors. One is the Lord and the other is Satan. I didn't use the word "sanitize" but, from the standpoint of clearing God of responsibility, you picked an appropriate word for it.

When you say the same act, the act is David numbering the people. Did the Lord incite him? Yes. Did Satan incite him? yes.

There was pride in David's heart. The Lord was insulted, burned with anger again, for the umpteenth time, and incited him.

On the other hand Satan saw an opportunity to bring Israel down and he also incited him.

The Lord's inciting of David is not the same act as Satan inciting of David.

But both accounts are about the same act of David numbering the Israelites out of pride.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I own it. Does ZNP own his?

Good question. I consider my reading of these verses to be the crystal clear pure word of God. Is that zany enough for you?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Spoken like a true accountant. No one is dismissing it. No one is cooking the books.

If you want to buy a house you have to pay the price. Paying that price is a "suffering" but it is necessary because it helps us value what we bought. Are you willing to pay this price? Is this something that you really want?

For us to build a temple where God and man can dwell together you must pay the price. What you call "evil" I call the mortgage on that temple. I am not arguing that it doesn't exist, I am not arguing that it does not involve suffering, What I am saying is that suffering paid the price so that we could dwell with God. The very definition of evil is Jesus crucifixion. There is no better example of a morally wrong action caused by a moral free agent to cause suffering. But from Jesus perspective He was "paying the price" for us.

Are you a complete idiot?

Suffering because of being tortured has nothing to do with the fact of living by the "sweat of the brow." Suggesting that the two are even remotely similar is to prove that you are out of touch with reality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Good question. I consider my reading of these verses to be the crystal clear pure word of God. Is that zany enough for you?

lol ... You are a character. Now you are sounding like Witness Lee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry if I am confused. You are saying the two different authors attribute the same act to two different free moral agents. So then you are not claiming that the Bible switched Satan for the Lord in this account in Chronicles? Nor are you asserting that this is the implication of "the same act" being attributed to two free moral agents?

If not then perhaps your view and my view and the view of several major Bible commentators is not that different. I am saying that the Lord "incited" David and that Satan "incited" David. The Lord was responding to the insult of David giving credit for the Lord's answered prayers to the flesh. The other was Satan trying to push David to sin.

I don't agree that the two authors were referring to the same act, but rather that Samuel focused on the Lord's work to change the age, whereas Chronicles focused on Man's obedience and / or failures. So although both were writing about David's numbering the people, the Lord's inciting of David was not the same act as Satan's inciting David. The Lord wanted David to repent for giving credit to the flesh and Satan wanted David to sin.

You just can't get it can you bro ZNP? Why are you kicking against the pricks?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Are you a complete idiot?

Suffering because of being tortured has nothing to do with the fact of living by the "sweat of the brow." Suggesting that the two are even remotely similar is to prove that you are out of touch with reality.

OBW , that's not a nice thing to say about your brother, please reconsider, it's getting too personal.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OBW , that's not a nice thing to say about your brother, please reconsider, it's getting too personal.

Evangelical for moderator.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There was pride in David's heart. The Lord was insulted, burned with anger again, for the umpteenth time, and incited him.

II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord was angry at Israel not at David.

On the other hand Satan saw an opportunity to bring Israel down and he also incited him.

The Chronicler writing at a later date is working from a different theology than the author of II Samuel. In earlier OT texts God had a scary, unpredictable aspect one might describe as a "demonic side". Another example is Exodus 4:24-26 when God tries to kill Moses. The Chronicler's conception of God is such that it is no longer acceptable for God to do or incite evil.

The Lord's inciting of David is not the same act as Satan inciting of David.

I have already pointed out that the same Hebrew word is used and the context is the same.

The Contemporary English Version (CEV) puts it this way:
2 Samuel 24:1 The Lord was angry at Israel again, and he made David think it would be a good idea to count the people in Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan decided to cause trouble for Israel by making David think it was a good idea to find out how many people there were in Israel and Judah.

The facts just don't jibe with your presuppositions, so you reject them.

But both accounts are about the same act of David numbering the Israelites out of pride.

Pride may be inferred from the text and is certainly a prevalent traditional interpretation. It's really quite curious that in the older text, Samuel, the Lord after moving David to count the people, punishes the Israel for it by killing 70,000 people with a "horrible disease." No wonder the Chronicler chose to blame Satan! To punish your chosen people for a sin that you incited is surely unjust. But, even if Satan incited it and not God, the punishment was disproportionate to the crime and inflicted on innocent people not merely the perpetrator.

Yet, there is a dose of historical reality in that, isn't there? When the leader of a nation makes a mistake or commits an evil deed thousands or even millions of people can suffer. Even the foibles of a powerful leader's character can be amplified to the extent that they become global. The question whether or not there is a free, conscious moral agent who either incites the evil or allows it brings us back to the theological POE.

[awareness]

And talking about the POE:

2Sa 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand.

It's like the Lord has an angel hitman, that delivers evil. God seems very impetuous in this story.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And talking about the POE:

2Sa 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand.

The CEV says that "the Lord felt sorry for all the suffering he caused..." A god who causes evil and then feels sorry for what he has done may be all powerful, but he is neither all knowing nor all good. Surprisingly, in the I Chronicles version of the story, even though it is Satan who caused David to count the people, the Lord still "felt sorry for all the suffering [evil] he had caused the people. [21:15].

It's like the Lord has an angel hitman, that delivers evil. God seems very impetuous in this story.

In both texts the Lord sends the angel to "destroy Jerusalem." But, unlike the book of Job, Chronicles does not say that the Lord sent Satan to move or tempt David. Per my search on Bible Gateway, this is the only time Satan acts independently of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord was angry at Israel not at David.



The Chronicler writing at a later date is working from a different theology than the author of II Samuel. In earlier OT texts God had a scary, unpredictable aspect one might describe as a "demonic side". Another example is Exodus 4:24-26 when God tries to kill Moses. The Chronicler's conception of God is such that it is no longer acceptable for God to do or incite evil.


I have already pointed out that the same Hebrew word is used and the context is the same.

The Contemporary English Version (CEV) puts it this way:
2 Samuel 24:1 The Lord was angry at Israel again, and he made David think it would be a good idea to count the people in Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan decided to cause trouble for Israel by making David think it was a good idea to find out how many people there were in Israel and Judah.

The facts just don't jibe with your presuppositions, so you reject them.



Pride may be inferred from the text and is certainly a prevalent traditional interpretation. It's really quite curious that in the older text, Samuel, the Lord after moving David to count the people, punishes the Israel for it by killing 70,000 people with a "horrible disease." No wonder the Chronicler chose to blame Satan! To punish your chosen people for a sin that you incited is surely unjust. But, even if Satan incited it and not God, the punishment was disproportionate to the crime and inflicted on innocent people not merely the perpetrator.

Yet, there is a dose of historical reality in that, isn't there? When the leader of a nation makes a mistake or commits an evil deed thousands or even millions of people can suffer. Even the foibles of a powerful leader's character can be amplified to the extent that they become global. The question whether or not there is a free, conscious moral agent who either incites the evil or allows it brings us back to the theological POE.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions. I am glad that I can get a chance to understand your viewpoint. However, even after numerous clarifications I still don't understand. You said that you did not say that the Lord referred to in Samuel was equivalent to the Satan referred to in Chronicles. However your reference to a translation that clearly has written that interpretation into their translation by saying it was the Lord's intention that David number the people confuses me. Is this your interpretation?

Anyway, regardless of what your interpretation is it is clear some people view the God of the OT this way and I thank you for sharing why they have this view.

I think I have shared all that I need to on my viewpoint, anything more seems like beating a dead horse, but if you want a response to something you can PM me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions. I am glad that I can get a chance to understand your viewpoint. However, even after numerous clarifications I still don't understand. You said that you did not say that the Lord referred to in Samuel was equivalent to the Satan referred to in Chronicles. However your reference to a translation that clearly has written that interpretation into their translation by saying it was the Lord's intention that David number the people confuses me. Is this your interpretation?

Anyway, regardless of what your interpretation is it is clear some people view the God of the OT this way and I thank you for sharing why they have this view.

I think I have shared all that I need to on my viewpoint, anything more seems like beating a dead horse, but if you want a response to something you can PM me.

No. What you said was "You are proposing that God and Satan are actually the same person in the Bible." That's what I denied. God and Satan are different people in the Bible.

I checked the Contemporary English Version's translation of the verses I cited against the Hebrew in Strong's Concordance http://biblehub.com/text/2_samuel/24-16.htm and found it well supported.

I understand if you want to rest your case. I still don't see how Biblical inerrantism can be supported given the facts of the text. Nor do I see how God of the Bible can be construed as omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent although I think that's what the authors are seeking. That said, I enjoyed our dialogue. Feel free to PM me anytime.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I understand if you want to rest your case ... That said, I enjoyed our dialogue. Feel free to PM me anytime.

Well now, in the words of Gomer Pyle, "Garsh, Sha-zam, Gall-lee," there's come a meeting of the minds ... of some kind or other, that is. Kumbaya comes to mind.

But back to the problem of evil.

Originally Posted by zeek

I still don't see how Biblical inerrantism can be supported given the facts of the text. Nor do I see how God of the Bible can be construed as omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent although I think that's what the authors are seeking.

Screw the authors. What about the people? And by people I don't mean the little band of misfits called the Israelites. I mean all the people.

This idea of chosen people is evil. It means that anything can be done to the non-chosen. Like : But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: (Deu 20:16)

But don't believe it. The authors made it up. There was no slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt for 430 years. That didn't happen. The Israelites were already in Canaan. They were Canaanites. That's what archeology has proven.

The idea of chosen people is evil. Look what it's causing today. The stories maybe be fictional, but the results are not.

Even Christians believe in the elect. And they want their Lord to come back and fry everyone else (the neighbors Jesus instructed to love in The Great Commandments).

The idea of an elect is evil. And it doesn't reflect well on a Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well now, in the words of Gomer Pyle, "Garsh, Sha-zam, Gall-lee," there's come a meeting of the minds ... of some kind or other, that is. Kumbaya comes to mind.

I take it that the moderator finds rancor and name-calling more entertaining. Sad.

Originally Posted by awareness

But back to the problem of evil.


Screw the authors. What about the people? And by people I don't mean the little band of misfits called the Israelites. I mean all the people.

This idea of chosen people is evil. It means that anything can be done to the non-chosen. Like : But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: (Deu 20:16)

But don't believe it. The authors made it up. There was no slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt for 430 years. That didn't happen. The Israelites were already in Canaan. They were Canaanites. That's what archeology has proven.

The idea of chosen people is evil. Look what it's causing today. The stories maybe be fictional, but the results are not.

Even Christians believe in the elect. And they want their Lord to come back and fry everyone else (the neighbors Jesus instructed to love in The Great Commandments).

The idea of an elect is evil. And it doesn't reflect well on a Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God.

I don't see how this issue is related to the POE as stated in the OP. Maybe you should start a new thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I take it that the moderator finds rancor and name-calling more entertaining. Sad.

I quoted Gomer, and you quoted Trump.

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see how this issue is related to the POE as stated in the OP. Maybe you should start a new thread.

If you don't see how it applies to the POE you're not paying attention. Frying most everyone, or killing everything that breathes, and attributing it to God, is evil, plain and simple.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you don't see how it applies to the POE you're not paying attention. Frying most everyone, or killing everything that breathes, and attributing it to God, is evil, plain and simple.

Showing how it applies is your job. For all I know those could be a lesser evils which serves the greater ultimate good, i.e. God's eternal purpose. As I see it, the burden of connecting the dots from the POE to your proposition is on you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I quoted Gomer, and you quoted Trump.

Zeek is now quoting Trump?

Almost as incredible as the Patriots comeback win.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zeek is now quoting Trump?

Almost as incredible as the Patriots comeback win.

I'm a non-partisan quoter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Showing how it applies is your job. For all I know those could be a lesser evils which serves the greater ultimate good, i.e. God's eternal purpose. As I see it, the burden of connecting the dots from the POE to your proposition is on you.

Okay, how am I gonna get out of this hole?

Concerning how the idea of "The Chosen" and "The Elect" is evil, I think that it's obvious to anyone that's able to step back from their tribalistic nature and give it some thought, that, it results in evil for the non-chosen and non-elect. Of course to those that can't see past their tribalism, the non-chosen and the non-elect deserve it. I guess it's not evil if they deserve it.

Concerning the possibility of "the greater good" I don't see how the authors of the Torah making up the story of taking the promised land has produced a greater good today, given what's going on in the middle east. In fact, it's causing a problem of evil.

This may be considered as a dodge and weave, but it's actually bringing the POE down from the abstract to a reality happening in the world today.

On the other hand I could be filling in for our brother ZNP while he's come down to earth.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, how am I gonna get out of this hole?

Concerning how the idea of "The Chosen" and "The Elect" is evil, I think that it's obvious to anyone that's able to step back from their tribalistic nature and give it some thought, that, it results in evil for the non-chosen and non-elect. Of course to those that can't see past their tribalism, the non-chosen and the non-elect deserve it. I guess it's not evil if they deserve it.

Concerning the possibility of "the greater good" I don't see how the authors of the Torah making up the story of taking the promised land has produced a greater good today, given what's going on in the middle east. In fact, it's causing a problem of evil.

This may be considered as a dodge and weave, but it's actually bringing the POE down from the abstract to a reality happening in the world today.

On the other hand I could be filling in for our brother ZNP while he's come down to earth.

But, you present uncharitable views of both Judaism and Christianity. I feel certain that, on a good day, you could marshal a far more favorable defense of the Biblical theodicy yourself.

Let me try to help. If, as Paul said in Romans 3:23 "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" , God, in his infinite grace, offers salvation to all. Nothing tribal about that. It's an offer of free access to all.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, you present uncharitable views of both Judaism and Christianity.

That I glean from the Bible.

Originally Posted by zeek

Let me try to help. If, as Paul said in Romans 3:23 "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" , God, in his infinite grace, offers salvation to all. Nothing tribal about that. It's an offer of free access to all.

But then we have only those that are written in the book of life. And the rest fry. So what, free access to all didn't work?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

But then we have only those that are written in the book of life. And the rest fry. So what, free access to all didn't work?

Under the premise of free will, not all choose. It is an offer, not the rounding up of all persons who are then forced to accept salvation and all that goes with it.

You could argue that it is an offer you can't refuse. But if you don't believe the consequences, then the offer is meaningless. It becomes a "so what."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Under the premise of free will, not all choose. It is an offer, not the rounding up of all persons who are then forced to accept salvation and all that goes with it.

You could argue that it is an offer you can't refuse. But if you don't believe the consequences, then the offer is meaningless. It becomes a "so what."

I don't know. It seems like an omniscient god could have come up with a better plan.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know. It seems like an omniscient god could have come up with a better plan.

And He didn't or doesn't then we're right back at the POE.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know. It seems like an omniscient god could have come up with a better plan.

But at the cost of the ability to choose against? I didn't allow free will. God did. It would appear that he has self-restricted somewhat as a result.

Unlike the God of the POE inquiry, the God who really is all of that is not restricted by my version of what is the best course of action. And if he really is that God, then my opinion is of no consequence, no matter how sound I think it is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

But at the cost of the ability to choose against? I didn't allow free will. God did. It would appear that he has self-restricted somewhat as a result.

Free will is an assumption not a fact. There is plenty of evidence that we are far from free. It may be counterintuitive to you, but there are reasonable arguments against free will as well as for it.

Unlike the God of the POE inquiry, the God who really is all of that is not restricted by my version of what is the best course of action. And if he really is that God, then my opinion is of no consequence, no matter how sound I think it is.

I read a wise humility in what you say. There's also a fatalism in your statement that I suspect is the product of your life experience.

[zeek]

The curse of Canaan in Genesis 9 after the great flood by which the Lord purified the earth, shows that Noah spoke slavery into being as a curse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The curse of Canaan in Genesis 9 after the great flood by which the Lord purified the earth, shows that the Lord not only permitted slavery to continue and regulated it, He spoke slavery into being as a curse.

And the curse was on the white race. Which means if my cousin is right, that, God will judge us for not following His law, then we'd better enslave all the white folks x-ray pronto. And beat 'em too.

Y'all have to realize how silly all this is. I mean all the races and colors came out of one family? They didn't know it back then, when they were writing, but we today know that's not possible. It's a story ... a Bible story ... but a story nonetheless.

This is the problem of evil in a nutshell ; we have to propitiate invisible forces (beings, when personified) to stop evil from getting us.

This is why way before Noah, or the Hebrews, or the books of the Bible, even before written language, archeological evidence, so I've read, reveals the first supernatural entities propitiated were of demon like images. That makes all the sense in the world. If you want to stop evil then plead with the evil ones that, they'd show some mercy, and maybe back off.

It was later in human development when we thought of propitiating the most powerful of all the supernatural beings, God. That way can be more confident that evil will be held at bay. It's a better way ... we believe ... or at least I have.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The curse of Canaan in Genesis 9 after the great flood by which the Lord purified the earth, shows that the Lord not only permitted slavery to continue and regulated it, He spoke slavery into being as a curse.

Yes it is a curse, just as the crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a curse. How do you understand "by His stripes we are healed"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it is a curse, just as the crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a curse. How do you understand "by His stripes we are healed"?

Isn't that a subject change?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it is a curse, just as the crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a curse. How do you understand "by His stripes we are healed"?

I don't see how your response relates to my proposition. In our previous discussion you argued that the Lord did the fact that the Lord regulated slavery did not imply that he sanctioned it. Genesis 9 shows that the Lord not only sanctioned and regulated slavery, Noah's originated slavery when he cursed Canaan. There is no mention of slavery prior to the Noah's curse.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see how your response relates to my proposition. In our previous discussion you argued that the Lord did the fact that the Lord regulated slavery did not imply that he sanctioned it. Genesis 9 shows that the Lord not only sanctioned and regulated slavery, he originated slavery when he cursed Canaan. There is no mention of slavery prior to the Lord's curse.

I don't disagree with your proposition. My point is that slavery comes in after God's covenant with Noah concerning government. In that government there is a concern with how to deal with murder, slavery deals with other debts.

There is no mention of slavery prior to God laying the ground work for human government to deal with sin.

Slavery is not the first mention of man being cursed, that goes back to the fall a few chapters earlier.

You are equating slavery with a curse, I am equating it with governments response to the curse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't disagree with your proposition. My point is that slavery comes in after God's covenant with Noah concerning government. In that government there is a concern with how to deal with murder, slavery deals with other debts.

There is no mention of slavery prior to God laying the ground work for human government to deal with sin.

Slavery is not the first mention of man being cursed, that goes back to the fall a few chapters earlier.

You are equating slavery with a curse, I am equating it with governments response to the curse.

Government speculation smacks of Witness Lee. The only government I see is the rainbow -- to remind God -- like He gets alzheimer's.

So God gives us the rainbow, and then slavery, right after the only family left on the earth. Some government ... kill everything, and not just the wicked.

That's worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin combined. Not a government I want, nor the one the world needs.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't disagree with your proposition. My point is that slavery comes in after God's covenant with Noah concerning government. In that government there is a concern with how to deal with murder, slavery deals with other debts.

There is no mention of slavery prior to God laying the ground work for human government to deal with sin.

The first mention of slavery is here:

Genesis 9

24 Later, Noah woke up. (He was sleeping because of the wine.) When he learned what his youngest son Ham had done to him, 25 he said,

“May there be a curse on Canaan!
May he be a slave to his brothers.”
26 Noah also said,

“May the Lord, the God of Shem, be praised!
May Canaan be Shem’s slave.
27 May God give more land to Japheth.
May God live in Shem’s tents,
and may Canaan be their slave.”

According to this, slavery was the result of Noah's curse.

Slavery is not the first mention of man being cursed, that goes back to the fall a few chapters earlier.

You turned my proposition on it's head. I didn't say slavery was the first mention of man being cursed, I said that the curse on Canaan was the first mention of slavery.

You are equating slavery with a curse, I am equating it with governments response to the curse.

Genesis 9 states that Noah's curse on Canaan was that he would be a slave. I was mistaken to say it was the Lord's curse; it was Noah's curse. But, somehow the curse empowered the Hebrews to subject the Canaanites to slavery when they invaded Canaan after their own enslavement in Egypt. There is no prior mention of slavery in the Bible per my Bible Gateway search.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it is a curse, just as the crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a curse.

Can you demonstrate that the notion that a curse has power beyond that of the psychology of suggestion is more than a superstitious belief?

Why a righteous person would be cursed for being hung on a tree, I don't comprehend.

How do you understand "by His stripes we are healed"?

That's related to the notion of vicarious suffering. I'm not sure how that works.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why a righteous person would be cursed for being hung on a tree, I don't comprehend.

That's related to the notion of vicarious suffering. I'm not sure how that works.

I do not read the NT to mean that our "taking up our cross and following Jesus" is vicarious.

Instead I see this as saying -- even if you were the blackest sinner, this is the path you take that leads to life.

It would be impossible to take that path on your own, but since Jesus has gone before and opened the way He is the author of our faith. This is why a righteous person was cursed, He was leading the way out of the curse for the rest of us.

This is the same with slavery. Why are you so poor and destitute that you need to sell yourself to pay your debts? Maybe 6 months, 2 years, even 12 years a slave is what you need to see your error and find the way out of that curse. Why are you committing crimes that are punishable by being sold as a slave? This can offer the opportunity for a "reset" or "reboot" to your life.

There is nothing superstitious about being destitute, homeless or a convicted felon. These are the outflow of some inner problem or issue.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not read the NT to mean that our "taking up our cross and following Jesus" is vicarious.

Yes, but I was responding to your question about "by your stripes we are healed". You didn't ask about "...take up your cross and follow me."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is nothing superstitious about being destitute, homeless or a convicted felon. These are the outflow of some inner problem or issue.

I'm not sure how that relates to my question. I'm asking about how a curse becomes imbued with supernatural power. Why is the Lord bound by curses like the one of Noah on Canaan?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not read the NT to mean that our "taking up our cross and following Jesus" is vicarious.

Instead I see this as saying -- even if you were the blackest sinner, this is the path you take that leads to life.

It would be impossible to take that path on your own, but since Jesus has gone before and opened the way He is the author of our faith. This is why a righteous person was cursed, He was leading the way out of the curse for the rest of us.

This is the same with slavery. Why are you so poor and destitute that you need to sell yourself to pay your debts? Maybe 6 months, 2 years, even 12 years a slave is what you need to see your error and find the way out of that curse. Why are you committing crimes that are punishable by being sold as a slave? This can offer the opportunity for a "reset" or "reboot" to your life.

There is nothing superstitious about being destitute, homeless or a convicted felon. These are the outflow of some inner problem or issue.

I appreciate your gospel message, but isn't this more of the original subject change?

We all know it, very well I might add. But relate it to the POE -- please pretty please (and hold your flights of fancy to a minimum) or drop it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, but I was responding to your question about "by your stripes we are healed". You didn't ask about "...take up your cross and follow me."

I'm not sure how that relates to my question. I'm asking about how a curse becomes imbued with supernatural power. Why is the Lord bound by curses like the one of Noah on Canaan?

I must not understand your questions then.

I have already said that a generational curse is for 3 or 4 generations. Therefore the Lord is not bound by curses like the one of Noah on Canaan. Also I have already said that curse is an expression of some sin in the character in much the same way as "the wages of sin is death".

I am equating "taking up your cross and follow me" with "by His stripes we are healed". There is no better way to be healed from falsely accusing others than to be falsely accused yourself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The curse of Canaan in Genesis 9 after the great flood by which the Lord purified the earth, shows that Noah spoke slavery into being as a curse.

Setting aside the flamboyant answers so far, except for one major point, this story of Noah/Ham/Canaan et al is just a stupid story ... with a nefarious purpose.

First, Noah wouldn't be the first to wake up with a hangover and start slinging curses at someone, anyone, anything and everything.

Second, as the story goes, Noah is just a man ; a descendant of Adam and Eve, after they were thrown out of the garden. Noah did not have supernatural powers, nor the power to curse peoples for thousands of years. And if God got behind Noah's curse, to sustain it, then God got behind slavery. And that reduces Gods' godly status ; it slanders God.

As I see it, the major point of the story is to support holding slaves. As I've pointed out elsewhere, slavery existed way before the Hebrews were a glint in Gods' eye ; and it was commonly accepted in those days.

So the Hebrews had to jump on the bandwagon, and wrote a story that gave them a right to hold, in this case, the Canaanites as slaves.

In the end, that's the purpose of this silly nonsensical story ; to give divine sanction for the Hebrews to hold slaves.

But it does speak one truth : slavery is a curse. Amen. Glad we finally caught on. No thanks to the Bible, that doesn't forbid slavery, it's about time.

"How, in particular, are we to make sense of modernity— of the erosion of family, tribe, tradition, and religion by the forces of individualism, cosmopolitanism, reason, and science?"
~ Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined . Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

First, Noah wouldn't be the first to wake up with a hangover and start slinging curses at someone, anyone, anything and everything.

Really? Cain? Abel? who do you think was first?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really? Cain? Abel? who do you think was first?

All of Cain's many wild wives. They didn't have supernatural power either ... just like Noah.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I must not understand your questions then.

I have already said that a generational curse is for 3 or 4 generations. Therefore the Lord is not bound by curses like the one of Noah on Canaan. Also I have already said that curse is an expression of some sin in the character in much the same way as "the wages of sin is death".

How do you know curses work like that? If behavior flows from character than it isn't due to the curse.

I am equating "taking up your cross and follow me" with "by His stripes we are healed". There is no better way to be healed from falsely accusing others than to be falsely accused yourself.

"By His stripes we are healed" refers to the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 who suffers in the place of the believer:

Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Christians identify the suffering servant of Isaiah with Jesus the Christ. The believer is redeemed by participating vicariously in the sufferings and sacrifice of Jesus. That's what I meant by "vicarious suffering". I didn't think you would have a problem with that idea.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do you know curses work like that? If behavior flows from character than it isn't due to the curse.

Character is a result of habit, and habit is a result of conscience choice. A bad choice results in bad character which results in a curse on your life.

Originally Posted by zeek

"By His stripes we are healed" refers to the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 who suffers in the place of the believer:

Christians identify the suffering servant of Isaiah with Jesus the Christ. The believer is redeemed by participating vicariously in the sufferings and sacrifice of Jesus. That's what I meant by "vicarious suffering". I didn't think you would have a problem with that idea.

No, I don't have a problem with that idea, it is great if we can learn these lessons vicariously. Still, in my experience I hear everyone complaining about every little thing that ever happened to them as though they had suffered unto blood like Jesus, even though they haven't. Some have to learn from experience.

Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?...
3 He is despised and rejected by men,...
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken...
9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,

The portion is very clear that He suffered the punishment that is reserved for transgressors, our punishment, even though He wasn't a transgressor. As a result we can receive that "vicariously" as you say, we can also be His disciples in the event that we also are unjustly caused to suffer, and of course He can be an inspiration and a guide to us in the even that we are suffering justly for sins we have committed.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Character is a result of habit, and habit is a result of conscience choice. A bad choice results in bad character which results in a curse on your life.

If what you say we're true, a curse would be a mere figure of speech, a metaphor for the natural phenomenon of habit formation. The author of Genesis obvious doesn't intend it that way.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If what you say we're true, a curse would be a mere figure of speech, a metaphor for the natural phenomenon of habit formation. The author of Genesis obvious doesn't intend it that way.

I don't think it is a mere figure of speech. I think that the Bible is written for people to live in a society, that is against our nature. We are not genetically predisposed to be eusocial. If you live according to your flesh you will be cursed. The benefits of human society are a blessing, but we have laws that are enforced to maintain norms that are accepted for living in this society.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think it is a mere figure of speech. I think that the Bible is written for people to live in a society, that is against our nature. We are not genetically predisposed to be eusocial. If you live according to your flesh you will be cursed. The benefits of human society are a blessing, but we have laws that are enforced to maintain norms that are accepted for living in this society.

Oh OK. So, you're back to your dualistic theory of human nature according to which the flesh is evil. Does the Hebrew Bible teach that? Or was that something Paul discovered? Or was that, as some say the result of Augustine's "original sin" influence?

How does that mesh with your "Character is a result of habit, and habit is a result of conscience choice. A bad choice results in bad character which results in a curse on your life." hypothesis? If that's true, wouldn't good choice result in good character? If that's so the flesh might be neutral rather than evil. Whether or not it produced good "fruit" or bad fruit might depend on the "seeds" you chose.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh OK. So, you're back to your dualistic theory of human nature according to which the flesh is evil. Does the Hebrew Bible teach that? Or was that something Paul discovered? Or was that, as some say the result of Augustine's "original sin" influence?

How does that mesh with your "Character is a result of habit, and habit is a result of conscience choice. A bad choice results in bad character which results in a curse on your life." hypothesis? If that's true, wouldn't good choice result in good character? If that's so the flesh might be neutral rather than evil. Whether or not it produced good "fruit" or bad fruit might depend on the "seeds" you chose.

The mind set on the flesh is death, the mind set on the spirit is life and peace. The choice here is the decision to "set the mind on the spirit" or "to set the mind on the flesh". The person who goes to a fellowship of Christians is making a choice just as much as the guy who goes to a topless bar. These choices become a habit and result in your character.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The mind set on the flesh is death, the mind set on the spirit is life and peace. The choice here is the decision to "set the mind on the spirit" or "to set the mind on the flesh". The person who goes to a fellowship of Christians is making a choice just as much as the guy who goes to a topless bar. These choices become a habit and result in your character.

So, in your world there is no ambiguity. Everything is either black or white. There are no shades of gray. There's no neutral, no in-between, no fuzzy borders. And there is no uncertainty. You always know whether you are in the spirit or in the flesh. It's a life/death, peace/war, spirit/flesh, Christian fellowship/topless bar, 1/0, binary, all/nothing world.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, in your world there is no ambiguity. Everything is either black or white. There are no shades of gray. There's no neutral, no in-between, no fuzzy borders. And there is no uncertainty. You always know whether you are in the spirit or in the flesh. It's a life/death, peace/war, spirit/flesh, Christian fellowship/topless bar, 1/0, binary, all/nothing world.

I think it is very tough to walk by faith. I feel that life is like threading a needle.

[awareness]

Oklahoma State Rep. Cory Williams (D) asked Rep. George Faught — who authored the bill — if rape is the “will of God.”

“Well, you know, if you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple circumstances where that happened,” Faught began. “The Lord uses all circumstances.

Williams followed up, asking if incest is the “will of God.”

“Same answer. “You are proffering a divine intervention as the reason why you won’t do that and so I think it is very important.”

“This body wants to know — and myself personally — whether you believe rape and incest are actually the will of God,” Williams questioned.

so you’re saying that God is not sovereign with every activity that happens in someone’s life and can’t use anything and everything in someone’s life and I disagree with that.”

Oklahoma State Rep says rape and incest are the ‘will of God’ in abortion bill hearing
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/watc...-bill-hearing/

This belongs on the POE thread cuz the claim is that in the Bible God allows evil incest and rape.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oklahoma State Rep. Cory Williams (D) asked Rep. George Faught — who authored the bill — if rape is the “will of God.”

“Well, you know, if you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple circumstances where that happened,” Faught began. “The Lord uses all circumstances.

Williams followed up, asking if incest is the “will of God.”

“Same answer. “You are proffering a divine intervention as the reason why you won’t do that and so I think it is very important.”

“This body wants to know — and myself personally — whether you believe rape and incest are actually the will of God,” Williams questioned.

so you’re saying that God is not sovereign with every activity that happens in someone’s life and can’t use anything and everything in someone’s life and I disagree with that.”

Oklahoma State Rep says rape and incest are the ‘will of God’ in abortion bill hearing
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/watc...-bill-hearing/

This belongs on the POE thread cuz the claim is that in the Bible God allows evil incest and rape.

Wow, an idiot is a State Rep, hopefully he never gets elected to a federal position. Oklahoma can deal with this guy themselves.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, an idiot is a State Rep, hopefully he never gets elected to a federal position. Oklahoma can deal with this guy themselves.

Apparently it's easier to call the state rep names than it is to refute his argument based on the sovereignty of God with a valid argument of your own.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Apparently it's easier to call the state rep names than it is to refute his argument based on the sovereignty of God with a valid argument of your own.

I have already refuted it with my own argument. Show me the verse in the Bible that says it is God's will that man sins?

Incest and rape are very clearly labeled as sin in the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

A new problem of evil.

What is the difference between an NFL football contract to play football with the NFL and slavery in the OT?

In both cases you are allowed to beat your slave, however, if the slave dies the Bible holds the owner accountable, in the NFL they would not be held accountable.

Also, in the Bible the slave holder cannot sell his slave to another person, that also is not true of the NFL, they can send you to any other team.

So why is it that those who find the Bible's slavery to be anachronistic and inhuman have not taken issue with the NFL contracts?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already refuted it with my own argument. Show me the verse in the Bible that says it is God's will that man sins?

Incest and rape are very clearly labeled as sin in the Bible.

If the god of the bible were omnipotent, he could prevent rape and incest from occurring. Rape and incest occur in the bible. Therefore, God either permits them or he is not omnipotent. In deference to God's omnipotence, this has been called God's "permissive will" as opposed to his "perfect will."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A new problem of evil.

What is the difference between an NFL football contract to play football with the NFL and slavery in the OT?

In both cases you are allowed to beat your slave, however, if the slave dies the Bible holds the owner accountable, in the NFL they would not be held accountable.

Also, in the Bible the slave holder cannot sell his slave to another person, that also is not true of the NFL, they can send you to any other team.

So why is it that those who find the Bible's slavery to be anachronistic and inhuman have not taken issue with the NFL contracts?

This thread is about the problem of evil as posed in post 1. You're just trying to change the subject.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Incest and rape are very clearly labeled as sin in the Bible.

2Pe_2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

Lot had children by incest with his daughters ... yet the Bible in 2 Peter says Lot was a just man.

But then, maybe the Bible doesn't represent what God considers sin. How can we know?

And do you think the 32,000 Midianite virgins (Num. 31:35) that Moses and the Israelites captured were consenting adults? It was God directed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the god of the bible were omnipotent, he could prevent rape and incest from occurring. Rape and incest occur in the bible. Therefore, God either permits them or he is not omnipotent. In deference to God's omnipotence, this has been called God's "permissive will" as opposed to his "perfect will."

If man has a free will then he can do something that is outside of God's will. If he can't then he doesn't have free will.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

2Pe_2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

Lot had children by incest with his daughters ... yet the Bible in 2 Peter says Lot was a just man.

But then, maybe the Bible doesn't represent what God considers sin. How can we know?

And do you think the 32,000 Midianite virgins (Num. 31:35) that Moses and the Israelites captured were consenting adults? It was God directed.

"delivered just Lot" refers to Lot prior to the incest.

We know that God condemns incest because the descendants of incest were forbidden to enter into the congregation of Israel. We know that He condemns rape because He has laws putting rapists to death.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"delivered just Lot" refers to Lot prior to the incest.

But it was written long after Lot was incest man. Why bring up a man known for incest?

Originally Posted by ZNP

We know that God condemns incest because the descendants of incest were forbidden to enter into the congregation of Israel. We know that He condemns rape because He has laws putting rapists to death.

Oh, I forgot, rape is okay cuz the victim has to marry the rapist, if the rapist pays fifty pieces of silver to her father. I guess then, according to you, it wasn't rape.

And let's just not look at the 32,000 captured virgins ... nothing to see there.

But also, let's not look at : "the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!"

Let's not call that rape either.

Just throw in the towel ZNP. Cuz you're gonna lose this one if you keep on.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If man has a free will then he can do something that is outside of God's will. If he can't then he doesn't have free will.

Please show me where it is stated in the Bible that God allows evil so that man can have free will.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Please show me where it is stated in the Bible that God allows evil so that man can have free will.

If you define evil as sin, then God does not "allow" evil, He condemns it. What God allows is for man to make a choice. However, your choices have consequences and those come from God. Hence, after eating the tree (man's choice despite God's prohibition) there were consequences (death, outcast, curse, etc).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Please show me where it is stated in the Bible that God allows evil so that man can have free will.

You didn't answer his question. You didn't show in the Bible where God allows evil so that man can have free will.

I'll go one further. Where is "free will" even mentioned in the Bible?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You didn't answer his question. You didn't show in the Bible where God allows evil so that man can have free will.

I'll go one further. Where is "free will" even mentioned in the Bible?

Of course I answered the question and also showed where in the Bible. when I referred to eating the tree I figured that was self explanatory.

In the book of Genesis we see God give directions to Adam not to eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet man does anyway. This proves that although God forbid it man was still free to make a choice that contradicted God's will, hence man also has his will independent of God.

Likewise Zeek asked me to show where God allows evil. I defined evil as sin and said that God does not "allow" it. He prohibits it, as in the example given from Genesis. But, since man has a "free" or "independent" will he can still act in a way that contradicts God, i.e. sinful or evil.

We know that this is not allowed by God because these actions bring in consequences from God. In Genesis the consequences were that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, the ground was cursed, and they ultimately died (Death, curse, outcast, etc).

[Ohio]

Good personal quote by Billy Graham for this thread ...

“Someone asked me recently if I didn’t think God was unfair, allowing me to have Parkinson’s and other medical problems when I have tried to serve him faithfully. I replied that I did not see it that way at all. Suffering is part of the human condition, and it comes to us all. The key is how we react to it, either turning away from God in anger and bitterness or growing closer to him in trust and confidence.”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good personal quote by Billy Graham for this thread ...

“Someone asked me recently if I didn’t think God was unfair, allowing me to have Parkinson’s and other medical problems when I have tried to serve him faithfully. I replied that I did not see it that way at all. Suffering is part of the human condition, and it comes to us all. The key is how we react to it, either turning away from God in anger and bitterness or growing closer to him in trust and confidence.”

Thanks for posting Ohio.

I have a correction to make. Peter Rabbit is hopping all over about this. On his trinity thread I said Bart Ehrman considers himself a Christian.

This is fake news.

Yes Ehrman was a Baptist preacher. And he performed all the preacher duties ... like funerals ... with heaven in the after life, and all, spoken sincerely of. Then, after his move to Carolina, to teach at Chapel Hill, he became a Episcopalian Christian. Remember, he was born again in his latter teens, and committed his life to serious Bible studies. There's no doubt that Bart was a real Christian, and very serious and given to it.

But 4 years ago or so he developed a case of cognitive dissonance, concerning the problem of evil.

It's there that he lost faith in a God that intervenes. It just doesn't add up to him that God allows terrible things to happen to innocent children ; like 5 children dying of starvation every minute, and all the terrible things that happen to large numbers of people ; like 200,000 getting swept away in a tsunami, so forth and so on ... et cetera ad nauseum.

A God that intervenes, like exemplified in the Bible, like it was an every day common occurrence and happening, doesn't do that today. Why believe in such a God? Ehrman said he didn't get mad at God, he just stopped believing in him.

And yes Ehrman has said he's now an atheist. But he self identifies as an agnostic.

How does this relate to the Billy Graham quote? Well it says, "Suffering is part of the human condition, and it comes to us all. The key is how we react to it, either turning away from God in anger and bitterness or growing closer to him in trust and confidence.”

And Ehrman turned away, but obviously not in anger and bitterness. He just let go ... but didn't let go. He's still studying the Bible and early Christianity. His life is filled and consumed with it.

Go figure.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

How does this relate to the Billy Graham quote? Well it says, "Suffering is part of the human condition, and it comes to us all. The key is how we react to it, either turning away from God in anger and bitterness or growing closer to him in trust and confidence.”

And Ehrman turned away, but obviously not in anger and bitterness. He just let go ... but didn't let go. He's still studying the Bible and early Christianity. His life is filled and consumed with it.

Go figure.

Of course! Don't you think the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees who crucified the Lord Jesus, spent the rest of their Passover Feast studying their Torah and early Moses' Judaism?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good personal quote by Billy Graham for this thread ...

“Someone asked me recently if I didn’t think God was unfair, allowing me to have Parkinson’s and other medical problems when I have tried to serve him faithfully. I replied that I did not see it that way at all. Suffering is part of the human condition, and it comes to us all. The key is how we react to it, either turning away from God in anger and bitterness or growing closer to him in trust and confidence.”

Graham expressed a noble sentiment; but, he didn't explain why a god who has the ability to create a world allows ANYONE to suffer. According to the POE, EITHER God doesn't have the power or intelligence to prevent suffering in which case he is either not omnipotent or omniscient OR he has the ability to do so but He chooses not to because He's not absolutely benevolent.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course! Don't you think the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees who crucified the Lord Jesus, spent the rest of their Passover Feast studying their Torah and early Moses' Judaism?

And since they killed God they were essentially atheists. And study of the Bible can't fix it. Why not?

Apparently, knowing the Bible doesn't solve the problem of evil, or Ehrman would still be a believer.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Graham expressed a noble sentiment; but, he didn't explain why a god who has the ability to create a world allows ANYONE to suffer. According to the POE, EITHER God doesn't have the power or intelligence to prevent suffering in which case he is either not omnipotent or omniscient OR he has the ability to do so but He chooses not to because He's not absolutely benevolent.

Or perhaps God knows something you may never know!

Remember, God has commanded us to believe in His Son, His death on that horrible cross, and how He rose from the dead.

Shall the vessel say to the Potter, Why did you make me thus?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or perhaps God knows something you may never know!

Remember, God has commanded us to believe in His Son, His death on that horrible cross, and how He rose from the dead.

Shall the vessel say to the Potter, Why did you make me thus?

Clay doesn't suffer. You can squash it, beat it, and even burn it in an oven, and it doesn't feel a thing.

Yes, living Vessel's that suffer have damn good reasons to ask : "Why does the Potter allow suffering?"

Also, if God has the back picture why does He allow suffering without explaining why? Not knowing is just more torture added to the senseless suffering, that He could stop, if He's omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving and caring.

The existence of evil proves our conception of God is in our image and wrong. Actually, not even in our own image. Cuz humans have feelings, and if we had the power, and the knowledge, and cared, we'd stop senseless suffering.

But not God. Our conception of God is wrong because, He clearly lacks one or more of the Omni's ... that is clearly OUR conception of God.

Our Omni's, and suffering, means, we believe in an imperfect God.

And an imperfect God is no god at all. So, in the end, we're actually believing in a very scary and unpredictable, invisible, beast.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Clay doesn't suffer. You can squash it, beat it, and even burn it in an oven, and it doesn't feel a thing.

Yes, living Vessel's that suffer have damn good reasons to ask : "Why does the Potter allow suffering?"

Also, if God has the back picture why does He allow suffering without explaining why? Not knowing is just more torture added to the senseless suffering, that He could stop, if He's omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving and caring.

The existence of evil proves our conception of God is in our image and wrong. Actually, not even in our own image. Cuz humans have feelings, and if we had the power, and the knowledge, and cared, we'd stop senseless suffering.

But not God. Our conception of God is wrong because, He clearly lacks one or more of the Omni's ... that is clearly OUR conception of God.

Our Omni's, and suffering, means, we believe in an imperfect God.

And an imperfect God is no god at all. So, in the end, we're actually believing in a very scary and unpredictable, invisible, beast.

It is you who believes in an "imperfect" God. Sorry you bought into the POE nonsense.

No God? Only a fool would say in his heart there is no God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or perhaps God knows something you may never know!

Remember, God has commanded us to believe in His Son, His death on that horrible cross, and how He rose from the dead.

Shall the vessel say to the Potter, Why did you make me thus?

The origin of everything is beyond human comprehension and may forever remain that way. Whether the God hypothesis brings us any closer to understanding it is an open question.

Threatening people with eternal damnation based on ancient texts without a demonstrable basis in fact doesn't solve the problem. Terror isn't knowledge.

Who made the Potter? If he always existed, there's no explanation for that fact. All you've done is displace the mystery that anything exists from the creation to the creator. How is an uncreated creator more tenable than an uncreated creation in terms of explaining anything?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is you who believes in an "imperfect" God. Sorry you bought into the POE nonsense.

No God? Only a fool would say in his heart there is no God.

Because God keeps the big picture closely breasted, and doesn't explain why He allows senseless suffering, He leave me no choice but to wonder about His perfection. Why does He do that?

It says humans are in God's image. Clearly that image is imperfect. Adam and Eve weren't perfect, our they would have chosen the tree of life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The origin of everything is beyond human comprehension and may forever remain that way. Whether the God hypothesis brings us any closer to understanding it is an open question.

Threatening people with eternal damnation based on ancient texts without a demonstrable basis in fact doesn't solve the problem. Terror isn't knowledge.

Who made the Potter? If he always existed, there's no explanation for that fact. All you've done is displace the mystery that anything exists from the creation to the creator. How is an uncreated creator more tenable than an uncreated creation in terms of explaining anything?

For God so loved the world, that He sent His One and only Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish, but have eternal life!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because God keeps the big picture closely breasted, and doesn't explain why He allows senseless suffering, He leave me no choice but to wonder about His perfection. Why does He do that?

It says humans are in God's image. Clearly that image is imperfect.

He has given you far more info than you are willing to admit.

And He has given you the Lamb of God to take away your sins.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He has given you far more info than you are willing to admit.

I get that. That there's loads of info about God in the Bible. But not enough info to explain why He allows suffering of the innocents.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And He has given you the Lamb of God to take away your sins.

And I appreciate that. Else I have no hope for heaven. If I even want to go there. Not with a monster that has the power, and knowledge, to intervene in senseless suffering, but doesn't. Not unless He's got a convincing explanation ... and why He keeps it a secret.

He scares me. He stopped Isaac, but He let His innocent Son suffer and die. A guy like that is scary. Especially since He's God, and could have worked out a more humane way to forgive our sins ; like He did for King Manasseh.

[zeek]

I was hoping to have a discussion with Seeker about Gnosticism, certainly an important topic for Christianity. Suddenly the thread which he started disappeared. Why?

Perhaps the best answer to the Problem of Evil entails the possibility of human freedom. God permitted evil so that good would be revealed in contrast to it.

Jesus was an imitator of God. He taught that " for whatever God the father does, the Son also does in like manner." [John 5:19]

Why can't LCD and Alt Views in particular let what is false be expressed so that the truth can be known? To do so would be to imitate God as Jesus did.

If, freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular is the highest or among the highest principles of God, then historically Christianity has committed many sins against God. Nevertheless, this principle is clearly revealed in the Christian Bible and by the Spirit throughout history. Let s/he who has ears to hear and eyes to see take note.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was hoping to have a discussion with Seeker about Gnosticism, certainly an important topic for Christianity. Suddenly the thread which he started disappeared. Why?

Why can't LCD and Alt Views in particular let what is false be expressed so that the truth can be known? To do so would be to imitate God as Jesus did.

Many topics, while necessary and interesting to the greater body of Christ, fall outside the scope of LC Discussions.

UntoHim's mission limits us to a "niche market."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many topics, while necessary and interesting to the greater body of Christ, fall outside the scope of LC Discussions.

UntoHim's mission limits us to a "niche market."

Apparently it's a niche market too narrow for the imitation of Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was hoping to have a discussion with Seeker about Gnosticism, certainly an important topic for Christianity. Suddenly the thread which he started disappeared. Why?

Untohim PMed and said, Steel: "banned and deleted." I wondered why too. So I PMed Untohim yesterday and asked if it was the Gnosticism or something else. He hasn't gotten back to me. I feel we shouldn't jump to any conclusions until we hear from brother Untohim.

It adds up that he'd take Gnosticism off the main forum, but not off AltVs. Something else must be going on, that Untohim knows that we don't.

When people register they have to give out legit info. And also, Untohim can see the originating IP address, or where they are. Who knows, Steel may have been a troll, signing in from LSM IP addresses.

Let's give our brother a chance to explain.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Untohim PMed and said, Steel: "banned and deleted." I wondered why too. So I PMed Untohim yesterday and asked if it was the Gnosticism or something else. He hasn't gotten back to me. I feel we shouldn't jump to any conclusions until we hear from brother Untohim.

It adds up that he'd take Gnosticism off the main forum, but not off AltVs. Something else must be going on, that Untohim knows that we don't.

Seeking got real crotchety on his last day; ripped off about a dozen saucy posts, after being asked to behave. It didn't look like he wanted real "discussion" about imitating Christ. He made some rank comment about "Yahweh, a genocidal son murdering God." There are other places on the internet for sweethearts like him. Besides, he wasn't an ex-LCer, and would not have stayed long.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Seeking got real crotchety on his last day; ripped off about a dozen saucy posts, after being asked to behave. It didn't look like he wanted real "discussion" about imitating Christ. He made some rank comment about "Yahweh, a genocidal son murdering God." There are other places on the internet for sweethearts like him. Besides, he wasn't an ex-LCer, and would not have stayed long.

I didn't see any of that. Now I can't. If he wasn't an LCer then he was a troll.

Not sure if he was a true believing Gnostic or not, but from what you say, or pointed out, he sure spouted like one. To most Gnostics, prolly not all, as they were a diverse bunch, thought the Demiurge did all those nasty killing things, cuz he wasn't of Jesus' true high God.

But if Steel was spouting rotten nasty hate, and not even willing to discuss the merits, or not, of Gnosticism, then good riddance.

Still, Gnosticism isn't off topic on AltVs, as far as I'm concerned. But if Steel represents the way the early Gnostic's were and acted, maybe it is.

Steel gave Gnostics even a worse name than they already have.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I didn't see any of that. Now I can't. If he wasn't an LCer then he was a troll.

Not sure if he was a true believing Gnostic or not, but from what you say, or pointed out, he sure spouted like one. To most Gnostics, prolly not all, as they were a diverse bunch, thought the Demiurge did all those nasty killing things, cuz he wasn't of Jesus' true high God.

But if Steel was spouting rotten nasty hate, and not even willing to discuss the merits, or not, of Gnosticism, then good riddance.

Still, Gnosticism isn't off topic on AltVs, as far as I'm concerned. But if Steel represents the way the early Gnostic's were and acted, maybe it is.

Steel gave Gnostics even a worse name than they already have.

Steel is still posting on the main forum. The professing Gnostic went by the name "Seeker". I understand we are all here at the pleasure of UntoHim, but it would be a service to all members if he explained why he bans people.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Steel is still posting on the main forum. The professing Gnostic went by the name "Seeker". I understand we are all here at the pleasure of UntoHim, but it would be a service to all members if he explained why banned people.

Seeker's last post was on the 6th. Untohim announced on the 9th that Seeker was banned and deleted.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Seeker's last post was on the 6th. Untohim announced on the 9th that Seeker was banned and deleted.

I was merely pointing out that you misidentified him as "Steele" in posts #1355 and #1357.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was merely pointing out that you misidentified him as "Steele" in posts #1355 and #1357.

My bad ..... Thanks .....

[awareness]

When Untohim moved Seekers Gnostic thread to AltVs I wasn't sure if he knew it had been moved. So I PM'ed him to let him know.

Now I feel bad ... and disappointed. I feel I welcomed him to AltV's, where he could openly discuss Gnosticism, and it wasn't true.

I feel like Jonah, under the gourd, complaining because I look like a liar. And my gourd has been wormed.

[Ohio]

Great video on the POE

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great video on the POE

"Unjust suffering is only a problem because we have a sense of what is just and unjust". His point is that the POE is evidence of God, not the other way around. If there were no God the whole "POE" would not make any sense.

What we really think of as the POE is really instances where man sins and / or falls short of the glory of God.

1. Murderer
2. Rapist
3. Child dying from incurable (for us) disease
4. Natural disaster

You cannot argue that any suffering is right or wrong unless you feel there is an underlying standard for right and wrong. Not your personal standard, but a universal standard.

Also, the POE is really only a problem for atheists. If you are an atheist no suffering is ever set right. For a believer you believe that at most this is a temporary state that will work out an eternal weight of glory. You can see in light of eternity this suffering could be something you are one day thankful for and give God glory for.

[Intothewind]

I personally think part of afterlife belief is to content and comfort the masses in unfair or unjust situations...less motivation to insight change if all present wrongs will be ambiguously repaid

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I personally think part of afterlife belief is to content and comfort the masses in unfair or unjust situations...less motivation to insight change if all present wrongs will be ambiguously repaid

Wouldn't it be better to prepare for this time yourself?

[Intothewind]

Too busy with what needs to be done in the present time, which is the only guarantee. No one disagrees that what we currently live in is real, but their is a hell a lot of disagreement and basically no evidence about what happens after you die.

(my personal belief is that it is lights off and nada)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Too busy with what needs to be done in the present time, which is the only guarantee. No one disagrees that what we currently live in is real, but their is a hell a lot of disagreement and basically no evidence about what happens after you die.

(my personal belief is that it is lights off and nada)

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

[Intothewind]

Ecc: was a book I was quite fond of. It seems to espouse world views that don't quite mesh with the rest of the Bible

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Ecc: was a book I was quite fond of. It seems to espouse world views that don't quite mesh with the rest of the Bible

Maybe that's because the author needed Prozac.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe that's because the author needed Prozac.

Just bringing this thread to the front.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What Is Evil & Where Did It Come From? - RC Sproul

There is a thread "The problem of Evil" that covers this question, it is located in alternate views and I have brought it to the front.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is a thread "The problem of Evil" that covers this question, it is located in alternate views and I have brought it to the front.

But the so-called "Problem of Evil" is a philosophical construct which attempts to prove that a good, loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God cannot possibly exist.

That thread was placed in Alt-Views because it falls outside of the orthodox Christian faith.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But the so-called "Problem of Evil" is a philosophical construct which attempts to prove that a good, loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God cannot possibly exist.

That thread was placed in Alt-Views because it falls outside of the orthodox Christian faith.

Orthodox Christian faith is simply faith that is based on the NT. There is no doubt that the NT discusses the existence of evil. Satan and Evil are certainly part of WL's ministry.

Everyone on all sides of this debate conclude that "evil" is derivative of man's free will, another teaching that is central to WL's teachings and to orthodox teachings in general.

I realize that some proponents of this "problem" come to the conclusion that either God doesn't exist or else God created evil.

I come to a different conclusion that is based on the NT. A simplistic summary of the various NT verses relevant to this discussion would be that this life is analogous to a simulation. No one considers that intentionally crashing a commercial airline on a flight simulator is "evil". We do know from the NT that what you do in this life will determine your judgement at either the judgment seat of Christ or the Great White Throne. That also corresponds with the idea that this life is like a flight simulator that will determine if we get a license or not.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just bringing this thread to the front.

Well with the Christchurch massacre it's timely.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I come to a different conclusion that is based on the NT.

The book of Job settled the issue even before Moses wrote his first book.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The book of Job settled the issue even before Moses wrote his first book.

Job 42:6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.

Twice in the book of Job it says that he did not sin in blaming God. Then in chapter 42 God says:

7 After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.

So it is very clear that Job did not speak anything concerning God that he needed to repent for.

So, my question is this: what was it that Job was repenting for?

This question was very helpful to me in dealing with what happened with the LC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well with the Christchurch massacre it's timely.

Ironic that a massacre at a Mosque is called "the Christchurch massacre".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The book of Job settled the issue even before Moses wrote his first book.

Evil does not exist.

Okay, now that I have your attention, let me explain. Evil is not a thing in itself. It is the absence of something, as darkness is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. Darkness and cold are not really things at all, they are the absence of other things. So God did not create darkness, he created light. But light can be absent.

In the same way, evil is the absence of good. It is the absence of following God's will. So, by creating creatures who could disobey, God in a sense created evil. But again evil is not a thing, an essence with its own existence. It is the absence of something else.

So God didn't so much create evil as DEFINE it. If he is all that is good, and he creates beings who can understand that and choose, how could it be any other way?

So evil doesn't exist, the ability to disobey God does, which results in what we call evil. Evil in a sense is a vacuum, that's why C.S. Lewis said hell is the next thing to nothing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So, my question is this: what was it that Job was repenting for?

He was repenting for doubting God.

Job is all about our essential relationship with God in the world as it is. Faith is our essential attitude toward God, or should be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Job 42:6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.

Twice in the book of Job it says that he did not sin in blaming God. Then in chapter 42 God says:

7 After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.

So it is very clear that Job did not speak anything concerning God that he needed to repent for.

So, my question is this: what was it that Job was repenting for?

This question was very helpful to me in dealing with what happened with the LC.

Yes he did.

Self-righteousness and not justifying God.

Elihu provides excellent wisdom in the book, the 3 friends were worthless.

[Cal]

Any Christian who has gone through a severe personal crisis knows what Job was going through. His situation did not reflect what he felt should be. In those moments, what do we do? We start to wonder if God knows what he was doing. That's what Job did.

The wonderful part about it is God did not condemn Job for it, he just said "Don't you know who I am? Don't you think I know what I am doing?!"

If God can be driven crazy, it must be this that drives him crazy--people thinking he's some kind of dummy who doesn't know what he is doing.

That's the whole test. In those confusing situations, where things don't seem to be going right, can you truly trust him, or are you going to "shrink back in unbelief."

And even though Job wasn't perfect, God was satisfied with the lesson, and restored Job. That is grace.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ironic that a massacre at a Mosque is called "the Christchurch massacre".

It's also ironic that Trump tweeted sympathy for the Muslim victims -- not presidential ... tweeting it is tone deaf.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes he did.

Self-righteousness and not justifying God.

Elihu provides excellent wisdom in the book, the 3 friends were worthless.

God asked if he was going to condemn Him to justify himself. He never did, but he was perilously close to doing that.

It is hard to conclude "self righteousness" when you see what God says about him in chapter 1 and about what he does and about how he reacts to the crisis.

What you might conclude is self righteousness is simply him telling the 3 worthless friends that their conclusion about him sinning is wrong.

[Cal]

It's all about God teaching us to trust and obey him, as the great theological cartoon "Tooter Turtle" taught us so many times.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s2...8jLusU6WiT891r

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's also ironic that Trump tweeted sympathy for the Muslim victims -- not presidential ... tweeting it is tone deaf.

Your endless hatred for the guy really stinks this place up.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your endless hatred for the guy really stinks this place up.

I'm just getting started ... there's way more.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's all about God teaching us to trust and obey him, as the great theological cartoon "Tooter Turtle" taught us so many times.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s2...8jLusU6WiT891r

There are two basic reasons for you to repent.

1. Sinned

and

2. Fallen short of the Glory of God.

The book of Job makes it abundantly clear that Job had not sinned. God says as much in chapter 1, then twice the book of Job says he doesn't sin after the calamities strike. Job's 3 friends assumed he must have sinned and God condemns them, tells them to repent and only forgives them after Job prays for them.

Job says that it was seeing God's glory that caused him to repent.

For example, suppose you were a soccer coach struggling to have a winning team. One reason to repent could be that you were caught up in this recent Admissions scandal, taking a bribe. That would be a sin.

But another reason would be that during all your struggles you had some kid sitting on the bench, not playing, and then one day you got the revelation that this kid was Pele. Now you feel like an idiot and despise your "coaching skill".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are two basic reasons for you to repent.

1. Sinned

and

2. Fallen short of the Glory of God.

So you are saying falling short of the glory of God is not a sin. Okay, that's a theory.

But Job fell short in some sense, whether you want to call that sin or not. I guess you could say he failed to see God's greatness. But he did something wrong or God would not have spoken to him the way he did. But God's grace received him back.

The point of Job is not about Job's perfection. It's about that he experienced a suffering out of character with the type of person he was. It's about "why do bad things happen to good people."

Job was right. He didn't deserve it. But in the end, God doesn't even go there. His point to Job is "I'm God and I know what I'm doing. Get used to it." That's the point of the whole book.

Possibly the "not sinning" is a way of saying wrestling with God is not a sin, even if in the end God is going to win and teach you something.

[Cal]

Also, what does it mean when it says "Job did not sin?' We are not saying that through this ordeal Job never sinned once, are we? Who has gone a day without sinning? Was Job sin free?

I think it when it says "Job did not sin" it must mean something particular--possibly that Job did not denounce God or his faith, like his wife did.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Also, what does it mean when it says "Job did not sin?' We are not saying that through this ordeal Job never sinned once, are we? Who has gone a day without sinning? Was Job sin free?

I think it when it says "Job did not sin" it must mean something particular--possibly that Job did not denounce God or his faith, like his wife did.

The discussion on Job is only peripheral to WL's doctrine of Satan in our flesh. If you want to get into the book deeper then it should be on a separate thread.

Personally I think it is a crucial book at the heart of God's plan.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Job was right. He didn't deserve it. But in the end, God doesn't even go there. His point to Job is "I'm God and I know what I'm doing. Get used to it." That's the point of the whole book.

Exactly. In a nutshell. The tough almond variety.

Whether our life is a bed of roses, or an endless disaster, our God is good, He is the Potter, He alone is holy, He alone is righteous, He alone has created the heavens and the earth, He alone should be exalted, and He alone should be justified here on earth. (Romans 3.4, 11.32-36)

Unfortunately Job challenged God, saying, "I cry out to God, but He ignores me. You turn on me ruthlessly, with the might of Your hand You attack me. You toss me about in the storm. You bring me down to death." (Job 29) Job thus misrepresented God and vindicated himself as an effort to shame God into treating him better. Job wrongly projected his own experiences onto God, claiming that God's love, God's power, or God's omniscience was somehow deficient. Herein lies the failure: When life is good for us, we extol God's love, but when things go bad, God's care is questioned.

This really matches what aron has recently shared about Jesus, e.g. "Which is why I keep pointing to the experiences of Jesus in the Bible. They have been validated. "No one can do the works you do, unless God is with him." This goes up to the cross, and beyond. "He rescued me, because he delighted in me". The Father delighted in the Obedient Son, and raised him from death."

This is why our faith needs proving. Job's faith, while apparently perfect to all around him, still needed to be proved. The proving of our faith is like the proving of gold to purify its quality. The proving of our faith is thus more precious than all the gold in this world. Peter learned this lesson (1.7) via his own trials. Praise Him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Also, what does it mean when it says "Job did not sin?' We are not saying that through this ordeal Job never sinned once, are we? Who has gone a day without sinning? Was Job sin free?

I think it when it says "Job did not sin" it must mean something particular--possibly that Job did not denounce God or his faith, like his wife did.

Job offered sacrifices for sin, which is what God had required.

The book of Job is really not about sin at all. Discussing sin is a distraction from the message of Job.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Exactly. In a nutshell. The tough almond variety.

Whether our life is a bed of roses, or an endless disaster, our God is good, He is the Potter, He alone is holy, He alone is righteous, He alone has created the heavens and the earth, He alone should be exalted, and He alone should be justified here on earth. (Romans 3.4, 11.32-36)

Unfortunately Job challenged God, saying, "I cry out to God, but He ignores me. You turn on me ruthlessly, with the might of Your hand You attack me. You toss me about in the storm. You bring me down to death." (Job 29) Job thus misrepresented God and vindicated himself as an effort to shame God into treating him better. Job wrongly projected his own experiences onto God, claiming that God's love, God's power, or God's omniscience was somehow deficient. Herein lies the failure: When life is good for us, we extol God's love, but when things go bad, God's care is questioned.

This really matches what aron has recently shared about Jesus, e.g. "Which is why I keep pointing to the experiences of Jesus in the Bible. They have been validated. "No one can do the works you do, unless God is with him." This goes up to the cross, and beyond. "He rescued me, because he delighted in me". The Father delighted in the Obedient Son, and raised him from death."

This is why our faith needs proving. Job's faith, while apparently perfect to all around him, still needed to be proved. The proving of our faith is like the proving of gold to purify its quality. The proving of our faith is thus more precious than all the gold in this world. Peter learned this lesson (1.7) via his own trials. Praise Him.

The point I get from Job in a nutshell is that Christ is in us, the hope of Glory.

1. God begins with talking about laying the foundation, and do you know my plans, and He reveals that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Him, even Job admitting he has been a fool.

2. God asks Job if he knows God's laws and if he is going to establish God's justice on Earth? These are things that Jesus did.

3. He also asks if Job has an arm like God or a voice like God. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He does have such an arm, such a voice.

Everything God is saying is revealing that the Christ in us, the hope of glory, has all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in Him.

Job may have thought he was something special, but after seeing God he despised himself and realized he had fallen far short of the glory of God. Prior to all this he "sacrificed for his children" but after this he prayed for his friends. In chapter 1 Jobs sphere of influence was constrained to his family, afterwards he was broadened to see that he could be a blessing to everyone, family and friends. As a result he received a double blessing.

[zeek]

The theological problem of evil doesn't need the New Zealand shooter to make its argument but okay. For those enamored of the Free Will argument I suppose it illustrates once again just how far God will go with his prime directive. If you can see the absolute goodness in that proposition, please explain how.

On different note, To quote Frank Schaeffer" the shooter's manifesto praised Trump as ' symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.' Let this sink in. A u.s. president is the inspiration of white terrorists around the world. Let that sink in."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is why our faith needs proving. Job's faith, while apparently perfect to all around him, still needed to be proved. The proving of our faith is like the proving of gold to purify its quality. The proving of our faith is thus more precious than all the gold in this world. Peter learned this lesson (1.7) via his own trials. Praise Him.

Even Jesus needed proving. He was "made perfect through suffering" (Heb 2:10). He had to "learn obedience through suffering." (Heb 5:18).

That doesn't mean he wasn't already "perfect" or obedient. But perfection which has passed a test is more perfect than that which hasn't; and actually obeying is more obedient than not having had the experience of doing so.

We are going through the same process. Personally I think God's ultimate goal is to produce beings with true free will, but which never sin. That takes a process of perfecting experience. God can create just about anything instantly. But he cannot create a real experience instantly, because real experiences takes time, and are what time is for.

[Cal]

The problem of evil is easily solved by realizing that it is possible that a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil temporarily. If you want to ask why evil is allowed in the first place, all you have to do is answer why athletes have to "suffer" training to be winners.

The only question then becomes "How much evil is to be allowed?" The answer, of course, is as much as is necessary. So the problem people really have is that they think God should allow less evil. But only God would know how much evil is necessary. People don't understand why God needs to allow this or that terrible thing. But all you are saying by objecting is that you know better than God what is necessary to fulfill his purpose.

So the problem of evil is not the conundrum it's made out to be. We easily understand the necessity of short-term suffering for long-term gain. If the suffering were permanent, there would be a philosophical problem. But that is not the case.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem of evil is easily solved by realizing that it is possible that a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil temporarily. If you want to ask why evil is allowed in the first place, all you have to do is answer why athletes have to "suffer" training to be winners.

The only question then becomes "How much evil is to be allowed?" The answer, of course, is as much as is necessary. So the problem people really have is that they think God should allow less evil. But only God would know how much evil is necessary. People don't understand why God needs to allow this or that terrible thing. But all you are saying by objecting is that you know better than God what is necessary to fulfill his purpose.

So the problem of evil is not the conundrum it's made out to be. We easily understand the necessity of short-term suffering for long-term gain. If the suffering were permanent, there would be a philosophical problem. But that is not the case.

God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

Saying that God "allows" evil ducks the question of where did it come from. According to the Bible "all things came into being through the word and apart from the word nothing came into being that has come into being". So then if there is evil in the world God did not merely allow it, He created it. Since there is no darkness in Him how could He create darkness?

Saying that it is short term or any other way to minimize the evil done by Hitler, Nero, and others is an insult. If there is any evil at all then it came from God and that is contrary to the NT. On the other hand God is clearly going to judge the works of the flesh as evil. So we have a problem, the problem of evil.

However, there is a solution to this "problem". If human life is likened to a simulation, like a flight simulator. Life could then reveal the heart without there actually being any real evil, only the appearance of evil.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

Saying that God "allows" evil ducks the question of where did it come from. According to the Bible "all things came into being through the word and apart from the word nothing came into being that has come into being". So then if there is evil in the world God did not merely allow it, He created it. Since there is no darkness in Him how could He create darkness?

This I posted in the "Satanlogy" thread. Apparently you missed it, so I'll repeat here.

Evil does not exist.

Okay, now that I have your attention, let me explain. Evil is not a thing in itself. It is the absence of something, as darkness is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. Darkness and cold are not really things at all, they are the absence of other things. So God did not create darkness, he created light. But light can be absent.

In the same way, evil is the absence of good. It is the absence of following God's will. So, by creating creatures who could disobey, God in a sense created evil. But again evil is not a thing, an essence with its own existence. It is the absence of something else.

So God didn't so much create evil as DEFINE it. If he is all that is good, and he creates beings who can understand that and choose, how could it be any other way?

So evil doesn't exist, the ability to disobey God does, which results in what we call evil. Evil in a sense is a vacuum, that's why C.S. Lewis said hell is the next thing to nothing.

[Cal]

To illustrate, you cannot create darkness or cold directly. You can only remove light or remove heat. My dad was in AC/Refrigeration. He explained it to me. Refrigeration technology removes heat from the air, thus resulting in relative cold. But no technology can produce cold directly. And no technology can produce darkness directly. There are no "darkness beams," only light beams, or the absence thereof.

This shows how God has no opposite. There is Yang, but no Yin. There is only God, or the absence of God. If evil existed as a thing in itself, it would have to come from an eternal source of evil, an anti-God, God's opposite. But that is not the case.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This I posted in the "Satanlogy" thread. Apparently you missed it, so I'll repeat here.

Evil does not exist.

Okay, now that I have your attention, let me explain. Evil is not a thing in itself. It is the absence of something, as darkness is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. Darkness and cold are not really things at all, they are the absence of other things. So God did not create darkness, he created light. But light can be absent.

In the same way, evil is the absence of good. It is the absence of following God's will. So, by creating creatures who could disobey, God in a sense created evil. But again evil is not a thing, an essence with its own existence. It is the absence of something else.

So God didn't so much create evil as DEFINE it. If he is all that is good, and he creates beings who can understand that and choose, how could it be any other way?

So evil doesn't exist, the ability to disobey God does, which results in what we call evil. Evil in a sense is a vacuum, that's why C.S. Lewis said hell is the next thing to nothing.

Wow. So the holocaust, that didn't exist? It wasn't a thing? Bundy? Not real? Rape? If God didn't define it then we wouldn't even know these things were evil?

These events are "unrighteous" meaning they are not according to God. Therefore, what are they according to? Where did they come from?

[Cal]

So what the problem of evil really has a problem with is free will, or at least free will than can choose to disobey God. But for moral creatures that is the only kind of free will there is that has any meaning.

Some say, well, God should have made us so good and smart that we would never choose evil. But I think that exactly where God is trying to take his creation. But, apparently, without real experiences of evil, we never would have had a real appreciation of how bad it is. Every sentient creature he has created has fallen.

I mean, isn't it the fact that we don't appreciate the consequences of not following God's will that makes it so hard so follow it in the first place?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To illustrate, you cannot create darkness or cold directly. You can only remove light or remove heat. My dad was in AC/Refrigeration. He explained it to me. Refrigeration technology removes heat from the air, thus resulting in relative cold. But no technology can produce cold directly. And no technology can produce darkness directly. There are no "darkness beams," only light beams, or the absence thereof.

This shows how God has no opposite. There is Yang, but no Yin. There is only God, or the absence of God. If evil existed as a thing in itself, it would have to come from an eternal source of evil, an anti-God, God's opposite. But that is not the case.

You are referring to the laws of thermodynamics. Everything is energy expressed either as motion or heat. Absolute 0 is 0 heat and 0 motion. So according to you Hitler was a cold, cold man. Still there was motion, and the fires did have heat.

So when God judges the adulterers and sorcerers, what exactly is he judging, nothing?

How can you have the works of the flesh if your definition of sin is absolute 0?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow. So the holocaust, that didn't exist? It wasn't a thing? Bundy? Not real? Rape? If God didn't define it then we wouldn't even know these things were evil?

These events are "unrighteous" meaning they are not according to God. Therefore, what are they according to? Where did they come from?

Come on, ZNP. You know I wasn't saying evil things don't happen. If you are going to have a discussion, don't put words in my mouth, please.

You said it yourself. They are evil because they are not according to God. They are not evil because some source outside of God defines what is evil.

Evil is what is contrary to God. So are you asking why someone would disobey God? Just ask Satan. They disobey God because they want to disobey him. They want self-will. Really they want to be God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are referring to the laws of thermodynamics. Everything is energy expressed either as motion or heat. Absolute 0 is 0 heat and 0 motion. So according to you Hitler was a cold, cold man. Still there was motion, and the fires did have heat.

So when God judges the adulterers and sorcerers, what exactly is he judging, nothing?

How can you have the works of the flesh if your definition of sin is absolute 0?

He is judging that he wasn't in them. So yes, that makes them zeros, morally speaking. But absolute zero is not neutral, it's as cold, or as bad, as it gets.

But they aren't quite nothing, because they still exist. C.S. Lewis called them "damned ghosts," something that fades away to the edges, but never quite completely.

[Cal]

As I said, evil is disobeying God. So to ask why there is evil, ask why someone would disobey God. And all you have to do to answer that question is ask yourself why you do it. There's your answer.

No one does evil just to do evil. At some level they think what they are doing is "good," or they wouldn't be doing it. That's true for Hitler, Ted Bundy and the 9/11 terrorists. Evil, then, can be seen as a perversion of good. Which, again, make the case that evil as a thing in itself does not exist. It's a vacuum, an absence, or at least a perversion, of good.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Come on, ZNP. You know I wasn't saying evil things don't happen. If you are going to have a discussion, don't put words in my mouth, please.

You said it yourself. They are evil because they are not according to God. They are not evil because some source outside of God defines what is evil.

Evil is what is contrary to God. So are you asking why someone would disobey God? Just ask Satan. They disobey God because they want to disobey him. They want self-will. Really they want to be God.

No. The problem of Evil is asking where did Satan come from? Did God create him? If God created him, and I am going to say He did, then does that mean God created evil? It is not a matter of semantics to the victims of evil.

God says He didn't create the Earth waste and void. So then, who did? If you agree that the Earth became waste and void and if you agree that all things came into being through the word of God and nothing that has come into being came into being apart from the word of God, then how did the Earth become waste and void?

Yes, everyone agrees that evil is derivative of man's free will, if man could not choose to disobey God he would not have a free will, we also agree that God created man with a free will, so Free will was part of God's creation and all that that entails.

Therefore God is responsible for evil. He created a world where there must be evil. However, that is a direct contradiction of the word of God.

However, the minute man disobeyed God we were no longer in eternity but the world instantly morphed into a temporary state with time. In Revelation it ultimately says that "time will be no more". My understanding at present is that this temporary world where time exists, outside of eternity, is similar to a simulation. Is there evil in a flight simulator? You can have "terrorists", "hijacked planes", "murder", and catastrophes with hundreds of people "dying" yet no one thinks that any of that is "evil". It is a simulation, regardless of how real it is. It is a "momentary lightness of affliction".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As I said, evil is disobeying God. So to ask why there is evil, ask why someone would disobey God. And all you have to do to answer that question is ask yourself why you do it. There's your answer.

That is only half of the equation. You have the person who commits the sin, and you have the victim of that sin. 6 million people are killed in gas chambers during the Holocaust. That is due to some people disobeying God. But God is responsible. He created those people who disobeyed, He gave them the capacity to do what they did. If I worship God as "Lord of all" then I have to worship Him as "Lord of all". So then, how can God be responsible for this evil without knowing evil? Again, the only explanation I can see is that this construct of time, which is temporary and will be done away with, is similar to a simulation. The Bible teaches this. Your life in this simulation cannot exceed 120 years and yet that is an illusion since we are told in the Bible that the soul is eternal. We are surrounded with a cloud of witnesses. The dead in Christ will rise first. Jesus pulled the veil away from this illusion. It says He brought to light eternal life. This was based on the promise made to David that his heir would not see corruption.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Even Jesus needed proving. He was "made perfect through suffering" (Heb 2:10). He had to "learn obedience through suffering." (Heb 5:18).

That doesn't mean he wasn't already "perfect" or obedient. But perfection which has passed a test is more perfect than that which hasn't; and actually obeying is more obedient than not having had the experience of doing so.

We are going through the same process. Personally I think God's ultimate goal is to produce beings with true free will, but which never sin. That takes a process of perfecting experience. God can create just about anything instantly. But he cannot create a real experience instantly, because real experiences takes time, and are what time is for.

Seems reasonable. Job learned obedience through the things he suffered. Obedience to what? This implies that prior to the suffering he was not obedient to something. What?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Seems reasonable. Job learned obedience through the things he suffered. Obedience to what? This implies that prior to the suffering he was not obedient to something. What?

Not necessarily, because Jesus was 100% obedient, yet still had to learn obedience. Only God know how much "practice" we need before we are ready for the "big leagues."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So what the problem of evil really has a problem with is free will, or at least free will than can choose to disobey God. But for moral creatures that is the only kind of free will there is that has any meaning.

Some say, well, God should have made us so good and smart that we would never choose evil. But I think that exactly where God is trying to take his creation. But, apparently, without real experiences of evil, we never would have had a real appreciation of how bad it is. Every sentient creature he has created has fallen.

I mean, isn't it the fact that we don't appreciate the consequences of not following God's will that makes it so hard so follow it in the first place?

If evil didn't exist, we wouldn't appreciate how bad it is?! That's bass-ackwards thinking. If evil didn't exist there would be no need to appreciate how bad it is.Good riddance! In fact it would be impossible. The world would be a perfect place. Just what it is warranted to be expected from an all good, all wise, all powerful god. There would be only pure good, and you can't get better than that by definition. According to your earlier proposition, evil doesn't exist anyway. So what's to appreciate? Nothing. How bad is that?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If evil didn't exist, we wouldn't appreciate how bad it is. That's bass-ackwards. If evil didn't exist there would be no need to appreciate how bad it is. There would be only pure good, and you can't get better than that by definition. According to your earlier proposition, evil doesn't exist anyway. So what's to appreciate? Nothing. How bad is that?

It should be clear from my posts that I mean evil does not exist as an essence in itself. God exists as the essence of good. Where is the essence of evil? It exists only in not doing what God wants. Thus God defines both good and evil. But to define evil is not to create it. Evil has always been what is contrary to God. He didn't have to create it. He just created creatures who could choose it. But he doesn't want them to choose it.

So, again, what you are objecting to is not evil per se, but the choice to choose it. Which means you are also objecting to the choice to choose good, because you can't have one without the other. So basically you are objecting to God creating anything of moral consequence.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not necessarily, because Jesus was 100% obedient, yet still had to learn obedience. Only God know how much "practice" we need before we are ready for the "big leagues."

Fair enough, the practice, like a violin student practicing until they know it.

So the death of his children and the loss of everything he owned and the horrible skin disease was practice? What was the "big leagues"? There is no mention of him ever losing anything after that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore God is responsible for evil. He created a world where there must be evil. However, that is a direct contradiction of the word of God.

No, your interpretation is in contradiction to the word of God. First, he did not create a world where there must be evil. He created a world where there could be evil. If you still have a problem with that, it is like saying the guy who invented fertilizer is responsible for it being used in bombs. It's just a bad argument. God did not invent the will for it to be misused.

The upshot of your argument is that no one should make anything that can be used for bad, including God. Which is another way of saying no one should make anything of any real consequence. Without the potential for evil, there is no potential for real good, like love or kindness. Is that what you want? Because that's where your argument is leading.

[Cal]

Eventually what you are saying is that God should not have created beings with the potential to love him, because in order to truly love anything you must have the power to choose not to love it, or it's not really love. Lack of loving God is the source of all evil in history, which you say God is responsible for. So if God is wrong in that, he was wrong to create beings with the power to love him. That's basically where your argument leads.

Do you think God was wrong to make creatures who have the power to love him?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, your interpretation is in contradiction to the word of God. First, he did not create a world where there must be evil. He created a world where there could be evil. If you still have a problem with that, it is like saying the guy who invented fertilizer is responsible for it being used in bombs. It's just a bad argument. God did not invent the will for it to be misused.

The upshot of your argument is that no one should make anything that can be used for bad, including God. Which is another way of saying no one should make anything of any real consequence. Without the potential for evil, there is no potential for real good, like love or kindness. Is that what you want? Because that's where your argument is leading.

OK, so you are saying that evil is like a knife. It is a very useful tool, that we need and use everyday. The fact that some people use a knife to murder doesn't make the knife evil nor does it make the manufacturer of the knife evil.

Here are some Bible verses on evil, lets see if this is a good explanation:

As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.

They conceive trouble and give birth to evil

Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.

The gospel refers to “the evil one”, and an evil person. We pray to deliver us from evil. In that day Jesus will say “away from me evil doers”.

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

We have an evil age, and “the days are evil” and there are “spiritual forces of evil”

God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. Instead people are tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire.

Boasting is evil.

So when I read these verses none of them suggest that "evil" refers to something good that God created that we are now using for a different purpose. Instead it is the "evil doers" that give birth to evil. They are the ones with evil thoughts. It was after we ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that we knew evil.

So then God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In my understanding we were told not to eat it because the day in which we ate it we would die. Sure enough, from the moment we ate from that tree eternal souls became mortal with a maximum time span. My explanation is that this tree is like entering a simulation where you can know good and evil. You enter the simulation by disobeying God. As a result you can learn what happens if you disobey, where that leads, and how your actions will result in you reaping what you sow. However, it is a simulation, so no real evil is done. Hitler can gas people in the simulation, but that does not in any way impact their immortal soul. Just as the Bible says,

4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

[Cal]

Saying God is responsible for the evil acts of his creatures is like saying a father is responsible for the evil acts of his son. Again, it's just a bad argument. It's based on equivocation. There are implicitly two meanings of "responsible." One is saying that evil couldn't have happened if he hadn't had the son. The other is saying he is directly to blame for his sons' evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Eventually what you are saying is that God should not have created beings with the potential to love him, because in order to truly love anything you must have the power to choose not to love it, or it's not really love. Lack of loving God is the source of all evil in history, which you say God is responsible for. So if God is wrong in that, he was wrong to create beings with the power to love him. That's basically where your argument leads.

Do you think God was wrong to make creatures who have the power to love him?

Who is saying this? Not me.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So when I read these verses none of them suggest that "evil" refers to something good that God created that we are now using for a different purpose.

I was speaking of our will and all our other faculties. They can be used for good or evil. They are the "knife" which can be misused.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who is saying this? Not me.

Well, maybe zeek was saying it more than you.

But the whole "problem of evil" problem, when worked out, either leads to that conclusion, or to the conclusion that allowing the potential of evil also allowed for a greater good, so is justified.

Ergo:

Either,
God was wrong to create creatures who could love him, because the potential for evil was not worth it.
Or,
God was not wrong to create creatures who could love him, because the potential for evil was worth it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Saying God is responsible for the evil acts of his creatures is like saying a father is responsible for the evil acts of his son. Again, it's just a bad argument. It's based on equivocation. There are implicitly two meanings of "responsible." One is saying that evil couldn't have happened if he hadn't had the son. The other is saying he is directly to blame for his sons' evil.

What we are saying is that All things were created by God and apart from Him nothing that has been made has come into being. That includes evil.

Therefore a victim of the Holocaust, or Job, either one, can say that the ultimate responsibility for what happened to them was God. Nothing happens that He does not allow, yet He very clearly condemns many things.

However, the Bible in many places, both OT and NT says you have no basis to blame God for the evil that has happened to you.

That creates a problem, how do you reconcile two facts. First, God is over all. All things have their being in Him. and Second, God is not responsible for evil. He doesn't do evil, in Him there is no evil, and He does not tempt us to do evil.

I do not deny that evil exists, because the Bible doesn't that is a lame attempt at semantics for a solution.

I agree that evil is derivative of man's free will, yet again, do not see that as exculpatory.

Instead, I see many verses that tell me I am immortal, and this life I am living is a vapor, a smoke, a momentary lightness of affliction. The NT tells me that I should not fear those who can kill my body, rather I should be afraid of Him who has authority over my soul. All of the evil that can occur to a person can only affect their body, it has no power on the soul. Also, if a thousand years is as a day to an immortal God what is our lifetime to us if we also have immortal souls? So likening our life to a 2 hour simulation in which we learn to know good and evil seems to fit the Biblical record.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, maybe zeek was saying it more than you.

But the whole "problem of evil" problem, when worked out, either leads to that conclusion, or to the conclusion that allowing the potential of evil also allowed for a greater good, so is justified.

Ergo:

Either,
God was wrong to create creatures who could love him, because the potential for evil was not worth it.
Or,
God was not wrong to create creatures who could love him, because the potential for evil was worth it.

You are simply substituting an easy question for a hard one.

What is evil? Why / How did God create it? Or if that is too difficult, how does a God in whom there is no darkness create a universe that is evil, with an evil world, evil powers, evil thoughts, and evil doers?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It should be clear from my posts that I mean evil does not exist as an essence in itself. God exists as the essence of good. Where is the essence of evil? It exists only in not doing what God wants. Thus God defines both good and evil. But to define evil is not to create it. Evil has always been what is contrary to God. He didn't have to create it. He just created creatures who could choose it. But he doesn't want them to choose it.

So, again, what you are objecting to is not evil per se, but the choice to choose it. Which means you are also objecting to the choice to choose good, because you can't have one without the other. So basically you are objecting to God creating anything of moral consequence.

According to your reasoning it doesn't follow that good exists as an essence in itself either. Or rather good is not God but choosing what God wants. Evil is not contrary to God. That would require existence. It is contrary to what God wants. To be contrary to God it would have to exist in itself which you explicitly said it didn't. Further, it's impossible to neatly separate choice from consequences. In fact, from a scientific point of view, it isn't even clear the choice exists. The experience of choice may simply be an illusion based on the fact that we are not conscious of the processes that determine our behavior.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Brothers;

I have reposted the Conclusion of Nigel Tomes important work here. Let's not get lost in the minutia of the life and times of Job. Very interesting but not necessarily germane to Nigel's polemic. If anyone wants to address Tome's conclusion here I think that might get the thread back on track.


----------------------------------------------

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

There is a problem here. "Sin entered the world". What is sin? Did God create it? According to other verses God did not create sin, He knows no sin, there is no sin in Him, He does not tempt us to sin. The result of sin was death which reigned from the time of Adam. It sounds sort of like sin is a virus that kills us and that all people are infected with.

However, John says 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Which again brings us to the question "did God create sin?"

So to get around this WL personifies it and equates sin with Satan. According to WL Satan was created as a good angel, Lucifer, who fell from his pride in thinking he would be like God. This is the same temptation that Eve fell for the fruit would make her like God.

So we cannot deny that God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which can make one to know good and evil. But, if you cannot explain the purpose of this tree then it is very difficult to define sin, how it was created, and what it was that infected all mankind.

9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Bible is very clear, God created the tree and planted it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Sin is not charged to anyone's account where there is no law, but we were given this commandment to not eat it, and if we did eat it the "charge" would be death.

5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

This is not a lie, God confirms as much.

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

To not allow us to take of the tree of life suggests more laws.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fair enough, the practice, like a violin student practicing until they know it.

So the death of his children and the loss of everything he owned and the horrible skin disease was practice? What was the "big leagues"? There is no mention of him ever losing anything after that.

The big leagues is just whatever God was preparing him for, both in this age and the next (2 Cor 1:3-5). (Although, I think what happened to Job was as much so the Book of Job could be written for us.)

UntoHim, Please feel free to move the Job discussion to the problem of evil thread in Alt.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to your reasoning it doesn't follow that good exists as an essence in itself either. Or rather good is not God but choosing what God wants. Evil is not contrary to God. That would require existence. It is contrary to what God wants. To be contrary to God it would have to exist in itself which you explicitly said it didn't.

Yes, good is God. Evil is contrary to God. Therefore both are defined by God. Good exists as a thing, that is God, but evil doesn't. I think that is pretty understandable.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are simply substituting an easy question for a hard one.

What is evil? Why / How did God create it? Or if that is too difficult, how does a God in whom there is no darkness create a universe that is evil, with an evil world, evil powers, evil thoughts, and evil doers?

I've already spoken to this. God did not create evil. He defined it. He can't help but define it, because he embodies what it isn't. If you choose it, that's not his creation, that's yours. So I fail to see the argument that God created evil or an evil universe. You keep saying it as if repeating it is somehow going to make it true. But it doesn't.

[Cal]

The option to love God by definition must include the option to choose not to, i.e. choose evil. Therefore, if you object that God gave us the option to chose evil, you are also objecting that he gave us the option to choose love.

So, say it. "God was wrong to give us the option to choose love." Or stop complaining about the potential for evil.

Saying "I'm glad that God gave us the option to love him, but not that he gave us the option to choose evil" is to speak an absurdity. It is also hypocritical.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've already spoken to this. God did not create evil. He defined it. He can't help but define it, because he embodies what it isn't. If you choose it, that's not his creation, that's yours. So I fail to see the argument that God created evil or an evil universe. You keep saying it as if repeating it is somehow going to make it true. But it doesn't.

So 6 million people in the holocaust. They chose that?

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people

Adam "created" sin? When Paul says sin "entered" he really means that Adam created it? Paul says that due to one man's sin all die, but you are saying that it is up to me? My death is simply my creation?

Nothing you say matches the words in the Bible. I am simply repeating the Bible which is true, not because I am repeating it, but because it is the truth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As I said, evil is disobeying God. So to ask why there is evil, ask why someone would disobey God. And all you have to do to answer that question is ask yourself why you do it. There's your answer.

Interesting discussion.

If a lion leaps out and eats my child I would consider that an evil event. But it's not evil. The lion is not being evil, he's eating lunch. He's following the laws God put into his nature.

So if people are following the laws God put into their nature, then humans are following the animal nature that God created them as. The results are as clear as the lion eating my child.

And if God is light, and no darkness, then God is absent from most of the universe. Then again, I hear it stated that, God is perfection. But His creation is separate from Him and so doesn't share His perfection. Which means that even light, in His creation, is not the light of God. So there must be other sources of light other than God.

That's why the evil is the absence of good analogy doesn't hold water very well. It sounds more like a rationale ... trying to perchance offload the blame for evil off of God.

God created all that is created as the Logos, so John claims, so created evil. Evil goes back to the manufacturer.

Isa_45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, good is God. Evil is contrary to God. Therefore both are defined by God. Good exists as a thing, that is God, but evil doesn't. I think that is pretty understandable.

Understandable? Not really. Your argument is an ancient one known as the "privation theodicy". It's based on Greek philosophy that goes back to the ontology of Parmenides who lived in the late sixth or early fifth century BC. But, it defies common sense and the experience of existing in the real world as we know it where evil is real and we and those we love suffer from it.

Privation theory renders God remote from the real world we live in. According to the gospels Jesus spent every day of his ministry battling evil. Was he fighting against nothing? How absurd.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Understandable? Not really. Your argument is an ancient one known as the "privation theodicy".

Privation of light is darkness ; from the bottom up. That's the way it looks to us. And it sounds logical, and final ... like black against white ... white wins ... as white as snow ... purity.

We need light to see our way. We can't see when it's dark without it.

But does privation explain evil? Is evil the same as light and darkness, black and white? Those are cute analogies, that sound right, but only go that far. Evil is not the absence of good like darkness is the absence of light. I don't think it actually works that way.

The truth is Theo-dicy is just that; Theo is god, and dicy is, well dicey ; or, God being dicey. In fact, it's so dicey we can't figure it out, so the notion of privation was cooked up ; to say, there, we solved the problem of evil. But none of that stops evil. There just has to be a powerful ultimate force behind it.

The question then becomes : what force? Who, or what, do we blame? It's not enough to say that light is to blame for darkness for being absent, and good is to blame for being absent. Who, or what, makes them absent?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Understandable? Not really. Your argument is an ancient one known as the "privation theodicy".

Nope. That's a straw man.

Anyway, I've said my peace. Open minded people understand my point. I'm out of the conversation for now.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nope. That's a straw man.

Anyway, I've said my peace. Open minded people understand my point. I'm out of the conversation for now.

It's a fact. What, did you think you invented the argument? And you didn't even respond to the rest of my argument. I have entertained the privation argument for years. Clement and Augustine employed it. It gives a little relief from the cognitive dissonance that the POE brings a believer in the theistic concept of God which is based on a Greek philosophical interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God and not strictly Biblical. But, that's ok. Run away. You got in over your head and scared yourself. You're probably afraid you might learn something new that shakes your faith. I understand. That can happen when your faith is in a concept rather than the living God or when you have conflated one with the other as we probably all have at one time or another. Be at peace, brother.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Understandable? Not really. Your argument is an ancient one known as the "privation theodicy".

That's right. It's not in the Bible so it's got to be fake news.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a fact. What, did you think you invented the argument? And you didn't even respond to the rest of my argument. I have entertained the privation argument for years. Clement and Augustine employed it. It gives a little relief from the cognitive dissonance that the POE brings a believer in the theistic concept of God which is based on a Greek philosophical interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God and not strictly Biblical. But, that's ok. Run away. You got in over your head and scared yourself. You're probably afraid you might learn something new that shakes your faith. I understand. That can happen when your faith is in a concept rather than the living God or when you have conflated one with the other as we probably all have at one time or another. Be at peace, brother.

Coming from you, now that is rich.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Coming from you, now that is rich.

But then we don't really know each other so...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a fact. What, did you think you invented the argument? And you didn't even respond to the rest of my argument. I have entertained the privation argument for years. Clement and Augustine employed it. It gives a little relief from the cognitive dissonance that the POE brings a believer in the theistic concept of God which is based on a Greek philosophical interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God and not strictly Biblical. But, that's ok. Run away. You got in over your head and scared yourself. You're probably afraid you might learn something new that shakes your faith. I understand. That can happen when your faith is in a concept rather than the living God or when you have conflated one with the other as we probably all have at one time or another. Be at peace, brother.

Instead of turning this into an argument about one another's faith, why not reduce a very difficult question in which everyone is tempted to bait and switch, with smaller questions that are simpler to answer. That was the purpose of the thread about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But, there are other questions. For example, what is the implication for "evil" when the Lord says to not fear those who can kill the body but can't harm the soul?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

But then we don't really know each other so...

But then you don't know Igzy either, and it didn't stop you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Instead of turning this into an argument about one another's faith, why not reduce a very difficult question in which everyone is tempted to bait and switch, with smaller questions that are simpler to answer. That was the purpose of the thread about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But, there are other questions. For example, what is the implication for "evil" when the Lord says to not fear those who can kill the body but can't harm the soul?

Great connection here, and what I consider the "great equalizer."

Look at Luke chapter 16.

Those obsessed with the POE would say that the poor man named Lazarus got screwed in this life, and thus God's love, God's knowing, or God's power should be seriously examined. Having only Part 1 of this story reinforces their complaints.

But Luke provides Part 2 of the story, where poor Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom, and was rewarded for his faith in hearing Moses and the Prophets. Meanwhile the rich man was suffering, and was reminded of the good life he once enjoyed.

Thus the Lord's ultimate warning: Do not fear those who can kill the body but can't harm the soul."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But then you don't know Igzy either, and it didn't stop you.

Oh sure. And I welcome him to correct me if got any of that wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

You got in over your head and scared yourself.

As Billy Hoyle said in White Men Can't Jump, "You're not getting to me. You're just making my eardrums hurt."

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18Q...fOdicJAhxjt2Wb

Try to keep in mind the board doesn't exist to be a platform for you to strut on, Sidney... I mean zeek.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As Billy Hoyle said in White Men Can't Jump, "You're not getting to me. You're just making my eardrums hurt."

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18Q...fOdicJAhxjt2Wb

Try to keep in mind the board doesn't exist to be a platform for you to strut on, Sidney... I mean zeek.

I'll try to keep that in mind Igzy. But in no way does it refute my arguments regarding the POE.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

But in no way does it refute my arguments regarding the POE.

People have been claiming that kind of thing for centuries. And God is still good and there is still evil in the world, which is an ultimately an indictment of the POE itself. If that's an act of faith, well, ultimately everything we do is at some level based on faith--if only faith in "reason," and that we actually have any.

[Cal]

"If you laid all the philosophers in the world end to end, they would never reach a conclusion."

I have never said the POE was not an interesting issue. I just said it is inconclusive in its classical sense, which says God cannot be all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful if evil exists in the world, i.e. evil disproves God. As I've said, if you can conceive that an ultimate greater good can be achieved by allowing evil in the world temporarily, then that claim does not hold. From there the POE just becomes a discussion on the details--all of which, no matter how answered, add up to something that is still inconclusive.

No one ever said here, I hope, that faith in God is not necessary. Faith in God is required because something about our conception of him from our perspective is inconclusive. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist, only that we can't prove it. Well, we believe in and act on many things we can't prove. Since when has proof been necessary for life? Actually the opposite is true. Faith is necessary for life. So the real question is not whether we take things on faith, because we all do, but what do we take on faith and why.

Life is a journey of faith, whether we include God or not, whether we like it or not. Subjects like the POE are either gremlins or cherubs along the way, either helping us or confusing us. But none of them actually prove anything. They are all just part of the evidence, not the conclusion.

God's eventual question to us is not going to be, What could you prove? It's going to be, Having realized you couldn't prove much, what did you decide to believe and why?

When that time comes, is anyone planning on whipping out the POE?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God's eventual question to us is not going to be, What could you prove? It's going to be, Having realized you couldn't prove much, what did you decide to believe and why?

When that time comes, is anyone planning on whipping out the POE?

Correct me if I'm wrong awareness and/or zeek, but I have long thought that this was part of your strategy?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Correct me if I'm wrong awareness and/or zeek, but I have long thought that this was part of your strategy?

I'll correct you. The POE has troubled me for a long time. No strategy. Maybe it's an unsolvable puzzle ... without denigrating God for it. And that's why no one wants to dig into it. No one wants to make God look bad, including me. The Bible does enough of that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

No one wants to make God look bad, including me. The Bible does enough of that.

Part of the trouble with the POE is those that think it is conclusive assume they have an absolute understanding of what "good" and "evil" really mean. But assuming such a thing is likely unwise. All we know is that one is, well, good, and the other is, well, bad. Now, ultimate good will probably be recognizable as good to us, ditto for ultimate evil. They won't be so strange as to be completely baffled by them. But there are sure to be some surprises about their true natures and implications.

So, not having a full understanding of what is ultimately good and what is ultimately evil, we can be like the child who thinks not getting to eat jellybeans all day is "bad," and childishly think something in the Bible makes God "look bad"... Harold.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll correct you. The POE has troubled me for a long time. No strategy. Maybe it's an unsolvable puzzle ... without denigrating God for it. And that's why no one wants to dig into it. No one wants to make God look bad, including me. The Bible does enough of that.

Life on earth is a test. It determines our next life.

Those that bless and honor God in this life will be blessed by God in the next.

So, you have been reading the Bible wrong. The Bible I read honors God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll correct you. The POE has troubled me for a long time. No strategy. Maybe it's an unsolvable puzzle ... without denigrating God for it. And that's why no one wants to dig into it. No one wants to make God look bad, including me. The Bible does enough of that.

Let me correct you on that. I am very interested in digging into it. These "puzzles" always lead to a deeper revelation of God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let me correct you on that. I am very interested in digging into it. These "puzzles" always lead to a deeper revelation of God.

I agree ... But it hurts Igzy's ears.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

People have been claiming that kind of thing for centuries. And God is still good and there is still evil in the world, which is an ultimately an indictment of the POE itself. If that's an act of faith, well, ultimately everything we do is at some level based on faith--if only faith in "reason," and that we actually have any.

When you say people have been claiming that kind of thing for centuries I suppose you're referring to the problem of evil. Yes it is attributed to Epicurus around 300 BC.

According to Christian theologian Lactantius, based on the argument Epicurus concluded that there is no all-powerful all good God and that the gods are distant and uninvolved in human concerns. Now obviously Christianity is incompatible with that conclusion because it portrays a God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

But it is possible that the omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient conception of God contemplated in the problem of evil is somehow inadequate. If so the problem can be thought of as one of the human intellect rather than God's.

It may be that those who are captured by faith must put it in one who is beyond their understanding. Another alternative is to join the theological pursuit of a more adequate concept of God. A third alternative is to hold on to the traditional orthodox definition of God dogmatically. The fourth way is to reject God. This can be done in a variety of ways. But if God is love and love is enduring, unshakable and stronger than death, none will ultimately be successful.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

But it is possible that the omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient conception of God contemplated in the problem of evil is somehow inadequate. If so the problem can be thought of as one of the human intellect rather than God's.

This is what I meant when I said we don't know precisely what "good" and "love" mean. We have some idea, but not complete knowledge. As such we are unqualified to say that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God could not allow evil in the world, especially if it can be conceived that allowing that evil could produce a greater good in the future.

Which it can. Since we can cite many examples of short-term evil being leveraged to produce long-term good which could not have been produced otherwise, it is not much of a stretch to conceive that God could use such an approach to produce in his creation qualities that could not have been there otherwise. And if those qualities by definition require experiences, then those experiences must actually happen.

As one apologist put it, our world cannot be said to be the best possible world, but it can be said to be the best way to the best possible world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now obviously Christianity is incompatible with that conclusion because it portrays a God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

But it is possible that the omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient conception of God contemplated in the problem of evil is somehow inadequate. If so the problem can be thought of as one of the human intellect rather than God's.

It may be that those who are captured by faith must put it in one who is beyond their understanding. Another alternative is to join the theological pursuit of a more adequate concept of God. A third alternative is to hold on to the traditional orthodox definition of God dogmatically. The fourth way is to reject God. This can be done in a variety of ways. But if God is love and love is enduring, unshakable and stronger than death, none will ultimately be successful.

I'll choose Door No. 1, if that means that I put my faith in the God of the Bible, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Being "beyond our understanding" should never mean that we cannot know Him. Even the very least among mankind can know Him and love Him. I've seen this with the special needs.

For that matter, even my wife at times is "beyond my understanding." Complete "understanding" should never be a criteria for love.

[Cal]

Many people have been through traumatic experiences which they realize in retrospect changed them for the better.

They often say, "What happened was bad. But I wouldn't change it. It made me the person I am." When we hear that we understand--though it is still somewhat paradoxical, because it seems at some level to be saying evil is good.

The same principle can apply with God's purpose, and there is even more mysterious. What happened to humanity was bad. What happens when evil happens is bad. But God wouldn't change it because of what it is producing.

Who has the wisdom to know what that process should or shouldn't look like? Well, certainly, if anyone, only him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Many people have been through traumatic experiences which they realize in retrospect changed them for the better.

They often say, "What happened was bad. But I wouldn't change it. It made me the person I am." When we hear that we understand--though it is still somewhat paradoxical, because it seems at some level to be saying evil is good.

The same principle can apply with God's purpose, and there is even more mysterious. What happened to humanity was bad. What happens when evil happens is bad. But God wouldn't change it because of what it is producing.

Who has the wisdom to know what that process should or shouldn't look like? Well, certainly, if anyone, only Him.

The "real" problem or dilemma of the POE has never been asked here. That is, why has God allowed His adversary Satan to still run rampant all over the earth, causing so much "evil." The book of Job uniquely identifies Satan as the source of all evil, which God has always allowed with limitations.

God even allows Satan to endlessly smear His reputation on this forum of all places. Why would He permit that? Do the POE adherents ever consider this?

The book of Job reminds us that none of us will ever be His counselor. Isaiah and Romans repeat that reminder.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "real" problem or dilemma of the POE has never been asked here. That is, why has God allowed His adversary Satan to still run rampant all over the earth, causing so much "evil." The book of Job uniquely identifies Satan as the source of all evil, which God has always allowed with limitations.

God even allows Satan to endlessly smear His reputation on this forum of all places. Why would He permit that? Do the POE adherents ever consider this?

The book of Job reminds us that none of us will ever be His counselor. Isaiah and Romans repeat that reminder.

Yesterday I pointed out that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was created by God and that it has two characteristics. One is that it is good for food to make one wise, being able to discern between good and evil, just like God. The other is that the day in which we eat we will die.

So then it seems that the way in which we become wise, knowing between good and evil is "living it". We see what happens when we make certain decisions, particularly when we disobey God's command.

However, this tree of necessity requires "evil". You cannot eat this tree without disobeying God. Taken to its logical extreme it allows for Hitler, Stalin, and Nero. So, once you eat this tree you are not allowed to eat the tree of life, lest this "evil" infect God's creation. Jesus is not simply the "Life" He is also the "Truth". The reality. Our life, after tasting the tree of knowledge, is a vanity, an illusion, a vapor, a smoke. It has created a ring around the real life that cannot be penetrated. In this simulated world people have the power to kill your body but don't have the power to harm the soul.

This answers why God allows this. Because this is how we can know the difference between good and evil.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God even allows Satan to endlessly smear His reputation on this forum of all places. Why would He permit that? Do the POE adherents ever consider this?

The POE asserts that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would NOT permit that. But in doing so it assumes we have a complete understanding of good, which we don't. We have some idea of what it is like, but not a complete idea.

God permitted evil in the world. Yet he he suffered and died himself to deal with it.

Evil and suffering need only be temporary.

Glory will be everlasting and can and will be EVEN BETTER because of bad experiences.

Only those who refuse the gift of salvation to the bitter end will have to deal eternally with evil's negative consequences.

The door is wide open to everyone to choose good.

God is not trying to stumble anyone, but he is testing everyone's faith.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The POE asserts that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would NOT permit that. But in doing so it assumes we have a complete understanding of good, which we don't. We have some idea of what it is like, but not a complete idea.

As I have said before, the POE simply justifies an evil heart of unbelief.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As I have said before, the POE simply justifies an evil heart of unbelief.

I don't know about the aspersion of an evil heart, but it does question the Omni characteristics of God. And a good heart can question that.

Perhaps what you mean is that, the POE if embraced by you, would produce a evil heart of unbelief.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about the aspersion of an evil heart, but it does question the Omni characteristics of God. And a good heart can question that.

Perhaps what you mean is that, the POE if embraced by you, would produce a evil heart of unbelief.

The Bible calls an unbelieving heart an evil heart of unbelief. (Hebrew 3.12)

When one invests his life "questioning the Omni characteristics of God," then others should candidly ask if that one actually wants an answer or not.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For that matter, even my wife at times is "[I]beyond my understanding."

Isn't that true for all of us? We only know what's in other heads if they tell us, and we can't even trust that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible calls an unbelieving heart an evil heart of unbelief. (Hebrew 3.12)

When one invests his life "questioning the Omni characteristics of God," then others should candidly ask if that one actually wants an answer or not.

Well then I'm in trouble. I don't believe in believing. Just believing admits to there being a doubt. Example : I don't have to believe in a tree. And reality doesn't care if we believe in it or not.

And I doubt the fathers in the wilderness for 40 years even thought of the POE, or the Omni's. Hebrews doesn't address either.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well then I'm in trouble. I don't believe in believing. Just believing admits to there being a doubt. Example : I don't have to believe in a tree. And reality doesn't care if we believe in it or not.

You believe in not believing about believing.

There is no escape from having faith in something, Harold. And if you believe otherwise, well... the answer is right there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well then I'm in trouble. I don't believe in believing. Just believing admits to there being a doubt. Example : I don't have to believe in a tree. And reality doesn't care if we believe in it or not.

And I doubt the fathers in the wilderness for 40 years even thought of the POE, or the Omni's. Hebrews doesn't address either.

Your comments raise huge red flags because you believe all sorts of things for which there is exceeding doubt. Hence you have made bad decisions. That's why Jesus said, "wide is the way that leads to destruction." All these folks on the wide way *believe* there is safety in their numbers, safety in their science, safety in their doubts that there is God, safety that the Bible is irrelevant, safety that there are many ways to God apart from His Son, etc.

Their *belief system* will one day fail them because they put their faith in someone or something that was not trustworthy. Why join them? Why would you trust fallen men, putting your faith in their failed ideas, rather than in a trustworthy God? In the end you are believing, you are just believing the wrong people.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your comments raise huge red flags because you believe all sorts of things for which there is exceeding doubt. Hence you have made bad decisions.

No brother. It's just that I've been wrong some many times that I have no choice but to doubt even myself. I'm glad that's not been true for you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"If you laid all the philosophers in the world end to end, they would never reach a conclusion."

So much better to follow authority unquestioning like we were trained to do in Witness Lee's organization.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have never said the POE was not an interesting issue. I just said it is inconclusive in its classical sense, which says God cannot be all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful if evil exists in the world, i.e. evil disproves God.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I agree this doesn't necessarily disprove God. Maybe we have just misunderstood God. Perhaps we should re-examine our basic assumptions about what God is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So much better to follow authority unquestioning like we were trained to do in Witness Lee's organization.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I agree this doesn't necessarily disprove God. Maybe we have just misunderstood God. Perhaps we should re-examine our basic assumptions about what God is.

You're right. You continually misunderstand God. To know God, we must accept His word. What He has provided, He has deemed sufficient, coupled with His Spirit.

When, however, we look to philosophers for wisdom, and place questions on His word, we duplicate the Garden scenario, and probe in the darkness for that which will never be found.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your comments raise huge red flags because you believe all sorts of things for which there is exceeding doubt.

Hey, you and Igzy are right. I do believe in believing. I believe in music. It's eternal too. Get that. I believe in something eternal. Hope I have ears that long.

But I don't believe in all sorts of things. Although I do believe that my truck will start today. It didn't yesterday -- clutch switch went out. Fortunately I was on a hill. Fixed it by jury-rigging it -- and it's better than factory ... I believe.

But I believe this type of believing I'm speaking of, is not the same believing you're talking about.

You want me to believe in God. I prefer experience.

And you want me to believe that evil is caused by Satan running amok. I can't see such a thing. But I can see human primates ... doing what human primates were destined to do ... by a designer I can't see, or know much if anything about.

Nature is not evil. It's following natural laws. As I've stated, a Lion eating my child is only having lunch. I presume that was designed by God.

Humans do evil. Tho there have been human primates in the past that if you were there might turn you into lunch ; like the Lion. I don't have to believe that human primates will do evil. Just like the Lion, it doesn't depend on believing. Evil doesn't care if we believe in it or not ... or if we can understand and explain the whys and what for of it.

And I'm sorry to point this out, but, Jesus dying on the cross did not put an end to evil. It was around before Jesus, and went on the same afterward.

There's something else behind it ; maybe the same thing that's in the Lion. In other words, it's in our human nature. And it doesn't depend on if we believe in it or not. Evil continues either way.

The privation theory of the POE just helps to ease cognitive dissonance. Tho it does seem kind of nifty, it's certainly not among the 'all sorts' that you say I believe in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

No brother. It's just that I've been wrong some many times that I have no choice but to doubt even myself. I'm glad that's not been true for you.

Every one of us has been wrong, many times in fact, and have been burnt by others. That's life. Some folks just learn faster than others.

Being hurt, or burnt, or betrayed, should prod us to put our trust in that which is safe, and proven over time to be trustworthy.

Doubting your own abilities is normal. Sometimes when I look back at what I did in my late teens, I am shocked. What I trusted in was purely foolish. Today we cannot live our lives without trusting in something. And trusting God is always a wise decision.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I'm sorry to point this out, but, Jesus dying on the cross did not put an end to evil. It was around before Jesus, and went on the same afterward.

Wow, where did you ever get the idea that the cross ended all evil???

With a belief such as that, it's understandable you can't believe. Especially when you read mail from DailyMail on a daily basis.

The cross dealt with our debt to sin, called the curse of the law, and when believers are in Christ, they are dead to sin.

Evil will not be put to an end until Jesus returns.

[Cal]

Harold,

It should be pretty clear that human philosophy is never going to prove or disprove the goodness of God. So either God is good or he isn't. If he isn't, we are all screwed. If he is, then everything we see which confuses us is explainable and we can be at peace.

It seems to me you can go three ways:

1. Believe that God is good, and trust him and be happy.
   
   
2. Believe that God is not good, and deal with that however you choose.
   
   
3. Never make up your mind about it, and live in a state of endless fretting.

Seems to me you are stuck in #3, and have been since I've known you. Fear is often nothing more than the clanging of indecision. Why not just do yourself and everyone else a favor and make up your mind and get on with your life? But your incessant hand-wringing gets old after a while. No offense, I like you, but as a friend, come on dude...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold,

It should be pretty clear that human philosophy is never going to prove or disprove the goodness of God. So either God is good or he isn't. If he isn't, we are all screwed. If he is, then everything we see which confuses us is explainable and we can be at peace.

It seems to me you can go three ways:

1. Believe that God is good, and trust him and be happy.
   
   
2. Believe that God is not good, and deal with that however you choose.
   
   
3. Never make up your mind about it, and live in a state of endless fretting.

Seems to me you are stuck in #3, and have been since I've known you. Fear is often nothing more than the clanging of indecision. Why not just do yourself and everyone else a favor and make up your mind and get on with your life? But your incessant hand-wringing gets old after a while. No offense, I like you, but as a friend, come on dude...

Thanks friend. I appreciate your concern. Sorry if my incessant hand-wringing is annoying you and maybe everyone else.

To be honest, when it comes to God, I do believe, or sympathize with, the notion that God's love is the most powerful force in the cosmos, and will eventually win over every one, including the devil. If not, then God is not love, or is limited, and John, or the author of the epistles called John, was mistaken about God being love. ... and we're in trouble ... all have sinned, says Paul.

Thanks again Igzy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold,

It should be pretty clear that human philosophy is never going to prove or disprove the goodness of God. So either God is good or he isn't. If he isn't, we are all screwed. If he is, then everything we see which confuses us is explainable and we can be at peace.

This is contrary to the word in Genesis which says that this tree, which we have all eaten from, makes us wise to know good and evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks friend. I appreciate your concern. Sorry if my incessant hand-wringing is annoying you and maybe everyone else.

To be honest, when it comes to God, I do believe, or sympathize with, the notion that God's love is the most powerful force in the cosmos, and will eventually win over every one, including the devil. If not, then God is not love, or is limited, and John, or the author of the epistles called John, was mistaken about God being love. ... and we're in trouble ... all have sinned, says Paul.

Thanks again Igzy.

That is a crazy criteria -- if God is love He has to win over the devil.

We have many production processes that involve throwing many things away into the garbage. If God created Satan for the purpose of training us and maturing us, who are you to tell the manufacturer He can't do it that way?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks again Igzy.

That's okay, Harold. We love you.

I figure you are the Woody Allen of Christians. He made a career out of neuroses. And he had some pretty good-looking girlfriends. So maybe he was on to something.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is contrary to the word in Genesis which says that this tree, which we have all eaten from, makes us wise to know good and evil.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying believing God is good is eating from the wrong tree? If so, your brain has been taken over by Ron Kangas.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If God created Satan for the purpose of training us and maturing us, who are you to tell the manufacturer He can't do it that way?

'If' being the operative word.

Btw, I don't think the Satan can be blamed for the POE, any more than he can be blamed for the plight of Job.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying believing God is good is eating from the wrong tree? If so, your brain has been taken over by Ron Kangas.

What I am saying is that I agree with the Bible when it says that God is good, the creation is good, and all things that God has made are good. That includes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This one tree requires that you disobey God in order to eat it. Disobeying God is bad, but that is not the tree. God didn't create disobedience, He created man with a free will that includes the possibility of disobedience and therefore sin.

The POE shows how thorny and ugly that can become. The tree of the knowledge of Good and evil contains the potential damage, just as we might contain potentially harmful chemicals, or substances. The minute you choose to disobey you are limited in several ways. You can no longer eat from the tree of life, and you immediately become mortal, with a life span of 120 years or less. This life span only refers to your flesh. Your life becomes vanity, and nothing that you do can harm the soul of others, only their mortal body.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

'If' being the operative word.

Btw, I don't think the Satan can be blamed for the POE, any more than he can be blamed for the blight of Job.

The entire premise of the POE is that God is the sovereign Lord, He created everything, He is over everything, and all things exist by His will.

So, yes, it would be absurd to give Satan credit.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What I am saying is that I agree with the Bible when it says that God is good, the creation is good, and all things that God has made are good. That includes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This one tree requires that you disobey God in order to eat it. Disobeying God is bad, but that is not the tree. God didn't create disobedience, He created man with a free will that includes the possibility of disobedience and therefore sin.

The POE shows how thorny and ugly that can become. The tree of the knowledge of Good and evil contains the potential damage, just as we might contain potentially harmful chemicals, or substances. The minute you choose to disobey you are limited in several ways. You can no longer eat from the tree of life, and you immediately become mortal, with a life span of 120 years or less. This life span only refers to your flesh. Your life becomes vanity, and nothing that you do can harm the soul of others, only their mortal body.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil just means seeking the wisdom to live apart from God. It means, basically, wanting to be God, because only God knows or can know good and evil from top to bottom.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The tree of knowledge of good and evil just means seeking the wisdom to live apart from God. It means, basically, wanting to be God, because only God knows or can know good and evil from top to bottom.

That is what you were taught in the LOC, but you are ignoring the fact that Genesis says God created this tree and planted it in the midst of the garden. God does not tempt people with sin.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Btw, I don't think the Satan can be blamed for the POE, any more than he can be blamed for the blight of Job.

Are you serious? Read what Job has written in Chapter One.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every one of us has been wrong, many times in fact, and have been burnt by others. That's life. Some folks just learn faster than others.

Being hurt, or burnt, or betrayed, should prod us to put our trust in that which is safe, and proven over time to be trustworthy.

Doubting your own abilities is normal. Sometimes when I look back at what I did in my late teens, I am shocked. What I trusted in was purely foolish. Today we cannot live our lives without trusting in something. And trusting God is always a wise decision.

I couldn't let this one pass. It's personal to me. As I've stated, I thank God and tell Him I love Him hundreds of times a day. I do it like I breath. I'm nutty like that.

But often also I wonder, and even ask, "How can God love me?" I'm not worth it, or worthy of it. I live with me. I know. I really am a disgusting animal, with all kinds of stinky animal traits, and even instincts and impulses. I guess that's what Paul means by 'the law in my members.'

And in my past I have gloried that in Christ I'm not that, I'm a new man. But the animal part of me is persistent, and needs and demands of me every day. It rules ...

... every human, and animal, on the earth. And it pervades our brain pan and pretty much dictates the most devoted among us.

Truth is I can't trust it. In anyone. As Dylan sings in Not Dark Yet, "I ain't looking for nothin' in anyone's eyes."

And I have to ask God : why do you care about little specks, on a little speck of a ball, in a speck of a solar system, that can't even be seen -- not even a visible speck of light -- if seen from just our neighbor galaxy -- among over 250 -- and more found all the time -- billion galaxies?

Talk about the POE not making sense. That doesn't make sense to me. That's why I thank Him every day, for the smallest every day little things.

I've seen Hubble pictures of galaxies. They're beautiful. As beautiful as anything on this earth ... like a remote field of flowers, that few people ever see ... God must appreciate that beauty, or it's just a waste of space.

So God must also love this little speck that I am. I'm undeniably part of His grand cosmos ... as much as any photon, atom, or strings at the bottom of this material and corporeal world.

What glorious mystery !!!

And brother Igzy, even tho I'm basically a skeptic, filled with many doubts, and little certitude, I find peace in that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is what you were taught in the LOC, but you are ignoring the fact that Genesis says God created this tree and planted it in the midst of the garden. God does not tempt people with sin.

The whole test of being a conscious created being is whether you are going to follow God or your own way. So of course there is going to be a way to follow your own way if you want to, or there is no test. If God had not presented that tree there would have been no test. But because God gave man a choice doesn't mean he tempted man.

Temptation always says "Hey, you ought to do this thing!" God never says that about something he has commanded against. Just something being possible is not the temptation. The temptation is the urging to do it. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

God told us to not lust after women, but he created a lot of attractive women. Does that mean God is tempting us? No.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The whole test of being a conscious created being is whether you are going to follow God or your own way. So of course there is going to be a way to follow your own way if you want to, or there is no test. If God had not presented that tree there would have been no test. But because God gave man a choice doesn't mean he tempted man.

Temptation always says "Hey, you ought to do this thing!" God never says that about something he has commanded against. Just something being possible is not the temptation. The temptation is the urging to do it. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

God told us to not lust after women, but he created a lot of attractive women. Does that mean God is tempting us? No.

What I am saying is that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not evil, just like a laboratory where we test out a poison, or explosive is not evil. We have a free will, we can choose to just do whatever the Lord says, or we can choose to disobey. However, if we choose to disobey you enter into this laboratory where safeguards have been put into place to protect God's creation from your crazy experiment.

This is what Genesis says -- the minute they eat from that tree they will die (this is a fundamental change) and they are prohibited from eating from the the tree of life (another fundamental change) and they are kicked out of the garden (another protection).

Death is a protection. You can run your little experiment but you are limited, just like he put a limitation on the ocean and said you can come this far and no further. Not only does it limit the damage you can do, it also makes everything vanity (an illusion since everything we do in this age is temporary yet we are destined for eternity, it is like drawing a picture on an etch a sketch) it also protects God's creation. These people have power to kill the flesh which is a temporary illusion, but have no power over the soul which is eternal.

This is just like entering a simulation. You can try out anything you want on the simulation, crash the airplane into an office building, yet afterwards you walk away. In the same way we can die in this simulation known as mortal life, but we will walk away in eternity. This is useful in discerning between good and evil, understanding the wisdom of God's choices by seeing how different choices work out.

If you view the creation this way it is easy to say that all of God's creation is good, including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. WL called it the "Tree of death" implying it was negative. But that is contrary to the revelation in the Bible that God's ways are deeper than ours and that He is love surpasses knowledge.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You're right. You continually misunderstand God. To know God, we must accept His word. What He has provided, He has deemed sufficient, coupled with His Spirit.

When, however, we look to philosophers for wisdom, and place questions on His word, we duplicate the Garden scenario, and probe in the darkness for that which will never be found.

If God cannot be understood than every understanding we have of God is a misunderstanding in some way. If that's true I'm not alone in "continually misunderstanding" God. Intellectual humility demands that we admit this.

Accepting "His word" is one thing. Interpreting it is another. That's where we differ.

But, Biblical Christianity allows for diverse points of view. There are four Gospels that present Jesus from four differing sometimes seemly conflicting points of view. The brothers who decided the Biblical canon knew that and left those differences in. If the New Testament is our standard then we should accept diverse points of view even when they seem to conflict. A Christianity that demands uniformity like Witness Lee did is unscriptural.

You seem to think you're too good a Christian to question God about evil. If so, you're better than Jesus. Because when he was hanging on the cross, Jesus asked “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”. [Mark 15:34] That's the problem of evil in a nutshell.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You seem to think you're too good a Christian to question God about evil. If so, you're better than Jesus. Because when he was hanging on the cross, Jesus asked “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”. [Mark 15:34] That's the problem of evil in a nutshell.

God answered this question, it was not rhetorical, which is the issue I have with many who push the POE, their pretense and arrogance to think these questions cannot be answered.

The question is good, it leads to a deeper understanding of God and His word (even though the question mark does look a little like a snake).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What I am saying is that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not evil, just like a laboratory where we test out a poison, or explosive is not evil.

Right, knowledge of good and evil is not wrong, it's just wrong under certain conditions. Like when God says it is.

What's interesting is that for man the temptation was to "be like God." But isn't that why God created us in his image? So we could be like him? So what's the problem?

The problem is that man tried to be like God on his own, contrary to God's instructions. Closely walking with God and obeying him is the correct way to be like God. When we try to do it on our own, we might get some initial promising results, but the end is disaster.

All of man's history is having some "knowledge of good and evil" and with it trying to work things out on our own.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil just represents the wish to be wise independently from God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What's interesting is that for man the temptation was to "be like God." But isn't that why God created us in his image? So we could be like him? So what's the problem?

The problem is that man tried to be like God on his own, contrary to God's instructions. Closely walking with God and obeying him is the correct way to be like God. When we try to do it on our own, we might get some initial promising results, but the end is disaster.

All of man's history is having some "knowledge of good and evil" and with it trying to work things out on our own.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil just represents the wish to be wise independently from God.

If you define it that way then it is evil. So although that is quite close to true I disagree, otherwise God created an evil temptation.

The evil temptation was from the snake, the woman saw that it would make her like God.

No, the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is designed by God to test out alternate theories. So, if Man has free will then the potential for alternate theories about the best course of action is part of the creation. That is not evil, in fact we can infer from Genesis where God says that "man has become like us" indicates that God does test out alternate theories as part of His wisdom. That is also supported by the assertion that His wisdom is too deep for us, there is a lot behind one of His decisions that we don't see and know. If we define sin at its most fundamental basis as "disobedience to God" then forbidding us to eat this tree requires that you sin in order to eat it. That doesn't make the tree the sin, it makes the disobedience to God's command the sin.

I would say the Tree was very good because it protects God's creation from the POE while at the same time being a requirement for man to have a free will.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you define it that way then it is evil. So although that is quite close to true I disagree, otherwise God created an evil temptation.

The evil temptation was from the snake, the woman saw that it would make her like God.

No, the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is designed by God to test out alternate theories. So, if Man has free will then the potential for alternate theories about the best course of action is part of the creation. That is not evil, in fact we can infer from Genesis where God says that "man has become like us" indicates that God does test out alternate theories as part of His wisdom. That is also supported by the assertion that His wisdom is too deep for us, there is a lot behind one of His decisions that we don't see and know. If we define sin at its most fundamental basis as "disobedience to God" then forbidding us to eat this tree requires that you sin in order to eat it. That doesn't make the tree the sin, it makes the disobedience to God's command the sin.

I would say the Tree was very good because it protects God's creation from the POE while at the same time being a requirement for man to have a free will.

I guess I should point out the obvious : neither the image of God nor the "man has become as one of us" solves the problem of the POE.

A few minor points. First. Man has become one of us can't be true unless 'us' can die. But then again, some believe in Deicide, the killing of a god. And so some Christians believe that God died on the cross. In that case, maybe we are as one of "us." But isn't it just plain silly that God can die?

Second of all, when you say "the woman saw that it would make her like God," you're technically wrong. Genesis doesn't say that's what she saw. It says that's what the snake said.

Thirdly, technically Adam didn't disobey God. He was standing right there while Eve and the snake were carrying on a conversation, and then obeyed the woman God gave him. And men have been obeying women ever since. haha. And even doing evil for them, and to get them.

And according to Paul, women are the reason for the fall. In other words, if the snake was the center of the POE in the beginning, he, or she, or it, passed it on to Eve ... and like Adam, men can't resist it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You seem to think you're too good a Christian . . .

Honestly, the thought never crossed my mind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you serious? Read what Job has written in Chapter One.

I don't think you want to get me going on the book of Job.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't think you want to get me going on the book of Job.

Sounds like you might have missed the morale of the story.

But, since you question the authenticity and veracity of every book of the Bible, you probably have already dismissed the book of Job in favor of some ancient Greek mythology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess I should point out the obvious : neither the image of God nor the "man has become as one of us" solves the problem of the POE.

A few minor points. First. Man has become one of us can't be true unless 'us' can die. But then again, some believe in Deicide, the killing of a god. And so some Christians believe that God died on the cross. In that case, maybe we are as one of "us." But isn't it just plain silly that God can die?

Silly? Many have called the story worse than foolish.

Unfortunately for them, and for you, God has demanded our faith in His Son dying on the cross for us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess I should point out the obvious : neither the image of God nor the "man has become as one of us" solves the problem of the POE.

A few minor points. First. Man has become one of us can't be true unless 'us' can die. But then again, some believe in Deicide, the killing of a god. And so some Christians believe that God died on the cross. In that case, maybe we are as one of "us." But isn't it just plain silly that God can die?

No, God didn't say that man had become one of us now that he can die, but rather he has become one of us discerning good and evil. He then said we couldn't eat from the tree of life lest we live forever. Hence, not only is there not a problem, there is not even a potential to misinterpret this section. Only a willful distortion to people unfamiliar with Genesis would work.

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Originally Posted by awareness

Second of all, when you say "the woman saw that it would make her like God," you're technically wrong. Genesis doesn't say that's what she saw. It says that's what the snake said.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thirdly, technically Adam didn't disobey God. He was standing right there while Eve and the snake were carrying on a conversation, and then obeyed the woman God gave him. And men have been obeying women ever since. haha. And even doing evil for them, and to get them.

And according to Paul, women are the reason for the fall. In other words, if the snake was the center of the POE in the beginning, he, or she, or it, passed it on to Eve ... and like Adam, men can't resist it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If so, you're better than Jesus. Because when he was hanging on the cross, Jesus asked “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”. [Mark 15:34] That's the problem of evil in a nutshell.

That's the POE in a nutshell. God abandoned Jesus, and Job, and also abandons the problem of evil.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you define it that way then it is evil. So although that is quite close to true I disagree, otherwise God created an evil temptation.

You get too caught up in semantics and tend to miss someone's overall meaning.

Again, think of it like a woman. A beautiful woman is not a evil thing. But how we "appreciate" her might be evil. The same with knowledge of good and evil. Do you think when God created woman he created an evil temptation?

Without the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we still know good and evil to some degree, so it's not a black and white thing. The test in the garden was about how we approach the knowledge, how we sought to acquire it, and what we intended to do with it--not the knowledge itself. Just like problem of a woman is not in herself, but in our approach to her.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't think you want to get me going on the book of Job.

Truer words were never spoken. The sound of a club hitting a dead horse gets old.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Truer words were never spoken. The sound of a club hitting a dead horse gets old.

I know. I don't want to hurt your ears. It's a kindness.