any religion taught this

[Michael]

Jenyar – thanks for taking the time to post a reply. It’s OK that it was long, I never mind length.

From your posts, I understand that you believe in god from Christianities perspective. I do understand where you are coming from and I do understand your analogies (or at least what you are trying to say). But I find that many Theist’s, language take on this metaphoric feel that doesn’t answer much, pointedly. And in the end seems to either make absolutely no sense or even refute its intended meaning.

Let me give an example:
”God identified with our suffering through Jesus - who suffered most innocently, so that we might have hope of surviving it. God did not plan His creation to make himself suffer, but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.”

1) God identified with our suffering through Jesus.
This implies that god can not identify with our suffering without Jesus. Which is absurd. God is “all powerful”. Identifying with our suffering is the least of what he can do. So the first part of this statement is already wrong. But I would say it is necessary to validate the next part of the statement
.
2) Jesus suffered most innocently
A) Jesus suffered: As we can see from the simplicity of the first statement - unnecessarily. There is no need for Jesus to suffer.

We can quibble over this simply by you stating that God must experience it through Jesus. You can say anything. That’s the wonderful thing about religion - there is no logic to it. Which is inherent and therefore fine for discussion. Regardless, I am trying to make a small attempt at dissection this one statement. So again let me repeat. As god is all powerful (as we both – I think – agree) identifying with human suffering is as simple as me blinking an eye, for god to do without the need for Jesus whatsoever. He created the universe for “god sake”

B) most innocently “most” implies there are less and more states of innocent. I would disagree. It’s either innocent or guilty. Secondly, this is god we’re talking about. Even if it is just one manifestation. Innocent or not innocent is determined by the person judging that individual. I deem Jesus guilty not innocent. Therefore the sentence should continue as … Jesus suffered, as he ought to have, … You can see what I am saying. Again it goes back to making no logical sense. We can just make it up as we go along. To be the one to define what sin is and then not commit sin and then also deem yourself therefore innocent, again seems absurd. I can simply say God created the universe – in any manifestation he is guilty of creating a universe where people suffer. It’s that simple. So its not unreasonably for me to say Jesus is guilty.

3). so that we might have hope of surviving it: First off “so” again implies there is a justification to Jesus’s suffering. Which I do not think is the case (God can do anything. The “it” in this sentence is referring to suffering. So the sentence reads ~ Jesus suffered most innocently so that we might have hope of surviving suffering. At this point I would say the statement now is referring to after death. So again ~ Jesus suffered most innocently so that we might have hope of surviving suffering after we live life (which may itself contain horrible suffering) and are now dead. This implies that Jesus dies horribly so that after we die we can then escape suffering? Lets see here. I live a life of needless suffering so that after I’m dead I don’t need to suffer? You can surely understand why I see this as absurd. God can do anything. If I have a soul he can do with it what he wants after I die. He certainly doesn’t need to kill a manifestation of himself to stop my suffering after I’ve lived a lifetime of it.

4) God did not plan His creation to make himself suffer, but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” This next sentence is going back to the creation of the world and ultimately the universe.
A) God did not plan “God did not plan” is the most important part. Anything after it does not even need to be read. God knew what was going to happen before creating this universe. Everything is therefore “planned” by god. One even hears of “God’s plan”.
B) His creation to make himself suffer, He most certainly did plan to make himself suffer. He created the universe knowing full and well that, making himself suffer, would be one of the end results. So he did plan it, there’s no two ways about it.

5)but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” . Where to begin?
A) He does not need to partake in our suffering to redeem us. Again, He is “all powerful” he can redeem humans anytime he feels like it - with or without suffering. He is all powerful - he can do anything. “His original creation” implies that we are not now what he planned on us becoming. Which, as we read above, is not the case. When creating this universe god choose to create it, such that man would end up just as man is. God could have created it differently and in such a way so that man had Free Will (and all the rest) and still lived in paradise. If he could not have, then he is not all powerful. As he is all powerful he must have “wanted” it the way it is. Everything is as god has planned.
B) The end part “His original creation, as He intended it to be” implies that he did not intend for us to be kicked out of paradise and be as we are. This obviously is wrong for reasons already discussed over and over. Which you agreed to in our original discussion earlier last week.

So this is how I see this statement:
”God needlessly identified with our suffering through his Jesus manifestation – and in this form himself suffered. After identifying with our suffering God decided that we may not suffer after we have lived our life and are dead (that is in the afterlife). God did plan His creation in such a way as to make himself suffer (this is for reasons we do not understand), He also partook in some suffering and after which decided he will make a better world for some people after they are dead.”

free will
We will have to agree to disagree on the free will topic. It appears that you accept as true that man has a free will because it appears apparent (and also I would think is a necessary precondition of belief) when a decision is made. To just say Puppetmaster/clockmaker fallacy - - doesn’t make it a fallacy. You have to explain the error in the logic. Regardless, I believe if a god was “all knowing”, not to mention the creator of the universe, then man would not have free will.

Incidentally, I do think people have “free-will” . . . . to some degree.

creating the universe
To you it appears to make sense that God creates a universe where people suffer. As God knew this would be the case even before creating the universe - we can therefore say suffering was part of gods original design/plan. For god to then recreate a paradise the second time seems absurd (to me). One would think that an all powerful god would just create the paradise to begin with – with no option nor possibility of there being any form of suffering at all. An “all powerful god can do this and still accomplish all that it needs/plans to accomplish.

At the very least I would say we agree that some people do live quite luxurious lives and still gain salvation. Well then everyone should live as such. Even if it meant that god had to create the entire world over and over again for each individual guiding him/her along until they reach “salvation” living the luxurious life that some humans do live – well this would be nothing for god to do – and if it can not do that then it isn’t “all powerful”. And if it can and still decides that allowing some children to undergo what some children undergo – well that’s one sick puppy. I mean if you had the ability to prevent a child from coming to harm (and this would in no way inconvenience you) – and you choose not to. Well that person is sick. Not to mention - to design the universe in such a way as to insist that these children are harmed. Well that’s even sicker.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Michael
Let me give an example:
1) God identified with our suffering through Jesus.
This implies that god can not identify with our suffering without Jesus. Which is absurd. God is “all powerful”. Identifying with our suffering is the least of what he can do. So the first part of this statement is already wrong. But I would say it is necessary to validate the next part of the statement.

No it doesn't - it implies Jesus was God's identification with our suffering. Remember Christians do not see Jesus as intrinsically separate from God. He was only separate for our sake - separate like we are separate from God. But in Spirit He was not separate like we are, which is why we have to accept his Spirit to become his children.

Being powerful does not mean you actually do everything possible to you, it means you can achieve whatever you decide to do.

2) Jesus suffered most innocently
A) Jesus suffered: As we can see from the simplicity of the first statement - unnecessarily. There is no need for Jesus to suffer.

We can quibble over this simply by you stating that God must experience it through Jesus. You can say anything. That’s the wonderful thing about religion - there is no logic to it. Which is inherent and therefore fine for discussion. Regardless, I am trying to make a small attempt at dissection this one statement. So again let me repeat. As god is all powerful (as we both – I think – agree) identifying with human suffering is as simple as me blinking an eye, for god to do without the need for Jesus whatsoever. He created the universe for “god sake”

Jesus suffered for our sake, not for His own.

Since we experience suffering because of our separation from God, it is fitting that God should associate with us at the level where we need Him most. His reached into death to save us - no place is far enough for God to reconcile with us, not even death, which is as far away from life as you get.

We needed to see God do what He intended to do, to believe. It was human injustice which made Him suffer. But more than that, Jesus also allowed us to identify with God. Through Jesus, we could see that God is not the real reason for our suffering, because He shared it - and that God could indeed save us from death. God removed our uncertainty and gave us hope, because He loves us. He could have just remained high and mighty and we would have had no hope.

To us, suffering is very real and very problematic. God knows that we need Him in a very real sense. A blink of God's eye would hardly give anybody hope that He understands.

B) most innocently “most” implies there are less and more states of innocent. I would disagree. It’s either innocent or guilty. Secondly, this is god we’re talking about. Even if it is just one manifestation. Innocent or not innocent is determined by the person judging that individual. I deem Jesus guilty not innocent. Therefore the sentence should continue as … Jesus suffered, as he ought to have, … You can see what I am saying. Again it goes back to making no logical sense. We can just make it up as we go along. To be the one to define what sin is and then not commit sin and then also deem yourself therefore innocent, again seems absurd. I can simply say God created the universe – in any manifestation he is guilty of creating a universe where people suffer. It’s that simple. So its not unreasonably for me to say Jesus is guilty.

We are all guilty of sin and born under its weight. Jesus wasn't, and yet he was punished as a common criminal. He was "more innocent" in the sense that He was completely innocent in God's eyes as well. The irony is that he was found guilty because he was really who he said he was, but people convicted him for that truth. Just like you are finding him "guilty" for creating he world. Yes He is, but only injustice condemns innocence. Injustice at its worst.

God condemned sin and injustice. He did not "define it", sin is a word for an act that God cannot commit - rebellion against God as the author of justice. But sin and injustice was completely and utterly exposed when God himself suffered because of it. Suffering was not part of God's creation, it was brought into it with a lie and believing a lie. Jesus came to "fulfill the law", i.e. to make it clear that the law wasn't what made us guilty, but sin. We don't suffer because we are being righteously punished, but because we are suffering injustice. God knew how to rectify that, and He did it on our terms. He didn't have to, but He did because it was necessary for us.

3). I live a life of needless suffering so that after I’m dead I don’t need to suffer? You can surely understand why I see this as absurd. God can do anything. If I have a soul he can do with it what he wants after I die. He certainly doesn’t need to kill a manifestation of himself to stop my suffering after I’ve lived a lifetime of it.

Your logic was fine until you started forgetting that most of us live quite a while before we die - and not all of it is suffering. It is what He wants us to do while we are alive that is so important that He used prophets before, and then sent Jesus. We are to be "the light of the world", and help people who are suffering. And not to contribute to suffering - our own or that of others. You can trace that hope all the way to heaven, but that's not the point. God "cannot" do whatever He wants with your soul if He is committed to justice. He is the final judge, and your life on earth shows who you are and what you decided to do with that gift of hope.

Nobody suffers because they have to or don't have to. In that sense it's not "needless" or has any "purpose" by itself, but is merely a condition, a consequence of many things. But in stead of suffering having no meaning, it has been made meaningful and given power. People who suffer unjustly, now have hope of justice. Remember, suffering is only one aspect of the human condition.

4) God did not plan His creation to make himself suffer, but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” This next sentence is going back to the creation of the world and ultimately the universe.
A) God did not plan “God did not plan” is the most important part. Anything after it does not even need to be read. God knew what was going to happen before creating this universe. Everything is therefore “planned” by god. One even hears of “God’s plan”.
B) His creation to make himself suffer, He most certainly did plan to make himself suffer. He created the universe knowing full and well that, making himself suffer, would be one of the end results. So he did plan it, there’s no two ways about it.

OK. But planning something and making it happen can be two different things. The A-Team plans to rescue someone from a burning building. But then their ladder catches fire, and the make another plan. The second plan is not the cause of the first plan, but in line with it. What God did with Jesus was not much different than what He did with Adam. It was all part of the same act of creation, the end result in both cases is "life within God's kingdom", but some things became necessary to happen for the plan to succeed.

In paradise, God was with Adam. Then Adam sinned and paradise was lost. But God was with Adam and his descendents while they lived according to God's original purpose. Then more and more people fell away, until only Noah was left to suffer all their injustice. So God washed everything clean and "recreated" the same creation. In the process, the ark became their coffin, and death their salvation. And then Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot was suffering - the same act of saving Lot from a world of injustice and lawlessness and removing the cause. Then Israel was sold into slavery and suffering in Egypt, and saved by Moses. And afterwards Jerusalem, the Holy city and the temple (representing God's kingdom and His presence) itself was taken, and Israel exiled to Babylon. And King Cyprus (a foreigner) released them to rebuild both. And then the Romans took over, Jesus came to be our ark and our death, our Moses, our King Cypres, our preservation. People are living in exile in the world, sufffering is part of where we live. But the plan is still on course.

5)but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” . Where to begin?
A) He does not need to partake in our suffering to redeem us. Again, He is “all powerful” he can redeem humans anytime he feels like it - with or without suffering. He is all powerful - he can do anything. “His original creation” implies that we are not now what he planned on us becoming. Which, as we read above, is not the case. When creating this universe god choose to create it, such that man would end up just as man is. God could have created it differently and in such a way so that man had Free Will (and all the rest) and still lived in paradise. If he could not have, then he is not all powerful. As he is all powerful he must have “wanted” it the way it is. Everything is as god has planned.

Our redemption is dependent on our relationship with God. Only He can provide it, because only He can provide life. We would have no concept of redemption if the ancient Israelites weren't given laws and sin-offerings and taught concepts such as 'holiness' that we could draw from. Even our conception of :justice" comes from the past. It existed since creation, but was only discovered/revealed as it became necessary or understood. Justice means "everyone gets what they deserve" - a murder gets punished for a murder, a thief for theft, etc. The punishment for sin (rebellion against the life-giver) is death. So the payment must be in kind, sin requires death. Justice does not depend on the nature of anything, it is "blind" - so whatever God might have created, the demands of justice would have been the same.

Remember the parable of the supreme judge? He always punished crimes fairly. and had the greatest responsibility because he was the final decision. But one day his own son stood before him accused. Justice had to be served, and he passed the sentence as it was demanded. But then he came down from the bench and declared that he himself would now bear the punishment.

Nothing prevents that son to continue doing crime, but the knowledge that because his love, his completely innocent and law-abiding father is serving his punishment should make him think twice. Love is the only bond that saved him. If he had no respect for the law or knowledge of his father's love, and he didn't recognize the court's authority, he would have had no hope. He would have lived outside law and outside forgiveness until his death sentence caught up on him.

So this is how I see this statement:
”God needlessly identified with our suffering through his Jesus manifestation – and in this form himself suffered. After identifying with our suffering God decided that we may not suffer after we have lived our life and are dead (that is in the afterlife). God did plan His creation in such a way as to make himself suffer (this is for reasons we do not understand), He also partook in some suffering and after which decided he will make a better world for some people after they are dead.”

The logic is like this: Through our belief and identification with God through his son Jesus, we become likewise, "sons of God". We inherit from Him the life God originally intended for us, and gave to us a gift. We place ourselves under His judgement for our sins, which is death, and inherit the life He gave Jesus who carried our punishment. He did not only then "decide to make a better world for some people", but through Jesus provided a way of returning to His original creation, where God can be with us and we with Him. What got us out of paradise is the only thing that can keep us from entering it again: sin.

free will
We will have to agree to disagree on the free will topic. It appears that you accept as true that man has a free will because it appears apparent (and also I would think is a necessary precondition of belief) when a decision is made. To just say Puppetmaster/clockmaker fallacy - - doesn’t make it a fallacy. You have to explain the error in the logic. Regardless, I believe if a god was “all knowing”, not to mention the creator of the universe, then man would not have free will.

Incidentally, I do think people have “free-will” . . . . to some degree.

But then don't we agree? We have free will "to some degree" - free enough to be autonomous creation, but not free enough to live outside God's creation. Our will is subjected to God, but not controlled by Him. The puppetmaster/clockmaker fallacy stems from the belief that God created a machine and just lets it run (which is false because he is maintaining his original act of creation), or that He is holding a puppet show for his own entertainment, and we are really "dead", with no free will (which is also false, because evidently, we do have free will which affects the direction of our lives).

If justice was transparent to us, we would also know precisely which acts would lead to which punishments. If hearts and intentions were transparent to us, we would also know what was lies and what was truth - the same with the future and everything else. Think for a moment: our whole concept of justice is based on "knowing" the future. We create a rule which we can predict (ideally), and then measure every future event by that rule. The only problem is that our laws themselves are subject to change and incompleteness. God's knowledge doesn't have such loopholes.

Remember when Gandalf said "a wizard is never late, but arrives exactly when he means to"? From Frodo's perspective it might seem to mean Gandalf can appear whenever he like. From Gandalf's perspective, it doesn't (unless he was making a joke). God does not act everywhere or exist everywhere by default - that's not His nature. He acts and appears where He intends to, according to His decisions and our relationship with Him.

creating the universe
To you it appears to make sense that God creates a universe where people suffer. As God knew this would be the case even before creating the universe - we can therefore say suffering was part of gods original design/plan. For god to then recreate a paradise the second time seems absurd (to me). One would think that an all powerful god would just create the paradise to begin with – with no option nor possibility of there being any form of suffering at all. An “all powerful god can do this and still accomplish all that it needs/plans to accomplish.

I wonder where you lost me. God created a universe, and suffering entered it. That's not the same as creating a universe of suffering. An imagined god would have that problem. But God is not a philosophical principle - He is life, love and many things, but He is not limited by our perception of Him. God=everything is a valid hypothesis, but not one the remains accurate under all circumstances. You have shown its weakness, and must therefore reject it.

The option or possibility for rebellion is inherent in freedom, that is part of what "living" is about: making choices and suffering consequences. The view hold that you are the result of your choices isn't called "existentialism" by accident.

But existence does not include everything it depends on. I'll explain: Being "other" means you are separate from something. There is some kind of interaction - a relationship, but you are not the "it". God is external to His creation. He created it, sustains and remains involved with it, and has a plan for it - but it exists separately from Him. "Free will" is merely one perpective on this freedom - I think "life" is probably more accurate. God created life. You have God, and you have created life, and you have an interaction. You overestimate that interaction when you include everything under God's will, and you likewise underestimate that interaction when you exclude everything from His will.

God recreated our relationship - restored it is more accurate, but it was achieved through an act of creation similar to the creation of life. Paradise is the same place, but because we approach it from a different angle it looks different. Also, we cannot exclude the possibility that God has surpassed His original creation, made it redundant so to speak, and now offers us something wholly better. If you are comfortable in this life, by all means stay here and believe whatever you like - you have that right. But you also have the option of becoming part of something greater - something God wants you to have.

At the very least I would say we agree that some people do live quite luxurious lives and still gain salvation. Well then everyone should live as such. Even if it meant that god had to create the entire world over and over again for each individual guiding him/her along until they reach “salvation” living the luxurious life that some humans do live – well this would be nothing for god to do – and if it can not do that then it isn’t “all powerful”.

God's omnipotence isn't native to our existence, as I have explained above: He is "other" than us. I mean that you confuse the two. We share the same world - if God creates an own personal universe for each of us where we can play "God" and live in utter harmony and luxury, we would not be in any relationship with Him, not with each other. This is hardly what God intended to accomplish. I know people like the concept: we have all kinds of words for such a state, Nirvana, moksha, enlightenment, harmony, unity... all those "nice" places where either nothing is real, or we are quite alone in our togetherness. Sure, God has peace and harmony in mind - but also love. Salvation is an act of love within a relationship with God - all three are missing in many people's "perfect worlds". At best "god" is just an incidental character. Of course it's much easier to imagine and desire "nothing" over "something", but God didn't: He created us. It's a thought I love to live with

And if it can and still decides that allowing some children to undergo what some children undergo – well that’s one sick puppy. I mean if you had the ability to prevent a child from coming to harm (and this would in no way inconvenience you) – and you choose not to. Well that person is sick. Not to mention - to design the universe in such a way as to insist that these children are harmed. Well that’s even sicker.

God had the ability to create a world where a child could experience love, and he did - there's nothing sick about that is there? If you ask me it was much more "inconvenience" to create us and then subsequently have to rescue us from ourselves. But He chose to. Nothing sick about that either.

Does God insist that children are harmed? Why do you think people are still born? For love or for suffering? You will live your answer and pass it on to your children, and God knows this. His command is love. Not to love is sin. Love is the only protection we have against people who have no love, and that's also no accident.

Let me tell you what really harms children in my opinion: to tell them they are unfortuante accidents of nature, with no intrinsic purpose or worth, that any love they might experience are the result of only half controlable chemical reactions and that death is a mercy because life is so hard and unfair. You are teaching them they cannot reasonably expect to be loved. That is cruel. Will children who believe love is just a different neurological function than hate, and therefore just as valid, grow up with respect for it? If you in your heart "know" and believe love is a chemical reaction designed to propagate the species, while hate is probably just a form of natural selection, you will be the ultimate liar and hypocrite to teach your children all people are special and deserving of love, or that people have every right to be loved even though they do not seem to deserve it - especially if they do not deserve it.

"Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'"

 

[Michael]

Back to Free will

I can see we are going to differ - which if fine. But I wanted to go back to just free-will.

I wonder where you lost me. God created a universe, and suffering entered it. That's not the same as creating a universe of suffering.

Let me say again. God created a universe with the possibility of suffering. An all powerful god can create a universe where there is no possibility of sin. Yes you can say suffering entered (of course at gods discretion). As god knows the future then I would also say at god’s insistence (but that last bit is neither here no there). The point is, if god is all powerful he can create a universe where suffering can not enter it/there is no possibility of suffering, full stop.

I think I can see where you are coming from and understand the reasoning that leads you to think along these lines. It seems to me that, the crux of your view is that free-will (“life”) inherently has the possibility for sin and thus suffering. Do you believe that to be the case?
If your answer is no then, I can simply state that an all powerful god has the ability to create a universe where even there is absolutely no possibility for sin (nor suffering). When given the choice of A creating a universe with out sin ever being able to occur (nor suffering) and B creating a universe where sin can occur (and suffering) – it is obviously apparent that to create one where sin and suffering is a possibility – is inherently evil. Ergo god is evil and not worthy of worship. Do we both agreed to this?

All that I have done is stopped and said: “wait a minute, if there was a perfect god he could have created a perfect universe which does include man and man does have free-will (and anything else god wants man to have) and in this universe all men are in paradise (basically what you expect to receive after you’ve lived this life) and there is no possibility for sin nor suffering in this universe: Again No Possibility”. If god can not create a universe as such then god is not all powerful. If god can and god doesn’t then god is evil.

If your answer is yes. i.e.: you state that free-will is inherently tied to the possibility of sin, then I think god should have taken a good long look at how he has defined sin and redefine it so that it does not contain anything in its definition (I’m using this dictionary thing loosely but I think you get my point) such that man can never sin. Simple enough. In addition, if free-will (by it’s very nature) contains the possibility for sin then even if after this life you exist in heaven/paradise” there will always exist the possibility for sin (that is if you have free will in heaven/paradise). Mathematically a possibility is represented as probability. If there is a probability of sin in heaven and heaven is an eternity then there is the absolute necessity one would eventually sin. And thus the cycle repeats itself with all of humanity in hell/death and god starting all over again (which isn’t surprising and makes perfect sense when reviewing god's past record of people-building). As a matter of course I would say that the probabitly must be quite large indeed; as man doesn’t seem to last one single generation before committing it again and again. Given this, heaven/paradise will be expected to last perhaps 100-200 years. Bummer.

So I say again – why would god ever want to create a universe where there is a possibility of sin? If sin and free-will are forever linked then there is a strong likelihood souls in heaven will continue to sin. If they continue to sin they would continue to suffer and be given death as a reward until there are no more souls in heaven. A strange god you worship.

 

[Jenyar]

Let me say again. God created a universe with the possibility of suffering. An all powerful god can create a universe where there is no possibility of sin. Yes you can say suffering entered (of course at gods discretion). As god knows the future then I would also say at god’s insistence (but that last bit is neither here no there). The point is, if god is all powerful he can create a universe where suffering can not enter it/there is no possibility of suffering, full stop.

God created the universe with possibility, full stop. "Free will" in a severely limited and artificial environment is a a lie. A "matrix". Many people think we live in one, but we don't. The universe is only so immense because we are so small, but we contain just as much greatness and potential.

Let me try to explain it differently. Can something truly be called "good" if it has no possibility of not being "good". Only if it is God and there are no relationships involved, i.e. nothing to experience "bad". I wish it was simpler to explain, but I'm trying. We are created in God's image, with the ability to create - meaning, form, information - from the resources at our disposal. One of those resources is willpower - ask any creative person what he values most: it will be his infinite ability to comprehend and envision novel ideas and expressions.

Sin is one way of expressing our God-given free will, our uniqueness - ourselves.

God creates us as people in his image. Once again: not robots forced to serve or even recognize Him. That is also something that requires free will - in fact, so "free" even from natural contrictions that it is called "faith".

Do you want to live in a world where sin is "natural", or where God takes his righful place in your life? That is your choice between paradises right there. Have you ever asked someone to love you, beause you expect them to - because you know you deserve it? Try it once: you'll experience the mystery of free will right there, perhaps even a little suffering of the ego, a small taste of rejection. If you're (un)lucky, you will even see a little of the injustice when a wife leaves her husband because she doesn't feel like loving her anymore, or cheating on him because she has different needs. You will see his pain and her selfishness - neither are "right", but one sins and the other feels it.

Sin is a lack of love. God himself could not have "defined it differently" - it didn't exist until we started exhibiting it. We created it using the resources we were given. God suffered because of us, not because He had to, but because He knew we would be lost if He didn't. He loves us unconditionally - but loving someone who does not appreciate or recognize you is futile, as I'm sure you know if you were ever in love. God gave us free will so that we could use it, not just for show.

Paradise is a place, not a computer programme. People are people, not AI. True freedom isn't false freedom. If you want to be a good person, you have to be one because you can - you have that potential - but it doesn't happen as a matter of course.

So I say again – why would god ever want to create a universe where there is a possibility of sin? If sin and free-will are forever linked then there is a strong likelihood souls in heaven will continue to sin. If they continue to sin they would continue to suffer and be given death as a reward until there are no more souls in heaven. A strange god you worship

Sin is something that entered paradise from outside - through the gate known as "temptation". No sin (read: no sinner) or death will be permitted to enter paradise, and the tempter/accuser had been expelled when Jesus died and was resurrected. We will be with God, and there will be no reason not to "believe", or to think that you yourself are "god". Where God lives, and where there is no temptation, fear, lies, etc. there can be no sin. Jesus is "purgatory" - our source of salvation and redemption, from God. This life is all you have in which to accept it and perfect your faith. Each have been given an opportunity to have life, but only those who are good enough by living without sin (i.e. no-one) and those who accept God's forgiveness of sin, will inherit eternal life.

 

[heart]

Jenyar,

Sin is something that entered paradise from outside - through the gate known as "temptation".

If "god" created all things without sin, how could temptation exist in the first place? Are you implying that "god" made the gateway for temptation, because from what I am understanding, that's the only way temptation could have been birthed to begin with.

___
Edit:

Don't you find it a little hard to swallow that a walking snake was TALKING to Eve?
----

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by heart
If "god" created all things without sin, how could temptation exist in the first place? Are you implying that "god" made the gateway for temptation, because from what I am understanding, that's the only way temptation could have been birthed to begin with.
___
Edit:
Don't you find it a little hard to swallow that a walking snake was TALKING to Eve?
----

Think about it: tempation exists because of choice. If there was no choice, there could be no temptation. God gave people free will, but He did not make the choice for them - instead He made a commandment. It would not have been hard for them to see that God meant it to be followed or that his warning was necessary. We know that the serpent refers to Satan, the fallen angel or "father of lies" who could not overthrow heaven, so seeks to overthrow creation (Rev. 12:9). He told Adam and Eve they would be like god and not really die. But a lie has no power until it is told and believed. So something caused Eve to disobey God and desire the fruit's power for herself. She stopped thinking about God's will and started following her own, as did Adam. The fall from grace is described very concisely in Genesis, almost cryptically, but it isn't impossible to understand and very easy to get the moral. (I think Tolkien based the tempation of the One ring on it as well.)

James 1
3When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

You have to realize that Genesis is written to create understanding by showing the relationships between things that would otherwise be very difficult to understand or even impossible to comprehend - i.e. it was written by people in the language and the idiom of their time and culture - snakes, trees, etc. It might have been "real" trees, and a "real" serpent for all we know, but becoming stuck on the words justs prevents you from getting the message.

----
The serpent could be a kind of "pun", or more specifically, a word that collectively describes much more than the noun itself: otherwise known as a type or a metaphor.

The Hebrew noun is Nachash (pron. "naw-khawsh"): serpent/image of a serpent. But the root of the word is the verb Nachash (pron. "naw-khash") - look at this:

to practice divination, divine, observe signs or omens, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen.

Already we see there is much more beneath the surface than meets the eye. They believed something other than God, whether by external influence, superstition, or something else, but definitely a lie. There are many such words and types throughout the Bible - they have a specific understanding, but take on a loaded meaning as they are used in different contexts. We see the serpent again in Numbers 21:9
"And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived."

And again in 2 Kings 18:4
"He removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan" ["the brazen image"].

Jesus was also lifted up on a standard to give life - in direct opposition to the serpent.
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;" (John 3:14)
So we get a different perspective: a truth being twisted to become a lie, an idol vs. real thing, and life vs death. You can use these blueprints of meaning and many things that would otherwise seem nonsensical become clearer. But you have to read it and take notes - any knowledge requires study.

Job 26:13
"By His breath the heavens are cleared; His hand has pierced the fleeing serpent."

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The serpent in Eden

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
We know that the serpent refers to Satan, the fallen angel or "father of lies" who could not overthrow heaven, so seeks to overthrow creation (Rev. 12:9).
----------
(Jenyar, why do you insist on copying scripture onto the site to back-up your beliefs? Is it that you want to 'show-off' to your fellow Xians? I don't know about the other non-Xians on the website, but you assume that we have never read the Bible. That is your problem--you assume too much. Secondly, exactly why is it that Xians believe the serpent represents Satan? Is it because it is a convenient assumption for those of you who are afraid (or banned by your faith) from delving further into the language used in the OT? The story of creation in Genesis was not the beginning of the Bible. If you were familiar with the more ancient Sumerian texts, you would know this. The story of Noah and the Flood was possibly the first story of Genesis. The story of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and creation came after the story of the Flood. (Please notice here that I loosely use the term "story." In women's historical literature which I have read and which I am sure you are not familar, indicates the Hebrew word "hawwah"(sp) for "serpent" and the same word "hawwah"(sp) for "Eve." Interestingly, if Eve was described in the ancient Hebrew as a serpent, this would give a whole new meaning to the word. We do have a "reptilian" brain. In the literature I have become familiar with, Eve was described in the OT as having a feminine spirit that was serpentine. Of course, this was not described accurately by the writers of the Pentateuch (Moses). In those days, the serpent wasn't considered an evil animal but one with a heightened awareness; one with healing powers; one with supernatural wisdom. In fact, many circles of feminist beliefs believe the serpent of Eden to be God, hence Eve may be thought of as to be God. Furthermore, in the story of Eve's creation from the rib of Adam, it is believed to be that God parted the male and female spirit when he took Adam's rib and created Eve. Why do you think the god of Eden wanted to separate the masculinity and feminity of apparently one adrogenous being? That would tell me that the androgenous creation is the preferred form that encompasses both male and female spirit in one being. Again, I say that Eve's serpentine spirit made her the more powerful being in the Garden. Eve was given the power of wisdom, and from Eve, Adam received the same power. This story has absolutely nothing to do with the fall of the human race, Moses created Eve as the perpetrator of all evil. So, if the "first" story in the Bible is a blatant lie, what are the rest? The Bible was written about 6-8 thousand years ago. Why would anyone be so naive as to interpret these stories literally?)
----------
But a lie has no power until it is told and believed.
----------
(Jenyar, you just confirmed what I was saying! Thanks!)

 

[DethoS]

Thanks Med-woman

Finally, these old tales of the sumarians should not be ignored. From what Zech. Sitchins book the 12th PLANET says of the sumerians, it was actually the being that created humans that would later be turned into the snake in the tree, Enki, or Ea as he became known after he lost dominion of earth. Not only that but from the stories Sitchin put in the book, I can draw a line from Enki to Jesus, since Enki seemed to be the polite, more intelligent, and mysterious one, whereas Enlil was non-forgiving and very warlike and I'm sure he loved it when his followers warshipped him(yes it's spelled correctly) just God today.
Besides all of that, med-woman, I have to say that today's catholic bible was written 400-500 yrs. ago, and after all that time Catholic(modern christian) cultists can't explain why, in Gods omnipresence, that God allowed the snake into his own paradise. The simple fact that he said "do not eat of the fruit..." shows that he was trying to deceive the humans, to test their free-will. Wouldn't it also show that Satan was the first son to be "given" to mankind? Which means that your God is deceptional. Which is a pretty bad thing to teach to any child. Please, use the stories for what their fallen owners had originally created them for thousands of years ago. To explain the difference of humans actions(good and evil) and to teach history, not to propagate a war(warship?) between Gods people and the antigod people! More and more, christians are proving why christianity should be called satanism, hiding evil is bad!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Re: Thanks Med-woman

Originally posted by DethoS
----------
Wouldn't it also show that Satan was the first son to be "given" to mankind? Which means that your God is deceptional. Which is a pretty bad thing to teach to any child. Please, use the stories for what their fallen owners had originally created them for thousands of years ago. To explain the difference of humans actions(good and evil) and to teach history, not to propagate a war(warship?) between Gods people and the antigod people! More and more, christians are proving why christianity should be called satanism, hiding evil is bad!
----------
(Whoa! I agree with you! Your's is an interesting theory, but I've never heard the concept that Satan was the first son of mankind. I have heard, however, that the liaison between Eve and the serpent produced Seth(Set in Egyptian), and he was the ruler of the underworld, and what's more, we're all descended from Seth! That would make the entire human race Satanic, wouldn't it??? I'm not saying that I believe this--it's just a "theory." You are so correct in your statement about Xianity. They not only have hidden the evil--they ARE the evil.)

 

[heart]

Jenyar,

Let's back up a moment if you will. What you are saying is God allowed his enemy into the same garden with Adam and Eve. The very same spirit who "god" kicked out of heaven because he was so "evil". So Satan wasn't good enough to hang in Heaven, but he was good enough to be in this garden that housed God's precious creations. Strange, don't you think?

If God is "all-knowing" why oh why didn't he ban Satan and his demons from Adam and Eve? Why not put Satan in the Lake of Fire already instead of letting him have free reign with his "children"?

You have stated that God won't allow "sin" in Heaven and that's why Satan was cast out. Why would your ever loving "Heavenly Father" allow him to be around his children then...especially if he knew what Satan would cause?

If you had children, would you allow a lion to roam about them knowing what danger they would be in? You know you wouldn't think twice! You would move them away from the danger. Any protecting and loving parent would. Not "god" though.

Thing is, Jenyar, "god" didn't have to allow Satan in the garden, but according to the bible he did. Therefore, "god" set up the whole game KNOWING all along what would happen. So isn't that a lot like a parent sitting a lethal drug in the center of the children's play area. Then ALLOWING a murdering whacked out man to come inside to visit their children. The whacked out man could easily deceive them, because he has the upper hand on manipulation, after all most call him the king of it. Before long, this crazy man has the children convinced that taking this fatal drug will make them be more like mom and dad. So they ingest it in hopes to be like their parents.

But hey, the parents slates are clean, after all, they weren't the ones that "tempted" their children to take it.

 

[Michael]

Possibilities YET AGAIN

Possibilities

God created the universe with possibility, full stop

Yes, you can say god made a universe with possibility. However, that isn’t what I am suggesting. I’m saying god decided what is and is not possible in this universe. In this universe there are many things that are possible and there are also many things that are not possible.

For example: it’s not possible for me to grow wings and fly, I can not turn into “pure energy” and travel around this huge universe, I can not travel through time forward and back, I can’t “just know” how to speak Japanese – I must study it, I may not have the aptitude to understand physics in the same manner that Einstein understood physics (although it is humanly possible – it may not be humanly possible for me), a person born with out a limb can not just “will” one to grow there (or what of a damaged spinal cord), a person born missing the corpus callosum does not have the ability to communicate between the left and right hemisphere of their brain and for all general purposes can be considered two individuals with half brains living in one body, this person can not “will” the corpus callosum into existence, a person born with two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome can not “will” the Y chromosome to leave each one of their trillions of cells, etcetera . . . .

So it’s quite apparent that God picks and chooses which “possibilities” are going to be present in “his” universe. In some of the examples above, god could have kept the universe fundamentally the same and yet given man the biological ability to repair the body (think of the limb growing back). We do have a number of other repair mechanism (think immune system). Our “free-will” is limited to these choices/possibilities. God decided what would and would not be possible and which choices man would and would not have.

Jenyar, Surely, you would agree to that?

"Free will" in a severely limited and artificial environment is a a lie

This universe is severely limited (not only by those possibilities I mentioned above but there are many many many things that are not possible). By your analogy then Free-will in this universe is severely limited. And because of this limited “free-will” then perhaps humans should not be held accountable for their “sins”?

God creates us as people in his image.

On the side – what does this mean to you? It doesn’t mean anything to me. I know some people that say god must have a penis because Adam was his first creation and “man” was made in Gods image. Others say – in the spirit – which of course doesn’t answer much of anything.

Sin is something that entered paradise from outside - through the gate known as "temptation".

Firstly: perhaps you should define what you mean by “sin”. Once you describe this “sin” thing tell me how it entered this universe? Wasn’t is always here – at least as a possibility? If it was here as a possibility then it was a creation of gods because as we already seen god chooses what is and what is not possible.

Secondly: AND MORE IMPORTANTLY; That completely undermines gods power. I said this other universe god could have made does not have the possibility. NO POSSIBILIY. That means suffering can not enter through any means – because in this other universe suffering is NOT POSSIBLE. . What you are suggestion is that there were a “gate” that let in suffering. Then I say god created the gate. So I can say god wanted suffering to enter or he would have made the universe so that suffering couldn’t ever enter. See simple.

QUESTION Does god have the power to create a universe where suffering is never possible and the creatures can still have free-will just as god intends (not limited – other than how he intends)? Yes or No.

((It’s just suffering Jenyar – there are lots of things we don’t experience – such as the sensation a dolphin must experience when it recreates a three-dimensional imagine in its mind using sonar. That’s something we don’t experience but we still have free will. So why not make human in such a way as to not experience suffering? It’s simple – it’s because god wanted us to experience suffering even before we were born (or the universe was made for that matter)).

From the above discussion we again conclude:

God chooses what are and what are not possibilities in this universe. As suffering is a possibility in this universe, we can safely conclude that god choose that as a possibility in this universe – therefore he wanted it to be here as a possibility. An all powerful god can make a universe where man has (full) free-will and yet the universe he resides in does not contain the possibility for suffering. If god can not do that then he is not all powerful.
So some conclusions I could think of are

1) god is evil to have such power as to create a universe with no possibility of suffering and did not do so (and actually god choose to do the direct opposite)

2) God is not all powerful – or at least doesn’t have the power to create a universe where suffering is not a possibility together with man having full free will (although that is absurd - there are many things man doesn’t experience). If this is the case then heaven will have suffering.

3) God doesn’t exist and suffering is part of the human condition.

Now to generalize:
Lets face it, when given the opportunity to create a universe without sin and suffering one would say god failed miserably. However, as god is defined as all powerful and all knowing then we can agree that before he created this universe he could “see into the future” and “see” that humans would suffer – horribly (not all, just some humans – others live quite nice a plush lives and some of these get to go to heaven while some of the suffering ones get death) and so god must have desired the universe to be as such and we conclude that god wanted man to suffer (or he would have made it differently where this scenario was not a possibility). Again, all I have to say is, an all powerful god would have the ability to create a universe where humans have (full) free-will and there is no suffering. If god can’t do that then he is not all powerful. If he is not all powerful then he is not a god. If he is not a god then I’d have to say he’s an imagination. Either that or one sick puppy.

“Choice” is just “Possibility” by another name. I can reword the same argument above only substituting “choice for possibility” (some of which I did). Ie: I don’t have the “choice” to grow wings and fly. Therefore, god limits the choices we have. Etcetera.

I’ll leave the satin thing alone so as not to detract from the topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let me ask a few final questions to see where we stand:

1) Is free-will irrevocably linked to the possibility of suffering or can free-will exist without the possibility of suffering?

2) Can god make a universe that has ”fully free-willed” creatures in it and in this universe there does not exist the possibility of these creatures ever suffering (even if they are irrevocably linked)?

3) Will heaven contain the possibility of suffering?

4) If god can make a universe that does not contain the possibility of suffering and yet does not do so, can we say he is then evil?

5) As god knows all outcomes then when god choose to make the satin angle he did so knowing full well that this creature would “inevitably and eventually” lead to human suffering. We can safely say that this was part of gods plan – that is, for human to suffer?

Again, on the side:
1) Isn’t it surprising that god, with all his foreknowledge prior to creating the universe, could not create a free-willed creature that could last long enough to procreate so that only the parents would suffer and not their children.

2) Doesn’t that suggest that god is either and idiot or that he made sin too easy to do or (and most likely) he is not an idiot and actually wanted man to sin so that man would suffer? Which is what this god wanted anyway or it wouldn’t be here with us.

3) Doesn’t it seem a little petty to make the children suffer for the wrongs of their parents? It’s funny isn’t it, if Adam and eve had had children before they sinned - the children not have been punished (doesn’t the bible seem show that the one children that do not sin also don not get punished by god?) How convenient that Adam and Eve sinned before Eve conceiving.

4) When you think about it - this all powerful god seems more like an idea that was concocted over and over again by almost all societies throughout history as a way to explain things that seem unexplainable, to provide comfort for death, and to add cohesiveness to society.

5) Doesn’t the notion of heaven and hell seem really like a scary bed-time story – one that is there to scare people into worshipping this god so that church can control those very same people, which it did do effectively in Europe, Central Amercia, the ME today etcetera.

Given how well this “God Idea” works at controlling people combined with the propensity at which people are not only willing to believe but also willing to make others (including their children), it’s not surprising it has lasted so long and is dieing a slow slow death.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by heart
Let's back up a moment if you will. What you are saying is God allowed his enemy into the same garden with Adam and Eve. The very same spirit who "god" kicked out of heaven because he was so "evil". So Satan wasn't good enough to hang in Heaven, but he was good enough to be in this garden that housed God's precious creations. Strange, don't you think?

If God is "all-knowing" why oh why didn't he ban Satan and his demons from Adam and Eve? Why not put Satan in the Lake of Fire already instead of letting him have free reign with his "children"?

The snake had its place in creation. It was when Adam&Eve observed him and took him as an omen (maybe they saw it eating the fruit) that they ignored God's warning and "listened" to nature instead. You can't tell me it's unlikely, because you can for yourself see how many people here are doing the same thing. It seemed "natural" to eat the fruit - even if it meant ignoring the its author. Both the snake and the fruit was taken out of their rightful positions. The snake assumed/was given authority by A&E, above God, and that was sin.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: The serpent in Eden

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
In women's historical literature which I have read and which I am sure you are not familar, indicates the Hebrew word "hawwah"(sp) for "serpent" and the same word "hawwah"(sp) for "Eve." Interestingly, if Eve was described in the ancient Hebrew as a serpent, this would give a whole new meaning to the word. We do have a "reptilian" brain. In the literature I have become familiar with, Eve was described in the OT as having a feminine spirit that was serpentine. Of course, this was not described accurately by the writers of the Pentateuch (Moses). In those days, the serpent wasn't considered an evil animal but one with a heightened awareness; one with healing powers; one with supernatural wisdom. In fact, many circles of feminist beliefs believe the serpent of Eden to be God, hence Eve may be thought of as to be God.

Read my previous post. "The serpent was considered one with a heightened awareness; one with healing powers; one with supernatural wisdom". You are confirming what happened: They thought themselves/the snake as equal to God.

The word you are looking for is Chavvah (with a hard H) meaning "life" or "living" from the verb Chavah: to declare/show/make known, to breath.

Eve was never described as a serpent, and I would like to see your sources. She was described in terms of Adam ("from the dust"). The serpent was just another animal.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

The Sumerian Paradise Myth of Enki and Ninhursag provides a possible sidelight on the role of the rib in the biblical story. When Enki had a pain in his rib, NinOursag caused the goddess Nin-ti, “Lady of the Rib,” to be born from him. The Sumerian logogram ti means both “rib” and “life,” and it may be that the Mesopotamian “Rib Lady” lies behind the rib/life motif in the biblical story.

- Encyclopedia Judaica

 

[Jenyar]

Re: Possibilities YET AGAIN

Originally posted by Michael
For example: it’s not possible for me to grow wings and fly, I can not turn into “pure energy” and travel around this huge universe, I can not travel through time forward and back, I can’t “just know” how to speak Japanese – I must study it, I may not have the aptitude to understand physics in the same manner that Einstein understood physics (although it is humanly possible – it may not be humanly possible for me), a person born with out a limb can not just “will” one to grow there (or what of a damaged spinal cord), a person born missing the corpus callosum does not have the ability to communicate between the left and right hemisphere of their brain and for all general purposes can be considered two individuals with half brains living in one body, this person can not “will” the corpus callosum into existence, a person born with two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome can not “will” the Y chromosome to leave each one of their trillions of cells, etcetera . . . .

Possibility is "the potential to", while choice is "the will to". It might not be possible for you to fly or grow wings, but you can still make that choice and jump off a building flapping your arms.

I agree with you that God made certain possibilities inherent in nature, but as as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

What you describe is the boundaries of nature and natural laws, not of will. We don't have the power of God. We can't create using willpower alone, that's why we have bodies and hands. People weren't meant to have sex with animals or water taps, but some do.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.

So it’s quite apparent that God picks and chooses which “possibilities” are going to be present in “his” universe. In some of the examples above, god could have kept the universe fundamentally the same and yet given man the biological ability to repair the body (think of the limb growing back). We do have a number of other repair mechanism (think immune system). Our “free-will” is limited to these choices/possibilities. God decided what would and would not be possible and which choices man would and would not have.

He picked the universe and its laws. But as I said before: the law of gravity does not stop you from trying to fly. In fact, it actually makes flying possible. But that is where common sense comes in. It should be common sense to listen to your creator as well.

This universe is severely limited (not only by those possibilities I mentioned above but there are many many many things that are not possible). By your analogy then Free-will in this universe is severely limited. And because of this limited “free-will” then perhaps humans should not be held accountable for their “sins”?

Sin is exactly what happens when you move or use things outside their proper place and function. But nature isn't the only limiting factor - we are limiting ourselves by only accepting things that we can see, when it is evident that not all things are visible. The limitations of free will isn't what makes sin possible, it is what makes sin sin. For example, trying to run through a wall could be compared to "sinning against physics". It is when you miss/ignore the proper purpose and function of things that you "sin". It's quite self-evident in nature, but spiritually we need a different level of understanding - especially when in relationships with people who do not always make use of common sense, and in relationship with God who created us in a specific "right and proper" place.

On the side – what does this mean to you? It doesn’t mean anything to me. I know some people that say god must have a penis because Adam was his first creation and “man” was made in Gods image. Others say – in the spirit – which of course doesn’t answer much of anything.

It means everything human is "godly" (M*W might even agree with me here), but not everything godly is also human. As for the penis, we shouldn't underestimate the artistic freedom God has God can create life, but his creation needed a tool with which to enable "creation". God can "pick up" and "move" things, we need "hands" to do it. It doesn't mean God has "hands" like ours, but it means we can imitate him. When we sin, we are not acting "in character" because we are not imitating him. Of course, being limited and physically bound, we needed laws to govern our will. We can't "imitate" God infinitely. The ten commandments are human laws for humans, based on God's principle of love. Most things are only possible for God, and are his prerogative. What Corinnthians is saying is that we should know our place and our limits.

Firstly: perhaps you should define what you mean by “sin”. Once you describe this “sin” thing tell me how it entered this universe? Wasn’t is always here – at least as a possibility? If it was here as a possibility then it was a creation of gods because as we already seen god chooses what is and what is not possible.[/b]

I think I covered it. It's when we act against God's will: against propriety the law of love. It does not exist until we exhibit it. It is only possible for us because not all things are right and beneficial. God is good, but not because His power limits Him to being good - it is his nature. Similarly, we show our true natures by what we do (and don't do). In his character, God created everything to be good. When we don't resist the urge to do evil, or cause others to suffer because of our liberties, we are overstepping our bounds, straying from the path, and shouldn't be surprised if we find ourselves hanging from a cliff. You'll see God didn't "command" A&E not to eat from the tree as much as He "warned" them not to. It was a stern warning meant to be listened to, but it was for their safety. Not all things were made to be eaten (or have sex with).

Secondly: AND MORE IMPORTANTLY; That completely undermines gods power. I said this other universe god could have made does not have the possibility. NO POSSIBILIY. That means suffering can not enter through any means – because in this other universe suffering is NOT POSSIBLE. . What you are suggestion is that there were a “gate” that let in suffering. Then I say god created the gate. So I can say god wanted suffering to enter or he would have made the universe so that suffering couldn’t ever enter. See simple.

I know what you mean. If God can limit everything else, why didn't he just "tighten the boundaries" a little further to excluse the possibility of suffering. Well, ask this: is suffering necessarily "bad"? Isn't the ability to feel pain crucial to ensure the "common sense" we so take for granted? There are people who can't feel pain - and they almost have to live in bubbles to protect themselves. But there are different kinds of suffering. I think the problmetic one is existential suffering - people who are victims of natural phenomena, plagues and famine. These things are natural, and it doesn't help to complain about them. Our situation without God is very imaginable because we see it all around us. But the suffering we can prevent is the ones we cause ourselves and each other. We are alien to this natural world - we even feel alien to it, around every turn we have to protect ourelves and work for survival, while the rest of the animal kingdom just go on as if nothing is wrong. The discrepancy should be eye-opening, but instead of realizing our humanity, people are letting go of it in favour of naturalism. It's almost as if people are giving up on being different, and accepting that we are the creation of nature and that to complain when we suffer is anachronistic.

QUESTION Does god have the power to create a universe where suffering is never possible and the creatures can still have free-will just as god intends (not limited – other than how he intends)? Yes or No.

I would say God did create such a world, and people took it and made suffering possible. You would like God to separate our freedom from our responsibility, which is where the trouble started in the first place. What you are asking for is a sword that can parry but not attack - when a sword is what you've got, and what you do with it is up to you.

(It’s just suffering Jenyar – there are lots of things we don’t experience – such as the sensation a dolphin must experience when it recreates a three-dimensional imagine in its mind using sonar. That’s something we don’t experience but we still have free will. So why not make human in such a way as to not experience suffering? It’s simple – it’s because god wanted us to experience suffering even before we were born (or the universe was made for that matter).

What kind of human would not be able to suffer? One who lives 1)alone 2)in a vacuum. But otherwise suffering is just a natural consequence. You can blame your lack of sonar on natural selection. But to watch a dolphin on dry land and ask why it suffers is something else. It has lungs and free will, then why isn't it happy?

Suffering is only truly problematic when there is no hope of restoration or protection, and in God's presence there is always both.

A child who suffers from an ear infection can easily recover if he lives in a hospital and his parents are both specialists. But that same child will die within days in the wilderness. Your question would be more accurate if you asked: why are people suffering if I they are where they are supposed to be? Where my answer would be: we aren't we are supposed to be, because we aren't doing what we're supposed to do. Life is a struggle to get back up - the "human condition" as you say. But how did we end up in this condition? Even when we do manage to regain our balance, we still die - whether you suffered much in the process or didn't.

...we can agree that before he created this universe he could “see into the future” and “see” that humans would suffer – horribly (not all, just some humans – others live quite nice a plush lives and some of these get to go to heaven while some of the suffering ones get death) and so god must have desired the universe to be as such and we conclude that god wanted man to suffer (or he would have made it differently where this scenario was not a possibility).

God never desired anybody to suffer. But He does not prevent those who fall away from Him to do so. A doctor can't help those who run from him. God wants us to come to Him so He can heal us. Our situation is a consequence of our separation from Him. Your definition of God is that He can see things that will happen whether they will happen or not - which doesn't make sense. Something hasn't happened until it happend. God can predict the result of a certain path - if death is the consequence then the details are just details. Whether you die from exposure or from old age really makes no difference. God could foresee that people would doubt Him and even reject Him, which is why He provided a way back to Him. He tells people that if they continue to reject Him there is no hope of salvation, and people just accuse God of "sending them to death" in stead. How many times did Jesus say: "your faith has healed you"?

And those people who live nice plush lives are at most risk of not realizing their position is just as bad as the rest of humanity. "Your heart is where your treasure lies". In God's presence, suffering isn't debilitating anymore, wich is why Paul said we could rejoice in our suffering, because it produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And this hope is the hope of restoration which we share with Christ.

That isn't all we share. There is more to life than suffering, but in the end there is only one real comfort: that Christ came to end it. We are still able to experience it, but it has no staying power anymore. The same with sin: we can still sin, but through Jesus we can see where sin leads, and where our salvation lies.

“Choice” is just “Possibility” by another name. I can reword the same argument above only substituting “choice for possibility” (some of which I did). Ie: I don’t have the “choice” to grow wings and fly. Therefore, god limits the choices we have. Etcetera.

Well then let me put it in the same way: We have the possibility to be saved, so we have the choice.

You are sitting on a fence and criticizing both sides as if there were no fence. Either people are just another part of nature and any "suffering" or even free will is inconsequential, or there is a Creator who wants to restore your relationship with Him. If you confuse the two, you will come up with irreconcilable problems or end up with a kind of naturalistic deity which is part human part nature. The territory and the rules are they same, but the owner differs. On one side your choices are limited by nature itself, but on the other side they are only limited by yourself.

______________

1) Is free-will irrevocably linked to the possibility of suffering or can free-will exist without the possibility of suffering?
Free will isn't linked to anything. It is limited by natural boundaries, but suffering is mental. It exists in the mind - rocks don't suffer. Only in that way is their a correlation. Our ability to feel suffering should make us sensitive to it, just like our ability to feel heat is the same that allows us to feel pain. At the right distance from the fire, "pain" is only heat. But outside God's will, we live to close to the fire. We suffer because of our distance from God. Suffering can purify or consume us, depending in whose hands we are.

2) Can god make a universe that has ”fully free-willed” creatures in it and in this universe there does not exist the possibility of these creatures ever suffering (even if they are irrevocably linked)?
As explained above: the correlation is not an inherently destructive one. It becomes destructive under artificial circumstances. Artificial here meaning "delivered to our own devices and an untamed nature". In God's presence, we are tamed and so is nature. Creation itself is nothing more than "chaos ordered and tamed". By all expectations, we are just lucky/unlucky not to be space dust.

3) Will heaven contain the possibility of suffering?
No. Sin cannot enter it, and everyting will be in their proper place again: Jesus dealt with sin and death, where it will be left behind for those who recognize God's authority to forgive and restore. For those who don't, there is no God, and they will reap the natural consequence of life without God.

4) If god can make a universe that does not contain the possibility of suffering and yet does not do so, can we say he is then evil?
You will call him evil whenever and for whatever reason you like. For every hypothetical universe there is an "evil god", and if you want to believe in him then do. But in this one, God created a perfect heaven and earth, but it was fed sin and brought forth suffering. God neutralized the poison and gave us the antidote. Whether you take it or not is still just as much a choice as it was for Adam&Eve to ignore God.

5) As god knows all outcomes then when god choose to make the satin angle he did so knowing full well that this creature would “inevitably and eventually” lead to human suffering. We can safely say that this was part of gods plan – that is, for human to suffer?
Satan had no power over us. All he could do is present us with a lie, and hope we took the bait. He only "leads to human suffering" if we let him, and God warns us not to let him. We can only resist him with God's help, because he only has power outside God's presence. We really don't know ennough about what happened to know the details or the "mechanics" of 'why', we only know 'that'. There comes a point where speculation isn't useful anymore.

Again, on the side:
1) Isn’t it surprising that god, with all his foreknowledge prior to creating the universe, could not create a free-willed creature that could last long enough to procreate so that only the parents would suffer and not their children.
Children are born into the world their parents created, and it can be no other way. Likewise, we were born into the world God provided for us. Children can make it better or worse, but they can't choose their parents. On the subject: the be "reborn" means we accept God as our father and not nature. It means we don't bind ourselves to our circumstances or egos, but live as new people.

2) Doesn’t that suggest that god is either and idiot or that he made sin too easy to do or (and most likely) he is not an idiot and actually wanted man to sin so that man would suffer? Which is what this god wanted anyway or it wouldn’t be here with us.
God did not create us to sin, otherwise sin would not be called "sin". That's what happens when parents father children that they don't want to be born (and you know what that means). Sin only becomes "easy" when we ignore God. It starts out with something small, and beomes easier as we start relativising. If we don't exercise self-control there is nothing holding us back.

3) Doesn’t it seem a little petty to make the children suffer for the wrongs of their parents? It’s funny isn’t it, if Adam and eve had had children before they sinned - the children not have been punished (doesn’t the bible seem show that the one children that do not sin also don not get punished by god?) How convenient that Adam and Eve sinned before Eve conceiving.
See above. Children often suffer because of their parents. Cain and Abel weren't particularly advantaged or disadvantaged, but one committed murder and the other loved God. Abel's suffering was directly the result of Cain's sin, not his parents' - but both had to work for a living because they were born into the land their parents inhabited.

4) When you think about it - this all powerful god seems more like an idea that was concocted over and over again by almost all societies throughout history as a way to explain things that seem unexplainable, to provide comfort for death, and to add cohesiveness to society.
It is the job of science to explain things. If you really look into it, religion doesn't explain much other than itself. Different gods never provided "cohesiveness" as you know, but more often inspired wars. Death's comfort has very little to do whether you believe or not. A person who don't believe in God can find just as much comfort in death as someone who does. At best, belief in gods makes you uncomfortable with death, since you have to believe in a hereafter. Then people start doing things blindly to try to "please" their gods - and it goes downhill from there.

No, religion just complicates things. Which is why people don't like it in general.

5) Doesn’t the notion of heaven and hell seem really like a scary bed-time story – one that is there to scare people into worshipping this god so that church can control those very same people, which it did do effectively in Europe, Central Amercia, the ME today etcetera.
I know of no Christian who is controlled by his church. As an institution, it isn't exempt from corruption. I wosrship God because He created me. Life is a constant reminder that hell is probably easier to reach without God than with Him.

Given how well this “God Idea” works at controlling people combined with the propensity at which people are not only willing to believe but also willing to make others (including their children), it’s not surprising it has lasted so long and is dieing a slow slow death.

God is my real father, and I would not be able to believe without Him. My biological father got his faith from the same place Abraham got his, so saying that I have been "indoctrinated" isn't true. Just like its easier to undertand quantum physics if your parents are quantum physicists, it is easier to understand God if your parents know Him. It's hardly a curse. In fact, it has been quite the opposite.

It is possible to love without God to tell you to, or to kill without thinking it's wrong. The real question is whether you think God could exist or not, and what the implications are.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
The Sumerian Paradise Myth of Enki and Ninhursag provides a possible sidelight on the role of the rib in the biblical story. When Enki had a pain in his rib, NinOursag caused the goddess Nin-ti, “Lady of the Rib,” to be born from him. The Sumerian logogram ti means both “rib” and “life,” and it may be that the Mesopotamian “Rib Lady” lies behind the rib/life motif in the biblical story.

Could be. Fortunately, explaining something and explaining it away isn't the same thing. Did you know the rib is the only bone in the human body that can grow back?

Judaism wasn't a religion; it was a culture. They don't even have a word for "religion". They were "people who believed in God", and if God created the universe, then every piece of information about Him ultimately came from the same source. Only where the gods become human, or dead, are they exposed as creations themselves. YHWH has no image - like a bull or calf - that has been worshipped, and no shrine. We are the closest to an "image" of Him, and the temple was the only meeting place until it was destroyed and resurrected.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar gives new scientific evidence in medicine

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
Could be. Fortunately, explaining something and explaining it away isn't the same thing. Did you know the rib is the only bone in the human body that can grow back?
----------
(No, Jenyar, in all my years in the medical profession, I have never heard that the rib is the only bone that cana grow back! What I have learned is there's not much you can do for a broken rib. If you have several broken ribs, you can end up in a torso cast. One broken rib heals on its on with calcium deposits filling the break, but it doesn't "grow back!")
----------
We are the closest to an "image" of Him, and the temple was the only meeting place until it was destroyed and resurrected.
----------
(You're right here, we are the closest to an "image" of God, and the "temple" (our body, our Earthsuit) is STILL the only meeting place until we shed it, at which time we return to the One Spirit of all creation and wait until we eventually "return" (resurrected) in the body. We are a "spiritual" image of our Creator--not physical. Jenyar, it seems you know these truths, but you're interpreting them incorrectly from the way you've been taught by your religion. If you truly knew God intimately, you wouldn't need a church. You'd BE the church!)

 

[DethoS]

My question

I have to admit that I haven't read the last few posts by Jenyar and Michael, but I feel fairly certain that in all of the bible quotes floating around the answer to my question has not surface. Where in the OT does it say to kill your daughter? Simple enough. Not only that but why does 316 backwards read die? Could this be yet another example of the evilness the satanists(christians) are hiding behind a statement of love? Why do you satanists teach against sorcery and then turn around and pray? I woe for the day when you grow and realize that prayer and magic are the same exact thing, only different with different cultures(notice the word culture contains cult, therefore showing how the jewish culture was based on a cult and not just a religious belief.) And another thing, if Jesus was here to bring peace then why does it state, not only in the bible(I've heard) but in the Nag Hammadi, that he said "People think I have come to bring peace. What they don't know is I have come to bring divisions, sword, fire." or something similar to that. Would that not also seem prophetic in a sick kind of way?
Thanks for the sumer post cons. atheist.

 

[heart]

Jenyar,

The snake had its place in creation

So are you saying the snake was Satan or not? I'm not speaking about snakes in general..so was it or wasn't it Satan?

It was when Adam&Eve observed him and took him as an omen (maybe they saw it eating the fruit) that they ignored God's warning and "listened" to nature instead.

Wait, are you saying that the conversation never happened between Eve and this Snake? That somehow Eve was watching a snake eat of the tree and in pops this idea of hey, if the snake can do it so can I? LMAOOOOOOOO *shaking head* you crack me up, Jenyar. I love how you change stories around at your convenience. I'm still trying to figure out if you are turning this snake into Satan or not..

You can't tell me it's unlikely, because you can for yourself see how many people here are doing the same thing. It seemed "natural" to eat the fruit - even if it meant ignoring the its author.

Look, the whole idea that "god" put the forbidden fruit in the midst of Adam and Eve is STUPID! Further, to have Satan roam about them for fair game is INSANE! But, the fact that "god" knew what the outcome would be is HEARTLESS! There isn't love or protection in that. Would you or would you not protect your children from a Lion or any dangerous person etc? Of course you would. Yet, it doesn't strike you funny that you have to pull excuses out of your butt trying to explain why "god" wasn't cruel.

The snake assumed/was given authority by A&E, above God, and that was sin

The snake or satan or whoever you think it is, deceived Eve. So Eve made a MISTAKE (in "god's" eyes)
and ate a piece of FRUIT! Why? So she could be more like "god"! The sin wasn't Eve trying to be like god..this "sin" was because she ate what god told her not to. So my question would be, why would "god" find it necessary to put the tree in the garden to begin with- especially since he knew the outcome?

========
Edit:

It appears I overlooked some things you had written in a prior post..oops ..

I'll touch on one right now though:

your quote:
James 1
3When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.

What about this scripture?

Genesis 22:1-2
1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

 

[heart]

Where in the OT does it say to kill your daughter?

Are you referring to man killing his own daughter, or did you mean "god" killing his own "daughter" aka; Eve?

I have debated something on this line with Jenyar... he seems to think that there are separate laws for God vs humans. God has the right to kill whomever because he is the only one who can judge and get away with it, or umm I mean just judge.