If God is God, Why. . . ?

originally posted by: Seede
You must have opposites in order to have hate and love. That is a law and that comes through choice. Hate is evil and love is of God even though God created evil in order to give you choice of love. How can God give you love if evil did not exist? It's impossible. You must have opposites in order to have reality. Where does all of this lead us? The entire purpose of God creating us is that He so loved His creation that he offers eternal existence if we overcome hate with love. How do we do this? By Choice. And why by Choice? Because there is no other way to know love. It's a law of love by choice and you cannot show hate without knowing love. -- lol

That maybe true with regards to human. But there are other god's creations that is absolute extreme on both end, without the concept of balance. Angels and demons.This creatures are neither capable to balance hate or love, right or wrong, true or lie etc...

Just saying...

a reply to: randyvs

I have many ( polytheist) you will have to seek your own way. Following An Morrigan ( the Morrigan) is not for weak willed folks who need an out through conversion. I serve her and others (An Dagda, Lug, Ogma, Catvrix, Lvgvs, etc) through deed and owning my mistakes, and trumpeting my successes.

So there is no one true deity.

a reply to: Noinden

I love how you try to claim athority with
with that text. Truth is all this study you
lay claim to. Hasn't taught you that one
God is really the only possibility. Anything
else, as in no God. Or as in more than one
God and the universe would be in shambles
if it existed at all. You have no athority
over this topic with out using good sense.

a reply to: Noinden

actually those are actual questions I have been asked over the years and the answers I have come up with the answer them are from observation of the AKJV Bible. Seeing I am a Christian that is the book I use to see how to frame the answers not the questions. I would never look the the Hindu, Buddhist or Moslem books to show God's Character in how he handled the situation of the questions that were asked.

Those who asked the questions are correct in claiming God is at fault. But he also remedied the situation for all men. so having done all he could to correct the situation it is now left up to men to chose to accept God solution or fix it on your own.

Which would you pick, His solution or yours?

a reply to: randyvs

Which text would that be? I am not part of a "revealed" religion neighbor. My studies (I am part of a mystery faith afterall) make me believe there are many deities. I am honest enough to admit it could be one or none. That is the mystery

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I would always pick my own, because my Gods require self reliance, and thinking for our selves. To think there is only one answer, with limited data, is the arrogance of the monotheist

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: randyvs

Which text would that be? I am not part of a "revealed" religion neighbor. My studies (I am part of a mystery faith afterall) make me believe there are many deities. I am honest enough to admit it could be one or none. That is the mystery

"So there is no one true diety"

Almost as if you have full knowledge
of the universe.

Existence for the human being is more
likely to occur

A.
As the design of single supreme being
Creator. Giver of life with no need for
sharing of authority no need for counsel
or other opinions from an equel. No
one disagreeing with God and no potential
for kaos.
Most likely

B.
Many gods that likely wouldn't work at all at
Some point. Thru a host of negative fallacies
one could imagine. Disagreements, personality
Less likely

C.
Or no God everything ny chance for
nothing by nothing with no difference
between the whole universe and nothing.
No reason for a chance to the power
of infinity happening.
Least likely by far

a reply to: randyvs

You just stop reading when you are challenged by something don't you?

As a polytheist, I acknowledge ALL possibilities. Each and every one. However my belief (and that is all this is, a group of gnoses) is that there are many gods, none are supreme.

However you monotheists, hate that idea. As evidenced by the OP, as evidenced by how my replies make you guys go nuts.

May the Morrigan bless you

a reply to: Noinden

Who's going nuts chief? You couldn't by
any stretch bother me my fellow member.
Surely you didn't believe I would just walk
away from your declarative.

Believe what you want but expect retort for
stating it as if you know.

a reply to: randyvs

Except it does bother you neighbour. Your replies indicate that. You don't like your paradigm being challenged. Prove me wrong, I like to be surprised.

My declarative is the declarative of the polytheist. You stopped reading right at that point though. You can't prove your point, I can't prove mine. The athiest can not prove theirs. Its gnoses (beliefs), which are not facts, they are feelings.

a reply to: Noinden

The only part of this conversation
That bothers me Is how you insist
that it bothers me. I've offered logical
retort to negate your claim that there
is no one true God. Who warns of the
Imposters that you believe in. Do you
get any instructions from these gods
on how to live the life they provided
you? Any scripture that is verfiable
history?

a reply to: randyvs

Logical retort? You've offered Dogma. You have offered gnoses. But logical? Not even close. These are matters of belief, and as such you can not prove it to be so.

You also do not understand what a mystery religion is do you? You are part of a revealed religion if that helps.

what a glorious echo chamber of a thread. but who expected otherwise? mr chesterjohn has provided a lot of interesting answers that only raise even more questions. feels to me like the whole concept of "if this, then why that" does not really do much to address the initial problem of all these irritating details being glossed over by the typical hum drum non-solutions that plague theology.

I guess morgan freeman really does work in mysterious ways.

p.s. feel free to give me a poke if you want a more complete breakdown of the op. time is short right now but I may be back.

a reply to: Noinden

Wrong miho, I'm not part of any religion quite
simply. Logic and reason point to creation
having been created by a Creator. As far as
I have ever seen scripture provides the best
account even explaining his absence from
the world at this time.

However you are correct that the truth of
this Creator is revealed thru Christanity.
The handiwork you see everyday in a
universe with only one reason possible
for it's creation. It's far and away evidence.
You can't explain existence logically with
out him. No mystery there pal.
Scientific evidence? One shouldn't even
expect to find it.

Does this mystery religion provide
some mystery prize or something?
Why not put it on the table for all
to read as i have done?
Shamelessly

a reply to: randyvs

Do you follow the teachings of the bible?

If you do, you are part of a revealed tradition.

But of course you do. You talk about "the truth of the creator thru (sic) Christianity". Thus yes indeed you are part of a revealed religion.

As you don't understand that, its very unlikely you would not understand what Mystery traditions are about.

You can't grok it.

QED

a reply to: Noinden

Can't grok it? My fellow member even if that's
true it still leaves you looking like a coward.

a reply to: randyvs

Neighbour, as I said you do NOT understand mystery traditions. The learning is such that you earn it through hard work. YOU have not earned that, you gain your inderstanding through the revelation of the bible. That works for you. Cool, whatever. You do not grok what it means to be a polytheist. You've not read the myths, you've not done the work on forming a relationship with the many gods.

Thus you don't understand it. Its not cowardly, its me refusing to share. I am not obliged to do so.

Q E D

a reply to: Noinden

Then I guess it will remain a mystery.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

okay i am back and ready to answer specific points of inquiry.

1) Why did God make the heaven and the Earth? (Gen1:1)
Answer: He made them to be inhabited. (Isa 45:18, 2 Pet 3:13) What is so amazing to this answer is that some any intellectuals, scientist, philosophers and historians all have the same plan for the heaven and the earth.

i would offer a small correction: in this narrative, existence was made to be ruled. an elaborate sophisticated toy designed to be owned and controlled.

2) If God made then ( and God is perfect), why did He not make them perfect?
Answer: He did make them perfect, but many have ignored the Bible for so long, they actually think that Genesis 1 is the original creation. If you will open a coy of the Av Bible a re-read Gen 3-28 you will see it is a re-creation of a former creation. Please note in Gen 1:2 the “without form and void is found only in one other place in the AV Bible (Jer 4:23 and that context if you read the whole chapter is about the destruction of Jerusalem). So in Gen 1:3-28 we are dealing with the recreation of a former creation, which was finished in verse 1, even Lucifer was created perfect in Ezk 28:15; not as Satan, not as a serpent or as a devil but as a cherubim, he was called the Cherub that covereth, you will notice in Ezk 1 and 10 there is only four Cherubim. Something happened to the one that covereth before Ezkeiel or John saw them later when they penned their books via inspiration.

this strikes me as a very convoluted answer to an equally convoluted tangle of concepts. without establishing precisely what "perfect" means, we can hardly determine whether god is (was?) perfect or not. not even mentioning the plausibility of creation, whether there was a precedent creation, what happened to that creation, or whether its fate was justified or not. each of which qualifies as a question that was glossed over and summarized in an unhelpful way. a lot of glossing going on here.

5) What on earth are you talking about?
Answer: If God is perfect, no being is perfect until he is like God. Adam is made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-28). Adam is not confirmed sinlessness as God’s for he has not been tested. In the Bible, Sin is an act, a nature, thought, or word against the person of personal God, who is Almighty (Psa 51:4). It is any wrong (or unright) thing, done spoken, or thought, contrary to God Almighty’s direct revelation concerning it (1 John 5:17; Micah 6:8). Just in case we’ve forgot Adam is only sinless prospectively; he has not been tested.

in other words, anything this god person does not like is "sinful". that sounds like narcissism to me.

extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

hmmm...

6) Didn’t God know the result of the test before it occurred? (If he was perfect he must have known.)
Answer: Good thinking, he did (Acts 15:18). He knew his would fall, and knowing this he gave him a freedom of will and of choice, so he could (or could not) fall.

you are saying this 'free will' just made sure adam would do the thing he was already going to do that was 'against the rules' but was secretly part of the divine plan to make god look good at someone elses expense? *cough* lucifer *cough cough*

so 'free will' is a fancy phrase for stacking the deck. interesting.

7) Then is not God indirectly (or directly) to blame for what took place in His creation at the start?
Answer: YES. (Why should we be skirmish about it. We better get it right this time coming. Yes, the Lord could have prevented sin from entering and he did not (Lam 3:38; Job 2:10).

so you admit it.

8) Then is not God responsible for Adam’s sin and the mess in which man finds himself?
Answer: NO. God does not tempt any man, neither can he be tempted, but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts, and enticed (James 1:13-15).

technically, a creature he made did the tempting. which is the same as saying your dog bit my kid. take it to court and that dog is done for, and any damages are the responsibility of the owner. in this case, god. god should know better than to make a demon snake...oh wait, he did. because he already knew what would happen. because he planned it all. examining the narrative through a forensic lens, it fits perfectly with the narcissistic personality profile.

9) Then who tempted Adam?
Answer: Eve Gen 3:4-6; Tim 2:12-14).

eve, who was ALSO made by god. the same guy who made that demon snake. coincidence?

10) Who tempted Eve?
Answer: A Serpent (2 Cor 11:1-3).

another coincidence, I was just talking about the demon snake. that dastardly deceiver who was made by the same evil genius who gave us women, cancer, and korea.

...im kidding, ladies, you are all wonderful. but seriously, this isnt suspicious???

11) Who Tempted the Serpent, if it wasn’t God, Himself?
Answer: Before the serpent was a serpent, he was not a serpent, but a Cherubim; and he was “drawn away of his own lust and enticed” to put his own will above the will of God. (Ezk 28:12-17; Isa 14:12-15.)

narcissists dont like to share unless its their idea and their terms. everyone knows that.

12) If God is eternal and knew the end from the beginning, he could have prevented the “Lucifer” of Isa 14 from falling to the level of a serpent?
Answer: True, God lets a lot of things “fall” in order to work out his original plan (Rom 11:11-32).

it is remarkable how comfortable god is with manipulating pretty much everything in existence for his own gain. does job ring a bell? he even committed genocide with an entire planet rather than back up a few steps when he realized he might have to flood the earth. rewinding existence is so much more complicated than murdering a few thousand people. and did I mention job? poor guy didnt even do anything to earn that savagery. god might be perfect, but that gambling problem!

13) Then God is not only responsible for man’s sin, but for the serpent’s also, since He allowed both to take place, isn’t that right?
Answer: Yes, but what then?

14) Then my college professors, Marx and Darwin are right, there is not God (Psalm 14:1), because a God that is so imperfect that he is responsible for imperfection, is NOT perfect!
Answer: Let me then put forward a question. Supposed god remedied the entire thing and made right what was wrong; has he not cleared himself of ALL guilt and responsibility in the matter? (Rom 3:4-6)

15) Yes but . . . ?
Answer: If the Bible can show you where God un-did what evil he allowed to enter, will you admit He is perfect?

that is an unreasonable request. but go for it.

(continued in next post)

(continued from previous post)

16) Well now that depends on the definition of . . . ?
Answer: See the problem with men is they put an obstacle where there is none. At Calvary God came down in the flesh (1 Tim3:16) and bore mans guilt (2 Cor 5:21). He became the personification of ALL sin (Gal 3:13); so much so, that he was said to resemble a serpent!(John 3:14). If He has reconciled all things to Himself by atoning for the imperfection in all things, he is clear; you cannot charge him with a thing (Rom 9:20).

that is what some refer to as a cop out, a poorly constructed pretense for not doing something that was promised. aka the end of the world and most of the people living on it being reduced to ash mostly because god promised not to flood us again. fire and brimstone, amirite? but he still plans on conquering the earth in the name of peace and love. how he does it really isnt a big deal as long as subservience and dominance are absolute. not negotiable. in a word, super lazy writing even for a work of fiction.

So the eternal triangle is completed by the cherub who becomes a serpent. You can choose him (2 Cor 4:4) or you can chose God (1 Kings 18:21. So God allows this cherub to appear and tempt mankind so mankind can freely chooses God as an object of love. Adam chooses his wife as an object, Eve Chooses knowledge, as all good intellectuals do. The man falls, God redeems the man by bearing the entire blame (Rom 5:6-19) for both the man and the Cherub. He does this sin bearing by coming down and dying, as a man! (Phil 2; Isa 53; Rom 1; 2 Cor 3).

it sounds even better when you summarize it like that. more believable, more foolproof, more strategically well thought out as a whole. I couldnt think of a single way to do all that stuff better without all the nasty bloodshed and violence and chaos and general mayhem.

feel free to see how easily my interpretation on the whole "savior of man" philosophy can be overturned and rebutted.