An insistence upon a flat Bible perspective is what leads us to this schizophrenic God who is both a blood-thirsty, angry, despiser of the wicked, and at the same time a God who is love and who looks exactly like Jesus.

We cannot have it both ways.

People use the claim of god despising others as a way to defend their destructive behavior to both hurt people and to not help others who are different than them or their congregation.

Jesus was very clear on this subject.  Christians are required to care for and treat others as themselves.

 

Luke 6:31 

³¹ Do to others as you would have them do to you.

It shocks me. Seriously.

Christ's message could not be simpler to express: "Love one another." It may be very hard to follow, but it is certainly not a complicated message.

And yet... self-styled "Christians" preach hate in Christ's name.

I don't believe in Hell, but sometimes I wish there could be an exception for such miserable hypocrites.

I agree that no one is to despise others.  Atheists love to claim that it is impossible to hate sin and love the sinner.  Yet that is God's heart also.  God cannot accept the willing rebellion against Him as acceptable and still be a Holy and Righteous God. (see post 3)

I agree that no one is to despise others.  Atheists love to claim that it is impossible to hate sin and love the sinner.  Yet that is God's heart also.  God cannot accept the willing rebellion against Him as acceptable and still be a Holy and Righteous God. (see post 3)

I try to treat all others as I would want to be treated.

How can you possibly know what your God wants when your bible was written by mortal men?  You can believe that the bible is the word of god but until you can prove that the Bible dropped out of the sky in its current form to be found on Mt Sinai or in the Garden of Gethsemane, that claim is only a religious belief that is not supported by facts.  

God cannot accept the willing rebellion against Him as acceptable and still be a Holy and Righteous God.

God can accept whatever She damned well pleases!

Because God in the person of Jesus affirmed not only His teachings in the Old Testament, but expanded upon them in the New Testament.

Which Christian has EVER said the Bible dropped out of the sky?

For those who worship God and enjoy the restored relationship with Him, He affirms His word as truth every day in our lives.

Jesus declared He is not just the way to heaven, but is THE TRUTH, is LIFE. There is NO Truth, NO life apart from Him and His word. He not only is the truth and affirms the truth of the Word of God, He is the Word of God.

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  2  He was in the beginning with God.  3  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.  4  In Him was life, and the life was the light of men...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-4,14

the Book of Revelation reveals Jesus back in heaven in the fullness of the Glory He has had from all eternity

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the  scripture s the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

You search the  Scripture s, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. John 5:39

All  scripture   is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16

But notice first that no prophecy found in Scripture is a matter of the prophet’s own interpretation.  21  Prophecy has never been a product of human initiative, but it comes when men  and women  are moved to speak on behalf of God by the Holy Spirit 2 Peter 1:20,21

  But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ” Matthew 4:4

The  Spirit  brings  life . The flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have been teaching you are  spirit   and   life Joh 6:63

Simon Greenleaf who was not only Professor of Law at Harvard, but wrote the definitive rules of evidence that our justice system is founded upon. Prof Greenleaf wrote the definitive juridical defense of the Gospels as legally proficient testimonies in a court of Law

gutenberg

[deleted]

I agree that no one is to despise others.

And yet you despise many here and make many many overly  broad hateful comments about people who do not think as you do or believe as you do,

week in and week out for at least the last decade.

Pretty ironic.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16

What I find interesting about that scripture is it's supposedly from a letter written about 250 years before the letter became part of what we now know of as the bible. Apparently the letter testifies to the fact that nearly 300 years later a Roman Emperor and a bunch of priests would decide what would be part of the bible and what wouldn't and they were to know what was and wasn't inspired by God.

Good catch!

Ya think Paul might have had a crystal ball?

God despises no one.  but that ignores that God is also holy and is NOT inclusive of everyone who rejects Him and continues in sin.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23

And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.  Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”

And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’  then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’  But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ Luke 13:23-27

Matthew 5:20 ”For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! Matthew 13:40-43

 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.  And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.  He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 10:34-39

Jesus declares “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

Blessed are those who wash their robes. They will be permitted to enter through the gates of the city and eat the fruit from the tree of life. Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star.” Revelation 22:13-16

Jesus- “But cowardly, unfaithful, and detestable people, murderers, sexual sinners, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

Clobbertexting is nonsense. The Bible was written thousands of years ago... and not in English. We cannot be sure of any single word in the whole Book.

We can, however, step back and hear the general flow of Christ's message. Christ repeated it often enough, in his sermons and his parables that there can be no doubt about its content: "Love one another."

Nor can there be any doubt that the One Commandment is without exception. We are commanded to love everyone.

Hate is unChristian.

I agree hate is unChristian and I previously stated that we are to despise no one.  

You choose only the words of Jesus on love but ignore His far greater teachings on judgment.  

I choose ALL His words as He commanded those who believe in Him.

He commanded those who believe in Him

Oh? Where?

I choose ALL His words as He commanded those who believe in Him.

That is circular logic because to believe in him you have to admit that there is no proof that Jesus of the Bible ever existed. 

Religious belief is an emotional decision based on the lack of supporting facts or logic. 

Religious belief is an emotional decision based on the lack of supporting facts or logic.

Not exactly: Religious faith is knowledge without evidence.

I know God exists, without having any evidence. I have faith.

Of course, my faith is of no significance to anyone else. I would never attempt to proselytize, because I have nothing to show to anyone.

Moreover, I believe that God doesn't care in the slightest whether anyone believes in Her.

"God is good. Good is God."

Being good is being Godly. Simple.

Not exactly: Religious faith is knowledge without evidence. I know God exists, without having any evidence. I have faith.

You can have faith and belief without evidence but true knowledge requires some sort of supporting proof.

... true knowledge requires some sort of supporting proof.

Actually, it doesn't.

I wouldn't want to get bogged down in semantic issues. I invite you to reread the definition of "knowledge", and any other associated words you may find helpful.

If you think about it the Bible was written only about a thousand years ago, not thousands.* I will even be so bold to say that it was really only written hundreds of years ago. It's gone thru so many translations and revisions that it most certainly isn't the same words that the first writers put down.

*re-thinking this....the first words were probably written maybe 2 thousand years ago, but the first Bible wasn't collated until maybe 340 AD which would be about 1700-1800 years ago?

I know....go back to sleep, Trout

Epistte's phrase 'true knowledge' as used connotes 'known truth'.

A claim of known truth bears the burden of proof.

Ultimately the evidence shows the Bible was written by many ancient men over thousands of years and what we currently call 'the Bible' are just 'value-added' copies in a long series of copies.   The original text does not exist (except for bits here and there) so nobody even knows the original content.   Given the Bible is carefully parsed by those trying to tease out divine wisdom, every word choice - every grammatical choice is highly meaningful.   For example, the word 'day' in Genesis 1 is the subject of intense analysis.   Does a usage mean a 24 hour day, a stage, an epoch?   The experts do not agree.   The divinity wisdom of the Bible, if any even exists, is indeterminant.

The Bible is an extraordinary work of great significance, but it is almost certainly not a source for divine wisdom.

*re-thinking this....the first words were probably written maybe 2 thousand years ago, but the first Bible wasn't collated until maybe 340 AD which would be about 1700-1800 years ago

Second re-think: the OT was written between three millennia ago and two-and-a-half millennia ago. The books of the NT were written between AD 65 and AD 120... but were only "collated" a couple hundred years later. (Some books made it into the Bible, others, contemporaneous, did not.) Both the OT and the NT were recopied (with diverse suppressions and insertions) over the next fifteen centuries. Even today, scholars debate the translations...

You are right to think about this every evening, before going to sleep...  

I googled "true knowledge". Apparently, it's a common term in some mystical circles.

Definition of true knowledge by spiritual teacher of Swami Vivekananda - “That knowledge which purifies the mind and heart alone is true Knowledge, all else is only a negation of Knowledge.” ―Ramakrishna

Proof does not seem to be a significant element.

Do you think that is what epistte meant by 'true knowledge'?   Is this ↴ what you think epistte really is saying?:

You can have faith and belief without evidence but knowledge which purifies the mind and heart alone requires some sort of supporting proof.

If so, I see this as an example of malicious misinterpretation.

Is this ↴ what you think epistte really is saying?

I don't know what anyone is "really saying". Second-guessing is risky at best; downright wrong much of the time. I try to stick to what is actuality said.

I try to stick to what is actuality said.

Good choice.   And here you can always ask epistte what she meant and remove all guesswork.

And here you can always ask epistte what she meant and remove all guesswork.

Why? I Replied to her, and would be pleased to continue, is she so desires. But at the moment, I see no follow-up.

Is "You can have faith and belief without evidence but knowledge which purifies the mind and heart alone requires some sort of supporting proof" a citation? From whom, and in what context? The portion "purifies the heart and mind" sounds a bit poetic.

Why?

Courtesy?   Asking the author to qualify her meaning rather than presume an unlikely interpretation.   

I saw no ambiguity in her post. There was no need for clarification. I Replied. If she wishes to continue, I'm available. Since she has not continued, I suppose that she was satisfied, too.

Why are you insisting, here?

I googled "true knowledge". Apparently, it's a common term in some mystical circles.

Definition of true knowledge by spiritual teacher of Swami Vivekananda - “That knowledge which purifies the mind and heart alone is true Knowledge, all else is only a negation of Knowledge.” ―Ramakrishna

Proof does not seem to be a significant element.

The mystical definition of knowledge is not in agreement with the standard secular definition from either Websters or the Oxford dictionary.  Your definition has an obvious bias. 

  I am in complete agreement with TiG's reply in 3.1.8.

Merriman-Wester,

Definition of knowledge

1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

Oxford,

1 Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

‘a thirst for knowledge’

‘her considerable knowledge of antiques’

1. 1.1 The sum of what is known.
   ‘the transmission of knowledge’

I hope you noticed that neither Merriam-Webster nor Oxford required "proof" or "evidence". Nor anything on that order.

The problem, I think, is that some people have the scientific method so close to their hearts that they do not realize that most of what everyone knows is in fact... hearsay. We heard it from a "trusted source", so we believe it. It is part of our knowledge.

It's absolutely necessary for us to function this way. If we had to personally experience everything before we "know" it, we'd never get out of the crib.

(I've had this conversation with TiG before.)

We know about atoms... although we have never come even close to seeing one.

We know about Black Holes: we say an amazing photograph of a Black Hole the other day. We know what that photo is, because we saw it in a trusted source. We also see explanations of the Earth being flat, but those are not in trusted sources, so we reject them.

For some people, Fox News is a trusted source. Those people know things that are different from what I know.

Until Copernicus, everyone knew that the Sun orbited the Earth.

We know the subatomic composition of matter... although physicists are looking kinda nervous these days.

Knowledge is what we believe. It is not necessarily true.

We know about atoms... although we have never come even close to seeing one.

We have seen atoms,

techly.au

We know about Black Holes: we say an amazing photograph of a Black Hole the other day. We know what that photo is, because we saw it in a trusted source. We also see explanations of the Earth being flat, but those are not in trusted sources, so we reject them.

We have proof from sources that the Earth is not flat

For some people, Fox News is a trusted source. Those people know things that are different from what I know.

Those people are not critical thinkers.

Until Copernicus, everyone knew that the Sun orbited the Earth.

Heliocentrism was speculated centuries before, but Copernicus was the first to be able to prove it.

Heliocentrism , a cosmological model in which the Sun is assumed to lie at or near a central point (e.g., of the solar system or of the universe) while the Earth and other bodies revolve around it. In the 5th century bc the Greek philosophers Philolaus and Hicetas speculated separately that the Earth was a sphere revolving daily around some mystical “central fire” that regulated the universe . Two centuries later, Aristarchus of Samos extended this idea by proposing that the Earth and other planets moved around a definite central object, which he believed to be the Sun .

Why are you insisting, here?

I am not insisting.  You asked why so I gave you my answer.

Who is this "we"? Have you, personally, seen atoms?

Photos circulate on the Internet "proving"... just about anything. We try to choose reliable sources, because we cannot personally experience everything.

For some people, Fox News is a trusted source. Those people know things that are different from what I know.

Those people are not critical thinkers.

I agree with you. But they know what they know. And sadly, they are a significant portion of the population.

Knowledge is not truth.

Who is this "we"? Have you, personally, seen atoms? Photos circulate on the Internet "proving"... just about anything. We try to choose reliable sources, because we cannot personally experience everything.

?Atoms are not visible to the naked eye or even a powerful microscope. That photo wasn't taken by a random person to be accepted as truth without support. 

A remarkable photo of a single atom trapped by electric fields has just been awarded the top prize in a well-known science photography competition. The photo is titled “Single Atom in an Ion Trap” and was shot by David Nadlinger of the University of Oxford.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in the UK today announced the winning photos of its national science photography competition. Nadlinger’s grand prize photo shows an atom as a speck of light between two metal electrodes placed about 2mm (0.078in) apart.

How do you have knowledge of god that doesn't rely on religious faith or belief? Should I mention Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot analogy and how it applies to your claim?

That photo wasn't taken by a random person to be accepted as truth without support.

Exactly!

You have it from a trusted source. You believe it. It is part of your knowledge.

There were sophisticated schemas for Ptolemy's universe;

People knew this was true.

A hundred years ago, our galaxy was the entire universe.

Five hundred years ago, China was accessible by sailing west from Spain...

People knew this was true.

A hundred years ago, our galaxy was the entire universe.

Five hundred years ago, China was accessible by sailing west from Spain...

Where is the knowledge of god that does not require religious faith or belief? 

If you want me to stop replying just say so and I will leave this thread.  

Where is the knowledge of god that does not require religious faith or belief?

Good question. I don't think that can exist.

IMHO, there are (at least) two parallel universes, physical and spiritual. They coexist but are do not impinge on each other (except, perhaps, for God). It's a fallacy to use faith in the physical world, and it's a fallacy to use the scientific method in the spiritual world.

On that basis, I find it absurd that some people attempt to "prove" God's existence. And I find it absurd that others attempt to "prove" that She doesn't exist. Proof is of the physical world, and has nothing to do with God or faith.

If you want me to stop replying just say so and I will leave this thread.

Please do not stop! I find it very stimulating to "think about thinking". Religion is part of that.

Good question. I don't think that can exist.

IMHO, there are (at least) two parallel universes, physical and spiritual. They coexist but are do not impinge on each other (except, perhaps, for God). It's a fallacy to use faith in the physical world, and it's a fallacy to use the scientific method in the spiritual world.

On that basis, I find it absurd that some people attempt to "prove" God's existence. And I find it absurd that others attempt to "prove" that She doesn't exist. Proof is of the physical world, and has nothing to do with God or faith.

Believers are making a positive claim that God exists, so the logical burden of proof is on them to prove that claim to be true.  I do not have to prove the claim to be false because it is impossible to positively prove that something does not exist.  That idea is what Bertrand Russell illustrated in his famous teapot analogy. 

What you have is religious belief or faith that God exists because of the writings of man found in various religious texts or religions.  Millions or billions of people may believe them with every cell in their body but that does not in any way reach the standard of proof required to claim as empirical knowledge. 

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.

Believers are making a positive claim that God exists, so the logical burden of proof is on them to prove that claim to be true.

I believe in God... but I don't expect anyone else to. I know that I cannot present the proof required by anyone who doesn't have faith.

Since I do not expect anyone to Believe along with me, I have no burden of proof.

What you have is religious belief or faith that God exists because of the writings of man found in various religious texts or religions.

No, because I depend on no proof/evidence. My faith is entirely intern. (So of course, I must always wonder about auto-hypnosis.) I am a Christian because I was born into a Christian society, and as I learned more about various religions, I found that I was comfortable with Christ's message. Paul's message... not so much.

I am perfectly aware that there are many other paths to God, and I'm pretty sure God doesn't care how we find Him.

Since I do not expect anyone to Believe along with me, I have no burden of proof.

Expressing a belief bears no burden of proof.   Claiming objective truth of the belief, however, bears the burden.

Exactly.

It seems to me that that precludes proselytizing, but I haven't really given it a great deal of thought.

Proselytizing does not recognize the burden of proof given it typically declares objective truth based solely on faith.

I suppose... but if faith is entirely intern, how can it be preached? What can the preacher say?

What can the preacher say?

Not sure why you ask.   The believer can express whatever the believer thinks is true.   And, for some, preaching is whatever the preacher thinks will serve his or her needs (see:  prosperity gospel 'preachers').

Yes, of course. An irresponsible hypocrite can preach whatever.

I meant that I don't see how a Believer can preach to non-Believers.

One must already believe what is being preached for it to be proselytizing?

No, not that.

I don't see how a Believer, who has faith but not proof, could try to convince non-Believers.

I don't see how a Believer, who has faith but not proof, could try to convince non-Believers.

It has been done successfully for thousands of years and continues to the present.  People are capable of believing what they wish to be true.   ( And of course fear, indoctrination, etc. are highly effective tactics too. )

Sure. Mega-churches, and all that.

everyone who rejects Him and continues in sin

Your statement implies that people who have accepted Jesus do not sin. I can promise you that is not true. Christians sin every day and it isn't about rejecting God. They're just imperfect people. A Christian trusts that because of Jesus, his sin will not matter when he is judged. By putting our faith in Jesus we are saved, even though every day we prove yet again how unworthy we are of that intervention. If that were not that the case, then, as Paul pointed out, Jesus died for nothing.

No I didn't. But I do say that Born Again believers who walk in the Holy Spirit are empowered to live sinless lives. It is a choice as a believer.

In the famous passage with the prostitute, Jesus commanded her, "go and sin no more".  That's pretty explicit

I will let you read from my Sunday message from a few months ago that I've given many times over the years

It is a choice as a believer.

You make it sound so simple. I'll bet you do something imperfect/sinful/unholy/mean every day. A lot of time, you may not even realize you're doing it.

Scripture can be difficult, but I find scripture remarkably consistent if you don't get bogged down in legalistic minutiae or ambiguous translations. Some things are so clear and unambiguous that they shine through. It helps if you look for the big picture.

There are 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament) and they get cherry-picked all the time. Collectively, they get referred to as "The Law." About 603 of them are basically rules or advice for living and worshipping as a good Hebrew. The ones that truly matter for everyone (including non-Hebrews) are the ones we know as the Ten Commandments, and in my view, they can be characterized as follows:

Basically, #s 1-4 come down to "Worship/Love God and not other stuff," while #s5-10 boil down to "Love and respect other people."

Jesus echoed this when he was asked by a lawyer (in Matthew 22: 35-40), “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” and Jesus replied:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

(sounds a lot like Commandments 1-4, doesn't it) Jesus continued:

"And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself."

(sounds a lot like Commandments 5-10).

Now, what does this say about all the other rules and commandments in The Law? They all have to be interpreted through the filter of these two main commandments. Because the very next thing Jesus said was:

"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

So, in my opinion, if you're busting someone's balls over something they're doing because you think it's contrary to scripture, and your approach (and its effect) isn't about "loving your neighbor," but rather, condemning them, then you probably have your head buried up your ass and you're doing something wrong.

The OT is certainly inconvenient; it constantly puts Christians on the defensive trying to explain away the acts of Yahweh given the message (and acts) of Jesus.   One can easily argue that God (Jesus) is love but doing likewise for Yahweh flies in the face of the evidence.   Try putting Jesus as the god of the OT and imagine Jesus casting out Adam & Eve and then cursing all their progeny — or deciding to wipe out all life on the planet save Noah's family and the spared pairs.   Jesus just does not fit the role, yet Christians are to believe that Jesus and the Father (Yahweh) are hypostases of the same God.

Jesus does not hate is defensible per biblical text.

Yahweh does not hate, is not petty, is not vengeful, is not jealous, is not morally unbalanced, is not emotional, etc. is very difficult to defend given biblical text.

Jesus is YHWH.  He declared Himself as such many times.  

Citation?

Show where Jesus declares himself to be the Father hypostasis (Yahweh).

The OT is certainly inconvenient; it constantly puts Christians on the defensive trying to explain away the acts of Yahweh given the message (and acts) of Jesus.

No.

I don't see how a collection of religious works can be "inconvenient". Misunderstanding them may lead to difficulties... but that's true of anything that's important.

The OT does not put Christians any-which-way. It may bother people who do not understand what they're doing, whether Christian or not.

Yahweh does not hate, is not petty, is not vengeful, is not jealous, is not morally unbalanced, is not emotional, etc. is very difficult to defend given biblical text.

Applying Christian criteria to the God of Abraham is a two-thousand-year anachronism.

I don't see how a collection of religious works can be "inconvenient". Misunderstanding them may lead to difficulties... but that's true of anything that's important.

Easy.   Contrast the behavior of Yahweh with that of Jesus.   I explained this in my post.   You reply with 'no' yet provide no explanation as why.   Certainly you see the differences in behavior between the OT and NT gods.

Applying Christian criteria to the God of Abraham is a two-thousand-year anachronism.

Do Christians accept the OT as divine?    Do Christians recognize the God of Abraham as divine?   Do Christians recognize the God of Abraham, Yahweh, as the Father hypostasis?

Do more than claim anachronism without explaining the problem you see.   Give some facts and logic as to why the God of Abraham, and His actions, are consistent with Jesus.   And remember that we are talking about Christian beliefs so calling the OT a mere collection of religious works does not cut it.   Christians believe these works to be divine and the character they define to be real.

Give some facts and logic as to why the God of Abraham, and His actions, are consistent with Jesus.

They are not! That's my point.

There are at least three very different Gods described in the Bible:
 - the God of Abraham, who required obedience to more or less reasonable commands, and promised prosperity in exchange,
 - the God of Moses, who required obedience to His laws because that was the right thing to do,
 - the God of Jesus, who commanded love.

The Bible is a collection of texts dealing with God, written by many authors across three millennia. Expecting the perception of God to be constant is ludicrous.

There are some people who want to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They tie themselves in knots, trying to reconcile contradictions and incoherences.

I seem to remember having said this many times previously.

They are not! That's my point.

Okay then you see the inconsistency.

The Bible is a collection of texts dealing with God, written by many authors across three millennia. Expecting the perception of God to be constant is ludicrous.

Correct.   And, point of fact, there are inconsistencies.   Some Christians (many?) claim that Jesus and the God of the OT (or gods) are entirely consistent.   I stated that those who hold that position are inconvenienced by biblical text.   So clearly you agreed and for the very reason I made my statement.   Yet you write a comment as if you disagree.

There are some people who want to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They tie themselves in knots, trying to reconcile contradictions and incoherences.

Yes, Bob, and it is those people that I was referring to.    So now let's go to what I wrote:

TiG @5 - The OT is certainly inconvenient; it constantly puts Christians on the defensive trying to explain away the acts of Yahweh given the message (and acts) of Jesus.

Your reply was 'no' as if Christians (who believe the Bible divine) are not inconvenienced at all and can easily explain the differences between Yahweh and Jesus. 

I seem to remember having said this many times previously.

You interjected a point (strawman style) that is not in question.   Do not do that and you will not experience deja vu.

The OT is certainly inconvenient; it constantly puts Christians on the defensive trying to explain away the acts of Yahweh given the message (and acts) of Jesus.

That sentence is true only if all Christians are inerrantists. I doubt that that is what your meant.

"The whole Bible is inconvenient for anyone who tries to make the God of Abraham congruent with the God of Jesus."

Tarring all Christians with a fundamentalist brush is... false.

That sentence is true only if all Christians are inerrantists.

I did not write all Christians; so why not just make the normal assumption and treat 'Christians' as 'Christians in general'?

Tarring all Christians with a fundamentalist brush is... false.

Why do you engage in this crap, Bob?   You purposely exploit ambiguity in natural language (intentionally not written in an awkward legal style) to presume an unlikely and illogical interpretation.  And instead of asking a follow-up question like: 'do you mean ALL Christians?', you engage in a strawman argument on your unlikely, illogical interpretation.   This accomplishes nothing of value.

so why not just make the normal assumption and treat 'Christians' as 'Christians in general'?

Because that is not the normal assumption. In the absence of any precision, your sentence means "all". If you don't mean "all", then you need a modifier. That's standard English.

Why do you engage in this crap, Bob? You purposely exploit ambiguity in natural language

I could return the compliment. Why do you, again and again, say "Christian" when you actually mean a subset? Are you trying to mislead? Do you have something against Christians?

Those are unpleasant questions. Kinda like "Why do you engage in this crap, Bob?"... We probably shouldn't do that.

Because that is not the normal assumption. In the absence of any precision, your sentence means "all". If you don't mean "all", then you need a modifier. That's standard English.

Do you normally assume an illogical and unlikely interpretation? 

Given you understand the difference between formal and informal language you realize that in formal language qualifiers and precisely defined terms (among other measures) are used to avoid ambiguity.   This increases precision but is inefficient and difficult to read.   That is why the vernacular mitigates ambiguity through the use of context and common sense .   

Take the sentence:  " Donald Trump's demeanor is inconvenient since it puts Republicans on the defensive. "

You would have people write this obvious comment as ...

" Donald Trump's demeanor is inconvenient since those Republicans who find it to be a liability are put on the defensive ."

... because otherwise you would ' naturally ' interpret the statement in the following unlikely and illogical sense:

" Donald Trump's demeanor is inconvenient since all Republicans are put on the defensive ."

Give me a break.

Give me a break.

You are one of the (rare) voices of reason on the topic of religion. People expect careful and precise thought from you, and that requires careful language.

Your Trump example is excellent. Please observe that both versions are accurate.

That is not the case for your statement about Christians and the OT. Would it be so hard to insert one word: "it constantly puts fundamentalist Christians..."?

People expect careful and precise thought from you, and that requires careful language.

Careful does not mean to the point of writing legal language.   

We all expect that our fellow posters will use context and common sense when reading because, point of fact, we are not writing legal contracts nor are we authoring reference books.   We are all writing posts in an informal setting.   

I agree that we should all try to choose our words carefully but reject the notion that it is up to the author to produce language that is impervious to malicious misinterpretation.

I agree that we should all try to choose our words carefully but reject the notion that it is up to the author to produce language that is impervious to malicious misinterpretation.

... and we should also agree that erroneous statements are not necessarily intentionally malicious ...  

Errors may simply show insufficient care...

Would it be so hard to insert one word: "it constantly puts fundamentalist Christians..."?

Would it be so hard to recognize that I was not making a universal quantification?    Is it really that hard to not intentionally draw an unlikely and illogical interpretation?

Besides, I was not limiting my comment to fundamentalist Christians.   Even Christians who do not take the Bible literally or deem it inerrant, etc.  have to deal with the differences between Yahweh and Jesus because it is an obvious challenge to be made.

Even you face this to a small degree.   You do not hold the Bible divine or inerrant but when you declare as Christian you could be (and probably have been) challenged to explain the un-Christ-like behavior of the God of the OT.    You have an easy answer since you do not claim the Bible divine or inerrant, but the challenge is potent by your declaration of being a Christian.   It does not seem to matter to you (and thus is not inconvenient to you) because you are content with people holding the Bible as mere words of ancient men.   But those Christians who care about the veracity of the Bible (even if they are not fundamentalists) are stuck with a difficult defense - clearly an inconvenience.

and we should also agree that erroneous statements are not necessarily intentionally malicious

True.   But sometimes they are.

Even Christians who do not take the Bible literally or deem it inerrant, etc. have to deal with the differences between Yahweh and Jesus because it is an obvious challenge to be made.

Not exactly. They have long since understood the situation. They may sometimes take time to help their less enlightened brethren, but they themselves "do not have to deal".

A story:

I went to Gettysburg College, class of '69. One of the few courses that I remember was "The Bible", a 3-credit elective, with OT first semester and NT second semester. The prof dissected the books everywhich way: literary and linguistic analyses, archaeological and historical context, ... At the same time, he was always respectful...

We students asked whether he was a Believer, but he refused to say until the last day. He was.

I learned a lot about lots of things, and above all I learned that faith and reason are not incompatible.

Not exactly. They have long since understood the situation. They may sometimes take time to help their less enlightened brethren, but they themselves "do not have to deal".

'They' are not of a single mind nor do 'they' hold identical interpretations.   Note that even quite religiously enlightened individuals here on NT will argue that the God of the OT (Yahweh) and that of the NT (Jesus) are perfectly consistent.

'They' are not of a single mind...

True. And 'they' are only a portion of 'Christian'. So if my generalization about 'them' is too sweeping, any generalization about 'Christians' is even more so.

Note that even quite religiously enlightened individuals here on NT will argue that the God of the OT (Yahweh) and that of the NT (Jesus) are perfectly consistent.

You wouldn't be maligning religious enlightenment, by any chance? 

So if my generalization about 'them' is too sweeping, any generalization about 'Christians' is even more so.

A mere reference to Christians in general is not a sweeping generalization.   For example, attacks on Jesus is offensive to Christians is not a sweeping generalization.  

Now, on your comment:

Bob @5.2.13 - They [Christians who do not take the Bible literally or deem it inerrant] have long since understood the situation.

My response is that I disagree with you.   Christians who do not take the Bible literally or deem it inerrant demonstrably have all sorts of interpretations of the Bible and I see no evidence that simply not believing in an inerrant Bible means that an individual understands the situation and/or does not have to deal with the biblical contradiction.

You wouldn't be maligning religious enlightenment, by any chance?

Actually I was not.   I was emphasizing the point I had just made by noting we can see here on NT some very religiously enlightened individuals who hold that the Gods of the OT and NT are identical and are perfectly consistent.

A mere reference to Christians in general is not a sweeping generalization. For example, attacks on Jesus is offensive to Christians is not a sweeping generalization.

Well done! Point scored! I should not have said "any generalization about 'Christians'". I should have said "Your generalization, 'The OT is certainly inconvenient; it constantly puts Christians on the defensive trying to explain away the acts of Yahweh given the message (and acts) of Jesus.' is even more sweeping.

It remains that you made a sweeping generalization...

My response is that I disagree with you. Christians who do not take the Bible literally or deem it inerrant demonstrably have all sorts of interpretations of the Bible and I see no evidence that simply not believing in an inerrant Bible means that an individual understands the situation and/or does not have to deal with the biblical contradiction.

My response is that we agree. I did not mean that non-fundamentalist Christians are a monolithic group. Each has found a comfortable accommodation between the Bible and the real world. Their eventual divergences are those of literary critics debating Joyce's Ulysses.

The OT is certainly inconvenient; it constantly puts Christians on the defensive trying to explain away the acts of Yahweh given the message (and acts) of Jesus.   One can easily argue that God (Jesus) is love but doing likewise for Yahweh flies in the face of the evidence.   Try putting Jesus as the god of the OT and imagine Jesus casting out Adam & Eve and then cursing all their progeny — or deciding to wipe out all life on the planet save Noah's family and the spared pairs.   Jesus just does not fit the role, yet Christians are to believe that Jesus and the Father (Yahweh) are hypostases of the same God.

Pretty much false from one end to the other. False because it assumes that God's actions must pass some human test of morality or standard. God drowns the world and that's bad simply because we think that it is. I don't think I deserve that according to my morality so therefore God is mean and evil for drowning me. I don't think what Adam and Eve was all that bad so therefore God was a cruel tyrant for kicking them out of the garden. It assumes that our sense of morality is sufficient to judge God. 

False that Jesus does not fit the role. Jesus fit the OT depiction of God perfectly. Always, in the OT, God was the one working to save His people. Always, He delivered those who put their trust in Him. The mistake you make, and so many others, was not understanding what Jesus was doing. By his own words, Jesus only did what He saw His Father doing. By his own words, he only said what his Father told him to say. By his own words, he only did what his Father told him to do. Yes, he was the image of God, but also, and perhaps just as important, he was the image of what a human being who totally and completely followed and obeyed God. In other words, concurrently with being the image of God, he was the image of man following and obeying God perfectly. People forget that or don't understand it. Jesus was totally divine but he was at the same time totally and completely human. He had to eat, go to the bathroom, got tired, got sick, got fed up and all the rest of what it meant to be human. 

There is no difference between God and Jesus. Jesus would do exactly what his Father did in the Old Testament and, I believe, may have been the one who actually carried out what is ascribed to the Father in the Old Testament. I think God wills, Jesus carries it out. People think there's a difference between Jesus and his Father because they don't understand the Jesus of the New Testament. Jesus came primarily to be the sacrifice God needed for our sins. While he was here he also showed us what a correct life lived before God looked like and why, but that was not the primary reason. Jesus will come back some day and those like Giles will be astonished at how wrong their understanding of Jesus is. When he comes back, it won't be to save, but to judge. And he will do so with an iron rod. 

False because it assumes that God's actions must pass some human test of morality or standard.

The comparison does not require God pass a test - it challenges human beings to explain the differences.   Note what I wrote:  " it constantly puts Christians on the defensive trying to explain away the acts of Yahweh "

God drowns the world and that's bad simply because we think that it is.

We see that as inconsistent with 'God is love'.   Apparently you see no inconsistency or you cannot figure out how to explain it.   Regardless, even if it is not divinely bad, my point stands.   Christians need to explain this.   You clearly cannot explain it and resort to 'God works in mysterious ways'.   I think you made my point.

False that Jesus does not fit the role. Jesus fit the OT depiction of God perfectly.

Fascinating.   

Always, in the OT, God was the one working to save His people.

The Bible defines a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God.   Thus you can certainly claim, per the Bible, that everything God does is correct by biblical definition.   But that is as far as you get to go.   Per the Bible, drowning the entire planet (virtually) is an act of perfection by definition.   But also per the Bible the God who did the drowning was an omnipotent creator (capable of setting reality any way He wished).   That means God could have created a world in which people did not have to be 'saved'.    Further, God per the Bible is omniscient.   That means that God fully knew what would happen.   In short, everything that happens is God's will.   The creation of evil, the specific disobedience of creatures, everything is as God wants it to be because God is in control.    Logically you cannot have all the power and all the information and NOT be the agent behind all that happens.

Unless of course you wish to argue that omnipotence is not really all powerful and/or omniscience is not really all knowing.   Because if God really could put things in motion and have them turn out differently than He expected that would address a number of contradictions in the Bible.   

Always, He delivered those who put their trust in Him. The mistake you make, and so many others, was not understanding what Jesus was doing. By his own words, Jesus only did what He saw His Father doing. By his own words, he only said what his Father told him to say. By his own words, he only did what his Father told him to do. Yes, he was the image of God, but also, and perhaps just as important, he was the image of what a human being who totally and completely followed and obeyed God.  ...  There is no difference between God and Jesus.  Jesus would do exactly what his Father did in the Old Testament and, I believe, may have been the one who actually carried out what is ascribed to the Father in the Old Testament.

That does not explain the difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT.   You are back to merely declaring things so.   Explain how you see Jesus choosing to kill all life on the planet save that on an ark.   Explain how you see Jesus demanding human sacrifice, making rules of proper enslavement, ordering murder and rape, etc.   Good luck.

Jesus came primarily to be the sacrifice God needed for our sins.

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity need to have an hypostasis of Himself in human form be sacrificed in order for Him to forgive the creatures He made (and over whom He has complete control)?   God set Adam & Eve up to fail.   He knew they would disobey even before He created them (by definition) yet He punishes them and their progeny for the disobedience and then engages in divine human sacrifice before He can forgive them.    Yet another contradiction that is excused away.

While he was here he also showed us what a correct life lived before God looked like and why, but that was not the primary reason. Jesus will come back some day and those like Giles will be astonished at how wrong their understanding of Jesus is. When he comes back, it won't be to save, but to judge. And he will do so with an iron rod. 

You are just speculating, right?   Offering your interpretations of ancient words?   You write as though your words are truth - as if you know this is true.

The comparison does not require God pass a test - it challenges human beings to explain the differences.

[deleted]

We see that as inconsistent with 'God is love'. Apparently you see no inconsistency or you cannot figure out how to explain it. Regardless, even if it is not divinely bad, my point stands. Christians need to explain this. You clearly cannot explain it and resort to 'God works in mysterious ways'. I think you made my point.

Total crap. I don't need to provide an explanation because the Bible doe so itself. God drowned the world because not only were the deeds of man corrupt, every thought of man was corrupt. You claim that I need to explain this. What you need to do is explain your moral authority behind such a demand. 

The Bible defines a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God. Thus you can certainly claim, per the Bible, that everything God does is correct by biblical definition. But that is as far as you get to go. Per the Bible, drowning the entire planet (virtually) is an act of perfection by definition. But also per the Bible the God who did the drowning was an omnipotent creator (capable of setting reality any way He wished). That means God could have created a world in which people did not have to be 'saved'. Further, God per the Bible is omniscient. That means that God fully knew what would happen. In short, everything that happens is God's will. The creation of evil, the specific disobedience of creatures, everything is as God wants it to be because God is in control. Logically you cannot have all the power and all the information and NOT be the agent behind all that happens.

Complete crap, again. Your argument is that, if there is a God of the Bible, everything we choose to do is God's fault or credit because He could prevent it or allow it. According to your argument, should God exist, what Jefferey Dahmer did was not his fault, but God's for allowing it. Do you really not see this? Do you really believe that for God to exist you would have no personal choice? Really?

That does not explain the difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT. You are back to merely declaring things so.

Crap, crap and more crap. I am not 'merely declaring things so'. The Bible backs up everything I've said. There isn't a shred of difference between Jesus of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament. Prove otherwise.

Explain how you see Jesus choosing to kill all life on the planet save that on an ark. Explain how you see Jesus demanding human sacrifice, making rules of proper enslavement, ordering murder and rape, etc. Good luck.

Easy. All one has to do is recognize that your individual view of things isn't necessarily the right view. To make such a demand as you do here, prove that you have the authority to set the standard!

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity need to have an hypostasis of Himself in human form be sacrificed in order for Him to forgive the creatures He made (and over whom He has complete control)?

You should change your name. Tig doesn't actually fit you. If it did, you'd never ask this question. Why? Because anyone interested in truth would accept that in order for an individual to be free that individual has to be able to choose. Can you really not understand the concept? Really?

God set Adam [&] Eve up to fail.

Again, you should change your name. It has nothing to do with truth. You claim that because banks have money, it's the banks fault for being robbed. 

He knew they would disobey even before He created them (by definition)

True. He did. What amazes me is that you totally miss the glory in this. 

yet He punishes them and their progeny for the disobedience and then engages in divine human sacrifice before He can forgive them.

Wrong. Abraham was forgiven by God for his sins, but those sins were not covered until Christ. 

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity need to have an hypostasis of Himself in human form be sacrificed in order for Him to forgive the creatures He made (and over whom He has complete control)?

um, okay. What about God being omniscient and omnipotent negates the action of a sinful human being? Are you arguing that, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, it somehow erases what Jeffery Dahmer did? I'm guessing your not. So, why would God need to send His Son to die for us? The answer is, love and justice. Since you claim to be a critical thinker, you must understand that every action has a reaction. It is no different with God. God must punish sin. Imagine a world where sin is not punished. Not very hard. You just have to read the news. You just have to turn on your TV. 

But God, in His mercy, chooses not to make us pay for what we have done. Because He loves us, He chose to pay the penalty for our actions Himself. To answer your question, He didn't need to do this, He chose to. Before He ever created the first moment of our universe, He knew what we would do. He already had a plan in place before that first thousandth of a picosecond of existence. He gifted us with free will, even though we would abuse it, so that we could know Him. Without free will, love cannot exist. 

And so God chose, in love, to experience life as a mere human being. Do you understand what that means? I doubt it. Infinity shed it's prerogatives, set them aside, in order to be born in a trough designed to feed animals. Can you grasp the enormity of that? I don't think you can. I'm a believer and I can barely comprehend it. In fact, I'm not sure I do. I feel as if I'm blind, trying to understand the concept of color.

So, God didn't need to do this, He wanted to. He knew we would fall and He had a plan to rescue us. His Son, Jesus. Born as a mere human being who lived perfectly before his God. And because of that he was able to say "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". He asked his Father to ascribe every last sin, from the least to the greatest, and attribute it to him. He asked His Father to let him pay the price for them. Why? Love!

You are just speculating, right? 

I don't believe so. But that's something you have to decide for yourself.

If so, why are you lying?

What do you expect to accomplish by starting your comment with such an offensive accusation?

You cannot challenge Christians as you do unless you believe you have some standard against which to challenge them. Do you deny this? If you don't, you are a liar. If you do, what makes your standard 'the standard'?

Which challenge, specifically , are you referring to?

Total crap. I don't need to provide an explanation because the Bible doe so itself. God drowned the world because not only were the deeds of man corrupt, every thought of man was corrupt. You claim that I need to explain this. What you need to do is explain your moral authority behind such a demand. 

Your 'total crap' declaration is in reference to this:

TiG @ 5.3.1 - We see that as inconsistent with 'God is love'. Apparently you see no inconsistency or you cannot figure out how to explain it. Regardless, even if it is not divinely bad, my point stands. Christians need to explain this. You clearly cannot explain it and resort to 'God works in mysterious ways'. I think you made my point.

You have now provided your explanation as to why God drowned the world — because God considered the thoughts and deeds of mankind to be corrupt .   I posited that ' God is love ' is inconsistent with God killing all life on the planet save Noah and cargo.  Now, how, exactly, is this consistent with ' God is love '?   A loving God kills virtually all life on the planet?   Not just human beings (the creatures who were corrupt), but all the animals, plants, etc.    Do not merely declare, explain.

Complete crap, again. Your argument is that, if there is a God of the Bible, everything we choose to do is God's fault or credit because He could prevent it or allow it. According to your argument, should God exist, what Jefferey Dahmer did was not his fault, but God's for allowing it.

Hold on there Drakk, you just extrapolated out of my point.   Everything is God's will so all good, bad and everything in-between happens only because God allowed it (or caused it) to happen.   That part is what I wrote.   I did not, however, suggest that the human beings are without fault.    Fault lies with the individual too .   So Adam and Eve were at fault for disobeying God, but God is ultimately responsible since He knew what they would do when He created them (He set them up to fail).   Omnipotence and omniscience means that everything that happens is ultimately the will of God.

Do you really not see this? Do you really believe that for God to exist you would have no personal choice? Really?

Spend less time in 'anger zone'.   Emotion clouds reason.

Personal choice is somewhat different than free will.   We all clearly make choices.  The question is not whether we can make a choice, but rather if we could have made any other choice .   If the future is knowable then that means the chain of choices for all entities is knowable .   And if the chain of choices for an entity (much less all entities) is knowable then that entity's choices are knowable before the choice is even made.   There can be no free will if the choice, at every instant of time, is knowable .

This has nothing to do with God either.   Even if no entity has the power of omniscience, free will would be impossible if the future is knowable .   Now when the Bible defines an entity that is omniscient, it ipso facto claims that the future is knowable and thus free will is impossible.

Crap, crap and more crap. I am not 'merely declaring things so'.

Yes you are merely declaring.   You declared in the abstract that in the entire Bible Jesus only did what the Father (Yahweh) wanted.   But you did not address the specifics of my challenge.   You deemed my challenge false with an abstract declaration.   Explain how it is consistent with the Jesus persona to simply kill all life on the planet (spare a few) rather than reform?   ( Also, did you ever notice that Yahweh's grand plan to reboot the planet failed?  Jesus had to be deployed to fix things again.   And then after Jesus fixed things human beings seem to be as corrupt and sinful as ever.   A decent counterargument for the God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfect claim. )

Drakk @ 5.3 -  There is no difference between God and Jesus.  Jesus would do exactly what his Father did in the Old Testament and, I believe, may have been the one who actually carried out what is ascribed to the Father in the Old Testament.  The Bible backs up everything I've said. 

Above is the essence of where you merely declare Jesus would have killed the planet and declare that God (of the OT; Yahweh) and Jesus are synonymous.   Your explanation is, in effect, ' go read the Bible '.

There isn't a shred of difference between Jesus of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament.  Prove otherwise.

Well, Yahweh killed ... a lot.   Jesus did not kill people, he fed them, healed them, enlightened them, encouraged them, resurrected them, etc.    I could detail other differences but I am pretty sure anything I (or anyone else) writes will not be allowed into your mind.   Confirmation bias is strong with this one.

Easy. All one has to do is recognize that your individual view of things isn't necessarily the right view. To make such a demand as you do here, prove that you have the authority to set the standard!

Instead of addressing my challenge ....

TiG @ 5.3.1 - Explain how you see Jesus choosing to kill all life on the planet save that on an ark. Explain how you see Jesus demanding human sacrifice, making rules of proper enslavement, ordering murder and rape, etc. Good luck.

... you merely declare that I am not worthy to make the challenge. 

Because anyone interested in truth would accept that in order for an individual to be free that individual has to be able to choose. Can you really not understand the concept? Really?

Merely a declaration of incredulity and yet again going personal rather than providing a real answer.   ( See my answer on personal choice above. )   Also, I do accept that to be free an individual must be able to choose.   If no choice is possible that would clearly be a lack of freedom at the onset.   Either you misspoke here or you have fundamentally missed what I am writing.

You claim that because banks have money, it's the banks fault for being robbed. 

Not only have I made no such claim, your analogy is entirely confused.   Banks do not create the thieves and the environment, and banks do not know what will happen in the future.   A better (albeit still imperfect since banks lack omnipotence and omniscience) analogy would be this:   a bank takes $1,000,000 in cash and places it on a pallet outside the front door.   Those who steal the cash are at personal fault, but it is ultimately the fault of the bank for engineering the circumstances knowing that the cash would indeed be stolen.

(to be continued)

True. He [God] did [know Adam & Eve would disobey even before He created them]. What amazes me is that you totally miss the glory in this. 

Here is your chance to explain the 'glory' in setting Adam and Eve up to fail.

Abraham was forgiven by God for his sins, but those sins were not covered until Christ. 

Explain.   Are you saying you believe God forgave Abraham (and possibly all his progeny) of their sins?   If so, why was it necessary for God to then submit Himself (hypostasis Jesus) as a human sacrifice before the sins could be 'covered'?   Why is the payment for sin 'death'?   God can do whatever God wants so why not just drop the death payment nonsense, avoid sacrificing Himself and just wipe the slate clean?    God works in mysterious ways, right?   We just need to accept this because we are too stupid to understand divine wisdom?    Answers like that expose the house of cards.

What about God being omniscient and omnipotent negates the action of a sinful human being? 

Not the point.   My point is that God can do whatever God wishes.   If God wanted to forgive all sins, God could do so.

Are you arguing that, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, it somehow erases what Jeffery Dahmer did?

Where do you get this stuff?   God covering sin does not mean 'erasing the event' so why ask such a stupid question?   Dahmer's sins are history.  God, however, can choose to simply forgive Dahmer and move on.   

So, why would God need to send His Son to die for us? The answer is, love and justice. Since you claim to be a critical thinker, you must understand that every action has a reaction. It is no different with God. God must punish sin. 

Interesting punishment.   God engineers a human sacrifice of Himself (as Jesus) to pay for sins.  And you cannot even conceive of the idea of God paying for sins by issuing a write-off?    After all, Jesus took all the pain ... the sinners did not.   So if a proxy, scapegoat is used why not just wipe out the sin with a credit transaction and move on?   

Imagine a world where sin is not punished. Not very hard. You just have to read the news. You just have to turn on your TV. 

So, as I noted earlier, the Jesus gambit did not work.   A credit would have worked just as well.

But God, in His mercy, chooses not to make us pay for what we have done. Because He loves us, He chose to pay the penalty for our actions Himself.

Kind of like a parent who grounds himself because his child was too lazy to do homework and got a bad grade on a test?

To answer your question, He didn't need to do this, He chose to. Before He ever created the first moment of our universe, He knew what we would do. He already had a plan in place before that first thousandth of a picosecond of existence. He gifted us with free will, even though we would abuse it, so that we could know Him. Without free will, love cannot exist. 

So ... per your interpretation of the Bible there is no free will.   God saw everything that would happen.   God created all the actors, wrote the screen play and then watched it unfold just as He knew it would.   God decided to engage in Jesus theatrics for some unknown reason.   Yet, all along, God could have setup the actors and the screen play any way He wished.   He could have produced a world free of sin.   Because, after all, there is no free will since God (per you interpretation) knows what will happen before it happens anyway.

What do you expect to accomplish by starting your comment with such an offensive accusation?

Truth. 

Which challenge, specifically, are you referring to?

Seriously? How much clearer can I be???

Now, how, exactly, is this consistent with 'God is love'?

How is it not? Apparently, you feel that for God to be a God of love, anything anyone does is acceptable. Jeffery Dahmer, for example. For your charge against God to be true, you need to justify how God cannot judge the Dahmer's of the world and be a God of love. Can you do that? 

Do not merely declare, explain.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. You simply declare that God is unjust because He drowned the world, without explaining why such action is unjust and then demand I explain. How do you do that with a straight face???

Hold on there Drakk, you just extrapolated out of my point. Everything is God's will so all good, bad and everything in-between happens only because God allowed it (or caused it) to happen. That part is what I wrote. I did not, however, suggest that the human beings are without fault. Fault lies with the individual too. So Adam and Eve were at fault for disobeying God, but God is ultimately responsible since He knew what they would do when He created them (He set them up to fail). Omnipotence and omniscience means that everything that happens is ultimately the will of God.

More hypocrisy. You blame God for your actions. Because God has the power to stop what YOU chose to do, it's God's fault for what you choose. Seriously? Do you really believe that? 

spend less time in 'anger zone'. Emotion clouds reason.

A non-answer.

Personal choice is somewhat different than free will. We all clearly make choices. The question is not whether we can make a choice, but rather if we could have made any other choice. If the future is knowable then that means the chain of choices for all entities is knowable. And if the chain of choices for an entity (much less all entities) is knowable then that entity's choices are knowable before the choice is even made. There can be no free will if the choice, at every instant of time, is knowable.

More crap. As I have said numerous times, that we know the choices Napoleon made today doesn't remove his ability to make the choices that he did at the time he made them. Do you deny this?  

This has nothing to do with God either. Even if no entity has the power of omniscience, free will would be impossible if the future is knowable.

Untrue. Both that it doesn't have anything to do with God or that, because God knows the future, it eliminates free will. You object because you do not understand the nature of free will. Human free will has less to do with determining what will happen than determining how we react to what happens. Do you get that? You can rape a five year old girl, or you can choose not to. Which is more significant? The action or the motive? Obviously you would choose not to, but what matters is why you choose not to. Why? Because what you choose in your heart determines your actions. Your actions don't determine what is in your heart. 

Explain how it is consistent with the Jesus persona to simply kill all life on the planet (spare a few) rather than reform?

Not comparable because Jesus' mission was completely different. Jesus was born as a human being for one reason and one reason only. To pay the penalty for our sin. You think that Jesus would be against the flood but you'd be wrong. If Jesus came back today, you'd not recognize him. He would go after the enemies of his Father with extreme prejudice. That would be you, TiG. 

( Also, did you ever notice that Yahweh's grand plan to reboot the planet failed? Jesus had to be deployed to fix things again. And then after Jesus fixed things human beings seem to be as corrupt and sinful as ever. A decent counterargument for the God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfect claim. )

No, I didn't notice, because God never had the intention of 'rebooting' the planet. Jesus was not "deployed' in order to "fix things". You are looking at it wrong. Jesus wasn't there to stop the Titanic from sinking, he was there to rescue those who whished to be rescued. Earth is a sinking ship. There is nothing that can save it. Not even God can make sin not sin. What He can do is make us what He intended us to be if we choose. 

Above is the essence of where you merely declare Jesus would have killed the planet and declare that God (of the OT; Yahweh) and Jesus are synonymous. Your explanation is, in effect, 'go read the Bible'

Uh, yeah. How many times did Jesus state that he only did what he saw his Father do? How many times did he say he only did what his Father told him to do or say what He told him to say? What do you think he meant by that? 

Jesus did not kill people, he fed them, healed them, enlightened them, encouraged them, resurrected them, etc. I could detail other differences but I am pretty sure anything I (or anyone else) writes will not be allowed into your mind. Confirmation bias is strong with this one.

Confirmation bias. That's funny. Really. What's funny is your assumption that you know Jesus. What's funny (but not really) is that you think you know what Jesus did for us. To you, Jesus, should he actually have existed, is just some human who had some smart things to say. But that's not it. Jesus was someone who was telling us that a planet sized asteroid named 'God' was going to smash into the Earth and that he could save us. That was what he was there for. He wasn't there to tell us how to be better people. he was there to tell us that, unless we grasped hold of him with everything we have, God was going to smash into our planet and destroy us all. 

Do you not see this? Jesus said he wasn't' there to judge the world, but to save it. That is what he was there to do at that time. Compare that with his return in Revelations. Do you remember the bumper sticker from when we were children? "Jesus is coming and, boy, is he pissed"? Why do you think that was a meme? God states, Jesus enforces. 

Instead of addressing my challenge .... ... you merely declare that I am not worthy to make the challenge.  

Uh, no. I actually ask you to give a reason for issuing your challenge. Upon what moral basis do you issue your challenge? Your worth is irrelevant. In order for your challenge to be meaningful you have to issue it from some position. That is, you have to claim that because X is true, I must therefore explain Y in light of X. Can you do that?

Either you misspoke here or you have fundamentally missed what I am writing.

I neither misspoke or misunderstood what you wrote. The reality is that you do not understand the nature of free will. Simply put, free will is nothing more or less than the ability to obey or disobey God. That's it. 

Not only have I made no such claim, your analogy is entirely confused.

Don't you get tired of lying? Do you think I'm not able to see through your lies? Is it not your position that, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, whatever we do must therefore be because God wills it? Do you really require me to quote you? You absolutely and categorically blame God, should He exist, for the choices you make as a moral creature. Your idea of free will is that whatever you decide is right and just is right and just. Nope. Even someone as blind as you are should be able to recognize that an Infinite God is going to have a better view of morality than you. I have no doubt that you recognize this on some level but in spite of that, you ignore it. TiG's intellect is so vast, so all encompassing, that you can dismiss it. 

I used to respect you, TiG. I remember way back on Newsvine, here was I guy who I could actually debate. A guy who had an open mind. But you don't have an open mind. I have more respect 

Please do not use nakedly aggressive language.

Here is your chance to explain the 'glory' in setting Adam and Eve up to fail.

And here was your chance to approach this subject honestly. Unsurprisingly, you fail. God could have denied Adam and Eve choice. He could have treated them as machines incapable of choice. Think about it, TiG. Employ your vast intellect. You know, that thing you worship? Imagine that, not only do you not have a choice but to worship the God I do, it would be impossible to imagine not to. The idea of not worshipping God would not occur to you. 

Now, tell me. Imagine you're God. What would you value more? Someone who worshipped you because they had no other option or someone who worshipped you because they had a choice? I know you are a computer programmer. I know you can write a program that would make your computer respond to you any way you wish. But, what if your computer responded to you the way you wished because it chose to? 

That's the glory. Adam and Eve had the ability to respond to their Creator as their Creator desired. That they failed doesn't make it God's fault. Is this so hard to understand? Have you ever stood amongst a herd of cattle? Do you believe any cow in the history of the world has ever wrestled with moral issues? No. Why? Because cows were not made in God's image. Adam and Eve had that choice. That they failed doesn't make it God's fault 

God did not set up Adam and Eve to fail. Once again you are lying. To prove me wrong, you must demonstrate that the act of giving free will to man caused man to fail. That is, Adam and Eve did what they did because God made them do it. Go ahead. I'm waiting for your explanation.

Not the point. My point is that God can do whatever God wishes. If God wanted to forgive all sins, God could do so.

For crying out loud, TiG, you keep going on about critical thinking but fail to employ it. Logically, if God got whatever He wished, Adam and Eve never would have disobeyed Him. Can't you see this? There wouldn't even be a Bible because everything would be according to God's desires. If things went according to God's wishes, Satan would never have rebelled against God. 

WHY doesn't God get what He wishes? Critical thinking suggests that the reason is that God gave us free will. And what is free will? It is nothing more or less than the ability to accept or reject God as God. 

Where do you get this stuff?

From you. You are the one suggesting that God could simply erase the consequences of our actions regardless of whether we believe in Him or not. You are the one suggesting that God could somehow magically make the horror of a five year old girl getting raped by a 40 year old man okay. He's God, right? Somehow you think that He has the power to make such a thing not wrong. I'd really like to hear your explanation. 

Interesting punishment. God engineers a human sacrifice of Himself (as Jesus) to pay for sins. And you cannot even conceive of the idea of God paying for sins by issuing a write-off? After all, Jesus took all the pain ... the sinners did not. So if a proxy, scapegoat is used why not just wipe out the sin with a credit transaction and move on?

Uh, this must be some more of what you consider 'critical thinking'. God creates man in His image. Man abuses that gift and sins, as God knew they would. God pays the penalty for mans sin. So, your genius argument is our actions are God's fault for giving us the ability to choose our actions. More, God is some sort of idiot for devising a rescue for our freely chosen actions. 

So, as I noted earlier, the Jesus gambit did not work. 

Really? Please explain. 

Kind of like a parent who grounds himself because his child was too lazy to do homework and got a bad grade on a test?

No. Like a parent who condemns their child to death and then takes the place of their child. 

So ... per your interpretation of the Bible there is no free will. God saw everything that would happen.

No, TiG, not according to my interpretation. According to yours. Are you so stupid that you think I can't see that? I can assure you that I'm not so stupid that I can't see what you are doing here. Try again. 

Please do not use nakedly aggressive language.

Uh, what? I mean, seriously. What? What is "nakedly aggressive language'? Truth? 

We'll let a Moderator decide.

How much clearer can I be???

State the challenge to which you object rather than make a vague reference.

Apparently, you feel that for God to be a God of love, anything anyone does is acceptable.

No, I stated that God killing the entire planet (human beings, animals, plants) spare a few is not an act of love.   Killing one's creations does not seem to be an act of love.

Jeffery Dahmer, for example. For your charge against God to be true, you need to justify how God cannot judge the Dahmer's of the world and be a God of love. Can you do that? 

Where do you see me stating that God cannot declare and punish sin?   God can do whatever God wants.   What I have observed is that if God is omniscient and omnipotent then God created His creatures knowing full well when and how they would sin (God set them up to fail).   Omniscience and omnipotence turns reality into a grand screenplay where God is writer/director and all life (and non-life) are the actors.   God can then choose to declare sin and punish the sinners (the actors).   But ultimately it is God behind all that is good and all that is evil.

My point is that omniscience and omnipotence are poison pill attributes.   Defining God as omniscient and omnipotent creates a self-refuting definition.   It produces a God that makes no sense.   In my opinion, your frustration is partly a result of your belief that God is perfect and that this all  m u s t  make sense when, logically, that is impossible given how the Bible defines God.

Short and sweet essence:   an omniscient God cannot be surprised by what His creations do and an omnipotent God cannot be unable to engineer reality as He wishes it to be.

You simply declare that God is unjust because He drowned the world, without explaining why such action is unjust and then demand I explain.

I did not declare God unjust, I stated that drowning the world is inconsistent with 'God is love' and asked you to imagine that it was Jesus, not Yahweh, who decided to kill the planet (spare a few).    If you do not see why I would find killing one's creations to NOT be an act of love I do not know what words can get this through to you.

You blame God for your actions. Because God has the power to stop what YOU chose to do, it's God's fault for what you choose. Seriously? Do you really believe that? 

I think you are purposely trying to not understand what I write.   I am not arguing that God has the power to stop our choices (He does, per the Bible, but that is not what I argued).   I argued that God wrote the screenplay knowing full well every little choice (and sin) His creations would make.    The choices made by His creations are pre-determined because the future is knowable.   And the future is knowable (per the Bible) because God is omniscient.    (The only way for an entity to be omniscient is for the future to be knowable.)

A non-answer.

This is funny.   You deem my opening sentence a non-answer yet the very next sentence begins my answer.   More evidence that you are not really trying to understand what I write.   So what is the point of this, Drakk?   Venomous writing is not persuasive (quite the opposite).

As I have said numerous times, that we know the choices Napoleon made today doesn't remove his ability to make the choices that he did at the time he made them. Do you deny this?  

No, of course not.    But if God is omniscient and omnipotent, the choices Napoleon made were the only choices he could make.    If God knew what Napoleon was going to choose then reality is just one big deterministic script.   Again, omniscience and omnipotence are poison pill attributes for God.   This is one of the biggest mistakes made by the authors of the Bible in their zeal to have the 'best' God of the times.

Both that it doesn't have anything to do with God or that, because God knows the future, it eliminates free will.

Sorry Drakk, if the future is knowable then free will is an illusion.   Take away the attribute of omniscience and the biblical God would be less of an overt contradiction.

You object because you do not understand the nature of free will.

I am confident, at this point, that the opposite is true.

Human free will has less to do with determining what will happen than determining how we react to what happens. Do you get that?

If it is possible for anyone to know what you will do then what you will do is predetermined.   If what you do is predetermined, your choice is the only one you could make.

You can rape a five year old girl, or you can choose not to. Which is more significant? The action or the motive?

If the future is knowable, the rapist is going to choose to rape because that is the script.   Omniscience is the problem.   What you are doing is beating your head against the wall trying to deny the consequences of omniscience.   

Obviously you would choose not to, but what matters is why you choose not to. Why? Because what you choose in your heart determines your actions. Your actions don't determine what is in your heart. 

A fine thing to discuss if we were not in the context of an omniscient God.   Omniscience turns reality into a deterministic sequence of events so every little thought (and thus every little action) is known before they occur.

Not comparable because Jesus' mission was completely different.   Jesus was born as a human being for one reason and one reason only. To pay the penalty for our sin. You think that Jesus would be against the flood but you'd be wrong. If Jesus came back today, you'd not recognize him. He would go after the enemies of his Father with extreme prejudice. 

So you have no problem placing the God of Love in the role of executioner for the entire planet?   Jesus would choose to drown the planet just like Yahweh?   Okay, Drakk, but I suspect you are at odds with quite a few Christians on this.   After all, you must have noticed how most Christian religions cherry-pick and sanitize the OT and focus on the NT.   There is a very good reason for this:  the OT God is arguably a monster and the NT God (Jesus) is mostly carrying a message of love and peace.

No, I didn't notice, because God never had the intention of 'rebooting' the planet.

Noah's flood was not intended to wipe out life and start all over?   

Jesus was not "deployed' in order to "fix things". You are looking at it wrong. Jesus wasn't there to stop the Titanic from sinking, he was there to rescue those who whished to be rescued. Earth is a sinking ship. There is nothing that can save it. 

Noah's flood wiped out almost everyone.   Then humanity repopulated again into a sinful mess.   Things are not working the way the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God wants.   Another major contradiction. 

Not even God can make sin not sin. What He can do is make us what He intended us to be if we choose. 

We are exactly what an omnipotent, omniscient God wants us to be.   With those two attributes, everything that happens is God's will.    Again, the problem here is that you cannot have a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God and also have free will.   And without free will, virtually all of your arguments go out the window.   I predict you will never get past the frustration you must feel until you come to grips with the contradiction imposed by the Bible.   

Uh, yeah. How many times did Jesus state that he only did what he saw his Father do? How many times did he say he only did what his Father told him to do or say what He told him to say? What do you think he meant by that? 

And now compare what Jesus actually did (per the NT) with what Yahweh actually did (per the OT) and imagine Jesus behaving as Yahweh.   I know, you see no difference.   Not much anyone can do if you ignore all the facts and just stick with what you wish to believe.

What's funny is your assumption that you know Jesus. What's funny (but not really) is that you think you know what Jesus did for us. To you, Jesus, should he actually have existed, is just some human who had some smart things to say. But that's not it. Jesus was someone who was telling us that a planet sized asteroid named 'God' was going to smash into the Earth and that he could save us. That was what he was there for. He wasn't there to tell us how to be better people. he was there to tell us that, unless we grasped hold of him with everything we have, God was going to smash into our planet and destroy us all. 

And now take that personna and imagine Jesus as Yahweh (the destroyer) rather than the savior.   

Do you not see this? Jesus said he wasn't' there to judge the world, but to save it.

I did not argue that the roles of Yahweh and Jesus are the same.   I noted that the two personas are quite different and that Jesus in the role held by Yahweh is a contradiction - that Jesus would not behave as Yahweh did (based on the biblical persona).   Regardless, since you do not even recognize a difference in persona there is no point writing anything else.

That is what he was there to do at that time. Compare that with his return in Revelations. Do you remember the bumper sticker from when we were children? "Jesus is coming and, boy, is he pissed"? Why do you think that was a meme? God states, Jesus enforces. 

Skipping the bumper-stick argument.   I suggest you not use this in the future (it is ridiculous).

The reality is that you do not understand the nature of free will. Simply put, free will is nothing more or less than the ability to obey or disobey God. That's it. 

With that definition I will restate.   If God is omniscient and omnipotent then God knew exactly when and how you would obey / disobey Him when He created you.   Given He knew what you will do, your fate was predetermined.   There is no escaping the logic of omniscience.   For your logic to work you need to equivocate on the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.   If God were defined like, say, the Greek gods then free will (as you define it) logically works.   But when God holds literally all the cards, there is no room for free will (even as you define it).    

Is it not your position that, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, whatever we do must therefore be because God wills it?

Yes!  With the big O's in place, whatever happens is God's will.

Do you really require me to quote you?

I am going to quote you.   You presented the bank analogy:

Drakk @5.3.2 - You claim that because banks have money, it's the banks fault for being robbed. 

I then told you that I made no such claim.   I then took time to provide a clear, detailed explanation as to why your analogy does not represent what I wrote.    You should have read it.   Here it is:

TiG @5.3.3 - Not only have I made no such claim, your analogy is entirely confused.   Banks do not create the thieves and the environment, and banks do not know what will happen in the future.   A better (albeit still imperfect since banks lack omnipotence and omniscience) analogy would be this:   a bank takes $1,000,000 in cash and places it on a pallet outside the front door.   Those who steal the cash are at personal fault, but it is ultimately the fault of the bank for engineering the circumstances knowing that the cash would indeed be stolen.

My conclusion is that you are not putting forth any effort to understand - just venomous attacking.

You absolutely and categorically blame God, should He exist, for the choices you make as a moral creature.

Why not just read what I wrote?   I think this is clear:

TiG @5.3.3 - Everything is God's will so all good, bad and everything in-between happens only because God allowed it (or caused it) to happen.   That part is what I wrote.   I did not, however, suggest that the human beings are without fault.  Fault lies with the individual too.  So Adam and Eve were at fault for disobeying God, but God is ultimately responsible since He knew what they would do when He created them (He set them up to fail).   Omnipotence and omniscience means that everything that happens is ultimately the will of God. Your idea of free will is that whatever you decide is right and just is right and just.

After all I have written, this is how you think I define free will?   How am I supposed to respond when you distort even the most basic, clearly stated concepts into something so different (and ugly) from what I wrote?

Nope. Even someone as blind as you are should be able to recognize that an Infinite God is going to have a better view of morality than you. 

Strawman.   We are not discussing objective morality, but a supreme entity (a god) would logically be the arbiter of objective morality and thus would supersede the morality of all His creations.

That's the glory. Adam and Eve had the ability to respond to their Creator as their Creator desired. 

The ability to freely choose to obey and/or worship was not provided.   So no glory.   Your question ignores the big O's.   With the big O's, Adam & Eve could not freely choose because they could not have free will.   

Now, tell me.  Imagine you're God. What would you value more? Someone who worshipped you because they had no other option or someone who worshipped you because they had a choice? 

Well, if I am God and, per the Bible, I am omnipotent and omniscient, then it is (ironically) impossible for me to create individuals who have free will.   This, by the way, is another well-known contradiction:  the big O's are self-refuting.

God did not set up Adam and Eve to fail.  ... To prove me wrong, you must demonstrate that the act of giving free will to man caused man to fail. That is, Adam and Eve did what they did because God made them do it. Go ahead. I'm waiting for your explanation.

But that is not what I have claimed.   I have claimed that free will is impossible given the big O's.   So I am not going to try to explain the strawman you just posed because I disagree with its logic.    I have stated that God set up Adam & Eve to fail because He knew they would disobey before He created them yet created them (and their environment) nonetheless.

Logically, if God got whatever He wished, Adam and Eve never would have disobeyed Him.

Logically, Drakk, if God is omniscient and omnipotent he wanted Adam & Eve to disobey Him.   The problem is not my logic; the problem is you trying to make sense of a story that includes an omniscient and omnipotent God.   The story is based on a profound contradiction and the logic is never going to work.    

You are the one suggesting that God could simply erase the consequences of our actions regardless of whether we believe in Him or not. You are the one suggesting that God could somehow magically make the horror of a five year old girl getting raped by a 40 year old man okay. He's God, right? Somehow you think that He has the power to make such a thing not wrong. I'd really like to hear your explanation. 

I have never suggested that God could (would) erase the consequence of actions.   You are looking at this in reverse time.   I have stated (endlessly now) that God set up the screen play.   So if God did not want something to happen, God would not have set the screen play up as He did.   Again, this is the consequence of the big O's.   God, as defined by the Bible, is a self-refuting contradiction which leads to logic such as God wanting the little girl to be raped.   Nobody wants a God that would want such a thing but until you equivocate on the big O's there is no free will and ultimately everything that happens is God's will.

God creates man in His image. Man abuses that gift and sins, as God knew they would. God pays the penalty for mans sin. So, your genius argument is our actions are God's fault for giving us the ability to choose our actions. More, God is some sort of idiot for devising a rescue for our freely chosen actions. 

That is not my argument.   I am illustrating the ridiculous story conceived by the biblical authors.   They created a God who determined that a human sacrifice was necessary for Him to wipe the slate clean for the sin of mankind.   God could wipe the slate any way God wishes, but God chooses a human sacrifice (sounds just like what an iron age man might conceive).   And the human sacrifice is actually God Himself in human form (the Jesus hypostasis).   So God basically has His creations kill Him (Jesus hypostasis) so that He could then wipe the slate clean.   The story is ridiculous.

Really? Please explain.

The world is full of sin again; more payment is required.   It is like painting over graffiti only to have more graffiti return.   

No. Like a parent who condemns their child to death and then takes the place of their child.

Okay.   That works for me.   Instead of working to improve the child, the parent passes a death sentence on the child but then punishes himself instead rather than kill his child.    How about skipping the human sacrifice altogether and go directly to improving the child?

No, TiG, not according to my interpretation. According to yours.

Do you consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent (and perfect)?   That is the interpretation of yours that I am referencing.

And without free will, virtually all of your arguments go out the window.

Well, yeah. All you have to do is simply declare that there's no free will for it to be true, right? Sheesh. You say I'm not making any effort to understand but am just attacking. Well, I'll tell you what. Why don't you try arguing with someone who just tosses out things like "God gets what God wants" and then expects you to just go with it simply because he says it's so? Worse, you constantly try to have it both ways. For example...

Everything is God's will so all good, bad and everything in-between happens only because God allowed it (or caused it) to happen. That part is what I wrote. I did not, however, suggest that the human beings are without fault. Fault lies with the individual too. So Adam and Eve were at fault for disobeying God, but God is ultimately responsible since He knew what they would do when He created them (He set them up to fail). Omnipotence and omniscience means that everything that happens is ultimately the will of God. Your idea of free will is that whatever you decide is right and just is right and just.

It's God's fault because He is omnipotent and omniscient but not really because Adam and Eve chose to do what they did but it's really not their fault because God is omnipotent and omniscient and somehow (you don't ever explain it) because God is those things, it's His will that we do whatever we do so it's not really our fault but it is. How the hell do you do that? How do you state that there is no free will under God but at the same time say Adam and Eve were at fault for something you state they had no choice in? 

Here's the problem with your argument. It can't conceive of an omnipotent, omniscient God that lets us choose our own actions. You apparently can't conceive a God that allows us to choose morally and then uses those choices to accomplish His goals. God did not set up Adam and Eve to fail. He allowed them to fail because that is what was necessary for free will. Your argument is that the forty year old man raped the five year old child because it was God's will that he do so. You say that because God is omniscient and omnipotent, it must be so that the man was doing God's will. If the man was doing God's will in raping the baby, how can the man be blamed for it? Don't you find that just a bit ridiculous? 

You say...

Well, if I am God and, per the Bible, I am omnipotent and omniscient, then it is (ironically) impossible for me to create individuals who have free will. This, by the way, is another well-known contradiction: the big O's are self-refuting.

You just state that this is so. You don't actually provide an argument as to why you feel it is. Even so, you just keep on trying to have it both ways. How in the hell can you put this forward as true but then say...

I did not, however, suggest that the human beings are without fault. Fault lies with the individual too. So Adam and Eve were at fault for disobeying God...

If they did not have free will, how can you possibly say they were at fault? You may as well find fault with the grass in your front yard for being green. 

Your idea of free will is that whatever you decide is right and just is right and just.

And before we go any further, as I have stated on numerous occasions, my idea of free will is nothing more or less than the ability to choose for or against God. It is not whatever I decide is right and just. That's already been decided. Do you understand what I am saying? Free will is not the ability to choose what is right and wrong. It is the ability to choose between what is right and wrong. Right and wrong are as immutable as the speed of light or gravity. 

So here's what you need to do in order to prove your point of view. Explain why God being omniscient and omnipotent precludes free will on our part. In the mean time, I will explain why it doesn't. 

To begin, I will explain all the ways in which I have no free will and is the result of God's will for me. I did not choose to be male. I did not choose to be 6 feet, one inches tall. I didn't choose who my parents were or who my siblings are. I did not choose the day and age in which I exist. 

But what I do get to do is choose how I react to the world in which I find myself. You, being a materialist, probably disagree with that. To you, we're just programs running according to some chemical code in our brains, which kind of makes this whole conversation pointless. "You" and "me" are just illusions and we really are just the product of a deterministic universe. 

But I digress. As the Bible says, all the days of my life, from first to last, have already been determined. I'm going to live X amount of years and no more. I'm going to meet certain people and I'm going to do certain things. Some of this is out of my hands. I have little or no choice in it. Things will happen in my life because, I believe, God willed that it should be so. But where free will comes into it is not in choosing what happens to me, but in how I react to what happens to me. God might decree quadriplegia in my future. If so, I will have no free will in it. I will be a quadriplegic because God wills that it should be so. Where my free will comes into it is how I choose to react to whatever God chooses to do in my life. 

Can you grasp this, TiG? Do you understand what I'm telling you free will actually is? It is not the ability to decide what will happen in your life or what is good or bad. It is the ability to respond to what happens to you either within God's will or your own. Free will, when it comes down to it, is choosing Satan's side or God's. It's really that simple. Free will is the ability to either accept or reject God as God. 

If we really had no free will because God is omnipotent and omniscient then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Like a cow in a pasture, we'd have no concept of what it would mean to oppose God. It wouldn't be an option. It wouldn't even be something we could conceive of. No more than a cow in a field can ponder nuclear fusion. But we're not cows in a field. We can grasp the concept of right and wrong and we can choose to act or not act on that knowledge. That is what free will is. Not deciding what is right and just, that's already determined. Free will is discovering what is right and just and being able to act on it.

So, back to God. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, do you really not understand that such a being would be perfectly capable of taking our freely chosen actions and weaving them into His plan? You are arguing that an infinite being cannot take the choices we make and use them to accomplish what He desires. What is your basis for stating such?  Pharaoh made choices. God used Pharaoh's choices to accomplish His plan. Pharaoh had no choice in being Pharaoh. God placed him in that position. He did so because the person Pharaoh chose to be served God's purpose. He was an example of how God can allow free will and still use those choices to accomplish His purpose. 

But that is not what I have claimed. I have claimed that free will is impossible given the big O's. So I am not going to try to explain the strawman you just posed because I disagree with its logic. I have stated that God set up Adam & Eve to fail because He knew they would disobey before He created them yet created them (and their environment) nonetheless.

Two things. First, that is exactly what you claimed. You stated that God set up Adam and Eve to fail. Second, all you do is "claim" that the "big O's" preclude free will without actually explaining why. 

Logically, Drakk, if God is omniscient and omnipotent he wanted Adam & Eve to disobey Him. The problem is not my logic; the problem is you trying to make sense of a story that includes an omniscient and omnipotent God. The story is based on a profound contradiction and the logic is never going to work.

(Sigh) When are you going to get around to explaining why an omniscient and omnipotent God means He wanted them to fail? You just state it as if it were some sort of given. It's not. Gravity is a given. How about you take your so-far-merely-declarative-statements and actually provide the reasoning behind them? What is the logic behind God wanting Adam and Eve to fail? You just give circular reasoning for your statements. God is omniscient and omnipotent, so therefore God set them up. And when I ask why you think so. you just restate that God is omnipotent and omniscient. 

That is not my argument. I am illustrating the ridiculous story conceived by the biblical authors. They created a God who determined that a human sacrifice was necessary for Him to wipe the slate clean for the sin of mankind. God could wipe the slate any way God wishes, but God chooses a human sacrifice (sounds just like what an iron age man might conceive). And the human sacrifice is actually God Himself in human form (the Jesus hypostasis). So God basically has His creations kill Him (Jesus hypostatis) so that He could then wipe the slate clean. The story is ridiculous.

Amazing. You claim that this is not your argument but then immediately prove that it is. God could wipe the slate clean any way He wishes? How the hell do you arrive at that conclusion? Seriously?! I mean it, TiG. How do you logically arrive at such a conclusion? I'll tell you how. You ignore everything the Bible says about who God is and simply rely on your fantasy notion of what a God would be. Basically, that a God would be able to do anything at all, including logically impossible things. The Bible says God is a God of justice but according to you, He can just snap his fingers and all the wrongs in the universe would just disappear, no atonement and no consequences. 

So tell me, TiG. You claim that the story is illogical. As usual, you just claim this without actually explaining or giving evidence as to why this is true. So, I need to ask you... what is illogical about a God who, knowing the gift of free will will be abused and that man will fall, deciding that He Himself will pay the penalty for our fall? What, exactly, is illogical about that? Would this not be an example of love? God gives free will to man, making him in His image, knowing we would not be able to handle it and chooses to give His life for ours so that we would not perish. Pretty stupid, huh? I mean, what kind of an idiot would you be to sacrifice your life for the sake of your child, right? Just doesn't make sense. 

The world is full of sin again; more payment is required. It is like painting over graffiti only to have more graffiti return.

Wow. I get that you do not believe what I do but I would at least think you capable of potentially understanding the basics of what the Bible claims. More payment? How can you possibly miss the fact that the Bible makes the claim that what Jesus did was sufficient for all time? Christ's sacrifice completely satisfied his Fathers sense of justice. God doesn't demand anything more. Period. 

Okay. That works for me. Instead of working to improve the child, the parent passes a death sentence on the child but then punishes himself instead rather than kill his child. How about skipping the human sacrifice altogether and go directly to improving the child?

So, in other words, you wish that there are no actual consequences for our actions? Let me tell you a story. Little five year old Jessica's parent's died in a senseless shooting. She had no siblings. Her uncle, Jeb, takes her in. Uncle Jeb is a sick, disturbed individual. Instead of providing love, comfort and security for little Jessica, he subjects her to constant rape, fear and insecurity. Imagine little Jessica's view of the world. Nothing but continual fear and pain. Your suggestion is that God should ignore what Jeb has done to his niece and, instead, in some apparently touchy, feely fashion, just magically make Jeb a better person? 

Here's the problem with your view of things. You don't actually pay any attention to what the Bible says about God. You totally ignore it. Instead, you have this false image of what you think God would be. Your view of God is some sort of FSM where it can do anything you can imagine, including making a square circle. To you, God has no limitations. Because this is so, you somehow believe that a real God of love would not also be a God of justice. You seem to think they are mutually exclusive. 

So, if God were really something real, apparently Jeb would not have to pay for his crimes. God would just wave some sort of magic wand and Jeb would just become the perfect uncle. God would not be a God of justice, He'd just be this unicorn riding heavenly version of Richard Simmons. 

Do you consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent (and perfect)? That is the interpretation of yours that I am referencing.

Yes, I do. Where you deceive is that because I believe that about God means that I agree with your point of view concerning this. As such, you aren't referring to my interpretation but, rather, trying to establish your view as mine. You obviously think I'm to stupid to see this. To be completely clear, you have the unexplained notion that because God is both omnipotent and omniscient, man cannot have free will. Then, you falsely attempt to claim that this is my view. It is emphatically not my view. 

Well, yeah. All you have to do is simply declare that there's no free will for it to be true, right?

No, mere declaration would not work.   Rather than merely declare, I have explained why free will cannot exist with omniscience.   Here is the reasoning yet again in yet another form:

1. Free will (normal definition) is the ability for individuals to make an alternate  choice at a given state of reality.   
2. If the future is knowable then a choice that will be made is knowable .
3. If a choice that will be made is knowable then there is no alternate choice; there is no free will .
4. If any entity is omniscient then the future is knowable .

∴  Omniscience means no free will.

It's God's fault because He is omnipotent and omniscient but not really because Adam and Eve chose to do what they did but it's really not their fault because God is omnipotent and omniscient and somehow (you don't ever explain it) because God is those things, it's His will that we do whatever we do so it's not really our fault but it is. How the hell do you do that? How do you state that there is no free will under God but at the same time say Adam and Eve were at fault for something you state they had no choice in? 

I will explain again.   You left out the word 'ultimately'.   Again read what I wrote:

TiG @ 5.3.3  - Everything is God's will so all good, bad and everything in-between happens only because God allowed it (or caused it) to happen.   That part is what I wrote.   I did not, however, suggest that the human beings are without fault.  Fault lies with the individual  too .  So Adam and Eve were at fault for disobeying God, but God is  ultimately  responsible since He knew what they would do when He created them (He set them up to fail).   Omnipotence and omniscience means that everything that happens is  ultimately  the will of God.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent (hereafter God _oo ) God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens.   Everything that happens is God _oo 's will.   At each stage of the game, however, we can deem intermediate responsibility on agents.   Adam & Eve are agents who are responsible for disobeying God.   Given a God _oo they would have had no choice, but they are still the intermediate responsible agents.

As an analogy, the bowling ball that fails to knock down all 10 pins is the agent at fault because its velocity and spin were not sufficient to down the pins.   But ultimately the fault for not getting a strike lies with the bowler.   The bowling ball really had no choice, it was just the agent in a predetermined causal chain defined by the bowler releasing the ball.

The notion of God _oo does indeed mean that everything that happens is per God _oo 's will.   The agents (people, etc.) are simply acting out their designated parts in a determined future.   If you think that is not how reality works I suggest you equivocate on the omniscient attribute.   That attribute, in my opinion, is what causes most of your cognitive dissonance.

Don't you find that just a bit ridiculous? 

I think that God _oo as defined by the Bible is self-refuting.   I see your problem as trying to make sense out of a definition for God that is a logical contradiction.

God did not set up Adam and Eve to fail. He allowed them to fail because that is what was necessary for free will.

That statement works if God is not omniscient.   By declaring God omniscient you ipso facto state that the future is knowable and that means free will is impossible.   You have to choose between omniscience and free will.   Trying to preserve both of these will force you to continue to beat your head up against logic.   

Your argument is that the forty year old man raped the five year old child because it was God's will that he do so. You say that because God is omniscient and omnipotent, it must be so that the man was doing God's will. If the man was doing God's will in raping the baby, how can the man be blamed for it?

If you insist on God _oo (and that is what you are doing) then you insist that the future is knowable and thus there can be no free will.   With God _oo the rapist is an agent.   The rapist is at fault (as the causal agent) but since the agent under a God _oo has no choice, God _oo is ultimately at fault.   

My argument, however, is that God _oo is impossible — a self-refuting concept.   So if there is a God, He would not be omniscient and omnipotent and thus would not necessarily be ultimately at fault.

You just state that this is so. You don't actually provide an argument as to why you feel it is.

I explained it right there in what you quoted:  

TiG @ 5.3.10 - Well, if I am God and, per the Bible, I am omnipotent and omniscient, then it is (ironically) impossible for me to create individuals who have free will . This, by the way, is another well-known contradiction: the big O's are self-refuting.

Since you need more:   If God is omniscient, free will is impossible.  This means an omniscient God cannot grant free will.   But this contradicts the notion of omnipotence.   Thus omniscience contradicts omnipotence.

And before we go any further, as I have stated on numerous occasions, my idea of free will is nothing more or less than the ability to choose for or against God. It is not whatever I decide is right and just ...

You are repeating yourself and it is unnecessary.  I have not stated that free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong but rather the ability to choose in general - the ability to actually choose an alternative.   You limit free will to being able to choose for or against God.   Does not matter, if free will as I have defined it does not exist then any subset (such as yours) does not exist.

Explain why God being omniscient and omnipotent precludes free will on our part.

I think you need to read since I have already explained this numerous times.

To begin, I will explain all the ways in which I have no free will and is the result of God's will for me. I did not choose to be male. I did not choose to be 6 feet, one inches tall. I didn't choose who my parents were or who my siblings are. I did not choose the day and age in which I exist. 

Seems like a pointless exercise.  We all know there are plenty of factors about us that we did not choose.   Given, Drakk.  Given.

But what I do get to do is choose how I react to the world in which I find myself. You, being a materialist, probably disagree with that. To you, we're just programs running according to some chemical code in our brains, which kind of makes this whole conversation pointless. "You" and "me" are just illusions and we really are just the product of a deterministic universe. 

You get to choose this only if the future is not knowable.   If the future is knowable then what you think is a choice is simply an illusion.   I do not even have to get into current findings in neuroscience.   My comment simply references my very well established and explained point that a knowable future precludes free will.   So if you hold that these truly are your choices then God cannot be omniscient (in fact nothing can be omniscient because the future necessarily is NOT knowable).

But I digress. As the Bible says, all the days of my life, from first to last, have already been determined.  ...  Where my free will comes into it is how I choose to react to whatever God chooses to do in my life. 

If the future is knowable there is no choice, no matter how small, that you can actually make.  A knowable future means no free will (as I have explained numerous times) and no free will means no choices at all.

Can you grasp this, TiG?

You keep insinuating that I cannot understand what you are writing.   When I disagree with you I give reasons.   I often give quite detailed explanations.    It seems to me that you should spend more time asking yourself if you are honestly trying to understand what I write or are simply lashing out at me because I dare to disagree with you on matters near and dear to you.

If we really had no free will because God is omnipotent and omniscient then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Why not?   If God is omniscient then this discussion would be God's will.   

Like a cow in a pasture, we'd have no concept of what it would mean to oppose God. 

Not having free will does not translate into mindless robots.  An enormously complex, introspective entity could exist and function under the illusion of free will even in a deterministic reality.   

( c o n t i n u e d )

( c o n t i n u e d )

So, back to God. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, do you really not understand that such a being would be perfectly capable of taking our freely chosen actions and weaving them into His plan? 

Interesting.   You have posited that an omniscient entity might have a plan with undecided factors that would be decided once creations make choices.   But you ignore the fact that this omniscient entity would already know the choices that would be made.   Think this through a little more.

Pharaoh made choices. God used Pharaoh's choices to accomplish His plan. Pharaoh had no choice in being Pharaoh. God placed him in that position. He did so because the person Pharaoh chose to be served God's purpose. He was an example of how God can allow free will and still use those choices to accomplish His purpose. 

You can offer hundreds of examples, but if the examples all miss the point, what do they accomplish?   God cannot allow free will if God is omniscient.   If your example presupposes that an omniscient God has granted free will, the example is doomed at the onset.

First, that is exactly what you claimed. You stated that God set up Adam and Eve to fail. Second, all you do is "claim" that the "big O's" preclude free will without actually explaining why. 

Read what you wrote:

Drakk @5.3.7 - God did not set up Adam and Eve to fail.  ... To prove me wrong, you must demonstrate that the act of giving free will to man caused man to fail. That is, Adam and Eve did what they did because God made them do it. Go ahead. I'm waiting for your explanation.

Yes I claim that God set up Adam and Eve to fail (presuming omniscience).   But what I objected to is what I highlighted in red above.   I have never argued that giving free will causes man to fail.  Further I have explained the big O's now so many times I have resorted to developing a nomenclature.   Disagree, but stop claiming that the many attempts to explain this to you have never appeared.

When are you going to get around to explaining why an omniscient and omnipotent God means He wanted them to fail? 

Let's see if this rings a bell.  If God is omniscient then free will is impossible.   So if God is omniscient and omnipotent He knew Adam & Eve would fail while he was creating them.   If God did not want them to fail, God could have created them differently.   He did not (per the Bible) so if God is omniscient and omnipotent, He set Adam & Eve up to fail.

God is omniscient and omnipotent, so therefore God set them up. And when I ask why you think so. you just restate that God is omnipotent and omniscient. 

If that is all you comprehend from my now many explanations of this one simple concept, then you do not comprehend what I am writing (or are pretending to not understand).   Either way, not my problem at this point.

Amazing. You claim that this is not your argument but then immediately prove that it is.

I cannot make you think, Drakk.   You have to try.

God could wipe the slate clean any way He wishes? How the hell do you arrive at that conclusion? Seriously?! I mean it, TiG. How do you logically arrive at such a conclusion?

If God is omnipotent then God can do whatever He wishes.   Just forgive the sin and consider the debt paid.   A writeoff.   Certainly God could do that, right?

I'll tell you how. You ignore everything the Bible says about who God is and simply rely on your fantasy notion of what a God would be.

The attribute of omnipotence comes from the Bible.   That is all I used above.

Basically, that a God would be able to do anything at all, including logically impossible things. 

I have not claimed that God should be able to do logically impossible things like create a God more powerful than He.   Strawman.

The Bible says God is a God of justice but according to you, He can just snap his fingers and all the wrongs in the universe would just disappear, no atonement and no consequences.

And why not?   Why do you think God is unable to accomplish this?

So tell me, TiG. You claim that the story is illogical. As usual, you just claim this without actually explaining or giving evidence as to why this is true.

I back up my claims.   It is very revealing that you ignore the explanations and then complain that I never provide them.

So, I need to ask you... what is illogical about a God who, knowing the gift of free will will be abused and that man will fall, deciding that He Himself will pay the penalty for our fall?

Just look at your analogy of a parent imposing the death penalty on his child and then instead of acting, taking the death penalty himself.   

What, exactly, is illogical about that?  Would this not be an example of love?

Sure, that is an example of love.   (You are in the NT testament now.   In case you did not notice.)   It is also an example of absurdity.

God gives free will to man, making him in His image, knowing we would not be able to handle it and chooses to give His life for ours so that we would not perish. Pretty stupid, huh? I mean, what kind of an idiot would you be to sacrifice your life for the sake of your child, right? Just doesn't make sense. 

Well, I think that I would engineer the situation so that nobody has to die.    I would address the problem without the need for an iron-age cultural mindset of sacrificing life as a form of payment.   You really cannot see any other solution?   

I get that you do not believe what I do but I would at least think you capable of potentially understanding the basics of what the Bible claims. More payment? How can you possibly miss the fact that the Bible makes the claim that what Jesus did was sufficient for all time? Christ's sacrifice completely satisfied his Fathers sense of justice. God doesn't demand anything more. Period. 

So why is there still pain and suffering in the world?   Why do people get sick and die?    Why do women still have painful childbirth?    It would seem that the consequences of original sin remain in effect.   So by the human sacrifice, God atones for sins but does not change anything.   Looks like God could have avoided the sacrifice drama and just cleared up everything at judgment day given the human sacrifice did not mean anything other than clearing an entry in the sin ledger.

So, in other words, you wish that there are no actual consequences for our actions?

No, the parent can discipline the child and then seek to make them better.   No need for the parent to impose a death sentence on the child and then punish himself instead.   

Your suggestion is that God should ignore what Jeb has done to his niece and, instead, in some apparently touchy, feely fashion, just magically make Jeb a better person? 

You really need to try to understand what I write.   If this is what you honestly believe then I honestly believe that you are simply trying to find ways to disagree and will take whatever misinterpretation that first comes to mind.   My suggestion is that God should NOT do the following:   condemn Jeb to death for his sins and then sacrifice Himself as the proxy for Jeb.   See?

Here's the problem with your view of things. You don't actually pay any attention to what the Bible says about God. You totally ignore it.   Instead, you have this false image of what you think God would be. Your view of God is some sort of FSM where it can do anything you can imagine, including making a square circle. To you, God has no limitations. Because this is so, you somehow believe that a real God of love would not also be a God of justice. You seem to think they are mutually exclusive. 

What a pile of made up nonsense.   

Yes, I do. Where you deceive is that because I believe that about God means that I agree with your point of view concerning this. As such, you aren't referring to my interpretation but, rather, trying to establish your view as mine. You obviously think I'm to stupid to see this. To be completely clear, you have the unexplained notion that because God is both omnipotent and omniscient, man cannot have free will. Then, you falsely attempt to claim that this is my view. It is emphatically not my view. 

'Unexplained notion' again.   What is the point of being so over-the-top ridiculous Drakk?   

The view I attributed to you is that God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfect.    For the record:

TiG @5.3.11 - Do you consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent (and perfect)?   That is the interpretation of yours that I am referencing.

1. Free will (normal definition) is the ability for individuals to make an alternate choice at a given state of reality.   
2. If the future is knowable then a choice that will be made is knowable.
3. If a choice that will be made is knowable then there is no alternate choice; there is no free will.
4. If anyentity is omniscient then the future is knowable.

∴  Omniscience means no free will.

This doesn't work, logically. Where it fails is 3. You are attempting to claim because God knows the outcome of a choice, knowing that outcome either drives or eliminates that choice. You are arguing that because I know today what last weeks lottery numbers were, there was no possibility that any other numbers could have come up. You are attempting to argue that those numbers had to come up and that there is no possibility of any other numbers could have come up because otherwise today's reality would be different than it is. The reason 3 fails is that it doesn't prove choice is eliminated. It only rests on knowing what choice was made. 

  To illustrate the problem your argument has we don't even have to know the future to see what is wrong with it. Since we know ourselves what the past is we know what choices were made at any given point in the past. Since we know this, your argument means that just knowing that history eliminates choice and free will. According to your argument our ancestors had to make the choices they did or our present wouldn't be what it is. It would be something else. This means, even without having to include a God that knows the future, that no one or no thing ever had a choice in what actions they seemingly had because just knowing the past, let alone the future, eliminates choice. Your argument claims current circumstances drives past events. 

Do you see what I'm saying? 3 also implies that not only if a "future" choice can be knowable, it also means knowing what a past choice was does the same thing in your argument. Eliminates choice. So now the burden of your argument is to demonstrate that no actual choice is ever made, whether one has knowledge of the future or just the past. You have to demonstrate that because a guy took the right fork in the past, there was never any possibility that he could have taken the left. You can't. You can only demonstrate knowledge of what fork he chose to take, not that he had no other option but to take that one. 

This means that for your argument to be true, then existence is deterministic and there is no free will. God or no God. That would mean neither of us are actually doing something called "thinking". We are only moving through a linear progression of time where every action is simply an effect of a prior cause, not any actual choice on our part. In short, existence is just a running program with a pre-determined outcome decide by the way matter and energy shook out at the moment of the big bang or something. 

That might be philosophically interesting but it's not practical. Not only does it eliminate free will, in contradiction to the experience of every person on the planet every day, it eliminates things like morality. A determined universe can neither be moral or immoral because that also implies making a choice regarding such things and a determined universe doesn't have choices. We cannot act any other way than what we do. Again, like a running program that only thinks it has choice. I think that's going to be a pretty hard sell for most people. 

If God is omnipotent then God can do whatever He wishes. Just forgive the sin and consider the debt paid. A writeoff. Certainly God could do that, right?

No, He can't. If He did do that, nothing we choose to do would matter. Why wouldn't a person eat babies if God is just going to forgive whatever you do? How could God be just and not punish wrong? Guy goes out and rapes. God forgives him for it. Guy goes out again and rapes. God forgives him for it. Guy goes out again and rapes.... See the problem here? 

The attribute of omnipotence comes from the Bible. That is all I used above.

I think all you have done is use the word "omnipotent". To my view, you are trying to apply the term in accordance with what you think an omnipotent God should be able to do according to your ideas. My objection to what you say is that you don't actually apply the term within the context of God as described in the Bible. It isn't possible for God to let sin slide. It violates His nature and he can't violate Himself. Omnipotence doesn't negate that. Omnipotence as applied to God doesn't mean God can do anything, it means anything God decides to do, He can do. God can't do things that violate His nature because He would never decide to do so. There isn't anything in Him that would cause Him to do something against His nature. Let sin go unpunished, for instance. By not letting sin go unpunished He affirms what is good and right. They are upheld as something that matters. 

That is why I object to your saying things like God could just forgive the sin and consider the debt paid. Such a statement totally ignores who God is as a person and simply relies on the notion that an omnipotent being should be able to do whatever. It simply focuses on having power without regard to anything else. Things like consequences, for instance. 

And why not? Why do you think God is unable to accomplish this?

Because it violates who and what He is. If God just snaps His fingers and all is forgiven, it says that neither right or wrong matter. Worse still, it states that He doesn't matter. What does God matter, for what reason should I hold Him in high regard if He's just going to snap his fingers and forgive me regardless of whatever I do or want? Right becomes meaningless and there's no reason to care about it because there are no consequences for ignoring it or not doing it. 

For those of us who believe it, the Bible goes to great pains to describe what God is like, to the extent we are capable of understanding. I talk about God within the context of that description. I am trying to explain why God can't accomplish this within the context of who God says He is in the Bible. You, on the other hand, speak of attributes you think He should have if He's to be considered omnipotent. When you do that, we end up talking about two different Gods. We are no longer on the same page. We're trying to get somewhere but we can't because we aren't talking about the same thing, even though we are using the same words. 

Well, I think that I would engineer the situation so that nobody has to die. I would address the problem without the need for an iron-age cultural mindset of sacrificing life as a form of payment. You really cannot see any other solution?

No, not really. Apparently you do, though. How would you engeneer the situation and, more importantly, why would it be superior? 

So why is there still pain and suffering in the world? Why do people get sick and die? Why do women still have painful childbirth? It would seem that the consequences of original sin remain in effect. So by the human sacrifice, God atones for sins but does not change anything. Looks like God could have avoided the sacrifice drama and just cleared up everything at judgment day given the human sacrifice did not mean anything other than clearing an entry in the sin ledger.

Not the whole story. It isn't true that God doesn't change anything. He changes the believer. The point of Christ's death was to remove God's wrath (judgement) from the believer. That allows the believer to be born again. God puts His nature in us in a manner we previously didn't have. But our old nature is still in there as well. The world still remains infected with sin and that's never going to change. Not in this version of creation. And I don't see why we'd want it to be different. Sin should cause pain and suffering, else why would we be motivated to reject it? 

This doesn't work, logically. Where it fails is 3. You are attempting to claim because God knows the outcome of a choice, knowing that outcome either drives or eliminates that choice.

No that is not what I have stated.   I have repeatedly noted that if a future choice is knowable then reality is predetermined.   Knowing the choice does not drive the choice nor does it eliminate the choice.   It is the opposite.   The only way for a choice to be known before it occurs is if the choice is predetermined.   Knowing the choice is entirely passive .   This is why I have explained repeatedly that it does not matter if any entity is omniscient.   What matters is if the future is knowable.

Alternatively, an entity cannot be omniscient unless the future is knowable.

You are arguing that because I know today what last weeks lottery numbers were, there was no possibility that any other numbers could have come up.

Are you arguing for the sake of argument?

No, Drakk, my argument is about knowing the future ; not knowing the past .    It is all about whether the future is knowable (and thus reality is deterministic).

If the future is knowable ...

... then what will happen in the future is predetermined .   We can play the tape (so to speak) forward and see what will happen just as we can play the tape backwards and see what did happen.    In this case free will is impossible.   This case also means that omniscience is possible.   The knowability of the future is the critical factor;  free will and omniscience are functionally dependent upon the knowability of the future (knowable → omniscience is possible;  not knowable → free will is possible)

If the future is not knowable ...

... then the future is dynamic — not predetermined .   There is no tape to play forward (we can only play it backwards).   In this case, free will is possible.

This is about knowing the future , not knowing the past .   ( For the record:  the past is knowable .)

What matters is if the future is knowable.

Exactly. It's what so many religious persons can't seem to wrap their heads around. If God knows all the choices we will make in our lives, then, by definition we cannot make any other choices and are fated to make only the choices God has "foreseen". So if the future is knowable, that means some sort of readable fate determines our choices, not we ourselves regardless of how much we might imagine we have free will. Free will would simply be an illusion.

If that is the case, then it begs the question, what is the purpose of man? If all our actions are predetermined and God knows who will act in accordance with his desires and earns a heavenly reward and knows those who will reject him earning either destruction or eternal torment, then what is the point of letting the grand charade play out? Why not just go straight to heaven or hell, skip the whole rigmarole of spending a relatively miniscule amount of time in the material world on which our apparent judgement hangs?

Drakkonis: "That is why I object to your saying things like God could just forgive the sin and consider the debt paid. Such a statement totally ignores who God is as a person and simply relies on the notion that an omnipotent being should be able to do whatever."

That God just forgave David after David had a man sent to the front of the army to die so he could bang his wife. What was the penalty David paid? The first child of the union with Bathsheba was killed. I think that makes a compelling Statement about who that God is and shows it does do "whatever" it wants and could arbitrarily forgive mankind if it wanted to.

"the Bible goes to great pains to describe what God is like, to the extent we are capable of understanding. I talk about God within the context of that description."

Yet it gives a very contradictory description ranging from angry jealous God who condones slavery to a turn the other cheek meek God of love.

"we end up talking about two different Gods"

Yes, exactly, it's as if the bible speaks of two different Gods.

"It isn't true that God doesn't change anything. He changes the believer."

Very true. A discerning skeptic turned gullible follower would represent a significant change to become a believer. However, most believers start off as believers because they don't know any better and are indoctrinated as children into whatever the majority faith of the area is where they are born. Where and to whom you were born is the single most determinative factor in what faith a person will claim allegiance to as an adult.

Exactly. It's what so many religious persons can't seem to wrap their heads around. If God knows all the choices we will make in our lives, then, by definition we cannot make any other choices and are fated to make only the choices God has "foreseen". So if the future is knowable, that means some sort of readable fate determines our choices, not we ourselves regardless of how much we might imagine we have free will. Free will would simply be an illusion.

Apparently, but I do not see why this is so difficult to understand.   Even when I describe this in pure secular terms:  'If the future is knowable then free will is not possible'  it still does not seem to sink in.

Maybe some are unable to even imagine a deterministic reality.

Your view of God is some sort of FSM where it can do anything you can imagine, including making a square circle.

Your view of God is an evil being whose every evil action you justify.  It's like Stockholm Syndrome.

No, mere declaration would not work.   Rather than merely declare, I have explained why free will cannot exist with omniscience.   Here is the reasoning yet again in yet another form:

1. Free will (normal definition) is the ability for individuals to make an alternate choice at a given state of reality.   
2. If the future is knowable then a choice that will be made is knowable.
3. If a choice that will be made is knowable then there is no alternate choice; there is no free will.
4. If any entity is omniscient then the future is knowable.

∴  Omniscience means no free will.

quite simply - free will always involves the elements of Chance and Surprise. There has to be a chance someone will make a different choice or surprise you with their choice (depending on the situation, and that includes making a choice no one had thought of previously), but since God already knows your choice - there is no chance of making a different one nor any chance of making a surprising choice etc, because God already knows the future and made it predetermined.

On top of that, the presented logic does not even mention a god.   Free will is impossible if the future is knowable - it does not even matter if any entity knows the future.   Even if no entity exists with the ability to know the future, if the future is knowable then free will is simply an illusion.

So, we are going to use a book that has more edits and changes than the most recent Game of Thrones script as the reference?  

So, we are going to use a book that has more edits and changes than the most recent Game of Thrones script as the reference? 

You're not supposed to notice that.

It's crazy.

Some people get very stressed about the exact wording of this or that Biblical text today... although we don't have the original text... and we are certain (via literary analysis) that some bits were added long after the original... and in any case the definitions of essential words have changed fundamentally since Christ's time.

Just one example: the soul. The notion did not exist in Christ's time. Now... think about all the BS that some folks repeat, entirely based on the idea of a soul - almost all limitations on abortion, although the self-styled "Pro-lifers" won't admit it.

It's crazy!

although we don't have the original text

And that should be a red flag that they are making it up as they go.  But here we are.

a persistent lie propagated by those without any examination of the actual facts

We have enough copies of the New Testament, over 2300 copies of the New Testament or in various books from the earliest centuries of Christianity, and another 5000 copies from the 4th through the 15th century to conduct a thorough examination and comparison. Also over 20000 copies of the Latin Vulgate. Those 7,300 original language manuscripts do agree with each other word for word a remarkable 99.7% of the time. Fewer than 40 of the over 7000 lines of the New Testament have any debate over their original reading. It is the most accurate and reliable ancient manuscript known to the world. 

Varying only slightly between analysts, the Bible is accurate among all known texts by 99.5-99.7%

carm

godandscience

markdroberts

Varying only slightly between analysts, the Bible is accurate among all known texts by 99.5-99.7%

You are talking about consistency among translations.   The errancy of the Bible refers more to errors in facts and logic rather than transcription errors.   For example, an omniscient God who can be surprised or disappointed is an error in logic.   

Further, you are comparing copies of copies to copies of copies.   Where is the original text?   How does it compare with the extant copies?

Thank you for this. It's great information. 

This is silly.

There are more differences than that, just among modern translations. I assume you're ignoring all Gnostic texts. And so on...

And none of those texts were actually written down by Jesus.....

And none of those texts were actually written down by Jesus.....

Exactly.

None were written during His lifetime.

It's so silly! There is no need to imagine that we know Christ's exact words. His message is crystal-clear, and that is what is important. His sermons and parables tell us over and over, that we must care for all others, without exception.

His exact words are unimportant.

His exact words are unimportant.

I agree. It's the intent

None were written during His lifetime.

And none of the hundreds of letters written in the century after Christs death were part of any sort of "bible" for another 250 years and only then did a group of self-proclaimed priests agree upon what letters would or wouldn't be part of official bible cannon. Then, two thousand years after that we have several hundred different translations and thousands of interpretations being disseminated by hundreds of thousands of supposed bible teachers to about two billion adherent's.

Right.

Personally, I pay little attention to anything other than the Gospels.

And you don't see the problem with that?  All those edits, changes and versions and you don't think there is a problem.  For all you know, what is now worshiped as the supposed "word of god" is actually a cookbook.

Varying only slightly between analysts, the Bible is accurate among all known texts by 99.5-99.7%

Which version?

Which version?

It just has to be the King James' version!

Did you know that there are a few fundie sects who BELIEVE that the KJV is divinely inspired? If it contains errors, they are God's will. 

Yes, I do know that. I've heard of a few that believe Jesus wrote it!

Jesus wrote it!

Did you know there are a few fundie sects who BELIEVE the whole thing is divinely inspired?

None are as bad as the Young Earth Creationists who believe the entire Bible is divine and inerrant.

I love pointing out the contradictions and mixed messages in the bible to those mouth breathing mongoloids.

I have yet to find a YEC who can defend their foundational beliefs except to ultimately resort to:  'well, it is in the Bible'.

So, we are going to use a book that has more edits and changes than the most recent Game of Thrones script as the reference?

and definitely don't research , but if you do - then just ignore .. the Council of Nicaea ... that could put a wrench in some things for the religious ...

There is a distinct parallel to the evolution of the US Constitution.

In my opinion, Keith Giles doesn't know God or Jesus. He rightly says that if we can see Jesus, we see the father, but unfortunately, he doesn't appear to see Jesus. By "see" I mean understand who he is. He appears to believe there is a difference between Jesus and his Father as depicted in the Old Testament. He doesn't realize there is not the tiniest difference between the two. The attitude God has in the Old Testament is the same one Jesus had in the New Testament. Not once did Jesus speak against anything today's God haters deride the Father for. Even more, every moment of Jesus' life was spent in pursuit of and in service to, that same Old Testament God. 

People incorrectly think because John tell us that God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him that this is the whole show. It's not. It is only an explanation of what Jesus, as God, was doing there as a human being. What his mission was for that moment in time. He was not there at that time to judge the world. He was there to provide a way that we can be saved from God's wrath against our unjust actions against Him. 

But it was not a universal application of Christ's sacrifice to everyone as Giles seems to outright claim. If it were, there would be no need for the apostles. There would be no need for Christ to have commanded his followers to go out and make disciples. All people everywhere would be covered regardless. In fact, if God were who Giles thinks He is, then there would have been no need for Christ to die at all. 

Most of you are going to ignore what I am saying. For those of you who don't. Who want to know the Truth, read the Bible for yourself. Ask God to give you wisdom. He won't let you down if you are truly seeking Him. May God bless you. 

read the Bible for yourself. Ask God to give you wisdom. He won't let you down if you are truly seeking Him.

This is the same advice a pastor gave me many years ago when I told him I  didn't understand a great deal of the Bible. I took his advice and from there on every time I picked up the Bible to read I would pray asking God to grant me the wisdom to understand, it works, God didn't let me down. I have since read the Bible many times, sometimes I get a different understanding from the same passage than I did before, but they all go hand in hand.

God didn't let me down

I know what you mean. I can't tell you how many times I've read a particular verse without really understaning what it meant. Then, one day, it speaks to me. I know a fraction more about God. A verse speaks to me. But even so, I always come away with the feeling that there is more. 

God is infinite and I am finite. Every time I think I've understood something I remember that. Every truth I think I've grasped, every truth that brings me joy I believe I've only grasped the most obvious aspect. I am a sinner not worthy of the grace God has given me. That's hard to understand. We so often trust in our own human reasoning. So many here do not understand that the God of the OT has the same love, the same concern for each of us that they say Jesus had in the New Testament. 

Where to begin? Well, for one I’d start with Jesus who never told us that God hates the wicked, and who told us that if we’ve seen Him we’ve seen the Father. So, what do we see when we look at Jesus? We see a God who loves sinners and embraces the unrighteous, and shows great compassion on the unwashed and the unholy.

Whoa-- wait a minute!

What's Jesus got to do with it?

After all, we're talking Christianity here!

Where to begin? Well, for one I’d start with Jesus who never told us that God hates the wicked, and who told us that if we’ve seen Him we’ve seen the Father. So, what do we see when we look at Jesus? We see a God who loves sinners and embraces the unrighteous, and shows great compassion on the unwashed and the unholy.

Whoa-- wait a minute!

What's Jesus got to do with it?

After all, we're talking Christianity here!

Oooops-- in case anyone missed it . . . that comment was intended as sarcasm!!!!

Watched the video and read the little "*Synopsis" of the video, and this hit me right off the bat !

" * People who hear this message of unconditional love may come to believe that God’s love for them isn’t dependent upon their repentance of sin."

The one speaking said NO FUCKING SUCH A SIMPLE THING !

There was a bunch more to that comment ….. that someone …… made a choice to leave out  !

Why did the "One"..... choose to leave "EVERYTHING" else pertaining to the actual spoken word out …… hmmmmmm ?

Someone ….. needs to actually listen to the video before spouting SHIT like they did !