Weird stuff in the bible 2.0 version, AC Edition

[8circles]

Except that most of the time that I've heard anyone mocking that particular habit was when I was still a Christian and it was done by Christians. I'm not sure why this gets laid at this doorstep.

 

 

I'm not sure whose doorstep I'm laying it on.  I agree that I've heard xtians do it.  I haven't made any accusations or actually disagreed with anyone in this thread.  Am I coming across as having an issue with this thread? 

 

Whatever, go pick on someone else.

[Azalea]

My religious question is about Satan. I have not found a respectful way to ask believers about their understanding regarding Satan. If God created everything, he created Satan. God knows all and knew all the evil Satan would generate. God could eliminate Satan effortlessly. And yet Christians talk about Satan as if he is almost co-equal in power to God, as if he is a real adversary. Worshipping the creator of all evil seems evil to me. 

[albeto.]

Except that isn't what I'm talking about. I gave an example of what I meant. I've got 3 sick children and am running a mild fever myself. Please don't nitpick.

 

I guess I didn't mean belief, making fun of saying "um" and "just" during prayer is like making fun of someone stuttering. It's mean.

 

 

I misunderstood, and I completely agree with the bold. I hope you feel better soon.

[Lady Florida.]

My religious question is about Satan. I have not found a respectful way to ask believers about their understanding regarding Satan. If God created everything, he created Satan. God knows all and knew all the evil Satan would generate. God could eliminate Satan effortlessly. And yet Christians talk about Satan as if he is almost co-equal in power to God, as if he is a real adversary. Worshipping the creator of all evil seems evil to me. 

 

Ah yes, the problem of evil. It causes theists to jump through cognitive hoops and even has its own branch of theology called theodicy. I don't think most theists realize how convoluted the rationalizations sound to non-theists. They seem to think their explanations make perfect sense.

[Azalea]

I agree Lady Florida that my question does lead to the problem of evil question. The problem of evil is insurmountable to me, it can't be explained away by any reasoning. But I guess my further question is, do Christians recognize they worship evil? If they want to worship the all powerful and terrible God, so that they can be this God's special snowflakes that's fine, but don't pretend for a moment that this is a God of love. 

[albeto.]

My point is that we can disagree and discuss ideas without making fun or offending. Even though I find certain teachings of the LDS church odd I try to see it from their perspective. I don't think they are stupid for believing something I don't. I think the challenge is to see it from their perspective. I believe I have learned something by being open to others of all faiths and belief systems.

 

Being able to disagree without making fun is absolutely, and clearly possible. There are millions of examples of people who don't agree with one another's religious beliefs and don't make fun of them. I do think a case can be made for the value of humor, but that shouldn't be mistaken for a belief that the most appropriate response is always mockery. Believe it or not, I never talk about this stuff offline because it never comes up. It comes up here because people reference it in one way or another, and that reference justifies an action or opinion that is being explored. 

 

Your second point is about the belief that someone is stupid for not sharing a religious belief. This comes up all the time, and I am personally accused of saying, treating, or thinking (!) people are stupid. There's a very obvious and easy case to be made that very clever and intelligent people hold religious beliefs. While belief and education are negatively correlated, I wouldn't argue that only unintelligent people are religious. I don't believe it, for one thing. 

 

From what I understand, belief in religion is a natural expression of human cognition. We've evolved to assume agency behind unexplained events, and we've evolved to respond quickly by virtue of emotional cues rather than taking the time to stop and analyze a sudden event. We've evolved to trust and believe the adults around us when we're kids and (for the most part), to seek the approval of our caregivers, model our behaviors after those we are closest to and respect the most. We've evolved to assume our minds are in control of our actions, and that death of the body doesn't affect the existence of the mind. These things and many many more contribute to our modern day religious beliefs. This isn't a matter of intelligence, as clearly humans are intelligent creatures, regardless of which belief they've been conditioned to interpret their experiences through. 

 

Having said that, please do keep in mind that some of us have spent much time considering religious beliefs from every perspective and have judged it to be flawed, and for some of us, quite foolish. Does that mean you're a foolish person? No, I don't think so. Does that mean you've been fooled into believing an inappropriate and inaccurate explanation for the world? Yes. I think so. 

[albeto.]

I agree Lady Florida that my question does lead to the problem of evil question. The problem of evil is insurmountable to me, it can't be explained away by any reasoning. But I guess my further question is, do Christians recognize they worship evil? If they want to worship the all powerful and terrible God, so that they can be this God's special snowflakes that's fine, but don't pretend for a moment that this is a God of love. 

 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

-Isaiah 45:7

 

I think yes, they recognize they worship the creator of evil, but rationalize it through the mental gymnastics Lady F is talking about. 

 

"God is good all the time. All the time, God is good." That's the kind of thing that overpowers the thoughts that creep in and suggest a morally superior choice in this situation would have been XYZ. 

 

Remember my prayer thread? That thread really clinched it for me that prayer works as a kind of cognitive bridge between what believers believe, and what they actually experience. So they believe their god is good, but they experience an event that can best be described as evil. So what to do? Pray. Prayer helps remind one of their beliefs, and helps distract them from the gap between belief and reality. This "theological correction" (not my term) is made without awareness, but is an integral part of belief. I think we see this really well when someone is having a hard time either with circumstances in life or with doubt in their faith, the community urges them to pray. I think this is why believers say they'll pray for each other. We know prayer has no physical effects from one person to another (any more than inspiration for behavior, but certainly nothing supernatural). We know prayer doesn't affect cancer cells, it doesn't open parking spaces, it doesn't heal broken bones, but it can heal broken hearts. So it's clearly a matter of comfort, but I think you're spot on the money here - this comfort exists against the backdrop of the same comforter being the very cause of evil! 

[mamaraby]

I'm not sure whose doorstep I'm laying it on. I agree that I've heard xtians do it. I haven't made any accusations or actually disagreed with anyone in this thread. Am I coming across as having an issue with this thread?

 

Whatever, go pick on someone else.

It comes across as if it's a specific issue you have with the thread, yes. Albeto was fairly specific in that she thought ideas were fair game and that while people are certainly worthy of respect, all ideas are not. Then you brought up people mocking the way people prayed (um, just, etc) which confused me. I asked for clarification and now I'm being accused of picking on you. I'm still confused. Clearly you have an issue with me personally. Whatever, still confused.

 

ETA: I think, too, that sometimes when people poke at ideas, and those ideas are sincerely held, it can be hard from that perspective to separate idea from person. Because ideas can be so firmly internalized that they become part of one's identity.

 

How one prays is just personal, though. In Bible college the "um" and "just" folks were teased terribly. It just annoyed me, but it's a verbal filler (or whatever the technical term is) while your brain tries to catch up with your mouth and not a sign of intelligence or sincerity of belief. It was more common in the faith tradition I came from because spontaneous prayers were valued over written prayers (which were seen as too much like "ritual" and too little like true faith).

[8circles]

I misunderstood, and I completely agree with the bold. I hope you feel better soon.

Ok, thank you. Although I'm not sure since 'liked' the following post which says im apparently still confusing people.

 

It comes across as if it's a specific issue you have with the thread, yes. Albeto was fairly specific in that she thought ideas were fair game and that while people are certainly worthy of respect, all ideas are not. Then you brought up people mocking the way people prayed (um, just, etc) which confused me. I asked for clarification and now I'm being accused of picking on you. I'm still confused. Clearly you have an issue with me personally. Whatever, still confused.

No, I have no problem with you personally. Not sure how I'm still being confusing. You accused me of laying something on someone's doorstep. I clarified that I wasn't. A simple "sorry, I misunderstood" would have sufficed.

[mamaraby]

No, I have no problem with you personally. Not sure how I'm still being confusing. You accused me of laying something on someone's doorstep. I clarified that I wasn't. A simple "sorry, I misunderstood" would have sufficed.

It was the final sentence in your post. "Whatever. Go pick on someone else."

 

Like wise, a simple "I didn't mean to say that's what anyone was doing here" would have sufficed and probably wouldn't have brought about further comment. You accused me of picking on you, but whatever. You're right, I'm completely to blame. All my fault. Hand slapped.

[albeto.]

ETA: I think, too, that sometimes when people poke at ideas, and those ideas are sincerely held, it can be hard from that perspective to separate idea from person. Because ideas can be so firmly internalized that they become part of one's identity.

 

I think this is a huge component. 

 

How one prays is just personal, though. In Bible college the "um" and "just" folks were teased terribly. It just annoyed me, but it's a verbal filler (or whatever the technical term is) while your brain tries to catch up with your mouth and not a sign of intelligence or sincerity of belief. It was more common in the faith tradition I came frombecause spontaneous prayers were valued over written prayers (which were seen as too much like "ritual" and too little like true faith).

 

In your experience and opinion, did people tease the "ummer" and "justers" for the words, or was that just something concrete to hang on to, and in reality they were judging people for believing this is the best way to communicate with Jesus, as opposed to their "right" way? 

[mamaraby]

In your experience and opinion, did people tease the "ummer" and "justers" for the words, or was that just something concrete to hang on to, and in reality they were judging people for believing this is the best way to communicate with Jesus, as opposed to their "right" way?

Eh, hard to say? It did tend to be contagious. So, someome would do it, and then it would kind of snowball amongst that group.

 

It tended to happen more among the "less serious" groups like missions or education majors. The "more serious" majors like theology and pastoral studies did it less often if at all. Social hierarchy probably was a big bit in why they were teased or derided. But is that because it was bad or because the "less serious" groups had more women and women tended to do it more often. Sort of like the way vocal fry is frowned upon in the wider world.

[Onceuponatime]

Eh, hard to say? It did tend to be contagious. So, someome would do it, and then it would kind of snowball amongst that group.

 

It tended to happen more among the "less serious" groups like missions or education majors. The "more serious" majors like theology and pastoral studies did it less often if at all. Social hierarchy probably was a big bit in why they were teased or derided. But is that because it was bad or because the "less serious" groups had more women and women tended to do it more often. Sort of like the way vocal fry is frowned upon in the wider world.

Do you mind if I ask what faith tradition this was?

[albeto.]

I agree Lady Florida that my question does lead to the problem of evil question. The problem of evil is insurmountable to me, it can't be explained away by any reasoning. But I guess my further question is, do Christians recognize they worship evil? If they want to worship the all powerful and terrible God, so that they can be this God's special snowflakes that's fine, but don't pretend for a moment that this is a God of love. 

 

In thinking further about this, this raises one thing I find amazingly weird, even though I once subscribed to it. The idea that Satan is trying to bring souls to hell is just bizarre. Why in the world would this even be a goal? What does he do with all these souls? Has he never read the book of revelation? Doesn't he know how it ends? What a weird obsession. How did the creator's bff develop this obsession? 

 

That makes no sense to me, and I can't recall how I dealt with this idea. I think I attributed Satan to an anthropomorphized force of evil, and I really liked the catholic idea of concupiscence as a personal struggle (jihad, if you will ;-)). But this idea that Satan manipulates the world around you, or whispers in your ear, or pushes your neurons around in your skull until your brain doesn't create enough serotonin, or whatever he does to thwart one's emotional, physical, or spiritual well being is a weird idea to me now.

 

And I still think prayer is weird. When I asked, no one had any idea how it could work. There wasn't a single imagined explanation. No one could even throw out a pretend answer. The most I got was the method through which prayer worked (ie, spoken). But if I stop and try and imagine the world on a molecular scale, infuse prayer into the scene, I can't imagine what happens. But it's believed to happen. But not by magic. How? No answer. No idea. That's weird to me to see the clear and obvious nature of magic in this whole process completely refuted because if it's god, it's not magic. Because god can't be magic, regardless of how perfectly his entire character illustrates a magical one. Weird. Doesn't make sense to me. I think it only worked for me by refusing to think it all the way through. 

[Lady Florida.]

Here's another weird thing that I never really thought of as a believer. As I said, I come from a faith tradition in which much of the bible was allegorical. I will say up front that meeting so many literal bible believers (once we started homeschooling) got me started on the road to deconversion. So, this weirdness is mainly from the idea that the bible is literally true, an idea I didn't grow up with.

 

The Adam and Eve and serpent story is weird to me. If as Christians believe, especially the literal interpretation folks, only humans are sentient beings with free will then why was the serpent punished? If Satan possessed the snake, did it have a choice? Could it have said no to Satan? Did it say, "Sure, take over my body and mind and do whatever you want."? If it wasn't capable of doing that, then why did God punish not only that snake but all future snakes? Either humans are special or they're not. And if they are special, the punishment of that one and all other snakes for something it didn't even understand is weird. 

[8circles]

It was the final sentence in your post. "Whatever. Go pick on someone else."

 

Like wise, a simple "I didn't mean to say that's what anyone was doing here" would have sufficed and probably wouldn't have brought about further comment. You accused me of picking on you, but whatever. You're right, I'm completely to blame. All my fault. Hand slapped.

 

OK, so I gave myself a time-out.  It was long because I'm old & the whole one minute per year thing...

 

I didn't mean to say that's what anyone was doing here.

 

I'm sorry.

 

ETA:  Just making sure this isn't coming across snarky.  I am sorry.  I overreacted.  

[Onceuponatime]

Studying the topics of Satan and Hell, pushed me along the road to deconversion. When I learned how little the Bible actually said about them, what most Jews thought ( or didn't think)about them, then compared that to what Christianity taught, I had no qualms letting go of any belief in an evil being or an evil dominion.

 

Then recently, I had one of those "wow, i didn't know that!" moments when I learned about a Jewish story that the snake was Lilith, the first wife of Adam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

 

I don't know if anyone actually believes that, but it is interesting.

[Lady Florida.]

I have to say that I'm glad this thread went well. Not only that, it even has 4 stars. Thank you, everyone!

[albeto.]

I agree, Lady F. I wanted to respond to Ernie's post, but not in Quill's thread because... albeto. So here it is...

 

 

 

Why is "believing" a virtue anyway? That's a suspicious claim, now isn't it?

.

.

.

So God walked with Abraham. Abraham knew God the way he knew his own father or dear friend with the added benefit that God was magic. Does that make it right for Abraham to beat his child for Him, or break his legs, or cut his throat?

.

.

.

The ultimate problem with God and Abraham is the virtue God was looking for in a servant. He wasn't looking for a good, kind, compassionate man. He wanted a blindly obedient servant who would kill children at his command.

 

The moral code of the religion, as illustrated by its god and that god' most righteous examples, is simply, "might makes right." This moral code is one we reject today on the grounds that the schoolyard bully isn't right, and isn't justified in making the rules, just because he can clobber anyone who opposes him. I find it interesting to watch the rationalizations that bridge this gap, a bridge that is readily dismissed when proposed by any other religion (even the kissing cousins, the other Abrahamic religions).

 

Atonement? As if a god sacrificing his son to himself to save us from himself, because he couldn't otherwise control himself would work. There is simply no reason to imagine such a dramatic performance would be necessary or would have any affect on anything.

 

Have you guys ever come across 4chan /b/ explaining the bible? It's told from a gaming perspective, and funny for those with an irreverent sense of humor. 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

Ok, I'll have to disagree with you here. I have seen very little evidence in this country that we have rejected "might makes right". It still explains so much of what we do as a nation. Other than that, then yes.

 

:laugh:

 

Point taken. I think this shows the influence of the religious moral code in our public policies, part of what makes our culture inherently conflicted (and perhaps one insight as to the modern "war on xianity" rhetoric we hear from certain media soruces). On the one hand, we have a secular document that is the foundation of our legal code, drafted from the values and successes of the Enlightenment. On the other, we have a collective made of individuals who are overwhelmingly personally inspired by and guided by the ancient moral code of the xian religion. I find it interesting that we disagree with this as a moral virtue, and yet, like you say, use it as fuel to run our society. 

[PIE!]

I've never understood why the Song of Solomon made it into the Bible. What Solomon and his lady thought of each other is their own business. IMO it did not need publication and cannonization.

[albeto.]

I've never understood why the Song of Solomon made it into the Bible. What Solomon and his lady thought of each other is their own business. IMO it did not need publication and cannonization.

 

My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

SoS 5:4

 

TMI! Solomon! TMI!!!

[IdahoHomeschooler]

My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

SoS 5:4

 

TMI! Solomon! TMI!!!

Is this some sort of biblical scat fetish (vomit) ?

[albeto.]

It never occurred to me before, but when reading gensis literally, does one assume all the animals created were males, just like the human (Adam)? And if so, did each one of them fall asleep and get a companion made from their rib? Or were they created both male and female, with the lone exception of Adam? 

 

(Assuming the first, most popular story of creation in genesis.)

[Ausmumof3]

It never occurred to me before, but when reading gensis literally, does one assume all the animals created were males, just like the human (Adam)? And if so, did each one of them fall asleep and get a companion made from their rib? Or were they created both male and female, with the lone exception of Adam?

 

(Assuming the first, most popular story of creation in genesis.)

No genesis specifies male and female made he them all except for Adam.

[albeto.]

Ah, thanks. Coincidentally, I came upon this article today that shares an argument that the translation for the word "rib" is a mis-translation when referring to the creation of Eve.

 

According to the Bible’s creation account, after making the heavens and the earth, God created humankind. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 states that God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground, and then Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs. But was it really his rib?

 

The Hebrew word that is traditionally translated as “rib†is tsela‘. Ziony Zevit, Distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature and Northwest Semitic Languages at American Jewish University in Bel-Air, California, believes that this translation is wrong, as do many scholars. It was first translated as “rib†in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the mid-third century B.C.E. However, a more careful reading of the Hebrew word for “rib†in the Adam and Eve story suggests that Eve was created from another, very different, part of Adam’s anatomy—his os baculum (penis bone). 

 

[Lady Florida.]

It never occurred to me before, but when reading gensis literally, does one assume all the animals created were males, just like the human (Adam)? And if so, did each one of them fall asleep and get a companion made from their rib? Or were they created both male and female, with the lone exception of Adam? 

 

(Assuming the first, most popular story of creation in genesis.)

 

God created male and female animals yet somehow he didn't think to create male and female humans. Add that to the weird things in the bible.

[albeto.]

God created male and female animals yet somehow he didn't think to create male and female humans. Add that to the weird things in the bible.

 

God created all the animals, male and female, but didn't think to create a suitable companion for the human right away? Wouldn't it make more sense to create the woman first, and allow her to give birth to man, you know, like humans have always done? But since the rib worked out so well, why did God not continue this trend? Imagine, there would be no homosexuals to anger him, as each person would be perfectly, naturally, and spiritually bonded with their rib counterpart. It's pretty weird when you stop and think about it.  

[DragonFaerie]

But isn't "free will" always given as the reason things aren't perfect?

 

 

ETA:  Correction.  AREN'T perfect.  Geez.  Can't type today.

[Teannika]

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

-Isaiah 45:7

 

I think yes, they recognize they worship the creator of evil, but rationalize it through the mental gymnastics Lady F is talking about. 

 

"God is good all the time. All the time, God is good." That's the kind of thing that overpowers the thoughts that creep in and suggest a morally superior choice in this situation would have been XYZ. 

 

The non-believer always likes to have their own freewill and utilize it; but the non-believer also likes to complain that God created free-will to do evil or good.

 

 

God creates and takes responsibility for everything, however that does not make him guilty of an ounce of evil. Think of it this way: You set up a room and put a sinful temptation in that room. You add a person. That person will follow through on the temptation or will not. If the person chooses to be enticed and do that wicked thing, are you guilty of that person's actions? My example isn't a perfect example, but the point is to highlight the question of who is guilty for the actual crime committed.

 

 

 

[DragonFaerie]

The non-believer always likes to have their own freewill and utilize it; but the non-believer also likes to complain that God created free-will to do evil or good.

 

 

God creates and takes responsibility for everything, however that does not make him guilty of an ounce of evil. Think of it this way: You set up a room and put a sinful temptation in that room. You add a person. That person will follow through on the temptation or will not. If the person chooses to be enticed and do that wicked thing, are you guilty of that person's actions? My example isn't a perfect example, but the point is to highlight the question of who is guilty for the actual crime committed.

 

 

 

But why create that "sinful temptation" in the first place?  Why put it in the room?  

[Teannika]

But why create that "sinful temptation" in the first place?  Why put it in the room?  

 

Ultimately an infinite God has seen a lot more than we have in our short life time. He has seen more, knows more, and is infinitely wiser than any of us. I can only trust that he knows what he is doing and that he is working out his purpose for an eternal purpose. Eternity is a very long time, so achieving something that is hard for a short time must be really worth it.

 

Satan's sin was to be full of pride. God allowed him the ability to think that way, but that did not mean God thinks it's wise for Satan to try to rule over him and his creation. Ultimately God is set out to teach a lesson to not only Satan, but to the rest of the angels and to mankind.

[Onceuponatime]

The non-believer always likes to have their own freewill and utilize it; but the non-believer also likes to complain that God created free-will to do evil or good.

 

 

God creates and takes responsibility for everything, however that does not make him guilty of an ounce of evil. Think of it this way: You set up a room and put a sinful temptation in that room. You add a person. That person will follow through on the temptation or will not. If the person chooses to be enticed and do that wicked thing, are you guilty of that person's actions? My example isn't a perfect example, but the point is to highlight the question of who is guilty for the actual crime committed.

 

 

 

The non-believer is actually more likely to question the assumption of free will. The non-believer never complains that God created free will. The non-believer doesn't believe in God.

 

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime. So is neglect and endangerment.

[Teannika]

The non-believer is actually more likely to question the assumption of free will. The non-believer never complains that God created free will. The non-believer doesn't believe in God.

 

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime. So is neglect and endangerment.

 

So would a non-believer accept being created like a programmed robot if they were to attribute their creation to a God?

 

God has allowed the consequence of sin to hurt mankind; but not without a remedy.

 

 

 

 

[Teannika]

The non-believer is actually more likely to question the assumption of free will. The non-believer never complains that God created free will. The non-believer doesn't believe in God.

 

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime. So is neglect and endangerment.

 

The non-believer is complaining about God creating evil. They complain about the existence of evil, but then go on to do evil themselves. It's hypocrisy and a contradiction.

[Onceuponatime]

So would a non-believer accept being created like a programmed robot if they were to attribute their creation to a God?

 

God has allowed the consequence of sin to hurt mankind; but not without a remedy.

 

 

 

 

This question is unanswerable. Materialists attribute their existence and everything that happens to natural causes.

 

Non-believers don't believe in sin against God. Humans have decided what is good and evil. (Edited)

[Onceuponatime]

The non-believer is complaining about God creating evil. They complain about the existence of evil, but then go on to do evil themselves. It's hypocrisy and a contradiction.

The non-believer is NOT complaining about God creating evil. The non-believer does not believe in God.

[Lady Florida.]

The non-believer always likes to have their own freewill and utilize it; but the non-believer also likes to complain that God created free-will to do evil or good.

 

 

 

While non-believers might debate the idea of free will and good and evil with believers, we don't complain about God actually creating free will. Since don't think God exists, we can't possibly think a non-existent being created anything. 

[Lady Florida.]

The non-believer is complaining about God creating evil. They complain about the existence of evil, but then go on to do evil themselves. It's hypocrisy and a contradiction.

 

Again, we don't think something that isn't real can create anything, so no we don't complain about God creating evil. You might be confusing complaints about God's involvement in the creation of evil, with The Problem of Evil. That non-believers are willing to discuss that philosophical argument doesn't mean we're complaining about something God did. 

 

Also in regard to free will, neuroscientists are increasingly making discoveries that lead them to believe we don't actually have free will. Whether it came from some god or not is irrelevant. 

[Ausmumof3]

God created all the animals, male and female, but didn't think to create a suitable companion for the human right away? Wouldn't it make more sense to create the woman first, and allow her to give birth to man, you know, like humans have always done? But since the rib worked out so well, why did God not continue this trend? Imagine, there would be no homosexuals to anger him, as each person would be perfectly, naturally, and spiritually bonded with their rib counterpart. It's pretty weird when you stop and think about it.

That was the point if creating women and men differently though I think - the special bond was symbolic of the bond between Christ and the church - the man gave something of himself to create the woman like Christ gave his life to create the church. It was done that way for symbolic value not out of practical necessity.

[Azalea]

Satan's sin was to be full of pride. God allowed him the ability to think that way, but that did not mean God thinks it's wise for Satan to try to rule over him and his creation. Ultimately God is set out to teach a lesson to not only Satan, but to the rest of the angels and to mankind.

 

Why did God create the sin of pride?

[DragonFaerie]

Ultimately an infinite God has seen a lot more than we have in our short life time. He has seen more, knows more, and is infinitely wiser than any of us. I can only trust that he knows what he is doing and that he is working out his purpose for an eternal purpose. Eternity is a very long time, so achieving something that is hard for a short time must be really worth it.

 

Satan's sin was to be full of pride. God allowed him the ability to think that way, but that did not mean God thinks it's wise for Satan to try to rule over him and his creation. Ultimately God is set out to teach a lesson to not only Satan, but to the rest of the angels and to mankind.

 

This is my problem with Christianity.  The answers are always variations of "because God said so and I just have to have faith."  That is not an acceptable answer to me.

[Teannika]

This question is unanswerable. Materialists attribute their existence and everything that happens to natural causes.

 

Non-believers don't believe in sin against God. Humans have decided what is good and evil. (Edited)

 

So if evil is subjective, that means that evil still exists. If evil exists, then mankind has moral convictions of right and wrong. If mankind has moral convictions, then mankind is accountable for his/her actions. This is where the 'who' is guilty part comes in.

[Teannika]

This is my problem with Christianity. The answers are always variations of "because God said so and I just have to have faith." That is not an acceptable answer to me.

 

You're asking a person a question that requires an answer from God.

I've given it much rational thought and sought it out. Non-Christian answers require faith too.

[DragonFaerie]

That was the point if creating women and men differently though I think - the special bond was symbolic of the bond between Christ and the church - the man gave something of himself to create the woman like Christ gave his life to create the church. It was done that way for symbolic value not out of practical necessity.

 

So this would imply that God knew man would eventually create a church around Jesus.  How did he know that?  If people have free will, how could he know what each and every person may or may not do?  And if he did know (because he's supposed to be omnipotent) is it really free will at all?

[Teannika]

Again, we don't think something that isn't real can create anything, so no we don't complain about God creating evil. You might be confusing complaints about God's involvement in the creation of evil, with The Problem of Evil. That non-believers are willing to discuss that philosophical argument doesn't mean we're complaining about something God did.

 

Also in regard to free will, neuroscientists are increasingly making discoveries that lead them to believe we don't actually have free will. Whether it came from some god or not is irrelevant.

 

Do you believe that you don't have free will?

[Teannika]

Why did God create the sin of pride?

 

I don't know. But I trust that his wisdom is shown through allowing it to occur. It is also a result of the freewill that the being was allowed to experience.

 

It does not mean that God is guilty of the pride that a person/being relishes in. That's an important distinction, and it is my reply to the up thread assertion that Christians worship an evil God.

[Azalea]

I don't know. But I trust that his wisdom is shown through allowing it to occur. It is also a result of the freewill that the being was allowed to experience.

 

It does not mean that God is guilty of the pride that a person/being relishes in. That's an important distinction, and it is my reply to the up thread assertion that Christians worship an evil God.

 

But you worship a God that created everything. Every type of sin, every natural catastrophe, every disease, everything type of evil. I'm sure he's thinking up more kinds of evil as I type. Therefore, you worship an evil God. 

[Love]

.

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Teannika]

But you worship a God that created everything. Every type of sin, every natural catastrophe, every disease, everything type of evil. I'm sure he's thinking up more kinds of evil as I type. Therefore, you worship an evil God.

 

Yes he's responsible in an overall way.

But he is not guilty of all evil commited. He grieves because of the great evil that mankind commit.

I've already explained how I don't worship an evil God, and that it's because he is not the one committing the evil acts.

 

You believe that evil exists then by your statement. So, pretend that you are a Christian for a moment, would God be guilty of the evil that you commit? Again, I'm not worshipping a God who does evil acts.