Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if we were not programmed to have "choices" we wouldn't be human. So yeah, god made us knowing some will choose "not him". It's one of the main reasons I never bought into the Christian god at an early age. like 3rd grade I think. It still amazes me how people past the age of 16 buy into it. The only reason I can think of is that they can't. Or at the very least, they should blame their parents.
Humans have wills. Humans make choices. But choices are not uncaused. They are not free from causality. But what is the will of humanity? The Bible says it is the will of the flesh
Joh_1:13 who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God."
Eph_2:3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
Notice no one can get saved by the will of the flesh or even the will of man but only by God's will.
Romans 8:7-8 because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able." (8) Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God.
Notice also humans do the will of the flesh which is at enmity to God and cannot please God.
Humans have wills. Humans make choices. But choices are not uncaused. They are not free from causality. But what is the will of humanity? The Bible says it is the will of the flesh
Joh_1:13 who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God."
Eph_2:3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
Notice no one can get saved by the will of the flesh or even the will of man but only by God's will.
Romans 8:7-8 because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able." (8) Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God.
Notice also humans do the will of the flesh which is at enmity to God and cannot please God.
God saves.
Why is the flesh an "emnity to God" when God created the flesh, then said it was good?
Who programmed man to need food and sleep, to desire bodily company? God didn't do that? Did Adam create all these tendencies? Satan, maybe? If not, then it was probably God, right?
Why such disdain for bodies, bodily functions and bodily desires when according to the story, it was God who took the time to create these things?
My feeling is that the flesh has been made "the enemy" by the church because everybody is bound to have fleshly desires...as we ARE flesh. It's like deciding we're all evil because we have eyes, walk upright or like music. It's very easy to control a population if you can make its very core of being "evil" because therefore every one of its members WILL screw up per these ridiculous parameters. Therefore, everyone WILL "need" salvation.
But of course, that all presumes people will never think for themselves and see through it as manipulation and a control tool.
Why is the flesh an "emnity to God" when God created the flesh, then said it was good?
Because it was good that God made man flesh and soulish to fulfill His intention.
Quote:
Who programmed man to need food and sleep, to desire bodily company? God didn't do that? Did Adam create all these tendencies? Satan, maybe? If not, then it was probably God, right?
Why such disdain for bodies, bodily functions and bodily desires when according to the story, it was God who took the time to create these things?
Of course God did that. He didn't want man made perfect so that His intention man would fail the test in the garden would be fulfilled and the Saviour would come.
Quote:
My feeling is that the flesh has been made "the enemy" by the church because everybody is bound to have fleshly desires...as we ARE flesh. It's like deciding we're all evil because we have eyes, walk upright or like music. It's very easy to control a population if you can make its very core of being "evil" because therefore every one of its members WILL screw up per these ridiculous parameters. Therefore, everyone WILL "need" salvation.
But of course, that all presumes people will never think for themselves and see through it as manipulation and a control tool.
Sorry but I don't go by "feelings." The old humanity of flesh and soulishness was put to death in the death of Christ. A new creation is coming for all mankind due to Christ's death, entombment and resurrection.
Yes, deliberately setting us up to fail, per the mythology. That is what I thought.
I would not follow anything that cruel, it obviously does not have my best interests at heart and therefore can't be trusted. It could do anything, it could change its mind tomorrow, anything that would deliberately create something to be hurt, for whatever reason, is not something to count on.
Because it was good that God made man flesh and soulish to fulfill His intention.
Of course God did that. He didn't want man made perfect so that His intention man would fail the test in the garden would be fulfilled and the Saviour would come.
Sorry but I don't go by "feelings." The old humanity of flesh and soulishness was put to death in the death of Christ. A new creation is coming for all mankind due to Christ's death, entombment and resurrection.
The word "Lucifer" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "Howl" which was translated Howl in its other places in the Scriptures (see Zechariah 11:12). There never was a Lucifer. And the writing where the wrong word "Lucifer" is found is concerning the king of Babylon (Isa.14:22).
Isa 14:4 And you lift up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say in that day, "How ceases the exactor! Ceases the audacious city!"
He was a human (Isa.14:16).
that is a false interpretation.
read it again, Lucifer is the pre-fallen Satan.
Angels can be stars and light-bringers, now he brings darkness,
and is the Prince of Darkness.
Jesus Himself said he saw Satan fall from heaven. Luke 10:18
Lucifer the Son of the Morning Star these are angelic terms
he was an arch angel who was near the throne of God before rebelling.
The word "Lucifer" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "Howl" which was translated Howl in its other places in the Scriptures (see Zechariah 11:12). There never was a Lucifer. And the writing where the wrong word "Lucifer" is found is concerning the king of Babylon (Isa.14:22).
Isa 14:4 And you lift up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say in that day, "How ceases the exactor! Ceases the audacious city!"
I agree with Miss H. I don't know about her inspiration (aside from Leon Russell?), but I will offer this: Is there good without evil? To put it another way: Is anything "good" if there is no opposite to contrast it with?
Of course there can be good without its opposite. An extreme opposite is not required. A thing is good in the relative sense of "better than some other alternative". I would imagine that most people would classify for example having their proposal of marriage accepted with enthusiasm to be better than sitting quietly reading a nice book without fear for one's safety or well-being. One does not have to have experienced, say, a root canal without anesthesia to TRULY appreciate your beloved saying, "Of course I'll marry you! How about yesterday!" That event can be appreciated on its own merits and can be ranked in contrast to any number of other events, NONE of which HAVE to be negative.
As I have before, I offer this:
Total suckage <== Neither here nor there ===> Utter bliss
You can simply truncate it like so, and still perfectly well tell the difference between the two remaining options.
Neither here nor there <===> Utter bliss
So to answer the REAL question here: no, human suffering is not required in any way to give meaning to positive outcomes. All that is needed is a palette of positive outcomes and some reasonable degree of freedom to choose and goal-seek amongst them.
Thinking about another thread where someone offered the idea tha Lucifer was created as good, because God cannot create evil? LOL...
So I,as usual, got to pondering, that since there was no EVIL until Adam was gullible enough to taste the forbidden fruit (which I think was NOT the apple, but actually a variation of seafood) HOW WAS EVIL PRE-EXISTING prior to Adam and Steve eating the apple?
Is it possible that EVIL is the ONLY thing God did not create, thereby making EVIL the only thing to EXIST BEFORE and OUTSIDE of God?
Im not an expert but it doesnt say there was no evil prior to adam and EVE. It also doesnt say God is some guy pooping rainbows and always smiling. He is a pretty angry, nasty guy at times. In my opinion, that means he could have created Evil/sin.
Of course there can be good without its opposite. An extreme opposite is not required.
I agree with this. When you cuddle a baby close, it feels happy; it feels a sense of good. You don't have to abandon it in a cold alley for 48 hours first so that it can tell the difference between "alone and cold" and "with someone and warm" so that it can realize what a "good" cuddle feeling is. It just KNOWS it's good being there with Mommy.
Further, a fetus appears to be quite content, generally. Looking in there via ultrasound, generally, a fetus will have a relaxed face; rarely will it carry a seriously distressed look. Overall, this fetus has NEVER experienced ANYTHING bad and yet it's content, so an argument that a newborn baby has immediately experienced at least some form of separation still doesn't support "you NEED bad in order to know/feel good" as a not-yet-born baby does indeed appear to feel goodness/happiness/contentment, without EVER having experienced anything negative, at least as far as we can see. I mean it isn't even out yet, LOL.
And even if nobody ever abandoned a single infant in an alley, or anywhere, again in the entire future of humankind, trust me, cuddling babies and being there for them is NEVER going to not be considered "good" because there's no opposite currently happening.
This religious idea that "we have to have bad or we'd never know what good is" doesn't make much sense to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
