1) I mean, I agree that it is very easy to read God's actions as toxic and abusive from the outside; the Christian narrative only really works if you start at the assumption that God is good and correct. Internally though, they would likely attribute injustice and evil to people not obeying God's will. — MrLiminal

That is God's fault when it comes to sin if we accept that the creation is imperfect. What do you expect? An imperfect creation is subject to sin!

2) That sounds like a personal preference, but I see where you're coming from. Again, it makes more sense though when you start from the assumption that God is perfect and good. It doesn't really work otherwise as written, unless you want to start getting into the more obscure stuff like gnosticism. — MrLiminal

The question is, why should I go to Hell? Love God or Go to Hell!

Not necessarily, we can’t assume that God knows any particular thing. — Punshhh

If God created the medium, then He should know what a medium is. You cannot act from pure ignorance!

1) Because he made us and loves us (he's called "the Father" very intentionally) — MrLiminal

This argument makes no sense to me. A Lovely Father who is perfect does not leave humans in an unjust situation. Why should we return the same? Don't you see injustice on Earth, which is the result of ignorance and imperfection in humans? We are creatures, so we are not responsible for our imperfections. Shouldn't we hate the main cause of the injustice?

2)
They would say love without choice is not love. Supposedly God let all that happen because he didnt want to force us to love him. Whether or not that's right or ethical is typically a foregone conclusion, because God is usually interpreted of being all good if not the actual personification of good. — MrLiminal

No, please, I don't want to love anything to such an extreme as is common in Christianity! I always have room for a little hate as well. I prefer to find myself in the state of peace as quickly as possible. So no extreme, please!

Given Jesus failed to address the OT’s mistakes and given him referring to himself as the messiah and that the OT is errant, it follows that Jesus probably wasn’t God. — Bob Ross

Probably or certainly!? If God fails to convey His message, then He is not God.

Goodness is the equality of essence and esse; so it follows that badness is the privation (inequality) of essence and esse. So badness to goodness is like darkness to light.

You would have to provide a different account of goodness to make it work with your view that evil is some positive, real thing out there. My point was that I am a privation theorist about evil; so I do no think it is just as unreal as darkness. — Bob Ross

I would like to bring you to the crux of our discussion: You mentioned that evil exists, but it is not real. Don't you see a problem in this statement? I am afraid that you need to read through our discussion to see why we reached such a crux.

There are many different responses here, but in general, Christianity embraces realism re morality and value. If God is truly best, it would seem that we ought to love what is better and more worthy, as opposed to what is worse and less worthy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is right to embrace a better quality of course. It is also right to achieve a better quality as well. So, becoming Godly is the final goal, and it is all right, too. Adam and Eve just wanted to look Godly. What is wrong with that?

As an aside, a criticism of the latter view, which is what resulted in the development of first one, is that this makes God less then wholly omnipotent, because God is constrained by what is good. I think this is a misunderstanding, but it's a hotly contested issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And there is the problem of evil too, for a perfect good God who can only create a good creation. To my understanding God of the Old Testament is closer to being true since He accepted to be the source of good and evil.

The Cranberries - Promises

Radiohead - Street Spirit

The argument I was told was that without the ability to choose, humans couldn't have truly loved God. — MrLiminal

Why should humans love God?

God allegedly gave us free will knowing we would fail because he wanted us to CHOOSE to love him instead of being forced to, which was why he planned for Jesus down the road. — MrLiminal

But God knew beforehand that a creation with the Tree of Knowledge and Humans would lead to a disaster, including the suffering of Jesus on the Cross! Another scene is a creation without the Tree of Knowledge. So, peace on Paradise!

I see.

He could have had a tea party in the Garden. — frank

Yes, and there was no need for torturing himself as well! :wink:

Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin: — frank

What do you mean?

I don't think it's usually assumed that God is contending here with rules beyond His control. Being omniscient, He would have to have known Adam would sin. And being omnipotent, he could change things if we wanted to. — frank

Correct. God, for example, could remove the tree from the scene. All problems solved! Even I can remove a tree without needing to be omnipotent! :wink:

By "those mentioned things", I mean this: If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

I don't think so! I would be happy to discuss the OP from the start if you are interested.

I don't see the relevance: can you elaborate on how this relevant to the OP? — Bob Ross

You didn't reply to my last post here, so I don't know what you think about it. The current discussion started from the point that I replied to your post, in which you were saying that OT is wrong.

Let me grant you that Jesus relates himself to the messiah from the OT which, in turn, is related to the God of the OT (the father). My argument demonstrates that the OT gets some stuff wrong about God because God can't do some of the things the OT claims God did; so those portions are false. — Bob Ross

Why didn't Jesus Himself say that portion of the OT is false? How could Jesus miss such an important thing in His teaching, if the purpose of His teaching is to complete the prophecy as well?

Okay. Your basic, telling a kid fire is hot instead of momentarily putting their hand on a stove or over said fire, for example. Of course. That's right and proper. Anything else is the hallmark of a beast or savage. Understandable.

So, basically, once someone kills, say your child or mother or father or what have you, any sort of punishment is unjust simply for the fact "what's done is done." Surely you don't mean that. Do you? — Outlander

I have an idea: The person who killed my family is innocent if the act is due to his/her genes. Otherwise, you need to know what brought the murderer to a situation to perform such an act. The main causes of the crime are a lack of proper education or uncertainty in life. We can only fix education. Once this is done, it is what it is: a perfect life!

Yes, they had no idea of a universe. Their universe was earth. — Punshhh

Why were they not told the truth about Earth, Sun, Moon, and stars?

We don’t know any of that, because the infinite God is inconceivable to us. — Punshhh

We can be certain about those mentioned things.

Creatures, on pretty much all mainstream accounts of the Fall. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The question is why creatures are vulnerable to doing wrong/sin. They sin because they are imperfect and ignorant. We can fix ignorance through education, but we cannot do anything for imperfection. God is not vulnerable to sin since He is Perfect and All Wise. He basically cannot do wrong since doing wrong is out of question because He is all-wise. He cannot even bother with sin since He is perfect. The next question is why the perfect God didn't create a perfect God. Perhaps, God could not possibly create another God. I have no argument against or in favor of this. But if God is perfect and cannot create a perfect God, then creation is alright! I don't know what God is going to do with imperfection in us. If He could fix imperfection in us, He presumably could create a perfect Human at the first point! According to Scriptures, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, but God didn't allow them to eat from the Tree of Life. If this passage is correct, then there is a question why God didn't allow them to eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal as well, so they could become God. God apparently was not the only God in this scene since God mentioned that they would become like Us if they eat from the Tree of Life as well. So, why did God make an exception for them, disallowing the Tree of Life!? They could become God, and all problems would be solved. Instead, He cursed them and sent them out of Paradise. To be honest, I don't see the logic behind the Scriptures.

Does it? What's the assumption here, something like:

P1. If anyone does evil, it is always because they are ignorant.
P2. If anyone is ignorant, it is always God who has made them ignorant.
C: Therefore, Christ actually killed himself when he was executed.

Would that be it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't equate evil with wrong. I have a thread on "From morality to equality", here. I discussed good and evil, right, and wrong there. So I change your argument slightly in the following form:

P1. If anyone does wrong, it is always because they are ignorant or imperfect.
P2. If anyone is ignorant or imperfect, it is always God who has made them ignorant or imperfect.
C: Therefore, Christ actually killed himself when he was executed.

Yes, Jesus actually killed Himself.

Anyhow, it seems to me that negligence is a thing, as well as willful ignorance. There are also cases where people simply do what they know is wrong. Pilate would be an example of the latter. He knew that crucifying an innocent man was wrong, and he did it anyway. That such an act is wrong is not only consistent with the culture that produced the NT, but within the context of the Latin culture that Pilate came from as well (e.g., it would be a blameworthy act in the context of the Aeneid, which is from the same epoch).

Saying that Pilate was somehow forced to crucify an innocent man because, had he known it was God and that he'd be punished, he wouldn't have done it, seems to me a bit like saying a serial killer was forced to kill some child, because, had they known the child was important, and that they would have been caught for the murder due to the resources deployed to catch the offender, they wouldn't have committed it, or that someone who cheats on their spouse is somehow "unfree" in choosing to cheat if they are ignorant of the fact that they will be caught cheating. Certainly, these are cases where a person knows enough to be culpable. And more to the point, they aren't being coerced into what they know to be immoral acts, they are choosing immoral acts as an expedient means of achieving ends they desire. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You are either in a state of belief or in a state of certainty. You cannot possibly be in a state of uncertainty if you are shown a wonder. Jesus could make a wonder to change the judge's mind. Jesus was killed. Therefore, Jesus did not show a wonder to the judge. That is one scenario. Another feasible scenario is that Jesus was not killed since He showed a wonder; therefore, Islam is at least correct in saying that Jesus was not crucified. Therefore, I seriously doubt about the idea of NT and the culture around it, like equating right with good and wrong with evil.

First, I agree, I think it's fair to point out that ignorance reduces culpability. However, isn't it fair to say that both ignorance and culpability exist on a sliding scale? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The main question is why the ignorance exists. It is a part of creation for sure; otherwise, the first sin would not have taken place. Now, please tell me, who is responsible for the existence of sin, creatures or God!?

Those who chose to have Jesus killed were aware of the signs and wonders. Indeed, he preforms one as he is being taken into custody. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If you think that showing a wonder is a good reason in the mind of a just being for accepting that what you say is right, then how could you resolve the problem of why Jesus was killed? Why was the judge not convinced? Either he was not a just person, which brings the ignorance within again. Or, the judge was wise and was convinced; therefore, Jesus did not die on the cross as Islam says. Which option do you pick?

How, God, could fail to leave such important ambiguity in the history of humans, His Divine plan?

If God created the universe, then by implication, he created the earth at the same time. Because the material that formed the earth was part of that creation when he created the universe. — Punshhh

But Earth was formed way later than the creation of the universe.

In the passage from the bible, “earth” means the universe. — Punshhh

Do you mean that Earth and the universe were synonyms in ancient times?

How do you know that God knows how to create things? — Punshhh

If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

And how do you know he does not need a medium? — Punshhh

Isn't the medium itself created? If yes, then God knows how to create things.

You didn't answer my question. I asked why Jesus called himself the promised Person, Messiah, cited in the Old Testament, if the Old Testament is wrong. What is the God of the Old Testament? Is He real or is he a fiction made by people?

So if someone killed your wife or kid or whatever, and you wanted to make them suffer. That's just magically not the definition of torture. — Outlander

The act of me causing suffering to the killer is a torture/evil as well.

Apparently, God knows how to create things, and he does not need a medium. Creation could be the universe. And of course, Earth was not created but formed as a result of dust rotating around the sun.

Christ is tortured and executed by men through their free choices. He didn't crucify or scourge himself after all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Jesus could prevent such a disastrous fate! And no, Jesus' death was not the result of men practicing their free will, but their ignorance! So, God put Himself in the hands of ignorant people to achieve a part of His Divine Plan. Apparently, people could not be held responsible for their actions since they were ignorant. Of course, they wouldn't harm Jesus if they were convinced that Jesus is God! So, who could be held responsible for this situation if not God?

Webster's dictionary defines "torture" as purposeful infliction of pain or suffering for no other purpose than to do so. — Outlander

Torture is defined as the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. It was common as a mode of punishment in ancient times, such as stoning.

Reason and rationale, or intent in the legal landscape, is as wide as the days are long. Why exercise or eat healthy if we're all just going to die one day? Is that not the definition of torture for someone who holds such a view as paramount?

Me thinks you've fallen prey to the Geuttier argument. In simple terms: stupid things are not evil, they're just stupid. Meaning, while ignorance is the cause of most acts that qualify as such, at least, they ensure they won't be remedied, they're ultimately merely a catalyst to something that would fare quite well without any such factors. — Outlander

I was mentioning that allowing torture/evil is wrong for whatever reason for a God who is Love. Jesus' death was a part of God's Divine Plan. So, I was wondering how God, who is Love, could have such a plan.

Why did Jesus refer to Himself as the Messiah, the promised Person from the Old Testament, then? Do you give a reference to something wrong?

The act of torturing yourself or others is evil. So, God of the New Testament also allowed evil for whatever reasons one can imagine. You call the reason Justice. How could a God who is Love allow Evil for Justice!? Permitting or doing evil is not allowed in Christianity. This is very similar to the God of the Old Testament, who allowed evil for Justice!

How could the OT be wrong if Jesus frequently referred to the Old Testament and identified himself as the Messiah, fulfilling prophecies found within those scriptures?

I have not. I haven't had the time to sift through all the posts in here. — Bob Ross

I was asking @frank why God does not simply forgive the sins of those who realize their mistake and repent. At the end, we are not perfect, so we are vulnerable to sin. Why does God need to torture Himself so He can then forgive our sins? What is the reason behind Jesus' sacrifice?

I was talking about the trinity, which is a way of talking about these things. I represented Jesus as man(mankind). Jesus is the son of God and so is mankind. — Punshhh

I understand that you were talking about the Trinity. I was wondering what Jesus' role is in creation. He must be necessary to complete God; otherwise, a God with two or one persons is functional when it comes to the act of creation.

You accept there is a medium to act in your post here; — Punshhh

Sure, but I can imagine a God who does not need a medium to create. The point at which God exists and the point that God creates must coincide, though.

Spacetime is the medium in our instance. God isn’t spacetime, do you agree? (God is an omni present being who created spacetime). — Punshhh

If the definition of the Holy Spirit is a thing in whom things exist, then we are dealing with spacetime since spacetime is what things exist within.

So already you have two things. Then you have what happens in spacetime, which is referred to as Gods creation, man. Now you have three things. — Punshhh

No, we have one thing, so-called God. You need to show me why the Holy Spirit is required.

God doesn’t “need” a medium to act. Rather, when he acts, he creates the medium through which the act is expressed. — Punshhh

What is your definition of the Holy Spirit? Did God even create the Holy Spirit? What do you mean by "through which the act is expressed"?

I don’t give much weight to an omnipotent God. I see the Omni’s as a human invention, like infinity. I don’t think there are any infinities. — Punshhh

I think that your version of God looks to human invention more. A God who needs a medium to act, exactly like humans!

You didn't answer the question: What is the duty of Jesus in creation?

The trinity is a system of relating principles, or concepts, based on the family unit, of father, mother and son. The idea that if there is a creator(father), then there is what the creator creates(son) and the medium through which it is created(mother). Any act of creation has at least three components.

It works well as correspondences;

God———-creator— —-law of nature—Father
Holy Spirit—meduim——energy————Mother
Man———-creation—-—matter————Son — Punshhh

What is the duty of Son here if it is part of creation? To just die on the cross? Also, what is the definition of an Omnipotent God to you? I am asking since I think an Omnipotent God does not need a medium to create. Even I can create stuff if I am given a medium to act, so there should be a difference between God and us.

Or, if free will exist in heaven and evil doesn't exist, then it's possible that God could create a world where no evil exists and free will also exist. That means that God chose to create a world where evil exist. — night912

I don't equate evil with sin, but I understand what you are trying to say.

Is there free will in heaven? — night912

That is a very good question! If Heaven is the final destination for those who repent, and if these individuals are free, then they could commit sins in Heaven as well!

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is the sustainer of material? What is the role of Jesus here? We have the creator, Father, and the Holy Spirit, who is the sustainer. It seems that we need two Persons rather than three Persons. Moreover, the creator can be the sustainer as well. So, one Person is enough to do the job.

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are.

Shouldn't Jesus and the Holy Spirit have different definitions?

So, given this tripartite distinction, what makes a painting a painting? — Moliere

The painting is an artwork; therefore, it requires media, including canvas and the color materials used in the painting. There is also an idea presented in the painting, through the proper placement of colors on the canvas, so-called form.

It's a good set of distinctions, IMO -- but I want to see them in operation. — Moliere

It starts with an idea in the mind of a painter. S/he then decides how to present the idea. This includes the size and form of the canvas, colors s/he is interested in, and how to place the colors on the canvas to present the idea.

Have you read my exchange with @frank?

Correct. People think what they say is true even when the assertion is false. They are just not aware of it.