Why does God Permit....

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Nonsense. Future pleasure does not make up for present agony.
[/QUOTE]

I am sure this is a concept difficult to understand for an atheist, but the problem is that you are putting too much stock on mortal life and not enough in Life Eternal. The future rewards is inconmeasurable to the present agony. Go back to my example of a mother inflicting suffering on her child in the form of vaccine shots, toenail clippings and eating spinach. You are asking for a God that leaves you without medical care, all haggard and free to eat chocolates all day. That makes for a very likeable uncle but not for a good mom.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Sin is an arbitrary religious term; it means whatever the religion in question says it does, which may or may not involve knowledge, intention or acts. As for evil, ignorance and/or lack of intent needs to pass the reasonabilty test to serve as an excuse. Was is reasonable for him to think the things he did were good ? Not even close.

[/QUOTE]

Sin may be an arbitrary religious term, sure but the fact remains that a moral being is always making choices that are either moral or inmoral to whatever standard that person has. If you consciously make a choice that is inmoral to your morality, you are doing evil. Different societies and different cultures may have different standards but in the end it all boils down to your own internal moral code and whether you are following it or challenging it.

It is not the action itself that makes an act moral or inmoral, it is the intention of the actor that makes it so.

As for Hitler, I will never defend his actions (for crying out loud) but if I get to heaven and find him there, I will not be disappointed or surprised. There is no sin that God cannot forgive if the sinner asks for forgiveness.

A life if sin, though, makes the person callous and shameful and unlikely to seek forgiveness. So it is not that we all get to live a life of wanton destruction and then get a get out of jail free card at the instant of our death. Our lives affect our judgement in that they affect the way we face the opportunity to be Saved.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
An utterly evil viewpoint, one which can be used to excuse any crime, any atrocity.

[/QUOTE]

Why would it be evil to say that Suffering has no consequence on the victim, only on the causer? Quite the opposite! What a wicked world would it be if by your evil you could somewhow diminish another person. The full burden of evil must fall on the cause of that evil. Any other way makes the victim of evil share the burden of evil (and either diminish the burden on the cause or multiply evil).

Far from excusing evil, it makes it unreasonable and thus more evil and less justifiable. An evil without gain is an evil done just for evil’s sake. What worse aggravating circumstance could you tack on a crime?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
If there is a God, namely your God, then nothing matters because we are nothing but victims in a hell-universe ruled by an omnipotent monster.
[/QUOTE]

This tells me that you have failed to see the point of my post. A universe where suffering is passing and overcome infinite times over by Salvation. Where all persons have an equal chance at Salvation no matter what the circumstances of his life were and how much evil they suffered or committed. A universe where Salvation is a choice made in full awareness of Truth. That can only be hell to the pious who expect to see people of “lesser character” suffer for doing less that they did.

62

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I find myself confused. Surely God, being omniscient, already knows what Life Eternal is going to be for us? He doesn’t really need to send us to Earth; unless, of course, existing on Earth is actually important for us, which would tend to make suffering important for us too.
[/QUOTE]

Life on Earth is important to us as it sets us to face Salvation. Likewise, as you state, suffering is important for a couple reasons (that I can fathom, anyways). First, being a victim of suffering puts in perspective the suffering you cause. You suffer so you know what you are putting others through when you inflict suffering on them.

Also, it makes it real. Gambling with monopoly bills is not gambling as there is nothing to lose (please exclude bragging rights from the equation for the purposes of this point). Suffering must be real for it to be wrong to inflict it on others. Otherwise it is just a game, a make-believe doll house adventure.

Mortal human Suffering is important. It is just that it pales in front of Life Eternal. Its effect on our choice of Salvation overwhelms the effect on our mortal bodies.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I’m afraid you haven’t alleviated my discomfort. You seem to be agreeing with me that Hitler’s going to get salvation whilst an sometimes bad but otherwise nice person with a conscience will have a harder time.

[/QUOTE]

Not at all. As I pointed elsewhere, Hitler will be confronted with the Truth of his acts and their consequences. He will stand transparent in the gaze of Judgement and must trust Salvation is available to him and choose to be Saved.

Think of a child who does a bad thing and must face mom. One of the first things he learned in life in mom’s love. Still, he knows he did wrong and is afraid to face mom and let her see that he failed her. Judgement is standing around the corner from where mom is. Salvation is available to him if he runs to mom, tells her what happened and hugs her bossom. Mom will hug him back and tell him it is ok but he has to trust mom’s love to turn that corner and face her. Damnation is an eternity of standing around that corner unready to receive mom’s forgiveness. There is no punishment. Mom will never belt him for what he did if he faces her but by staying around the corner he forgoes that forgiveness and prolongs his suffering.
But let’s choose a couple different examples to contrast to good old Adolf. A 2-year old kid has noticed that adults hit cockroaches to make them stop bothering them. His months old baby sister is crying and hogging mom’s attention. He decides to hit her hard (as he has seen adults do to roaches) and kills her. He did have the intention to get rid of her. Was that action evil? No. He didn’t understand the finality of his action and couldn’t see the suffering he was causing in its fullness.

Now consider a churchy old lady who bakes cookies for the hospitalized, goes to Church every day and puts a nickel to light a candle for her dead loved ones. She looks at those who don’t do as much as her and judges their evil ways. She goes to church to collect goodie points and expects all those burns in her hands from baking cookies will be handsomely repaid after her death. She hopes her good deeds are enough to cover for her shortcomings.

Who do you think will have an easier time facing God? Who will have less trouble understanding that free-for-all forgiveness extravaganza of final udgement?

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Your argument appears to be an attempt to seperate “evil” from suffering; and interesting point, but it still doesn’t get around the idea that God is not only good, but benevolent. A benevolent God would not treat suffering - even suffering that may later appear unimportant - with an uncaring eye.

[/QUOTE]

Who says God looks at us with an uncaring eye. Would you judge a father who let’s go off the bycicle his son is trying to learn how to ride? Will the son ever learn if dad never lets go? if he never falls? Boo-boos are a part of growing. Some boo-boos need a kiss some others need hospitalization. Such is life. You seem to assume that God doesn’t suffer for our suffering. That all would be better if there were no mortal human suffering. Are you sure of that?

63

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Life on Earth is important to us as it sets us to face Salvation. Likewise, as you state, suffering is important for a couple reasons (that I can fathom, anyways). First, being a victim of suffering puts in perspective the suffering you cause. You suffer so you know what you are putting others through when you inflict suffering on them.
[/quote]
But we do not suffer, nor cause suffering, when saved. The only time learning what suffering does to people is useful is when we’re on Earth; this would then mean we’re put on Earth to learn what suffering means while we’re there. That seems somewhat pointless.

By this logic, each of us should commit every sin once (or have it committed to us) in order to understand what it’s like. But I don’t need to kill someone in order to know that’s bad.

I see a problem here. If suffering has no lasting effect on our beings after we’re saved, then, it’s pointless. If suffering does help to shape our selves after salvation, then our saved selves still feel the effects of that suffering, and it is not unimportant.

You don’t seem to be getting this. Hitler did not believe he did anything wrong. He, and pretty much all other evil people, do not think they are evil. He caused suffering, but he thought that was right. So when he goes before God and God asks for an apology, he can give it easily. He does not know he did wrong.

But Hitler could (i think i’m going to drop using Hitler, I feel the hand of Godwin on my shoulder). If I shoot someone, I can see the suffering that causes. But if I don’t care - or I think that killing is justified - i’m both fully understanding of the suffering and perfectly able to apologise. After all, i’ve done nothing wrong; so hey, i’m sorry. Salvation, please.

The person who believes they have done no wrong. Which is quite different from someone having done no wrong.

But the father can’t just gift his son with bike-riding knowledge. God can. Boo-boos are only part of growing for us non-omnipotent people. If I could grant my son the knowledge of how to ride a bike without the boo-boos, I would certainly do so. To not would be wrong by omission.

No, I don’t assume that. What I do assume is that, per popular belief, God is omnipotent. He doesn’t need to let any kind of sin happen. If there is some lesson that needs to be learned, he can just make us know it. That he chooses actual suffering over that - and suffering himself on top of that - just strikes me as mean. And kinda silly.

And I don’t assume that life would be better with no human suffering. After all, God could be wrong.

64

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
But we do not suffer, nor cause suffering, when saved. The only time learning what suffering does to people is useful is when we’re on Earth; this would then mean we’re put on Earth to learn what suffering means while we’re there. That seems somewhat pointless.
[/QUOTE]

Well, no. As I said, your experience of suffering affects how you face Judgement. It affects how you make a decision for Life Eternal and it shapes it. There is an effect of mortal suffering on your Life Eternal. It is just that the pain of the suffering you went through doesn’t mar your experience of Life Eternal.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
By this logic, each of us should commit every sin once (or have it committed to us) in order to understand what it’s like. But I don’t need to kill someone in order to know that’s bad.
[/QUOTE]

Do you need to touch every flame to know they burn?

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I see a problem here. If suffering has no lasting effect on our beings after we’re saved, then, it’s pointless. If suffering does help to shape our selves after salvation, then our saved selves still feel the effects of that suffering, and it is not unimportant.
[/QUOTE]

Again, you used your knowledge of suffering to choose Salvation. once you have chosen Salvation, your previous suffering doesn’t mar it. If you chose Damnation, your previous suffering is a match next to the sun.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
You don’t seem to be getting this. Hitler did not believe he did anything wrong. He, and pretty much all other evil people, do not think they are evil. He caused suffering, but he thought that was right. So when he goes before God and God asks for an apology, he can give it easily. He does not know he did wrong. But Hitler could (i think i’m going to drop using Hitler, I feel the hand of Godwin on my shoulder). If I shoot someone, I can see the suffering that causes. But if I don’t care - or I think that killing is justified - i’m both fully understanding of the suffering and perfectly able to apologise. After all, i’ve done nothing wrong; so hey, i’m sorry. Salvation, please. The person who believes they have done no wrong. Which is quite different from someone having done no wrong.
[/QUOTE]

If he REALLY, truly, deeply, morally believes there was no evil done, then there was no evil done. (Please remember that you cannot really lie to yourself and that if you TRY to, that is, by itself, an inmoral decision). It would be no different from a child, or a severely mentally disabled person, or someone misled in to doing a bad deed. Imagine me asking you to call a phone number and that number being the detonator of a bomb. Did YOU do evil? I very much doubt that Hitler was so innocent of the evil in his deeds, but if he truly was, then there is no evil done. There was suffering but no evil just as there is suffering but no evil in an earthquake.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
But the father can’t just gift his son with bike-riding knowledge. God can. Boo-boos are only part of growing for us non-omnipotent people. If I could grant my son the knowledge of how to ride a bike without the boo-boos, I would certainly do so. To not would be wrong by omission.
[/QUOTE]

ok, then think of a father not letting his son play football to protect him from getting tackled. It is not the son’s actions that bring his suffering but the actions of the other players. His son can’t play if there are no other players. Pain, although not intended is unavoidable if there is going to be football. We may provide all kinds of protections, but ultimate protection would mean no freedom to play.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
No, I don’t assume that. What I do assume is that, per popular belief, God is omnipotent. He doesn’t need to let any kind of sin happen.
[/QUOTE]

But then there would be no freedom. We would just be robots or drugged happy zombies. God wanted man to be free to make choices. God is, above all other things, love. A creature unable to not-love is being forced into love and, therefore, not loved.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
If there is some lesson that needs to be learned, he can just make us know it. That he chooses actual suffering over that - and suffering himself on top of that - just strikes me as mean. And kinda silly.
[/QUOTE]

It is not about us learning a lesson. It is about us being free to love and accept His Love.

65

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Well, no. As I said, your experience of suffering affects how you face Judgement. It affects how you make a decision for Life Eternal and it shapes it. There is an effect of mortal suffering on your Life Eternal. It is just that the pain of the suffering you went through doesn’t mar your experience of Life Eternal.
[/quote]
At all? You’ve said that the suffering on Earth is inconsequential, but not that it isn’t bad at all. Is that what you’re saying now? Suffering on Earth doesn’t harm you a single bit?

No, and that’s my point. You were saying that we need to experience suffering in order to know what it means. I’m perfectly capable of understanding what certain kinds of suffering would mean without me actually going through them. And if I can understand suffering in this way, what’s stopping God from just making everyone know without actually having to go through it? Snapping his fingers and the knowledge arrives in everyone’s heads?

But it must mar it. If it is effective enough to influence your decision on salvation, then it is influtential enough to have a lasting effect on you once saved. Unless you’re claiming that the you after being saved is not the same as the you before salvation?

I am confused. You’ve suggested that God puts us on Earth so that we may understand suffering. An person who causes suffering, yet does not believe they are bad, clearly does not understand suffering. Each person that causes suffering yet appears before God with a clear conscience is a failure on God’s part. To use your analogy; if I were to test how people reacted to emotions by testing several mentally disturbed people who are unable to understand emotions, that would be a pointless test. Such people should not be used in this test - at all. And if that test involved the people who could not understand emotions causing unhappiness or anger or fear in other people, I have caused needless harm.

If I knew it was, yes. If I did, yes. But there’s a big difference between not knowing about suffering and doing something and knowing about suffering but doing it anyway. Evil people know that what they do causes suffering, but they do it anyway. And if they don’t see that as wrong, it’s salvation for them.

You believe that Hitler knew in his heart that he was causing suffering, but chose to ignore it? That seems like pretty wishful thinking.

Sure it would. When we play american football, do we play naked? Nope. We wear clothes, padding, helmets, all in order to keep us safe. Of course, none of these things can remove the pain entirely - however, God can. God could choose to make football entirely painless; he could make football padding 100% effective at stopping pain. And there’d still be freedom to play, wouldn’t there?

What are we, then, after salvation? We do not sin after that. Are we then drugged, happy zombies? Are we not then forced into love? Or do we get to choose after salvation to reject God?

Besides, we wouldn’t be. After all, as i’ve said already, God can make us understand suffering. If I have never suffered, but am aware of the suffering that can exist, I don’t think I would characterise my position as a drugged, happy zombie.

…which doesn’t requires suffering.

66

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Yes as a symbolic representation of the first attack of Satan against man, the beginning of the operational loss of control of the world.
[/QUOTE]

This was about Adam and Eve. Symbolic representations are not actual things. Did Adam and Eve exist to sin or not? Now, assuming you associate the serpent with Satan (which is not at all justified in Genesis) we have another problem. The yokels, Adam and Eve, fresh from the sticks as it were, meet the city slicker Satan (second only to God in cunning) and fall for his lies. And for this we deserve eternal punishment?

67

[QUOTE=Voyager]
This was about Adam and Eve. Symbolic representations are not actual things. Did Adam and Eve exist to sin or not?
[/QUOTE]

Yes as far as there was a man and woman that was deceived by Satan (via the serpent, which may be Satan, see below) and brought sin into human reality. As for their actual names, I don’t know.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Now, assuming you associate the serpent with Satan (which is not at all justified in Genesis) we have another problem.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Revelation 20:2]
And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The yokels, Adam and Eve, fresh from the sticks as it were, meet the city slicker Satan (second only to God in cunning) and fall for his lies. And for this we deserve eternal punishment?
[/QUOTE]

I stated and cited scripture that only 3 entities are written to be cast into the lake of fire AND will have eternal punishment, The false prophet, the beast and 1000 years later Satan. Those who accept the mark of the beast will be also thrown in, but this may be after the second death, which means they might go into non-existence, others who die before the choice of the marks seem to go with God if they are in the book of life, if not they are thrown into the lake of fire. Again there is no mention of eternal suffering except for the 3 entities, it is conspicuously left out.

[QUOTE=Revelation 20:15]
And if anyone’s name was not found written in (AZ)the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
[/QUOTE]

So it just means that A&E die. Now if you are not in the book of life you might get a little p’d off being resurrected just to have to die again after judgment, but there is a strong case for no eternal punishment.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

[QUOTE=Kanicbird]
If a couple loves the concept of communism so much they move from the US to Red China, there they have children who live a miserable life in sweetshop labor. Is this God’s fault, or the child’s fault?
[/QUOTE]

It’s the parent’s fault, since they made the choice to move there, and God’s fault, because he created the miserable situation needlessly. The child has no responsibility for the matter (unless of course they’re able to escape and don’t do so).
[/QUOTE]

Is it really the parents fault? Or is it just the situation they chose to live in and there really is no blame?

God is not in control of the world, Satan is:

[QUOTE=1John 1:19]

We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
[/QUOTE]

68

The Serpent in Genesis was not intended to be Satan regardless of what Revelation says. The authors of that story had no belief in the Christian concept of Satan as a “Devil.”

69

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Is it really the parents fault? Or is it just the situation they chose to live in and there really is no blame?
[/quote]
Yes, i’m afraid it is the parent’s fault. You seem to be confusing blame for the situation with blame for bringing the child into that situation. The parents are not to blame for the situation itself; they didn’t create the conditions there, nor do they have a say in changing them. However, they did choose to bring themselves and their child into the situation, and so their suffering and that of their child is something we can blame them for.

Ah, I see. So God can’t step in, then? That’s a limit on his power? Why should we worship God if Satan can go toe-to-toe with him, and (as I’m understanding from your posts) God doesn’t actually represent benevolence anyway?

70

[QUOTE=DtC]
The Serpent in Genesis was not intended to be Satan regardless of what Revelation says. The authors of that story had no belief in the Christian concept of Satan as a “Devil.”
[/QUOTE]

OK make your own rules then. I will give you that Satan seemed more like a ‘buddy’ of God in the OT (Job), and like a enemy of God in the NT, but what’s to say Satan has to stay the same - obviously there was some transformation along the way, this does not negate that it is the same entity. The author of Genesis died before the birth of Christ, how is the author suppose to know about Satan at the time of Christ.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Ah, I see. So God can’t step in, then? That’s a limit on his power?
[/QUOTE]

I never claimed God is omnipotent, there does seem that there are some restrictions that God has, why did it take Him 6 days to create the universe, why did He need to rest for one, Why did he need to send God to die in this world so that man can be with God, Why did Jesus need water to form wine, and there are other examples that seem to indicate some limit to the power of God, like He can’t be in the presents of sin except when made man (Wag Satan’s biggest advantage).

You don’t have to worship Him, you can do whatever you want, our world is under control of Satan not God. For God not being able to go toe to toe with Satan, Jesus defeated Satan in a debate in the desert (too long to post, and also well known), the wrath of God is at least a order of magnitude greater then anything before (Revelation 16- too long to post) then ultimately:

[QUOTE=Revelation20:10]
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
[/QUOTE]

As for God not representing benevolence, please go further. God does/will cause suffering, pain, and death.

71

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
OK make your own rules then. I will give you that Satan seemed more like a ‘buddy’ of God in the OT (Job), and like a enemy of God in the NT, but what’s to say Satan has to stay the same - obviously there was some transformation along the way, this does not negate that it is the same entity. The author of Genesis died before the birth of Christ, how is the author suppose to know about Satan at the time of Christ.
[/quote]

Indeed. The authors of Genesis could not have had any Christian understanding of Satan, therefore that’s not what they could have been talking about, Christian retrojections notwithstanding.

72

[QUOTE=DtC]
The authors of Genesis could not have had any Christian understanding of Satan, therefore that’s not what they could have been talking about, Christian retrojections notwithstanding.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know what Hitler’s childhood was, but lets say he was a great student and helped grandmas across the street. Now if a author wrote about Hitler when Hitler was a child it should be a pretty positive. This author died way before Hitler became a adult. Then someone wrote about Hitler in the 1940’s, quite a difference that the first author could never have known about, but yes it’s the same person.

73

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I never claimed God is omnipotent, there does seem that there are some restrictions that God has, why did it take Him 6 days to create the universe, why did He need to rest for one,
[/quote]
If I may argue the pro-God position for a moment, these aren’t actually restrictions. He may simply have chosen to create the world in so many days and rest for one.

This could be. It could mean he’s either not omnipotent or he didn’t love his son.

Now, I must admit I can’t pull out the Bible quotes like you can; however I don’t recall Jesus *needing * to turn water into wine.

I’ve not heard this before. Could you expand on this a bit?

But God also, apparently, takes some harm upon himself (for example, sacrificing his son). How do we know that Satan did not willingly take the punishment upon himself so that he could save us from God’s tyranny?

Would it be accurate to characterise your position as being one of “You should worship God, because he’s the most powerful”?

74

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I don’t know what Hitler’s childhood was, but lets say he was a great student and helped grandmas across the street. Now if a author wrote about Hitler when Hitler was a child it should be a pretty positive. This author died way before Hitler became a adult. Then someone wrote about Hitler in the 1940’s, quite a difference that the first author could never have known about, but yes it’s the same person.
[/QUOTE]

But Genesis never identifies the snake as anything but a snake. It’s not a different take on Satan (as you might argue with Job), it’s an entirely different character. There was and is no concept of Satan as the Devil in Judaism.

75

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
If I may argue the pro-God position for a moment, these aren’t actually restrictions. He may simply have chosen to create the world in so many days and rest for one.
[/QUOTE]

What would a ‘all powerful’ entity need with rest? But you are right. My point is that God, for some reason which I can’t explain except by making Him not omnipotent, does things in ways that seem much harder then snapping one’s finger.

It comes from:

[QUOTE=John 2:3]
When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”
[/QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE=Deuteronomy 5:16]

’ Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you on the land which the LORD your God gives you.
[/QUOTE]

Since God commanded, in this case God, to honor their mother, God had to comply.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
and there are other examples that seem to indicate some limit to the power of God, like He can’t be in the presents of sin except when made man (Wag Satan’s biggest advantage).
[/QUOTE]

I’ve not heard this before. Could you expand on this a bit?
[/QUOTE]

Well the most well known part is where God the Father had to turn away from God the son as He took upon the sins of the world:

[QUOTE=Matthew 27:46]
About the ninth hour (on the cross) Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “(A)ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” that is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”
[/QUOTE]

Almost identical in Mark 15:34

And foretold here:

[QUOTE=Psalm 22:1]
My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?
Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.
[/QUOTE]

I have not been able to find more right now, but the concept is that sin can not exist in the presents of God.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

But God also, apparently, takes some harm upon himself (for example, sacrificing his son). How do we know that Satan did not willingly take the punishment upon himself so that he could save us from God’s tyranny?
[/QUOTE]

I really don’t know what you mean here. What punishment, the only one I know is the eternal one once he is cast in the lake of fire, which seems to have no bearing on anyone else.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Would it be accurate to characterise your position as being one of “You should worship God, because he’s the most powerful”?
[/QUOTE]

I would characterize myself as you should turn to Christ (Which can be defined as worship) to have your sins cleansed so that you may receive the gift of eternal life.

76

[QUOTE=DtC]

But Genesis never identifies the snake as anything but a snake. It’s not a different take on Satan (as you might argue with Job), it’s an entirely different character. There was and is no concept of Satan as the Devil in Judaism
[/QUOTE]
.

The nature of Satan and/or the relationship between God and Satan does change from OT to NT, but nailing one’s son to a cross might just change one’s attitude.

But lets go with it, what stops the Genesis snake from being a servant of Satan?

77

[QUOTE=Sapo]
IGo back to my example of a mother inflicting suffering on her child in the form of vaccine shots, toenail clippings and eating spinach. You are asking for a God that leaves you without medical care, all haggard and free to eat chocolates all day. That makes for a very likeable uncle but not for a good mom.
[/QUOTE]

Equating famine, war, murder, rape, slavery, disease and violent trauma to vaccination shots, toenail trimming and consuming fresh vegetables does exactly nothing to further the argument in your favor. In fact, it makes you sound quite insane.

I have no idea if you are. But try telling someone dying slowly of bone marrow cancer that by gosh they need to suck it up and stop whining as though Mom were making them eat spinach.

Expect the name of your particular God to be taken in vain.

78

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
At all? You’ve said that the suffering on Earth is inconsequential, but not that it isn’t bad at all. Is that what you’re saying now? Suffering on Earth doesn’t harm you a single bit?

[/QUOTE]

No. That is what you are saying I am saying because that might be easier for you to counter. I am saying that suffering doesn’t diminish the victim’s potential for salvation. In a trascendental way, suffering is powerless on the victim. It places the full of its burden on its agent.

Again, suffering must affect the victim to be real (to which you answered that you had to commit or suffer every sin once, which would be more of an answer to the learning part). It is just that its effect colours your Life Eternal without marring it. Just like a routine childhood cold is part of your history that stays with you for life but doesn’t impact it in a destructive way.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

No, and that’s my point. You were saying that we need to experience suffering in order to know what it means. I’m perfectly capable of understanding what certain kinds of suffering would mean without me actually going through them. And if I can understand suffering in this way, what’s stopping God from just making everyone know without actually having to go through it? Snapping his fingers and the knowledge arrives in everyone’s heads?

[/QUOTE]

Can you really know suffering without experiencing it? I am not saying you must experience every single type of suffering but you must experience suffering (of some kind) to know suffering (in general). God can snap His fingers 'til the cows come home and fill your brain with encyclopedias worth of suffering trivia but you don’t know suffering until you have suffered just like you don’t know love until you have loved.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

But it must mar it. If it is effective enough to influence your decision on salvation, then it is influtential enough to have a lasting effect on you once saved. Unless you’re claiming that the you after being saved is not the same as the you before salvation?

[/QUOTE]

No I am not. After Salvation you are still you. A realized, eternal you, but still you. It is just that the experience is not enough to destroy you. It is that scraped knee when you were 1 and learning to walk. That funny rash you got when your aunt used Fresh Apple detergent on your bed sheets. That disastrous stomach flu from the burritos in Tijuana. They all stay with you and colour your experience but they don’t make you nor they break you.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I am confused. You’ve suggested that God puts us on Earth so that we may understand suffering. An person who causes suffering, yet does not believe they are bad, clearly does not understand suffering. Each person that causes suffering yet appears before God with a clear conscience is a failure on God’s part. To use your analogy; if I were to test how people reacted to emotions by testing several mentally disturbed people who are unable to understand emotions, that would be a pointless test. Such people should not be used in this test - at all. And if that test involved the people who could not understand emotions causing unhappiness or anger or fear in other people, I have caused needless harm.

[/QUOTE]

No, I am not suggesting such thing. I am beginning to wonder if you are trying to understand my points or just looking for hooks where to hang your standard arguments against God. Mortal life is not a test and is not a class.

Mortal life is the actualization of our Moral choices. Mortal life is real, significant and determining of our Life Eternal. It may pale in contrast to Life Eternal but it shapes it in profound and significant ways.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

If I knew it was, yes. If I did, yes. But there’s a big difference between not knowing about suffering and doing something and knowing about suffering but doing it anyway. Evil people know that what they do causes suffering, but they do it anyway. And if they don’t see that as wrong, it’s salvation for them.

[/QUOTE]

Can you really know suffering and know you are causing it and not see it as wrong? Remember I have posited that you face Judgement in full knowledge of your actions and their consequences. Whatever veil there was over your mortal perception is lifted and you stand transparent in front of God.

And if it is salvation for them, then Glory be to God! Do you need to see the causers of suffering suffer to enjoy your salvation? I am afraid that is the greatest challenge we will face in Judgement. Facing the Salvation of our oppresors.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

You believe that Hitler knew in his heart that he was causing suffering, but chose to ignore it? That seems like pretty wishful thinking.

[/QUOTE]

I believe nothing about Hitler. Even if I had been there at every moment of his life, I would have no knowledge of what went in the depths of his heart. I believe in a fair and loving God who will give him a chance for Salvation no less than what He gives everyone else. I believe His ability to forgive greatly exceeds anyone’s ability to sin. I believe that he will have to face the fullness of his deeds and trust in God’s love to ask for Salvation. There are only two players in the story of Salvation of any person. That person and God.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Sure it would. When we play american football, do we play naked? Nope. We wear clothes, padding, helmets, all in order to keep us safe. Of course, none of these things can remove the pain entirely - however, God can. God could choose to make football entirely painless; he could make football padding 100% effective at stopping pain. And there’d still be freedom to play, wouldn’t there?

[/QUOTE]

Although you are taking hostage the analogy and trying to apply the powers of God to the father in the analogy, let me try to make this work for a minute. Could you really play football with no sensation of pain? Would it be as fun? There is a reason those guys don’t work out all day in a gym and then play the game in a PlayStation.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

What are we, then, after salvation? We do not sin after that. Are we then drugged, happy zombies? Are we not then forced into love? Or do we get to choose after salvation to reject God?
[/QUOTE]

After Salvation, you are Eternal. You may be thinking infinite but it is more like Timeless. It is not an infinite string of days playing the harp on a cloud. It is a fullfilled wholeness. A partaking in the totality of God’s timeless love.

You are not forced into it. You must choose to partake in it (go back to my Salvation analogy in #62). God cannot force you into Salvation and won’t coerce you by threat of punishment. You punish yourself by depriving yourself from it or willingly accept it. your choice.

Could you reject God after Salvation. As I have suggested it, that makes no sense. In the end the answer is I don’t know, of course. I just don’t see anyone willing to flee the loving acceptance of one’s shortcomings. Specially if the choice was made in fullness of knowledge, there is no logic to changing your choice in the absence of new knowledge.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Besides, we wouldn’t be. After all, as i’ve said already, God can make us understand suffering. If I have never suffered, but am aware of the suffering that can exist, I don’t think I would characterise my position as a drugged, happy zombie.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I don’t see that you could understand suffering without experiencing it. And I don’ see that you you could be Morally Free without the ability to inflict suffering.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
…which doesn’t requires suffering.
[/QUOTE]

yes it does. Without it, life is just make-believe. Role-playing. Doll-House Tea Time.

79

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Equating famine, war, murder, rape, slavery, disease and violent trauma to vaccination shots, toenail trimming and consuming fresh vegetables does exactly nothing to further the argument in your favor. In fact, it makes you sound quite insane.

I have no idea if you are. But try telling someone dying slowly of bone marrow cancer that by gosh they need to suck it up and stop whining as though Mom were making them eat spinach.

Expect the name of your particular God to be taken in vain.
[/QUOTE]

Context. I mean that in contrast to the fullness of Salvation.

Just as childhood events were the biggest things in your life when they happened and very little once you grow older, mortal life’s biggest events are huge in life but little in Life Eternal.

Now you try and explain that to a heart-broken 14-year old. That the day will come when this will be a fond memory of an innocent time. That he may laugh about it. That bigger things are in store for him. That this was just a crush that will seem like nothing when he feels true love. Yes, you are going to get some hairy eyeballs and some choice vocabulary. But time will prove you right.

80

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
.

The nature of Satan and/or the relationship between God and Satan does change from OT to NT, but nailing one’s son to a cross might just change one’s attitude.

But lets go with it, what stops the Genesis snake from being a servant of Satan?
[/QUOTE]

The fact that the Satan of OT was on God’s side and had no servants?