Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

wolfsbane

Medina makes a good point I should have mentioned:

Perhaps He wants to save them from something bad someone else might do to them later in their life?
Or perhaps he wants to save them from themselves...

Of the righteous, the Bible says:
Isaiah 57:1 The righteous perishes,
And no man takes it to heart;
Merciful men are taken away,
While no one considers
That the righteous is taken away from evil.
2 He shall enter into peace;
They shall rest in their beds,
Each one walking in his uprightness.

That could apply to infants also.

Scofflaw

Medina wrote:

A person who does not believe in God will of course fail to see why God has exclusive rights, because they don't believe in God in the first place, and their attitude is already predetermined before asking the question of why?

Well, we are capable of considering the question in a theoretical way. I don't automatically assume God has no such rights, but then I don't automatically assume he does, either.

Medina wrote:

Basically what I'm getting at is that if you accept that there is one Creator whom I call God, you may call something else, who created all except sin, then of course that Creator has the exclusive rights to do as He pleases. Everything is subserviant to Him, either willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly. Most men want to be masters of their own destiny, and to some extent they are, but God has the exclusive rights as the owner of us all to do with as He pleases.

So, essentially, this is about ownership rights? Having created us, he can do as he pleases?

So, the farmer, being in charge of his livestock, who exist at his behest, has the right to do as he pleases with them? The animal welfare movement are busybodies with no right to interfere?

Also, of course, you cannot claim that God did not create sin, when God created everything. It's unsupportable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Medina said:

It is not possible for God to be subserviant to Himself (since they all three together make one God according to the Trinity theory). They are not three individual Gods.

That is correct. But Jesus is also a man, and in that respect He is subservient to the Father.

Are Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit equal?
Do they require each other? Do they NEED each other for the whole to exist?
Did Jesus NEED the Holy Spirit?

Yes. Just like my family would not be a family if only one existed.

He cannot have Needed the Holy Spirit if he had 'retained his Godhood'. And yet we find verses such as
Luke 4
16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[e]
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

This verse makes it clear that Jesus was anointed BY the Father. God cannot anoint Himself. And Jesus would not REQUIRE the Holy Spirit. Note also 'He has sent me'...God 'sent' Jesus..two different entities - not both God.

Remember, Jesus was also a man, and had to fulfill all the requirements of His office as Messiah - the Prophet, Priest and King. So it was proper for the Father to outwardly demonstrate this anointing as Messiah.

Ok - Why was the Holy Ghost sent upon Jesus? Why would Jesus have needed the Holy Spirit if he had 'retained his Godhead'?

As above.

Why would one 'person' of the Trinity speak to another as an inequal? The Father is 'pleased' with the son..but yet they are the one God??

Jesus as man.

If the 'power of the Lord' had not been present with Jesus he would not have been able to heal the sick. The power of the Lord is not Jesus himself here!

Just describes Jesus' power. He never lacked that power.

Again why Jesus need to be led by the Holy Spirit?

Describes His communion with the Godhead. Again, Jesus and the Spirit are interacting, not strangers to one another. They are united in purpose, but with differing functions.

Again Jesus' power comes FROM the Holy Spirit not from within Himself!

Why would one person of the Godhead not operate in the power of another member of that Godhead, seeing they are united in purpose?

So entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven is gained by 'doing the will of my Father', that will being explained by Jesus. Not be doing the will of Jesus..because Jesus' will matters not!

Jesus' will IS that of His Father. Jesus commands us to keep His (Jesus') commandments - but that in no way denies that they are not also God's commandments.

Matthew 5
(Jesus speaking) 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Not 'I', not directly 'God' (so it does not include himself- if he knew he was part of a Trinity) but the Father. As in who God was to all of them at that time, one being in Heaven while Jesus was on earth.

Jesus was on earth, speaking of the Father in Heaven. Jesus is not the Father, even though He is God.

Matthew 9
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.


Notice how when Son of Man is mentioned it always comes from the mouth of Jesus? When Son of God is mentioned it always comes from the mouth of someone else! Jesus admits that here on earth he has the power to forgive sins.

Compare same verse from Luke below
Note that having 'authority' is not the same as having 'power' as authority is given and power can come from within. So either the gospel writers are contradicting each other or Jesus meant that he was given the power by being given authority..which means he does not have this ability innate in himself. This would make more sense to me as Jesus' ministry did not start until after he had received the Holy Spirit by being baptized by John.

The Greek word is the same in both cases: exousia http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1163861427-5243.html

20"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "The Christ[a] of God." 21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

This 'a' beside 'The Christ of God' references a sentence which says 'or Son of God'. Now here we have a BIG problem. Christ means 'anointed one' and this is what Jesus himself said in Luke 4 above in the first passage I entered.
Son of God is a very different story as 'anointed' does not equal 'Son'.
How do you choose what to believe? Also considering so many times in the Bible other people are referred to as Son of God or Jesus speaks to others and calls them 'Son', yet we know he had no sons..then can we even interpret this literally as being the 'Son of God'? And if he is the Son of God then how can he be God? He is 'of God' .something outside of God..not God itself!Again note son of man reference from Jesus' mouth

The question is one of which is the accurate copy. Either way, the meaning of Christ and Son is not altered in the whole context of Scripture. Son can be used in any parental relationship, even if not literal. I use it of young people around me who are not my actual children. But I also use it of my own son. The context is the thing. And what did the writers expect their readers to understand by it. Both Son of Man and Son of God have connotations in the Bible beyond mere descriptions of ordinary man. For some pointers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

Luke 12
8Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
10And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Now this verse is important because it shows the relationship between the self-proclaimed 'Son of Man', God and the 'Holy Ghost'

Whoever proclaims the gospel of Jesus before Men, Jesus the 'Son of Man' will 'confess' before the angels of God. Now what could this mean? I think the meaning is clear by the reading of the following sentences. Jesus is talking about the Judgement Day and who will be forgiven and who will not be forgiven. In this light, 'confess' would appear to be 'defend' or 'speak for'. So Jesus will interceed for this man before the angels of God. Why would he have to interceed for the man if he was God? Why wouldn't he just save them? Because the angels of God carry out God's will and will have been sent with a judgement on who to save. Jesus will account for these men to save them.

Indeed, Jesus is their mediator. But He is also their God. He brings those He came to save to the Father.

Also this verse shows that the 'Son of Man' and the 'Holy Ghost' are NOT equal. Because blaspheming against the Son of Man may be forgiven but against the Holy Ghose will NOT be forgiven..so do this is a graver sin. Why would it be if they are equal? They are not equal so that is why the difference in forgiveness.

It shows that blasphemy may be forgiven against Jesus, and against God as an entity, but not against that Person of the Godhead Who carries out the will of the Father and Son. That is God's perogative. Or are you saying blasphemy against God cannot be forgiven?

Luke 12
13And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
14And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Is this not Jesus denying that he is a judge of others? It is.

He was not a judge in his earthly life. He did not come to arbitrate amongst men. Nor did He come to destroy the wicked. He came to seek and to save the lost. But when He comes again, then it is as Judge and Destroyer of the wicked: The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46;&version=50;

Luke 10
21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Even if we said that the Trinity was true and Jesus could praise his counterpart, why would his joy be dependent upon the Holy Spirit? Makes no sense. The Holy Spirit here is supporting Jesus, leading Jesus, giving him power/authority...that is because Jesus is not God or Godlike or divine.

Mutual fellowship and Jesus' humanity.

Luke 2
52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Jesus cannot grown in favour with himself (if he is part of God). God's favour was upon him, this shows he is not part of God.

He developed as a man: both the physical, intellectual and character of a child come to maturity, are manifested to all. So with Christ. His divine nature did not need to grow, but His human manifestation of it did.

Mark 6
2And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.


Out of his own mouth..'a prophet' .

That did not make Him a prophet, for the illustration was to show only that familiarity bred contempt.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

'Him who sent me'...God who sent Jesus...not God sending God. They are different!

God the Father sending God the Son. Father and Son are indeed different, but are united in One Godhead.
John 8:17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
19 Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?”
Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.”

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

No. There is not clarity in Jesus being God. There is more clarity in Jesus being his Son and thus not his equal as I previously pointed out. Even when giving the model prayer, he did not say, God who arth in heaven. He said Father who art in heaven. We pray to God do we not? Or do you say we can pray to Jesus or the holy spirit separately too?

Prayer is normally to the Father, in Jesus' name. But Stephen's dying prayer is recorded:
Acts 7: 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

The Father is God alone, this is clear.

Quite the opposite.

The Son has the qualities of his Father, but he came from the father.

Yes, He left Heaven to dwell among men. Or if you are speaking of his essence, then He is the eternal Son.

All scripture in context proves this. But even using the reasonings of pro-trinititarians and taking certain scriptures alone, it still can be shown that the Father is God and the son was created by The Father. Take Colossians 1.15. Pertaining to Jesus it is written: 'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.' So it says he was the firstborn of all creation.

Firstborn can mean more than the first to be born. It is used to stand for the one who has the birthright, the property rights, etc. David is so called:
Psalm 89:27 Also I will make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.

Can you deny the wait of scriptural evidence against The Son being of equal authority as The Father?

I think you may be referring to Jesus' position as a servant, in His manhood. That gives an alternative, Trinitarian, explanation. But I have drawn your attention to the weight of Scripture proving that Jesus is God, and you are unable to give an explanation for those texts.

If I may once again repeat what I previously said.
If there is a father and a son, does anyone say that the son could exist without first the father?

Or that a father could exist without a son? But to be eternally Father or Son, both must be eternal.

In Greek there is no indefinate article i.e. 'a' or 'the'. At various points in the Greek scriptures, where there is no indefinate article, 'a' is added because context suggests this. for example John 4.19 is: 'Sir, I percieve you are a prophet'. In Greek this would be, 'I percieve you are prophet', as there is no indefinate article. However uderstanding the context, the 'a' is added. This is common knowledge among Greek scholars. Now if you are pro-trinity, you wont have a problem leaving out the indefinate article, but it renders this scripture useless as proof of a trinity, as gramatically it could well be 'a' god.

That is not so: http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

For a wider examination of the deity of Christ:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1163870607-2979.html#9

Most of Christendom believe in a triune godhead, so that is why they wont translate it with the indefinate article. You see my point? this scripture as proof of the trinity cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Stands up pretty strongly. And taken with the other proofs, the case is conclusive.

Quote:
As I pointed out above, the Deity and Humanity of Christ account for the Godhood/servanthood texts - how can you account for them?


I'm not sure what you mean here, could you ellaborate please. Thanks.

Sure. The texts that speak of Christ as a servant of God are well accounted for if His human nature is involved. The texts that speak of His equality with the Father are well accounted for if His divine nature is involved. Two natures in one Person. But if we limit ourselves to only one nature in the Person of Christ, the other texts are impossible to reconcile. Medina has the more coherent argument: the Bible is in error, corrupted by men. It cannot be true and present two opposing pictures of Christ. Only if Christ is both God and man can we reconcile these Scriptures.

Eternally dying? but never actually being dead. That still does not explain, the wages of sin is death, and apart from that, you are getting too philisophical about 'what is real life etc.' It does not have to be so complex.

The Bible defines what it means by eternal death:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:42-48%20;&version=50;
and
Revelation 14:9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

I am still at my spiritual infancy, and do not have a simple answer to this, I will work for one though. But answer me this, also in Revelation, Death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire also. How is this? Why does John call the lake of fire 'the second death' quite plainly? Is it that he swaps between symbolism and literalness?

He calls the lake of fire the second death because it is exactly that: the body had died in the first death and corrupted, now it is the spirit that dies, perishing, rotting away as it were. But it is an eternal state: where the worm does not die, nor is the fire quenched. Death and Hades refer to the bodies and spirits held there: they are taken from the grave and from the present place of punishment and delivered to their eternal state.

What worshipping a creature???? where did you get that from??

I, and the countless millions of Christians down the ages have worshipped Christ. If He is not God, then we have been committing idolatry.

And for the record, I completely honour the Son and The Father who sent him.

If He is God and you treat Him as a creature, then you are not honouring Him correctly.

And also for the record, it says The Father sent him, which would signify authority over him.

Or unity of purpose in the Godhead, the Father playing His role, the Son His, both loving us and giving the ultimate price for our salvation.

I can explain God and the Son with clarity using scripture. The trinity cannot. So its obvious whats mysterious.

No, you can't. You did not deal with anything other than John 1:1, and you were mistaken there. All you have done is raise philosophical objections, not explain the Scriptures.

Yes we can only know what God has revealed to us, but no, the texts are not as cut and dry as you say they are. You are programmed to believe that this is what is meant, so you don't bother to look beyond it. Only when you look at it without being in a state of doctrination and with prayer will you see beyond what you do. If it is of any consequence, its only since doing this myself have I been able to see further than I ever have before.

I don't know how you know I have been programmed. I don't know your background, so I believe you when you say you were programmed, but I assure you no-one has got at me. I have wrestled through the issues myself, bearing in mind various opinions but always letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. Sola Scriptura.

Finally, In relation to your judgement on those who never hear of Christ. You say that they are bound for hell, which whatever way you look upon it is a judgement against their hearts of which you know nothing.

What would I know about the fate of the heathen? I depend solely on God's word to inform me. It is very clear. The verse you quote is a good example:

If we take Romans 2.12. 'all those who sinned without law will also perish without law, but those who sinned under law will be judged by law. for the hearers of law will not be declared righteous, but the doers of law will. For whenever people of the nations that do not have law, do by nature the things of the law these people although not having law are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts while their concience is bearing witness with them and between their own thoughts are being accused or even excused. This will be in the day when God through Jesus Christ judges the secret things of mankind according to the good news i declare.'

All who sin perish; all who keep the law live. Paul goes on to explain just who these are:
Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written:


“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

and

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

and

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

No faith in Christ, no salvation.

judomick

Medina wrote:

They have no sins Judomick.
Why are you equating death with punishment? or sin? He's not 'killing babies' like a murderer. Maybe He's releasing their souls for kinds of reasons that are hard for us to know.
Perhaps He wants to save them from something bad someone else might do to them later in their life?
Or perhaps he wants to save them from themselves...isn't that a great gift..to award paradise to a sinless person, rather than this dreary life on earth where they may make bad choices?
Death of itself (not the way of dying) for a sinless person would be delightful I would imagine.

why doesnt he kill the people that would harm them ?

Would the likes of the catholic church hold serial killers and mass(no pun intended) murderers in high regard as their doing gods work and releasing their victims souls?

Medina

judomick wrote:

why doesnt he kill the people that would harm them ?

Would the likes of the catholic church hold serial killers and mass(no pun intended) murderers in high regard as their doing gods work and releasing their victims souls?

people themselves cannot decide for themselves that they are doing Gods work and as no one but God can know, then no church should hold serial killers and mass murderers in high regard.

Every human being is born equal, sinless.
The choices we make as we grow are what differentiates us from each other.
God knows in advance what we will choose, but He does not choose it for us, we do this with our own free will.

The Devil is allowed to tempt all of mankind. Each of us is prey to it, and each of us chooses between right and wrong. The serial killer was an innocent child at one point too. If they had been killed at that point, they would have been sinless and gone to heaven. They were allowed to live maybe because God knew that they would eventually turn away from him and while their murdered victim will go to heaven, they will go to hell for it, they may never be repentant.

Maybe the murdered victim would also have done bad but also good?

I think God is merciful to some people by releasing their souls while they are still young and innocent to give them paradise.
Others are not taken but allowed to do evil as instruments of God's mercy, though it doesn't look like it from down here.

Also other people pose tests to us.
The murderer is a test to the parents of the child, can they themselves forgive?
Do they wish to be forgiven from God? It is said we must forgive if we wish forgiveness from God.

Its such a huge merry-go-round we can never know exactly what parts we all have to play in the scheme of life. I'm only guessing here and that is coming from a belief that God is all-knowing and good and that sometimes it looks like a 'cruel to be kind' situation.

Medina

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, we are capable of considering the question in a theoretical way. I don't automatically assume God has no such rights, but then I don't automatically assume he does, either.



So, essentially, this is about ownership rights? Having created us, he can do as he pleases?

So, the farmer, being in charge of his livestock, who exist at his behest, has the right to do as he pleases with them? The animal welfare movement are busybodies with no right to interfere?

Also, of course, you cannot claim that God did not create sin, when God created everything. It's unsupportable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You've just moved the Parent / child analogy to a farmer/cow analogy!?!

Well the farmer didn't create the cow did he? It doesn't exist at his behest because the cow could die from anything! If you mean the farmer allows it to live (doesn't slaughter it) thats no different to me slaughtering someone else, that person doesn't exist at my behest though do they?

Be we do exist at God's behest.

And yes of course I can't support the claim, it is just a claim. But think of it like this.

God created the Devil with obviously a free will.
The Devil chose to rebel.
God cast the Devil out of heaven and allowed the devil the opportunity to tempt people away from God's rules/instructions.

That in itself is not creating sin.

The person then chooses to break the rule.
The person committed a sin.

judomick

Medina wrote:

I'm only guessing here and that is coming from a belief that God is all-knowing and good .

The thing that doesnt add up is that if god knows what people will do i.e he will eventually turn away from me, why doesnt he kill the person at birth , why does he wait until they murder someone? the only logical answer is that god wanted the victim to be murdered, thus making god an accessory, and if this is the case the catholic church should hold the murderer in high regard as he/she is carrying out gods wishes?

i think death when looked at by science is a very logical thing, when you apply religion logic falls apart, it doesnt add up

Son Goku

Medina wrote:

Well the farmer didn't create the cow did he? It doesn't exist at his behest because the cow could die from anything! If you mean the farmer allows it to live (doesn't slaughter it) thats no different to me slaughtering someone else, that person doesn't exist at my behest though do they?

Be we do exist at God's behest.

Why does that give him the right to decide what is right and wrong?
Like Scofflaw, to me it seems like nothing but the creator version of ownership rights.

Medina

Son Goku wrote:

Why does that give him the right to decide what is right and wrong?
Like Scofflaw, to me it seems like nothing but the creator version of ownership rights.

It is!
Why do you feel like your Creator has no rights over you?!

Medina

judomick wrote:

The thing that doesnt add up is that if god knows what people will do i.e he will eventually turn away from me, why doesnt he kill the person at birth , why does he wait until they murder someone? the only logical answer is that god wanted the victim to be murdered, thus making god an accessory, and if this is the case the catholic church should hold the murderer in high regard as he/she is carrying out gods wishes?

i think death when looked at by science is a very logical thing, when you apply religion logic falls apart, it doesnt add up

I'm sorry Judomick, I don't have the answers, I am only guessing!
God allows the murder to happen, he allows the murderer to live, but maybe for a good reason we don't know!
And as no one can be sure and the act is evil, God utilises other's evil for good. There is no way the church can say the murderer is doing God's work.
They can't know why it happens anymore than I can or you can.

Schuhart

Medina wrote:

a child will eventually grow up to be an adult, maybe a parent, they will become equal to the parent.

We can never be equal to God.

You seem to be saying here that its not the action of creation that makes God our exclusive owner (otherwise parents would own their children) but the fact that God will always be greater than us. Hence, the farmer analogy still seems valid. You are essentially saying that things should worship things that are greater than them, not things that created them. Its like that line in King Lear our relationship to God being like that of 'flies to wanton boys, they swat us for their sport'.

Medina wrote:

Basically what I'm getting at is that if you accept that there is one Creator whom I call God, you may call something else, who created all except sin, then of course that Creator has the exclusive rights to do as He pleases.

I'm sharing that lack of understanding of where sin comes from if God did not create it, as it seems impossible to avoid the inevitable conclusion that there must be a potential alternative source of new creation.

Blow Me

the whole bible is bullshjt... if you disagree :rolleyes: you're a retard

Medina

Blow Me wrote:

the whole bible is bullshjt... if you disagree :rolleyes: you're a retard

You're so full of anger, like you feel let down.
If you didn't care about the bible/religion you wouldn't have visited the Christianity forum and posted so aggressively on three threads.

Maybe you want to it to be bull**** because you can't believe there is a God?

Scofflaw

Medina wrote:

You've just moved the Parent / child analogy to a farmer/cow analogy!?!

You seemed to feel the parent/child analogy had been done to death. Also, your phraseology sort of suggests it.

Medina wrote:

Well the farmer didn't create the cow did he? It doesn't exist at his behest because the cow could die from anything! If you mean the farmer allows it to live (doesn't slaughter it) thats no different to me slaughtering someone else, that person doesn't exist at my behest though do they?

Actually, a farmer does dictate whether a calf is born or not, according to his/her own judgement - cows don't get pregnant by themselves, and stud bulls are not free. He also then determines whether it will be killed or not. He doesn't control whether it gets ill or not - you could think of that as analogous to sin, if you like.

Medina wrote:

And yes of course I can't support the claim, it is just a claim. But think of it like this.

God created the Devil with obviously a free will.
The Devil chose to rebel.
God cast the Devil out of heaven and allowed the devil the opportunity to tempt people away from God's rules/instructions.

That in itself is not creating sin.

The person then chooses to break the rule.
The person committed a sin.

You are suggesting, then, that sin is merely a case of not following God's rules, rather than a thing in itself? Interesting - of course you could claim that if sin is not something in itself, but merely a failure to follow God's rules, then it does not have to be created, as such. In your scenario, the Devil simply tempts people to not follow God's rules - he does not, somehow, manufacture or create sin.

It's a relatively sophisticated view of sin, and one that makes it hard to comprehend the concept of us being inherently 'sinful'. It's quite clear that many find it easy to follow God's rules - particularly in hating homosexuals, or abortion, or whatever.

However, it seems to me that Christians think of this 'sin as breaking the rules' in the same way one thinks of a parent warning a child back from the edge of a river - a kindly warning intended to save you from an uncomprehended danger.

Unfortunately, God created you, the river, drowning - it's rather more like Bluebeard saying "that key you must never use". God has created a world that contains, say, homosexuality, then decreed homosexuality a sin. Then he watches to see if any of his creations will fall into that particular pit.

One reason for rejecting the parent-child analogy with God and Man is simple - God shows up pretty badly by comparison. There are things that are off-limits to my daughter (such as my computer, and the bleach), and these things I have done my best to remove from her reach. Were it possible to do so, I would simply make it impossible for her to get to things that were either dangerous to her, or that she might break. If she does get her hands on something bad for her (like bleach), that is not because she is a bad child - but because I am a bad parent. Certainly I do not arbitrarily forbid things that are neither harmful nor fragile, and then punish my daughter for breaking these arbitrary rules.

I have seen a lot of argument that God only really forbids things that are bad for you, but it's frankly unconvincing stuff. That leaves us with someone who imposes arbitrary rules making it sinful to explore some of the possibilities he himself created.

Which takes us again back to the question - if God didn't want people to be homosexual (so badly that he's prepared to punish them eternally for doing it), why not simply make it impossible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Medina wrote:

It is!
Why do you feel like your Creator has no rights over you?!

I'm not saying he doesn't, but it's just that, to me, it technically reduces me to some very powerful entity's toy.
He created me and I have to do what he says, because he created everything.
That sucks several varieties of ass, to be honest.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

I'm not saying he doesn't, but it's just that, to me, it technically reduces me to some very powerful entity's toy.
He created me and I have to do what he says, because he created everything.
That sucks several varieties of ass, to be honest.

Ah, no. You don't have to do what he says, because you've got free will! Admittedly, if you use your God-given free-will to do something other than what he says, then he will punish you for eternity, unless you can persuade him that you're profoundly and abjectly sorry - OK, even then, he doesn't have to forgive you, because you're naturally bad, and he's only doing this stuff for your own good, and it hurts Him more than it does you. Still, though, you don't have to do what he says.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Medina

Scofflaw wrote:

You seemed to feel the parent/child analogy had been done to death. Also, your phraseology sort of suggests it.

It is, and just replacing it is no better

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, a farmer does dictate whether a calf is born or not, according to his/her own judgement - cows don't get pregnant by themselves, and stud bulls are not free. He also then determines whether it will be killed or not. He doesn't control whether it gets ill or not - you could think of that as analogous to sin, if you like.

The farmer does not dicatate at all. The cow or bull could be sterile, anything could happen to the calf etc. The farmer is not the maker of all those factors.

In the human situation, God is the Maker of the factors etc.

Scofflaw wrote:

It's quite clear that many find it easy to follow God's rules - particularly in hating homosexuals, or abortion, or whatever.

Why do I sense that you are trying to draw me into something that will cause us to go off topic?

Well anyway, as a parent you know that sometimes you have to say unpopular things. Homosexuality and abortion are prohibited but I see no verses encouraging people to hate homosexuals.

scofflaw wrote:

However, it seems to me that Christians think of this 'sin as breaking the rules' in the same way one thinks of a parent warning a child back from the edge of a river - a kindly warning intended to save you from an uncomprehended danger.

Sorry you've lost me here

scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, God created you, the river, drowning - it's rather more like Bluebeard saying "that key you must never use". God has created a world that contains, say, homosexuality, then decreed homosexuality a sin. Then he watches to see if any of his creations will fall into that particular pit.

As I've said, He didn't create sin.
He doesn't sit around watching because He knows already what you will choose
Its like ur saying He sets us a trap and watches to see if we fall into it?
I'm afraid you are confused, the Devil sets the trap.

Scofflaw wrote:

One reason for rejecting the parent-child analogy with God and Man is simple - God shows up pretty badly by comparison. There are things that are off-limits to my daughter (such as my computer, and the bleach), and these things I have done my best to remove from her reach. Were it possible to do so, I would simply make it impossible for her to get to things that were either dangerous to her, or that she might break. If she does get her hands on something bad for her (like bleach), that is not because she is a bad child - but because I am a bad parent. Certainly I do not arbitrarily forbid things that are neither harmful nor fragile, and then punish my daughter for breaking these arbitrary rules.

She wouldn't be bad because she's too young to know the meaning of consequences. But if later in life she threw bleach into someone's eyes would she be bad? I don't really want to talk on such a personal level to be honest.

scofflaw wrote:

I have seen a lot of argument that God only really forbids things that are bad for you, but it's frankly unconvincing stuff. That leaves us with someone who imposes arbitrary rules making it sinful to explore some of the possibilities he himself created.

Exactly. The whole world has rules which we have to follow or there are bad consequences, it seems you only have a problem with Gods rules. The possibility of sinning was allowed to exist, maybe for us to show our true goodness in overcoming it. Not as a trap to fall into.

scofflaw wrote:

Which takes us again back to the question - if God didn't want people to be homosexual (so badly that he's prepared to punish them eternally for doing it), why not simply make it impossible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its forbidden, no different to arrogance, greed or other things. Maybe it was forbidden because of good reasons God knows, like the current AIDs epidemic among homosexual men. He doesn't want us to hurt ourselves or others.

I've not come here to fight against homosexuality, God is their judge not me, and I don't think a homosexual is automatically condemned, they are more than just a sexuality, they are no different to anyone else who can do good/bad. I don't believe in all the bible anyway so I'm not even sure about this, I'm just playing the opposing side as always.

Medina

Schuhart wrote:

You seem to be saying here that its not the action of creation that makes God our exclusive owner (otherwise parents would own their children) but the fact that God will always be greater than us. Hence, the farmer analogy still seems valid. You are essentially saying that things should worship things that are greater than them, not things that created them. Its like that line in King Lear our relationship to God being like that of 'flies to wanton boys, they swat us for their sport'.I'm sharing that lack of understanding of where sin comes from if God did not create it, as it seems impossible to avoid the inevitable conclusion that there must be a potential alternative source of new creation.

No I'm saying it is because He is our Creator that makes Him our exclusive owner.
Sin comes from allowing yourself to do something which you know is wrong/prohibited, even if you want to, feel the need to, think the rule is wrong or whatever.
Temptation is presented by the Devil and sin is the act of succumbing to that temptation.

Medina

Scofflaw wrote:

Ah, no. You don't have to do what he says, because you've got free will! Admittedly, if you use your God-given free-will to do something other than what he says, then he will punish you for eternity, unless you can persuade him that you're profoundly and abjectly sorry - OK, even then, he doesn't have to forgive you, because you're naturally bad, and he's only doing this stuff for your own good, and it hurts Him more than it does you. Still, though, you don't have to do what he says.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nothing anyone of us can do can hurt God.
I'm sorry Son Goku if you feel it sucks that we are asked to obey the rules or pay the price but such is life in all scenarios!

And you don't need to persuade Him of anything, He already knows if you are in your heart or not.

Asiaprod

Blow Me wrote:

the whole bible is bullshjt... if you disagree :rolleyes: you're a retard

First warning, and last warning Blow me. Your post offends those on this Christianity forum that do believe in the Bible. Tone it down please.

Scofflaw

Medina wrote:

It is, and just replacing it is no better

The farmer does not dicatate at all. The cow or bull could be sterile, anything could happen to the calf etc. The farmer is not the maker of all those factors.

In the human situation, God is the Maker of the factors etc.

Mmm. So, the more completely you make, or are responsible for something, the more power you get to have over it?

Imagine that I build a robot that has free will - not just complicated programming, but something that is an independent moral being. You tell me - am I allowed to melt said robot down into a screaming pile of slag because it likes a painting I don't want it to like? Do you perceive a moral issue there at all?

Medina wrote:

Why do I sense that you are trying to draw me into something that will cause us to go off topic?

Well anyway, as a parent you know that sometimes you have to say unpopular things. Homosexuality and abortion are prohibited but I see no verses encouraging people to hate homosexuals.

Sorry - no, I'm not particularly trying to draw the thread into an argument on any specific sin. I'm saying that some people find it easy to follow some of God's rules, which seems surprising if we are all inherently sinful - all of us should naturally be drawn to accepting homosexuality, or whatever else is sinful. Instead, it seems that many find God's rules positively congenial.

I picked homosexuality because it's an OT sin, apparently not covered by the New Covenant, and a largish segment of every community seems entirely happy that it's a sin. An equally large body of Christians seems entirely willing to claim that AIDS is either (a) God's punishment for homosexuality, and/or (b) the reason he made it a sin - both without any justification whatsoever. Indeed, you have suggested the latter yourself.

Medina wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

However, it seems to me that Christians think of this 'sin as breaking the rules' in the same way one thinks of a parent warning a child back from the edge of a river - a kindly warning intended to save you from an uncomprehended danger.

Sorry you've lost me here

Have I? That's interesting, considering you say this:

Medina wrote:

The whole world has rules which we have to follow or there are bad consequences, it seems you only have a problem with Gods rules.

Fire is hot - it burns. Knives are sharp - they cut. These are examples of the "rules" of the "world". I personally call these "punitive causality", because they are mechanical outcomes of actions or characteristics.

God says do this - or he'll burn you. This is a choice, by God.

So, let me lay it out again - there are two different types of rule, which you are confusing:

1. Knives will cut a child, and fire will burn her - and these rules she needs to learn, because they are universally applicable outcomes of the characteristics of fire and knives.

2. She must wear a green dress on Wednesdays, or I will lock her in the cellar. This is an arbitrary imposition, and marks me as unfit to be a parent.

Medina wrote:

As I've said, He didn't create sin.
He doesn't sit around watching because He knows already what you will choose
Its like ur saying He sets us a trap and watches to see if we fall into it?
I'm afraid you are confused, the Devil sets the trap.

Oh, please. The Devil can only do what God allows him to do - otherwise he is equal to God. That God not only sets traps, but knew at the moment of Creation which one of us would fall into it is a whole other argument.

Medina wrote:

She wouldn't be bad because she's too young to know the meaning of consequences. But if later in life she threw bleach into someone's eyes would she be bad? I don't really want to talk on such a personal level to be honest.

Makes me uncomfortable, as well - I have opted for the more neutral "a child" instead.

Clearly, throwing bleach in someone's face as an adult, and drinking bleach as a child are entirely different. There's no particular point in following the comparison, and it's difficult in any case to see how the latter relates to sin anyway.

Also, you did claim that a major reason for not using the parent/child analogy is because, unlike children, we will never "grow up" to be God's equal.

Medina wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I have seen a lot of argument that God only really forbids things that are bad for you, but it's frankly unconvincing stuff. That leaves us with someone who imposes arbitrary rules making it sinful to explore some of the possibilities he himself created.

Exactly. The whole world has rules which we have to follow or there are bad consequences, it seems you only have a problem with Gods rules. The possibility of sinning was allowed to exist, maybe for us to show our true goodness in overcoming it. Not as a trap to fall into.

See above. you are confusing two types of rules - mechanical outcomes of characteristics like heat, and arbitrarily imposed rules.

You are also implying, again, that God's rules are actually good for you, and that breaking them would have bad consequences quite aside from God choosing to punish you.

Medina wrote:

Its forbidden, no different to arrogance, greed or other things. Maybe it was forbidden because of good reasons God knows, like the current AIDs epidemic among homosexual men. He doesn't want us to hurt ourselves or others.

There you are again. Homosexuality was outlawed in the OT, what 3-4000 years ago, because of AIDS? What rubbish. Again, the suggestion is the one you claimed not to follow - possibly you can't see yourself making it?

Quite aside from anything else, AIDS is (a) not spread by most forms of homosexual behaviour, but only by one specific act, and (b) it's also spread by heterosexual behaviour, and (c) the sexual transmission can be prevented with near-certainty by use of a condom. The Biblical prohibition on homosexuality is not limited to the behaviour that spreads AIDS.

Medina wrote:

I've not come here to fight against homosexuality, God is their judge not me, and I don't think a homosexual is automatically condemned, they are more than just a sexuality, they are no different to anyone else who can do good/bad. I don't believe in all the bible anyway so I'm not even sure about this, I'm just playing the opposing side as always.

And, in turn, it seems like I'm ferociously attacking you here, but I'm not (honest!). It just seems to me that you can't see that you constantly imply that God's rules are the best rules independently of them being God's rules, and that breaking them would have bad consequences anyway. It's a blind spot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Medina

Scofflaw wrote:

Mmm. So, the more completely you make, or are responsible for something, the more power you get to have over it?

Imagine that I build a robot that has free will - not just complicated programming, but something that is an independent moral being. You tell me - am I allowed to melt said robot down into a screaming pile of slag because it likes a painting I don't want it to like? Do you perceive a moral issue there at all?

Again you’re using an analogy that puts you on a level with God as Creator/Destroyer.
There is no analogy fit for this conversation because its just not possible to be equal to God.
You can create what you like, at the end of the day you’re a human being, a created object yourself. So I’m not going to address any more of these analogies because it’s a waste of time and does not further the conversation or lead us to any progress.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm saying that some people find it easy to follow some of God's rules, which seems surprising if we are all inherently sinful - all of us should naturally be drawn to accepting homosexuality, or whatever else is sinful. Instead, it seems that many find God's rules positively congenial.

And you think that God made us have our attitudes that way?
Perhaps, perhaps not, sometimes I have an attitude of hating my boss. That doesn’t mean its right, just because I feel that way. Is it ok to hate my boss because God ‘must have made me that way’. I don’t think so. We know the rules, our attitude is either that we want to follow the rules (even if that means denying our desires- such as my desire tell my boss to get lost) or we make our own way, and if we follow rules then its by chance, and because it suits us at that particular time.

Scofflaw wrote:

I picked homosexuality because it's an OT sin, apparently not covered by the New Covenant, and a largish segment of every community seems entirely happy that it's a sin. An equally large body of Christians seems entirely willing to claim that AIDS is either (a) God's punishment for homosexuality, and/or (b) the reason he made it a sin - both without any justification whatsoever. Indeed, you have suggested the latter yourself.

Indeed I have suggested it, not claimed I knew the answer though. You seem to be looking for answers, I’ve already told you I don’t have them, that I am only guessing and suggesting here. A large part of the community is unhappy that it’s a sin also because they think of themselves as alright Christians but they’re homosexual. I can’t change the rules, its there and whether it will be a factor in a person’s judgement I don’t know. I’m a sinner too and so are you just in different ways perhaps.

Scofflaw wrote:

However, it seems to me that Christians think of this 'sin as breaking the rules' in the same way one thinks of a parent warning a child back from the edge of a river - a kindly warning intended to save you from an uncomprehended danger

medina wrote:

Sorry you've lost me here

Have I? That's interesting, considering you say this:

medina wrote:

The whole world has rules which we have to follow or there are bad consequences, it seems you only have a problem with Gods rules.

I don’t know what you’re implying Scofflaw. Its easier to lay off the sarcasm and have an open conversation than fill it with ‘point-scorers’ to the extent that I can’t make out what you’re saying. You seem to be saying that Christians think that rules are friendly warnings. They’re not friendly at all to my mind. The rules are black and white. The judgement will not be, because of God’s Mercy and His willingness to Forgive.

Scofflaw wrote:

Fire is hot - it burns. Knives are sharp - they cut. These are examples of the "rules" of the "world". I personally call these "punitive causality", because they are mechanical outcomes of actions or characteristics.

Those aren’t the kind of rules I was talking about.
I was talking about rules like:
Look after your kids or the social services will take them.
Don’t tell my boss to get lost or I’ll get fired.
Don’t drive at 200 mph or you will lose your licence.
Etc.
These are rules which some find hard to follow

scofflaw wrote:

So, let me lay it out again - there are two different types of rule, which you are confusing:

1. Knives will cut a child, and fire will burn her - and these rules she needs to learn, because they are universally applicable outcomes of the characteristics of fire and knives.

2. She must wear a green dress on Wednesdays, or I will lock her in the cellar. This is an arbitrary imposition, and marks me as unfit to be a parent.

Picking the most ridiculous examples to back up your argument is not doing you any favours or adding any weight to your argument. I am not confused at all. Life is full of ‘You can do it, but there will be consequences’ situations.
I don’t remember it being a sin to wear a green dress….

scofflaw wrote:

Oh, please. The Devil can only do what God allows him to do - otherwise he is equal to God. That God not only sets traps, but knew at the moment of Creation which one of us would fall into it is a whole other argument.

God does not instruct the Devil in the types of trap to be set.
God allows the Devil to tempt us, the Devil chooses what mischief to make.
Yes He does know what traps we will fall into, but we choose to fall into them ourselves, we can’t blame Him for that.
I can’t blame God if I tell my boss he’s an ass, because I felt hatred towards him, and then lose my job and then say ‘but You must have made me feel this way God, so why did I lose my job?’
The two are not dependent. You can’t expect that there are no sins because God created everything so therefore anything goes, and its ok to do what you like.
God created Rules to be followed for the greater good.

scofflaw wrote:

You are also implying, again, that God's rules are actually good for you, and that breaking them would have bad consequences quite aside from God choosing to punish you.

That’s exactly what I’m saying in no uncertain terms.

Scofflaw wrote:

There you are again. Homosexuality was outlawed in the OT, what 3-4000 years ago, because of AIDS? What rubbish. Again, the suggestion is the one you claimed not to follow - possibly you can't see yourself making it? …..
The Biblical prohibition on homosexuality is not limited to the behaviour that spreads AIDS.

Well if sex was outlawed then we’d be in trouble! God is outside of time. Nothing is impossible to Him. It’s rubbish to you cos you don’t want to believe it. I only suggested a possible reason why it was outlawed, not the ACTUAL reason it was outlawed. What suggestion am I making that I claim not to follow? And p.s. I have a habit of changing directions, as per my sig but usually not within the one argument!

scofflaw wrote:

And, in turn, it seems like I'm ferociously attacking you here, but I'm not (honest!). It just seems to me that you can't see that you constantly imply that God's rules are the best rules independently of them being God's rules, and that breaking them would have bad consequences anyway. It's a blind spot.

The ferociousness of your emotion comes through in your post. I can see what I imply because I construe it that way. You are right and it is a blind spot, for both of us.

JimiTime

If I may interject here. Firstly, Medina. If you are taliking about god being allah, the following has no relevence. If you are talking about God being YHWH then a few points to note.
Firstly, God can be hurt. God is Love, he wants his children to draw close to him. If we don't, he hurts for the loss. Portraying him as a being that just dishes out justice with a firm hand is very innaccurate. Jesus came and 'made Gods name manifest'. So if we look at Jesus, and how he loved, the example he gave. He said love your enemy, he said about his executioners, 'forgive them father for they know not what they do'. This is what God is like. He wants love and mercy, because he is love and mercy. People like Scofflaw will not see it that way. They'll say, 'what about destroying sodom and gommorrah' or 'what about the flood'. The problem lies in the fact that they have a limited view of love and mercy, in fact we all do. God is the only one who can truly be the authority on who is deserving of mercy and who isn't, for he can see into our hearts. Those who don't like to be bound by his authority on morality, love and justice, are taking the same stand that Satan did. Satan wanted to be his own authority, and God said, fine, get out then! A question to end on. Is justice about, punishment or protection?

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

If I may interject here. Firstly, Medina. If you are taliking about god being allah, the following has no relevence. If you are talking about God being YHWH then a few points to note.
Firstly, God can be hurt. God is Love, he wants his children to draw close to him. If we don't, he hurts for the loss. Portraying him as a being that just dishes out justice with a firm hand is very innaccurate. Jesus came and 'made Gods name manifest'. So if we look at Jesus, and how he loved, the example he gave. He said love your enemy, he said about his executioners, 'forgive them father for they know not what they do'. This is what God is like. He wants love and mercy, because he is love and mercy. People like Scofflaw will not see it that way. They'll say, 'what about destroying sodom and gommorrah' or 'what about the flood'. The problem lies in the fact that they have a limited view of love and mercy, in fact we all do. God is the only one who can truly be the authority on who is deserving of mercy and who isn't, for he can see into our hearts. Those who don't like to be bound by his authority on morality, love and justice, are taking the same stand that Satan did. Satan wanted to be his own authority, and God said, fine, get out then! A question to end on. Is justice about, punishment or protection?

I agree with you about love and mercy , and I don't think He's just dishing out Justice. But I don't think we can hurt Him. Period.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Firstly, God can be hurt. God is Love, he wants his children to draw close to him. If we don't, he hurts for the loss.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense with the concept of a omnipresent "god"

God would be aware if you were ever going to draw close to him or not, as He would view time as one static entry. He would be aware of what you are or will do from the moment of Creation, at the dawn of time.

The idea then that our actions can hurt God in some way is a bit of a paradox, since God knows all our actions already, and in fact knew what they would be before He created us.He doesn't really gain or loss anything by our actions because He already knows what those actions will be, and has always done.

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

I agree with you about love and mercy , and I don't think He's just dishing out Justice. But I don't think we can hurt Him. Period.

Why? If he loves someone and that someone rejects him, does he not hurt for the loss? If you love someone and they tell you to get lost, do you not hurt? What makes you think God would be different? he may behave in a different manner to what we would when we are 'hurt' but it could be described as hurt none-the-less. Below is the definition of hurt as we are using it.
Hurt: to cause mental pain to; offend or grieve.

When solomon, in all his glory, turned from God after having such favour from him. What do you think God felt?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense with the concept of a omnipresent "god"

God would be aware if you were ever going to draw close to him or not, as He would view time as one static entry. He would be aware of what you are or will do from the moment of Creation, at the dawn of time.

The idea then that our actions can hurt God in some way is a bit of a paradox, since God knows all our actions already, and in fact knew what they would be before He created us.He doesn't really gain or loss anything by our actions because He already knows what those actions will be, and has always done.

We are not pre-destined. God does not have our lives plotted out, so I hope that clarifies things.

Medina

We are not equivalent to God and He is not equivalent to us.

Yes I hurt, no God doesn't hurt.

Man is made in God's image, you cannot track back to God by examining yourself.

I think Wicknight knows that our lives our not predestined. But God knows already what we will do and what choices we will make so therefore he is not 'shocked' or 'hurt' because he knew these things before we ever existed.

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

We are not equivalent to God and He is not equivalent to us.

Yes I hurt, no God doesn't hurt.

Man is made in God's image, you cannot track back to God by examining yourself..

Does God feel love? Did God love Solomon? did God love Adam? If he did love these people what was the feeling he had when these people betrayed him?

I think Wicknight knows that our lives our not predestined. But God knows already what we will do and what choices we will make so therefore he is not 'shocked' or 'hurt' because he knew these things before we ever existed.

Where do you get this from? I certainly do not know this god you speak of! The Living God gave us free will, to make our choices. Please explain where you get this notion from?