He did. But people get comfortable in their traditions and animal sacrifice is not something he asked for in the first place. It is probably a carryover from pagan religions.That's a lot of drama to make that point. He could have just said so.
Your personal attack aside, if we assume God created everything with full foreknowledge, as is often attributed to him, then God created an imperfect scenario with the deck stacked against A&E knowing full well what would happen, oy to blame them when it does. So yes, it's all God's fault. After all, the buck stops with god.Okay but then you are in the stupid corner, you are saying there can't be any sin becuse sin is what God doesn't want and yet 'it was God's fault and He let it happen"
See, This is what we call competing premises. EIther God gets full blame and there is no sin (by definition) and then you have no point at which to criticize
OR
There is really such a thing as sin , what God does not want but allows.
And finally you made the famous mistake every showoff makes , and St Augustine catches you
You say this is impossible but how can you if God controls everything
“For the Almighty God, Who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil.” ST AUKGUSTINE
GOTCHA GOOD (or rather St A did)
An understanding of probable outcomes can give the appearance of foreknowledge in hindsight.…if we assume God created everything with full foreknowledge, as is often attributed to him, then God created an imperfect scenario with the deck stacked against A&E knowing full well what would happen, oy to blame them when it does. So yes, it's all God's fault. After all, the buck stops with god.
But if God is omniscient, then there is no probable. Only absolutes.An understanding of probable outcomes can give the appearance of foreknowledge in hindsight.
There are no absolutes. Though it can seem that way if your understanding of probability is such that you turn out to be correct most or all of the time in your predictions.But if God is omniscient, then there is no probable. Only absolutes.
So he felt he had to get himself crucified to get them to stop? Why was it so important? I mean did humanity have no other pressing problems or issues with which it was grappling?He did. But people get comfortable in their traditions and animal sacrifice is not something he asked for in the first place. It is probably a carryover from pagan religions.
The sacrifice was the flesh. Jesus gave up the flesh for the spiritual body.I am not even sure how it's any kind of sacrifice for your son to "die" but then get up again after a few days. That's more like a long nap.
That's a far cry from the anguish of a real human father who knows they will never see their child again when the child really dies.
The whole story just doesn't make any sense.
The message is less one about personal salvation and more about what each of us can and should do to encourage others to seek salvation. That is why the passion, crucifixion, death and resurrection are necessary. It is this process that passes the requirement to spread God's word, to LIVE God's word, from Christ to man. It is the process by which we perpetuate a MEANINGFUL eternity.But this story just doesn't make any sense at all. It's almost like saying that for God to not throw you into eternal helffire, you have to rub your belly and tap your head at the same time, while singing "supercalifragilisticexbealidocious", because God has no other way to spare you from hellfire.
But the reasons and suggested ways of going about this supposed salvation just seem very odd and idiosyncratic. Might as well say that you have to tap your head and rub your belly at the same time while singing "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", because some woman you never met once ate an apple they weren't supposed to.The message is less one about personal salvation and more about what each of us can and should do to encourage others to seek salvation. That is why the passion, crucifixion, death and resurrection are necessary. It is this process that passes the requirement to spread God's word, to LIVE God's word, from Christ to man. It is the process by which we perpetuate a MEANINGFUL eternity.
"This", as you put it, covers all the "oddities" you perceive. The Word of God is applicable to everything that was, everything that is and everything that will come. It's a message that teaches us that we can recover from any struggle, save the struggle of denying God and all that he has created.But the reasons and suggested ways of going about this supposed salvation just seem very odd and idiosyncratic. Might as well say that you have to tap your head and rub your belly at the same time while singing "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", because some woman you never met once ate an apple they weren't supposed to.
It mean just seems surreal. I mean we got lots of very real, serious, and pressing problems here are on Earth. It seems strange to think that none of that really matters and THIS is what is really important.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God is absolute in his ability and knowledge, as God is often described. Is it your contention God is not omnipotent or omniscient?There are no absolutes. Though it can seem that way if your understanding of probability is such that you turn out to be correct most or all of the time in your predictions.
Omnipotent? Perhaps. Omniscient? Not in any literal sense.If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God is absolute in his ability and knowledge, as God is often described. Is it your contention God is not omnipotent or omniscient?
Some theists would disagree on that point.Omnipotent? Perhaps. Omniscient? Not in any literal sense.
And some people don’t like Gorgonzola.Some theists would disagree on that point.
And some would agree with that.Some theists would disagree on that point.
So who would be correct? It seems like some would place limits on God's abilities.And some would agree with that.
One only needs to read the source material. The God of the Torah doesn’t claim to be omnipotent or omniscient or even the only deity. Quite the opposite is implied and Judaism was polytheistic until at least the Babylonian captivity.So who would be correct? It seems like some would place limits on God's abilities.
Does it matter?So who would be correct? It seems like some would place limits on God's abilities.
Others read and interpret scripture to support their position too.One only needs to read the source material. The God of the Torah doesn’t claim to be omnipotent or omniscient or even the only deity. Quite the opposite is implied.
Yes. Different sides claim they're right. Clearly that cannot be the case.Does it matter?
Good for them. “Others” also read and interpret scientific data differently.Others read and interpret scripture to support their position too.
See post #70. What makes you right and others wrong and vice versa?Good for them.
The plain text itself. There’s no interpretation required in what I’m pointing out. The God of the Torah never claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, or the only deity and the Israelites were polytheistic at least until after the Babylonian captivity.So
See post #70. What makes you right and others wrong and vice versa?
What's it matter to you? It certainly doesn't matter to me.Yes. Different sides claim they're right. Clearly that cannot be the case.
God’s moral standards/qualities in no way sets limitations on Him...So who would be correct? It seems like some would place limits on God's abilities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?