Is God good?

Are you kidding?God is not a doctor in this scenareo. He caused the illness. Do you not understand that?He broke the limb and then set it correct by amputation.

Yes, what a perfect scenario that God created.He makes Adam without the knowledge of good and evil, so Adam does not know if obedience to God is a good or bad thing.Then God gives a rule. The rule, if broken, will reveal that Adam has done a bad thing. Prior to breaking the rule, Adam does not understand that breaking rules is bad.God also makes the rule arbitrarily, since he did not have to place any such forbidden tree in the garden in the first place. He did so to create the possibility of Adam breaking the rule.Again, Adam, until he eats from the tree of knowledge, has no knowledge of good and evil and does not know if breaking the rule is good or not good.And, again, this foreign, "evil" thing is something that God created, and placed within reach of an ignorant man.God put the potential for a poisoned nature in the garden WITH man, and increased the likelihood that man would stumble by not giving him knowledge of morality to begin with. And as an added element of a twisted joke, allows Adam to know that he has done something wrong only after he has done it.There is no warning. No hint. A hint would include rational understanding and consequence expectation. It would include giving insight and foreknowledge about what would happen and would include the capacity to understand good and evil PRIOR TO having broke the one rule.It's a cruel joke and it is sick.

a swift kick in the balls is a temporary inconvenience.Don't trivialize real human suffering and tragedy.

I didn't. That is a purely ex-biblical Christian tradition, a part of the doctrine of "Original Sin." If you believe corruption entered into the world only after Adam ate the apple, your premise is just that. Again, having not eaten from the tree of knowledge, Adam did not know if the consequences were good or bad. He did not know that death was bad. He did not know if obedience was good or bad.Suffering became the revelation that made the realization of good and evil possible. Prior to eating, there was no suffering, no hunger, no weariness. Adam understood nothing of suffering, and therefore understood nothing about consequence.It is irrelevant if the instruction was clear, the consequence was a mystery. This is not a failing proposal, simply because of the object.What is it called?"THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL."Of which Adam has not eaten and is not allowed to eat. Clearly, he does not have sufficient information to know if disobedience is good or evil if he is forbidden from such knowledge. He does not know if death is good or evil.So it does not matter if God tells him he will die beforehand. Adam is still not given the insight and foreknowledge to appreciate what that means. Hence, he is underequipped to make the correct decision.He is set up, purposely, to fail in order for God to bring suffering and death into the world.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Libraries of protestant thinking or not, salvation by faith alone was not part of Jesus' ministry. Neither was a doctrine of grace.Those are afterthoughts that are in contrast to the life Jesus espoused and thought.Most of his parables are in regard to those who fail to do good work. As well, his own narrative is a testimony to works.It would be quite ironic for Jesus to go through the ongoing works he had to accomplish in order for salvation to be available, only for faith to be the only redeeming factor.If faith alone made the difference, Jesus would not have had to put on flesh and overcome death. He would have only had to have faith in the goodness of man.If you believe in a literal, physical Christ whose own works were necessary in order for redemption to be possible, then a belief that "faith alone" represents what he meant and did is quite a contradiction.And I must agree that, whether your single opinion or shared by a majority of Protestants, you don't get to decide who is and is not a Christian.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

How can you be sure that the Protestant version isn't feeding into any antichrist agenda?I haven't seen any argument that suggests that Protestants have the cutting edge on other Christians in not feeding an antichrist agenda.

My apologies, but that was never a teaching during Jesus' ministry.

Which distinguishes me from what the reformers did, how?

This is neither anything identified in the bible or in Freud or Jung's work.There is no one to one correspondance between Christianity and these two men's ideas.

Meyer's Briggs is practically useless, except for cheating lonely people out of money by tricking them into thinking it will help them find a date.btw, "personality types" are not archetypes and the Meyer's Briggs personality types are 16, not 8.Seriously, though. Meyer's Briggs is a pseudo-science ang is widely dismissed by actual psychologists.