God the father

quote:

---

I would hope that somehow I'm wrong, but that's not what either Jesus or the apostles taught. They all spoke in terms of eternal suffering. A couple of examples coming to mind are the rich man in hell and when Jesus advised that if one's eye offend him, pluck it out rather to have it cast into the lake of fire. The same with the hand. Elsewhere it is described as a place where the "worm dies not" and there's "gnawing and gnashing of the teeth." etc.

---

By Rich Man, I'm assuming you mean the parable that starts at Luke 16:20. The point of the Beggar Man/Rich Man story is that our final judgment is not based on our wealth or position in society. We can be condemned for misusing our resources. The Greek Hades is just the backdrop to the story. Both the Beggar and the Rich Man were in Hades. All the dead go to Hades. The reference here is Gehenna, not Hades. The valley became the cities incinerator and a vivid symbol of destruction and an abomination. Apparently they even added sulphur or brimstone to keep the fires burning continuously. The fire burned continuously, the criminals weren't tortured continuously.If one was thrown into Gehenna, one was a criminal. The point was to get rid of that which causes one to stumble and prevent one from becoming a criminal. This was not a visual of eternal torment. It was a visual of a dishonorable death.You need to provide the specific scriptures. I think you're paraphrasing and it is difficult to address an issue when you're mixing pieces.

quote:

---

The alternative to eternal hell fire is bliss beyond imagination.

---

Where does Jesus teach this?

quote:

---

I imagine that you think that your conception is a natural consequence of the idea that God gave us free will to accept or reject him. The consequence of death and the end of existence is nothing more than the result of exercising one's free will and rejecting God.

---

I don't really understand your point. We all die.

quote:

---

Consider a child who has overdosed on some drug. That child's death is the consequence of his free choice to decide to use drugs. If your child were to overdose, wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep your child from dying? I think any loving parent would. How is this different from a loving God letting some die and some live forever, just because his vanity was pricked?

---

A hypothetical situation doesn't really work well if the scenario isn't the same.It isn't about God stopping anyone from dying, everyone dies; it is about who will be restored to life.A parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life. Ultimately the child has to want to.

Not when the parent is supposed to be omnipotent.

Jar,I have to admit I don't get it...

quote:

---

The Bible also tells us the humans are capable of determining what is just and that when god is being unjust, humans need to dope slap the boy and set her straight.

---

It seems to me that none of this demonstrates that god is ever unjust or that man can judge him. I read it as a conversation that paraphrases something like this...Genesis 18...GOD: If the Sodomites are still naughty, they'll be FUBARABRAHAM: But isn't roasting the nice with the naughty bad ju ju? That's not like you. What if there's fifty nice people in there, huh?GOD: If there's fifty, I won't cook 'em.ABRAHAM: What about forty five? Or forty?GOD: If there's forty five or forty, I won't cook 'em.ABRAHAM: Please don't get cranky with me but how about thirty, twenty or ten?GOD: If there's forty thirty, twenty or ten, I won't cook 'em.In all seriousness, what I don't get is how this translates into "when god is being unjust, humans need to dope slap the boy and set her straight."All I see is a demonstration that man has morality, not that he can question god and get away with it. God is simply explaining his intentions, not being corrected.Am I missing context? I've read the bible twice but I'm not going to pretend to have a solid grounding in the text or theology.I just don't see how your quote refers to your point.

quote:

---

The difference we're probably going to have is that you blame God for it and I don't, I blame Satan for it. What God wants, and what he allows, are completely different.

---

This is the problem you are going to get into when you're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent creator of everything. God is responsible for everything as he knew all things even as he was creating them.You can't shift the blame to satan. God created satan knowing exactly what would happen. If god chooses to allow something then god is to blame.BTW, I don't blame god for anything.

Hmmm. God told Adam in the Garden not to eat of the tree of good and evil.God told Adam. He warned Adam what would happen if He ate from it.You say this would be Gods fault? How so?Do you have any kids? Do you need an analogy to show that your statement is incorrect?Maybe you want to reprase it because as you have it now, it's inccorect.

Huh? Can you ellaborate a little more?

quote:

---

Do you have any kids? Do you need an analogy to show that your statement is incorrect?

​

Maybe you want to reprase it because as you have it now, it's inccorect.

---

OK, how does this work for you?An omniscient, omnipotent god knew that Adam would eat the fruit before he created him.The creation of Adam was the choice of a god who knew that he would sin.He could have created an Adam who didn't sin.It is gods fault as it was gods choice.Free will is an illusion with an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent creator god. If god knows the past and future of everything, then every action must be either naturally predetermined or designed by the creator, depending on your philosophical taste.

quote:

---

Not when the parent is supposed to be omnipotent.

---

Why does that make a difference?Until they are adults, parents are the authority or ruler over their children.One parent ruling more "kingdoms" doesn't change that we can only do so much to influence our children. At some point it is up to them.

An omnipotent parent would be able to do whatever is needed to ensure their child survives and succeeds in life.
An omnipotent parent is not limited to "only do[ing] so much".Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well, anyone who tortures their own son to death as part of some ritualistic display of 'love' is pretty well certifiable in my book.

God can kill anyone he wants, you see...for He can make the boo boos go away.This whole idea of making God out to be cruel just wont cut it when taken into consideration that He can undo anything done.Pain is simply amplified awareness...and God may well use pain to bring certain things to our awareness...but His mercy takes every overactive neuron and turns it into sugar plums.

I suppose there is little point in trying to have a reasonable discussion about God with someone who thinks he's the 'boo boo' master who uses unspeakable pain as a delivery medium for 'sugar plums'.

quote:

---

PD writes:

​

A parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.

Rahvin writes:

​

Not when the parent is supposed to be omnipotent.

PD writes:

​

Why does that make a difference?

An omnipotent parent would be able to do whatever is needed to ensure their child survives and succeeds in life.
An omnipotent parent is not limited to "only do[ing] so much".

---

You didn't answer the question. Why does omnipotence make a difference?Why would an omnipotent parent be able to do more?As I said in Message 47: Ultimately the child has to want to.
It isn't about God stopping anyone from dying, everyone dies; it is about who will be restored to life.

No it doesn't.A child will want to play with fire.
As a human parent, you try (and probably fail) to prevent your child from playing with fire.
As an omnipotent parent, you successfully prevent a child from playing with fire.
Their 'wants' are irrelevant.It is a parent's duty/responsibility to ensure the well-being of their children.
Omnipotent parents wouldn't find that a difficult task.An omnipotent parent would ensure that their children were restored to life.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.