Let's talk about Satan

[Hazard]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

This would be true except for the fact that both He Himself and Paul said that you need to have faith in Him and His sacrifice in order to receive His gift of salvation. "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." If you ask me though may people will receive salvation through Jesus Christ who haven't heard of the Bible because some people never heard the Gospel such as the people who died before He existed, the people who never heard of the Gospel in say South America till a couple hundred years ago and deaf mutes who never learn to communicate except through touch. So there is some other information to be attained then is given in the Bible as to how people receive salvation and go to heaven. Chances are if you've heard the story and rejected it then you've already lost your salvation because you've been given the opportunity already. If you hear the Gospel and turn the gift away, you reject it as the sacrifice for your sins. In order for something to be a sacrifice you first have to accept the it is your sacrifice for your sins. If you don't believe it is your sacrifice, it cannot be your salvation. Also, if you don't repent for your sins at all. For instance the Jews sacrificed animals to atone for your sins. Think of it this way, if they never repented they never would have sacrificed the animal in the first place and if you don't believe it is your sacrifice to God then how can it be? It is purposeless to you. This is why you have to believe.

As for the reason God punishes people in Hell forever... God is just and holy and good. He cannot coexist with sin and evil. The two do not go together. God created us all with eternal souls. We have to live somewhere forever and it can't be in heaven where God exists. If you are an evil person then because of the ways of God He must punish you. If you have a wicked heart then you will never receive God as a friend. Also, if He let evil people go into Heaven this would be incredibly unjust to all the people that believed and God and served Him all their days intending to obey Him and do good the whole time. Their blessing would be worthless and pointless and there would be no reward for them. God would punish the person for a short amount of time if it was like this life but he puts people in hell to forever judge and punish them for their hearts and to put them in a place where they can never hurt God, who has done no wrong, again. He knows the heart of every person and chances are the people that go here will never repent or turn from their ways. Some simply choose to disobey him and do evil like Satan and the demons. That being said God does know all things except for free will. I'm sure God with His infinite wisdom and infinite years of experience more than you or I knows why He places people in Hell forever and not for a shorter amount of time. I trust God knows what he's doing with His punishment just like I trust God, who I believe to be the Great Creator of all things, to be the divine and sovereign governing force of my life.

EDIT: God may guide every step of our way but in the end it's our choice to go where He guides us. He won't force us to do anything. We are not robots.

RE EDIT: When Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus the Bible says "it would be better if that man were never born at all." This leads me to believe that some people receive more punishment or more severe punishment in hell than others. IOW, there are levels of punishment in hell and you will receive punishment according to your wicked ways. God isn't just some guy in the clouds shooting lightning bolts at people for fun. There's a method and exactitude to His punishment.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow

This would be true except for the fact that both He Himself and Paul said that you need to have faith in Him and His sacrifice in order to receive His gift of salvation. "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." If you ask me though may people will receive salvation through Jesus Christ who haven't heard of the Bible because some people never heard the Gospel such as the people who died before He existed, the people who never heard of the Gospel in say South America till a couple hundred years ago and deaf mutes who never learn to communicate except through touch. So there is some other information to be attained then is given in the Bible as to how people receive salvation and go to heaven. Chances are if you've heard the story and rejected it then you've already lost your salvation because you've been given the opportunity already. If you hear the Gospel and turn the gift away, you reject it as the sacrifice for your sins. In order for something to be a sacrifice you first have to accept the it is your sacrifice for your sins. If you don't believe it is your sacrifice, it cannot be your salvation. Also, if you don't repent for your sins at all. For instance the Jews sacrificed animals to atone for your sins. Think of it this way, if they never repented they never would have sacrificed the animal in the first place and if you don't believe it is your sacrifice to God then how can it be? It is purposeless to you. This is why you have to believe.

As for the reason God punishes people in Hell forever... God is just and holy and good. He cannot coexist with sin and evil. The two do not go together. God created us all with eternal souls. We have to live somewhere forever and it can't be in heaven where God exists. If you are an evil person then because of the ways of God He must punish you. If you have a wicked heart then you will never receive God as a friend. Also, if He let evil people go into Heaven this would be incredibly unjust to all the people that believed and God and served Him all their days intending to obey Him and do good the whole time. Their blessing would be worthless and pointless and there would be no reward for them. God would punish the person for a short amount of time if it was like this life but he puts people in hell to forever judge and punish them for their hearts and to put them in a place where they can never hurt God, who has done no wrong, again. He knows the heart of every person and chances are the people that go here will never repent or turn from their ways. Some simply choose to disobey him and do evil like Satan and the demons. That being said God does know all things except for free will. I'm sure God with His infinite wisdom and infinite years of experience more than you or I knows why He places people in Hell forever and not for a shorter amount of time. I trust God knows what he's doing with His punishment just like I trust God, who I believe to be the Great Creator of all things, to be the divine and sovereign governing force of my life.

EDIT: God may guide every step of our way but in the end it's our choice to go where He guides us. He won't force us to do anything. We are not robots.

RE EDIT: When Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus the Bible says "it would be better if that man were never born at all." This leads me to believe that some people receive more punishment or more severe punishment in hell than others. IOW, there are levels of punishment in hell and you will receive punishment according to your wicked ways. God isn't just some guy in the clouds shooting lightning bolts at people for fun. There's a method and exactitude to His punishment.

The institutionalized Christian church teaches that God's "desire" to save all (I Tim. 2:4) is but a weak and unattainable wish. Man's supposed "free will," is what prevents most of humanity from choosing God as his Saviour, and so most cannot be saved. This, however, is utter unscriptural nonsense.With great enthusiasm, I am told that soon it will be too late for me (there is apparently a strict timeline in which one must either be saved or lost forever). I have been warned that I (and ultimately most of humanity) will soon have my eternal destiny irrevocably sealed and sentenced to the fire pits of hell, with zero chance of any future redemption.
“Hell” ultimately does not belong in the Bible at all...Two things we should never find in a Bible: [1] The old Anglo Saxon word "hell," and [2] any word denoting "endless time," as in "for ever AND ever," "everlasting," or "eternal." There is no such equivalent in any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures.Furthermore, if "for ever" means an eternity, what pray tell does "for ever AND EVER" mean? Multiple eternities? How many eternities are there?
There is no mention of "hell" or any possibility of suffering after death anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament (OT). The original words that were all translated into ONE word were - Sheol, Tartarus, Hades, and Gehenna. Sheol means grave, Tartarus means abyss and is the prison for the Greek Titans, Hades is the underworld where all souls go, and Gehenna was a trash pit. Somehow, all those words with different meanings and implications were combined into one word “Hell” which comes from the word “Hel” which was ruled by you guessed it - Hel. She was the daughter of Loki in Norse mythology and to “go to Hel” is to die. Hel gained a second “L” in middle English when the word meant a “root cellar”. The first place that "hell fire" appears in the Greek New Testament is in Matt. 5:22. Virtually all Bibles with a center reference will refer you to the marginal note on "hell" where it says, "Greek: Gehenna." And Gehenna is Greek for the Hebrew word "Hinnom" or "Valley of Hinnom," which is found outside the city walls of Jerusalem on the south side.You can, if you wish, take a stroll through hell in Jerusalem - it is now part of a city park. In the time of Christ's ministry this valley was the Jerusalem city garbage dump, and for centuries, as long as garbage was thrown into it, the fires kept burning and the worms which ate the garbage didn't die out - they kept reproducing, year after year after year.

The only way ... the ONLY WAY, that any Christian can claim that hell, hell fire, immortal worms, never-ending fire, eternal torture, etc., can be literal is if we take everything literally that Jesus said regarding hell (Gehenna fire). You cannot separate what Jesus says MUST be done to avoid having, "...your whole body cast into hell [Gehenna], from what Christians say hell is. In other words, you cannot avoid a LITERAL HELL by performing a FIGURATIVE action.
Fire is figurative language for judgment - cleansing and purifying. Heb. 12:29 says that "GOD is a CONSUMING FIRE."Is God literally composed of physical fire? No, God is "SPIRIT" (John 4:24), and God is "INVISIBLE" (Col. 1:15). How can something that is visible and physical as fire be SPIRIT?
Jesus spoke in parables constantly...so much so that there are many many scriptures where even his own apostles don’t understand him. So what makes you think that we understand it now? It is one of those mysteries that will be solved when we die.
As for God saving the whole world...
​

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (I John 4:14)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save "the world"? NO!

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to SAVE SINNERS; of whom I am chief" [Gk: foremost--paramount, preeminent]" (I Tim. 1:15)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save all "sinners?" NO!

"For the Son of man is come to seek and to SAVE that which was LOST [that's everyone]" (Luke 19:10)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save all who are "lost?" NO!

"The next day John sees Jesus coming unto Him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Does the Church teach that Jesus will take away the "sin of the world?" NO!

And He is the propitiation [to atone for, conciliate, look upon with mercy and favor] for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" (I John 2:2)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will atone for the "sins of the world--the WHOLE world?" NO!

"God our Saviour Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:3-4). Does the Church teach that God will have "ALL men to be saved?" NO!

"The Lord is... not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). Does the Church teach that the Lord is not willing that any perish, but that ALL should repent, therefore, none will perish and all will repent? NO!

"For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the livingGod, who IS the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially ['specially' does not mean 'exclusively' or 'only'] of those that believe" (I Tim. 4:10). Does the Church teach that God is not only the Saviour of those that believe, but ultimately"God is the Saviour of ALL men?" NO!

"...I came not to judge the world, but to SAVE the world" (John 12:47). Does the Church teach Jesus will actually accomplish what He came to accomplish- "to SAVE THE WORLD?" NO!

"...we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (John 4:42). Does the Church teach that the One to Whom they give lip service "is indeed the Christ, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD?" NO, it does NOT!
These ten Scriptures are not wrongly translated, however, every single Bible verse which uses the word "hell" along with "forever and ever," "everlasting," "evermore," and "eternal," is wrongly translated, and this is relatively easy to study and prove to one's own satisfaction.
Virtually all clergyman in all Christendom teach:​

• Jesus will NOT "be the Saviour of the world," but rather Saviour of only a few​
• Jesus will NOT "save [all] sinners," but only a few​
• Jesus will NOT "save [all] that which was lost," but only a few that are lost​
• Jesus will NOT "take away the sin of the world," but only of a few​
• Jesus will NOT "have all men to be saved," but only a few men​
• Jesus will NOT be that "Lord [which is] "not willing that any should perish," but He WILL be that Lord which will actively participate in eternally torturing those who have perished​
• Jesus is NOT "the Saviour of all men," but is the Saviour "of those that believe," only​
• Jesus' Own words "I came NOT to judge the world, but to save the world" will never happen​
• Jesus is NOT "indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." ​

And just why is it that the Church will not teach these astonishing declarations of God, that the whole world will be saved - that all mankind will be saved? Is it because they have never read those ten Scriptures or the dozens and dozens like them? No. Well why then? The reason is that they don't want the whole world (all mankind) to be saved: they don't approve of God's plan for the salvation of all mankind. They want to be special, and they don't want their enemies to be saved unless they come under the control and authority of the Church.
As for the notion for “free will” I can delve into that as well...I just didn’t want to make this post too incredibly GIANT, which I feel I have already failed....lol.
Muir would appreciate the size...lol.​

 

[sprinkles]

When parents say 'no' to children, should it always be in respect of harmful objects only?

Of course not.

Is the arbitrary nature of saying no to some request for some cool, safe, educational toy not important?

Not necessarily, it depends on why you're saying no. Some people come up with really dumb reasons to say no to things when they probably shouldn't.

However if there was a reasoning or consequence, then God must have invented that reasoning or consequence. My crack analogy still holds.

We tell our children not to do certain things because we must equip them to navigate a world that we didn't invent and have little power over.

What becomes of children who are never refused?

What becomes of children that are refused for stupid and shitty reasons?

 

[sprinkles]

1. God is not omniscient. He knows many and most things, even understanding the heart and character of a person, but he cannot predict in full the consequences of free will because He regrets some decisions.

Seems reasonable enough.

2. God purposely gave us free will so we wouldn't follow Him like robots. He wants us to WANT to love, serve and obey Him. What's the point in creating something that is made, without choice, to love you?

Sounds pretty cruel and selfish to me. Like trying to build the ideal wife for yourself that you WANT to love you but will not force her, because it would be hollow, yet if she resists, you get to train her! Ooh a challenge! Give her a will so you can manipulate it and be god of it!

It's a crock of monkeypucks.

3. God punishes bad deeds and rewards good ones. God creates consequences for all our actions whether they be moral or immoral.

Just like the god above who created his own wife slave.

From this we know that God intentionally gave us the choice to serve him or not and that he created the tree in the Garden of Eden for a purpose, as He creates all things. He gave Adam and Eve the choice to serve and obey Him. Instead of creating the tree as a fake test of whether or not they would follow Him, he created it with real consequences- the knowledge of good and evil. He also cursed Adam and Eve and punished them for their choice of disobedience and lack of alignment with God. He creates "crack" because he gives us the choice to serve Him in this world and also, because of His ways, punishes us when we choose to do so.

This isn't a valid choice because it has options which are weighed by mores which didn't necessarily have to be present.

In a "serve me or die" choice, the "die" must also be a valid option, or it is not a choice. But if we're meant to be able to choose the "die" option, then why is it there as an ultimatum to begin with??

Regardless, I choose "die".

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What becomes of children that are refused for stupid and shitty reasons?

They learn to accept limitations and work within/around them.

Some things arbitrarily become symbolic of either affection, or contempt for others. Eg. Giving a red rose, or a white feather arbitrarily carry way more meaning than the objects themselves warrant.

 

[Hazard]

Seems reasonable enough.


Sounds pretty cruel and selfish to me. Like trying to build the ideal wife for yourself that you WANT to love you but will not force her, because it would be hollow, yet if she resists, you get to train her! Ooh a challenge! Give her a will so you can manipulate it and be god of it!

It's a crock of monkeypucks.


Just like the god above who created his own wife slave.



This isn't a valid choice because it has options which are weighed by mores which didn't necessarily have to be present.

In a "serve me or die" choice, the "die" must also be a valid option, or it is not a choice. But if we're meant to be able to choose the "die" option, then why is it there as an ultimatum to begin with??

Regardless, I choose "die".

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] I'll read your post later. There's a lot of information and it looks interesting.

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] I don't see how giving someone free will is manipulating them. It's the wife's choice to stay or go. Do explain. What are the mores that don't have to be present? I also don't understand how choosing to die isn't a part of free will. The reason God gave us this choice is so he can know who truly loves Him and wants to be with Him. You can choose not to align with the purpose your Creator made for you, but then your life is without meaning other than the one you create for yourself and in the end when God ends the world your purpose will have been worthless. So you can choose to die, but one must take note that it's a foolish choice. I'd say choose wisely but you have the will to do as you please. You don't need to make wise decisions if you don't want to.

On a side not you don't sound as brainy and logical lately. You sound more quirky and zany. I dig it. lol Another aspect of your personality.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't see how giving someone free will is manipulating them. I think it's the opposite. Do explain.

Giving something free will for your benefit is manipulation.
Making something love you without choice is egotistical manipulation - you already covered that one.
Making something and giving it free will because you want it to love you but you don't want to force it to love you, so you make the alternatives be shitty so that in a round about way you will see to it that at least some of them 'choose' to love you, is probably the worst and most manipulative of them all in my opinion.

What are the mores that don't have to be present?

The main ones are faith, loving God, and accepting God as supreme. Those shouldn't be required for a being that freely gives actual free will, and frankly I'm not even shocked that Satan rebelled.

I also don't understand how choosing to die isn't a part of free will. The reason God gave us this choice is so he can know who truly loves Him and wants to be with Him.

A selfish and egotistical reason. And yes this is a part of free will but is so often painted as something that one shouldn't want, or shouldn't choose. Just like you do below, by calling it foolish.

You can choose not to align with the purpose your Creator made for you, but then your life is without meaning other than the one you create for yourself and in the end when God ends the world your purpose will have been worthless. So you can choose to die, but one must take note that it's a foolish choice. I'd say choose wisely but you have the will to do as you please. You don't need to make wise decisions if you don't want to.

That's right. I don't need to do anything. Moreover I didn't ask for any of this either. Seems like a lot of to-do over nothing. Besides, worth is an arbitrary measure which I don't necessarily require, and as far as I'm concerned, do not have want or need.

On a side not you don't sound as brainy and logical lately. You sound more quirky and zany. I dig it. lol Another aspect of your personality.

That's because there's no logic to be had here. It's quirky and zany enough already. And I do not dig it.

 

[Hazard]

Giving something free will for your benefit is manipulation.
Making something love you without choice is egotistical manipulation - you already covered that one.
Making something and giving it free will because you want it to love you but you don't want to force it to love you, so you make the alternatives be shitty so that in a round about way you will see to it that at least some of them 'choose' to love you, is probably the worst and most manipulative of them all in my opinion.


The main ones are faith, loving God, and accepting God as supreme. Those shouldn't be required for a being that freely gives actual free will, and frankly I'm not even shocked that Satan rebelled.


A selfish and egotistical reason. And yes this is a part of free will but is so often painted as something that one shouldn't want, or shouldn't choose. Just like you do below, by calling it foolish.

I think God's manipulating us as little as possible. He could've just made us robots. Would that have made you feel better? Giving us free will isn't for His benefit but for ours. God needs to punish the wicked. He makes shitty circumstances for those that choose to rebel and be wicked because He is just and must destroy evil when it becomes apparent in His world for His and His followers sake. We are God's masterpiece and the wicked are like a gigantic red line over His hard work. I don't understand your perspective. It's as though you're searching for manipulation and deceit in God as much as you can while God is trying to be as generous and kind as He can.

Your heart is hardened against God and filled with spite toward Him. Just something I thought I'd point out. I don't need any reasons why. Jesus says to soften your heart.

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] that was just a rant. I'm not even going to bother finishing it it's just complete blasphemy and hatred toward the church (which is fallible) and God.

 

[sprinkles]

They learn to accept limitations and work within/around them.

Some things arbitrarily become symbolic of either affection, or contempt for others. Eg. Giving a red rose, or a white feather arbitrarily carry way more meaning than the objects themselves warrant.

This is pretty irrelevant.

My mother tried to coerce me to love her. I had no problem with respect and obedience (unless the obedience harmed me and broke my trust, which it did at times) I worshiped my mother until I developed a will of my own which came into conflict with her emotional neediness. This caused me a lot of damage and she eventually became my nightmare. You do not demand my love. I give it. Because it is mine to give. She'd have gotten plenty if she didn't volunteer me for martyring and try to make me codependent.

 

[sprinkles]

I think God's manipulating us as little as possible. He could've just made us robots. Would that have made you feel better? Giving us free will isn't for His benefit but for ours. God needs to punish the wicked. He makes shitty circumstances for those that choose to rebel and be wicked because He is just and must destroy evil when it becomes apparent in His world for His and His followers sake. We are God's masterpiece and the wicked are like a gigantic red line over His hard work. I don't understand your perspective. It's as though you're searching for manipulation and deceit in God as much as you can while God is trying to be as generous and kind as He can.

Your heart is hardened against God and filled with spite toward Him. Just something I thought I'd point out. I don't need any reasons why. Jesus says to soften your heart.

I don't have a problem with God. I have problems with bad explanations about God.

i.e. I believe you have it wrong. If there is a God I do not think it would be this God.

 

[bionic]

I went to Catholic school and I was taught in theology class that Michael, the Archangel, was the most powerful of all. He simply asked god one day, out of curiosity, why he didn't have the same power as him. Then he was struck down from heaven and hell was created to house him. What I don't understand is this... If he asked with the intent of curiosity, why is he automatically deemed a rebel? Why can no one look at the story in an objective manner and see that his intent is far different than what is primarily depicted of him? Honestly, it makes this whole idea that Satan is a red horned looking beast to be very silly when the true Satan was God's second hand that was cast out of heaven because he questioned his authority. There is some sick foreshadowing in this story since religion (primarily Christianity) is known to breed intolerableness to curiosity.


Anyway, no. I don't believe Satan or even God exists in the mythological sense. The idea that good and evil is plausible in all of us and can create an imbalance is fine enough for me.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

This is pretty irrelevant.

My mother tried to coerce me to love her. I had no problem with respect and obedience (unless the obedience harmed me and broke my trust, which it did at times) I worshiped my mother until I developed a will of my own which came into conflict with her emotional neediness. This caused me a lot of damage and she eventually became my nightmare. You do not demand my love. I give it. Because it is mine to give. She'd have gotten plenty if she didn't volunteer me for martyring and try to make me codependent.

God doesn't need us. His happiness is perfect, lacking nothing.

The departure point in this discussion was about the arbitrary symbolic assignment. The fruit of one tree in a vast paradise-garden of trees was forbidden.
I see this one tree as making a choice regarding God possible in a definite, concrete action; and not about arbitrarily denial of something desirable.


Keep in mind, that at the time of the fall of man there was no symbol for God (like a crucifix), other than man himself (made in the image and likeness, etc.). And it is pretty abstract and arbitrary to reject an incorporeal perfection of being, knowledge and goodness. Some material thing had to represent obedience to God, if the choice of accepting, or rejecting were to be a real choice.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=3799]bionic[/MENTION]
Yes I think that's just humans projecting human ideas onto something they do not understand.

Why should God have any discomfort from lesser beings, especially knowing that these beings may have a propensity to question authority? God cannot be harmed or threatened by this. A perfect God could give perfect answers, but expecting a lesser being who does not have your power or knowledge to know better and would be therefore more prone to err is akin to kicking the dog.

 

[sprinkles]

God doesn't need us. His happiness is perfect, lacking nothing.

The departure point in this discussion was about the arbitrary symbolic assignment. The fruit of one tree in a vast paradise-garden of trees was forbidden.
I see this one tree as making a choice regarding God possible in a definite, concrete action; and not about arbitrarily denial of something desirable.

Explain why this choice needed to be presented and how it was better than not presenting it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Explain why this choice needed to be presented and how it was better than not presenting it.

At the time of the fall of man there was no symbol for God (like a crucifix), other than man himself (made in the image and likeness, etc.). And it is pretty abstract and arbitrary to reject an incorporeal perfection of being, knowledge and goodness.
If a symbol of God were to be attacked back then, I suppose Adam could have spat in Eve's face?
Some material thing had to represent obedience to God, if the choice of accepting, or rejecting were to be a real choice.

 

[sprinkles]

At the time of the fall of man there was no symbol for God (like a crucifix), other than man himself (made in the image and likeness, etc.). And it is pretty abstract and arbitrary to reject an incorporeal perfection of being, knowledge and goodness.

But they did reject that abstraction, necessarily, because that abstraction was what gave them the order to obey it. For what purpose?

If a symbol of God were to be attacked back then, I suppose Adam could have spat in Eve's face?
Some material thing had to represent obedience to God, if the choice of accepting, or rejecting were to be a real choice.

If God hadn't set himself up to be attacked then he probably would not have been. If he hadn't set himself up to be disobeyed then he probably wouldn't have been.

Moreover, what did it accomplish? To what end was there obedience? Yes clearly God wanted to be obeyed. You still have not explained why this was necessary. I do not see how it helped God nor man in any way.

 

[Skarekrow]

I think God's manipulating us as little as possible. He could've just made us robots. Would that have made you feel better? Giving us free will isn't for His benefit but for ours. God needs to punish the wicked. He makes shitty circumstances for those that choose to rebel and be wicked because He is just and must destroy evil when it becomes apparent in His world for His and His followers sake. We are God's masterpiece and the wicked are like a gigantic red line over His hard work. I don't understand your perspective. It's as though you're searching for manipulation and deceit in God as much as you can while God is trying to be as generous and kind as He can.

Your heart is hardened against God and filled with spite toward Him. Just something I thought I'd point out. I don't need any reasons why. Jesus says to soften your heart.

@Skarekrow that was just a rant. I'm not even going to bother finishing it it's just complete blasphemy and hatred toward the church (which is fallible) and God.

How was that blasphemous and hate filled? One person’s blasphemy is subjective. I backed up everything I wrote either with factual information or biblical verses...which are interpretive. It was no rant.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

But they did reject that abstraction, necessarily, because that abstraction was what gave them the order to obey it. For what purpose?


If God hadn't set himself up to be attacked then he probably would not have been. If he hadn't set himself up to be disobeyed then he probably wouldn't have been.

Moreover, what did it accomplish? To what end was there obedience? Yes clearly God wanted to be obeyed. You still have not explained why this was necessary. I do not see how it helped God nor man in any way.

Protestants will probably reject the notion that follows:

Rebellion against God merits punishment.

But obedience to God merits reward.

Humans were not made to stagnate in their original state.

 

[sprinkles]

Protestants will probably reject the notion that follows:

Rebellion against God merits punishment.

But obedience to God merits reward.

Based on what grounds? To claim merit requires a framework.

I can invert these assertions and say it is so with the same ease. This is a non answer.

Humans were not made to stagnate in their original state.

This is unrelated, and there's no indication that they would have anyway. This is evidenced by the fact that they were malleable enough to make an impromptu decision based on what a talking snake said. They probably wouldn't have stagnated even if God had not set this up.

 

[the]

Satan exists. He is an evil genius.

Why do you think he's a genius? I think that he just has the advantage of being invisible.