Another "Suffering" topic

[Energy]

I'd like to discuss my interpretation of suffering. I'll try to be as succinct as possible, for the sake of understanding.

Often there is a question of morality in relation to God. A question of why he would allow suffering, if he does exist. I take this to mean either one of two things:

1. Evil and God are incompatible
2. Suffering and God are incompatible


1.

The first is self-refuting, simply because there is no objective moral values without God, the moral law giver. Therefore, asserting that a benevolent God is incompatible with a world where evil exists presupposes that there is good in this world in which to differentiate between the said evil, or what not "ought" to be. And if there is good, then there must be some sort of moral law that distinguishes what good is. And if there's a moral law, then there must be a source for the law, which would be God.


2.

So after the first affirmation is reduced to moral relativism or evolutionary convergence, the essence of it then evolves into the second affirmation, which was the point of the thread. How can God allow suffering if he is benevolent? Why are there things such as natural disasters and accidents and crime?

I'd like to first assert the problem of crime. In the Bible, there are countless examples of people being given the choice to do things. In fact, almost everyone who was ever born has been given the free choice to sin or not. This is the key, I believe, to understand the allowance of an intelligent disaster.

Because intervention in one's choices would directly contradict the very freewill that God intends for most of us to use to come to responsibility. No damage = no crime. Therefore, if God intends for us to become responsible, and to rid us of sin, then the nonintervention for the choices that we make is necessary to preserve freewill, and the nonintervention in the damage done is necessary to make us accountable for the choices that we make. Because otherwise, the action doesn't count, which is the core concept of repentance.

In a question of natural disasters, let's unpack the statement first. What is it that we're asking? Is it that things like tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes are incompatible with a benevolent God? I feel that this is often a prevarication of the implication, and appeals to a mass misunderstanding of the Biblical relationship with life and death. First let's assert what it is that we're having a problem with. It's the notion that God could've done something to save the innocent party involved, and didn't. Is this unfair?

To better understand this, it's important to know what happens after you die. God says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord. We are also described to have immortal bodies. So what does the word "immortality" tell us? That we are not dead. The very reason that the act of killing someone is unfair is because of life's sacredness in as far as it concerns us. The question is, what's the difference in how we are now, and when we're in our spiritual bodies?

It's just that, we are in perfect and immortal forms in our spiritual bodies. So if we're still alive, then does that mean that anything unfair has been done? Only if God couldn't govern each state of being fairly. The reason why it's considered "killing" when we are responsible for someone's life on Earth ending is because we haven't the power to enable the said life on Earth in the first place. God has this power. Therefore, it's not unfair when he is responsible for our life on Earth ending.

Second, let's assert the significance of tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes in their essences. As aforementioned, the reason that all of these are unfair is because the innocent party involved in each of them often dies. So again, what is it that we're asking? It's why God doesn't intervene. This is a "slippery slope" simply because, where does it end? If it's unfair for God not to stop hurricanes, is it unfair for God not to stop old age? Because in both, God has the power to stop the innocent person from dying. We'd then be asking, why didn't God just make us immortal in these bodies to begin with, since he has the power to do so. Why would he put us here on Earth to watch us eventually die?

This is where we go back to the aforementioned point of why it's not unfair for God being responsible for us not being immortal in these flesh bodies. Because we're not really dead when we actually leave life here on Earth, and he has the power to put us here in the first place.

But it's not the time that makes it significant, but rather, the actions that we do with the given time. If God were to extend our lives just for the sake of the innocent party involved, wouldn't this directly contradict the point of why we're here, which is to be responsible? How then can one be responsible for our sins if we don't pray and repent? That's the point of why accidents exist.

Because if people never died from disasters or suffered, then you'll have the problem of people either not being subject to repent of their sins until they're on their deathbeds, or people having no reason to come to God for his blessings. In almost the same sense as before, it would contradict the point of having the choice to pray if there is nothing to pray for. And there would be nothing to pray for if nothing bad happened outside of what we could handle ourselves.

And for those who don't get the chance to hear the word of God before their accidental death, He is always just.

__________________________________________________________________

I understand that my logic may be flawed, and I do not mean to lead astray anyone seeking truth. I only recommend that you take everything with a grain of salt and see what say the Lord first and foremost. I just wanted to give some understanding and comfort through my own perspective of this subject. Thank you for reading and God bless you.

 

[childeye]

I'd like to discuss my interpretation of suffering. I'll try to be as succinct as possible, for the sake of understanding.

Often there is a question of morality in relation to God. A question of why he would allow suffering, if he does exist. I take this to mean either one of two things:

1. Evil and God are incompatible
2. Suffering and God are incompatible


1.

The first is self-refuting, simply because there is no objective moral values without God, the moral law giver. Therefore, asserting that a benevolent God is incompatible with a world where evil exists presupposes that there is good in this world in which to differentiate between the said evil, or what not "ought" to be. And if there is good, then there must be some sort of moral law that distinguishes what good is. And if there's a moral law, then there must be a source for the law, which would be God.

I agree there is an opposite between Light and dark, but as you point out it is not moral law that is God, but moral Character that makes law... And pertaining to God He is the divine Love. Without this no one can write law, for they would have no sense of what the law would serve. But the fact that there is a God means all goodness and absence of goodness is relative to Him. If we account that evil is the absence of Love then God is glorified and not man.

2.

I'd like to first assert the problem of crime. In the Bible, there are countless examples of people being given the choice to do things. In fact, everyone who was ever born has been given the free choice to sin or not. This is the key, I believe, to understand the allowance of an intelligent disaster.

But you have declared a freewill for the problem behind sin simply by seeing a choice made. Gone now is any true seeking of what are the real reasons behind why there is crime even because you say it happens simply because it can. But where is the evil defined as the absence of Love? Does not lack of Love in a man explain crime better than simply because he could? Perhaps this would be seen more clearly when we read that those who are cured of sin have been given a Love that pours out of us by the Holy Spirit. So that in clear opposition, it is said that if we walk in this Spirit we will not sin. But we cannot own this Spirit nor earn this Spirit. It must come by grace otherwise men will say it is them, they chose to have it and others did not.

Because intervention in one's choices would directly contradict the very freewill that God intends for most of us to use to come to responsibility. No damage = no crime. Therefore, if God intends for us to become responsible, and to rid us of sin, then the nonintervention for the choices that we make is necessary to preserve freewill, and the nonintervention in the damage done is necessary to make us accountable for the choices that we make. Because otherwise, the action doesn't count, which is the core concept of repentance.

You are describing the will of a man, not necessarily a free will. There is a deception that holds men in captivity to lies, and the works of Satan are to be destroyed by divine intervention of the Christ not by will power. Our Maker is making children unto Himself out of clay unto His Glory. You assert men's wills have to be free or that would contradict our being responsible. You have asserted this based on your previous assertion that freewill is the cause simply because we can. In essence you are saying sin is freewill, when in fact it is based on deception and propped up on lies stacked upon lies. The second greatest lie is that there is a choice to have life, another god other than the only God.

 

[farouk]

My suggestion: read the book of Job.

 

[Energy]

I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

Not going to stay on this too long, lest this turn into an argument. I'm just going to clarify as to what I actually said and implied.

But you have declared a freewill for the problem behind sin simply by seeing a choice made. Gone now is any true seeking of what are the real reasons behind why there is crime even because you say it happens simply because it can.

Seems that we got off on the wrong foot. I'm hoping that you were simply confused and not manufacturing any straw-men. I apologize if I didn't make myself clear enough.

I only said that it was a choice, not that there was any particular reason behind why it exist. To better illustrate, that's like me saying that you have the choice to eat ice cream or not, and you saying that I'm implying that simply having the choice of eating ice cream is the reason why the option exists.

The reasons for why there is sin has not been implied, only that it does exist and that you have the free will to do so nor not.

You are describing the will of a man, not necessarily a free will. There is a deception that holds men in captivity to lies, and the works of Satan are to be destroyed by divine intervention of the Christ not by will power. Our Maker is making children unto Himself out of clay unto His Glory. You assert men's wills have to be free or that would contradict our being responsible. You have asserted this based on your previous assertion that freewill is the cause simply because we can. In essence you are saying sin is freewill, when in fact it is based on deception and propped up on lies stacked upon lies. The second greatest lie is that there is a choice to have life, another god other than the only God.

I'll again reiterate that I haven't given any reason for what the cause of sin is. Therefore, I have not asserted that responsibility is contingent upon freewill based on the cause of sin being freewill.

I'd like to address your first point of what I'm describing as the will of man as
opposed to the freedom of choice. Now, if we illustrated the freedom of choice right now, then we'd be describing something to the effect of someone having two or more options and having the freedom of choosing at least one, by definition.

This is rather obvious in the text, when the subject of "us" is described to have more than one choice ("choices"), and God allowing us to make it freely.

"Therefore, if God intends for us to become responsible, and to rid us of sin, then the nonintervention for the choices that we make is necessary to preserve freewill".

So I don't really see where your distinction comes into play from that alone.

All that I was saying is that we have the freewill to sin or not. Meaning that we have the choice to will for sin, or to live righteously. This no doubt implies that there is some form of willpower to be put to use, but what I was referring to was the freedom to direct it in any way that pleases us, with one of those ways being sin. So yes, it does refer to man's will just as the freedom to eat ice cream or not refers to the act of eating. But in no way does saying that one has the freedom to eat ice cream or not make the fact that there is a choice involved mutually exclusive from the fact that the act of eating is also involved.

To your second point, this seems to be aimed towards or contingent upon three arguments, none of which have been implied by me:

1. It is man's willpower that's responsible for destroying the works of satan.
2. God is not responsible for destroying the works of Satan.
3. Sin = the works of Satan

Interestingly enough, I think, is your apparent distinction of the works of satan being sin itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. When you immediately jumped to the conclusion that the works of satan were being described as a responsibility for man's willpower, you affirmed that I was referring to the willpower of man, and that sin is by definition the works of satan.

I'm not going to debate whether or not we as humans create and are responsible for the origin of some sins, but I will critique you in saying that you seem to be interpreting what the Bible says rather than actually citing it. But even so, there's still the matter of who's responsible for our sins. I'll leave you with this; what's the use of us coming to accountability for our actions if it is God's duty, alone, to prevent sin? Thus, what's the use of responsibility if there is no sin to be responsible for?

I'll end with the reiteration that I was in no way saying what the cause of sin was, much less that it was the freedom to choose whether or not to sin. The essence of what I was saying was clearly stated as that we have the choice to sin or not, and that that choice plus the consequences of that choice is what makes us accountable for the sins that we commit.

Thank you for reading and God bless you.

 

[childeye]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

Interestingly enough, I think, is your apparent distinction of the works of satan being sin itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Your question here invites a much deeper discussion as to what sin is, where it somes from and how to get rid of it. It has a lot to do with the suffering of this world. One thing for certain is that scripture declares the devil the father of it, and all sinners his children. This provides a view that describes the character or nature of the father manifesting in his children. This is where the choice to sin is not contingent upon a choice being made but the presence of a will that desires to sin. Cotrarily those born of the Spirit of God display a will that desires to Love others wherein sin is not compatible.

But even so, there's still the matter of who's responsible for our sins. I'll leave you with this; what's the use of us coming to accountability for our actions if it is God's duty, alone, to prevent sin? Thus, what's the use of responsibility if there is no sin to be responsible for?

This is almost a great question. I would respond that I cannot answer to your satisfaction the way the question is framed. I do not believe it God's duty to prevent sin. I believe it is His Truth in a man that enables a man to escape from the dominion of sin. Subsequently men who sin are helpless to stop sin without this Truth. He therefore holds us accountable differently after we see the Truth than before we see the Truth.

All sinners are responsible in some manner for their sins after all, they do it. More to the point is how blame should be apportioned, especially when certain circumstances outside of our control are a factor in determining how much culpability is imputed to the sinner. For it would be irresponsible to blame the blind for not seeing, unless after much attempts at persuasion, they refuse to admit they or anyone else are even blind.

So Jesus says to the Pharisees, would you were blind you would have no sin, but because you say we see, your sin remains. Hence the blind leading the blind all fall in a ditch.

A good example for us is that Jesus counted the sinners as those who needed a doctor counting sin an infirmity of the flesh, and he declared the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who blamed the sinners for their sin in self-righteousness when they had their own. Jesus also said by whatever measure you use to judge others, so will that same meaure be used against you. This is well known by the phrase, judge not lest you be judged.

So what is responsibilty in this view presented by Christ? For he has shown that we are only as responsible for our sin as we hold others responsible for theirs. And the merciful shall receive mercy. Please forgive us our trespasses even as we forgive those who tresspass against us.

Does this mean we are now free to sin? Of course not, for any man who sins is yet not free from sin. No, he requires we admit our infirmity so that he cam heal us. So that afterwards we should say thank you.

I'll end with the reiteration that I was in no way saying what the cause of sin was, much less that it was the freedom to choose whether or not to sin.

Then I misunderstood you.

The essence of what I was saying was clearly stated as that we have the choice to sin or not, and that that choice plus the consequences of that choice is what makes us accountable for the sins that we commit.

I think I get what you're saying. There is a choice, meaning there is an option to sin or not and that is why we are accountable for the sins we commit. But consider that this would not be true if we don't have such a choice because we are carnal and incapable of obeying God. The choice is not there but this does not change the fact that God will judge the persion as carnal and good for nothing. One need not have a free will to be judged worthless.

You were very polite in your response. I appreciate that. So what do you think of the story of Job as per the topic of this thread?

 

[childeye]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

I don't mean to come off as too critical, but this statement seems to self-destruct from its own construct:

Please by all means available, I encourage you to be as critical as you possibly can be.

1. All sin can't be helped
2. Accountability can only apply to sin that can be helped
3. Therefore accountability cannot apply to sin

It renders the existence of accountability totally useless because it says that no one can be accountable for their own sins.

It can yet hold people accountable for how much they hold others accountable. Or in other words, whatever measure you judge others by will be used against you.

Accountability and responsibilty are two different words. Accountability to me is simply giving an account to God why you did or didn't do this or that. It implies we will have to give answer for all that we do or don't do. But what I think you mean by accountable is better served by the word culpable. For you can be accountable but yet not be culpable. Culpable implies a deliberate act of doing wrong with full knowledge and with a complete intent of desiring to be evil.

So having said that I will say that all is built upon faith, and it is possible for sin to come forth in any vanity or futility of reasoning prompted by pride and distrust. Free will has no place in the discussion since it is itself a vain reasoning that supports pride and distrust.

So if you have not understood fully what I have said. I offer this.

Since the fall, accusation and distrust comes far easier to mankind than understanding and trust.

If I am seeking to establish the cause of something, I might say the wind is responsible for knocking down my fence. My wife might say, "you should have strengthened that fence years ago and your procrastination is responsible". But if in fact the wind was responsible and there is no way to prove to my wife otherwise, I may stand accused unjustly and yet perhaps I am justly accused since no one actually knows. Now in this place of the unknown is the opportunity that the devil uses to play one person's doubts against anothers in an atmosphere of pride and fear. So the devil would build upon this. Hence my wife afterward, feeling she's the responsible one, started pestering me about fixing everything out of fear of what might go wrong next due to my perceived laziness. This would demean me in her eyes and her in mine. I then sought to get away from the house to escape her badgering and find some peace. She then interpreted this as trying to get out of work which only served to enforce her sour image of me, which in turn made me only want to be away from her all the more, etc... etc... fights, feelings hurt, etc...etc... misery, drinking, found some other girl treated me like a million bucks, jealousy, hatred, divorce, etc...All because the wind blew my fence down.

The point I am making is it is possible to make something bad out of nothing and destroy relationships just through distrust and fear that gets mutually added to. In this scenario sin can happen and abound and people are blind to what's happening, due to the pride of individuals who think they deserve better when they already have it good.

Of course the above scenario is played out in a grand scale involving both angels and men. Satan who began the whole thing, caused us to find fault where there was no fault by promoting distrust between man and God, and between one another for the sake of his own delusions about being like God. But that is based on a false image of god that he holds to be true. His children are those who perpetuate the error by returning evil for evil. But the children of God born through belief of the Christ have seen the truth revealed. And because they were also a part of it at one time, they will only return good for evil since they know everybody else is wack and can't help it.

I'll conclude in saying that I believe God to be just, and wouldn't punish anyone inappropriately.

This is a for sure and the eternal security of mankind.

 

[Energy]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

Please by all means available, I encourage you to be as critical as you possibly can be.


It can yet hold people accountable for how much they hold others accountable. Or in other words, whatever measure you judge others by will be used against you.

Accountability and responsibilty are two different words. Accountability to me is simply giving an account to God why you did or didn't do this or that. It implies we will have to give answer for all that we do or don't do. But what I think you mean by accountable is better served by the word culpable. For you can be accountable but yet not be culpable. Culpable implies a deliberate act of doing wrong with full knowledge and with a complete intent of desiring to be evil.

Just to touch on the accountability thing, I'm assuming that you've made the distinction between it and responsibility because you felt that it was contextually incompatible with how I used it. However, by your own definition, or at least your own concept, I don't see how there is any conflict.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition for accountability is "required or expected to justify actions or decisions" or just "explicable; understandable". This coheres with your description of accountability as "simply giving an account to God why you did or didn't do this or that.".

Now, if/since the apparent context in question implies that something should only be applied to an act that can be managed, then is very coherent to replace the "something" with "the obligation or responsibility to justify an act", and say that it "should only apply to a person if the act could be managed":

"1. All sin can't be helped
2. Accountability can only apply to sin that can be helped
3. Therefore accountability cannot apply to sin

It renders the existence of accountability totally useless because it says that no one can be accountable for their own sins."

Responsibility would refer to our obligation to do an act. That act is described as sin. Since we're not supposed to sin, then the context does not rationally permit the concept of an obligation to do an act under the pretext of the act being sin -

Responsibility: "the obligation to sin" -- "should only apply to a person if the sin could be managed"

- while rationally permitting the concept of the obligation to justify an act -

Accountability: "the obligation or responsibility to justify sin" -- "should only apply to a person if the sin could be managed".

- so it seems safe to use accountability over responsibility in this case.

To your suggestion that I use "culpability" instead of "accountability", I feel that this would be less appropriate, in concept, to the point - simply because being guilty or deserving the blame for something does not necessarily affirm that the said person is now required to justify the reason for them being guilty. The process in which you seem to be implying is when a person is culpable, and then accountable.

Now, this does work in the sense that God holds us all accountable for everything that we're culpable of, so the two are forever related, but ultimately are not the same concepts, thus in the context of describing a requirement to justify something i.e. "paying" for sins, then "accountability" is simply more appropriate.

 

[childeye]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

Just to touch on the accountability thing, I'm assuming that you've made the distinction between it and responsibility because you felt that it was contextually incompatible with how I used it. However, by your own definition, or at least your own concept, I don't see how there is any conflict.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition for accountability is "required or expected to justify actions or decisions" or just "explicable; understandable". This coheres with your description of accountability as "simply giving an account to God why you did or didn't do this or that.".

Now, if/since the apparent context in question implies that something should only be applied to an act that can be managed, then is very coherent to replace the "something" with "the obligation or responsibility to justify an act", and say that it "should only apply to a person if the act could be managed":

"1. All sin can't be helped
2. Accountability can only apply to sin that can be helped
3. Therefore accountability cannot apply to sin

It renders the existence of accountability totally useless because it says that no one can be accountable for their own sins."

Responsibility would refer to our obligation to do an act. That act is described as sin. Since we're not supposed to sin, then the context does not rationally permit the concept of an obligation to do an act under the pretext of the act being sin -

Responsibility: "the obligation to sin" -- "should only apply to a person if the sin could be managed"

- while rationally permitting the concept of the obligation to justify an act -

Accountability: "the obligation or responsibility to justify sin" -- "should only apply to a person if the sin could be managed".

- so it seems safe to use accountability over responsibility in this case.

To your suggestion that I use "culpability" instead of "accountability", I feel that this would be less appropriate, in concept, to the point - simply because being guilty or deserving the blame for something does not necessarily affirm that the said person is now required to justify the reason for them being guilty. The process in which you seem to be implying is when a person is culpable, and then accountable.

Now, this does work in the sense that God holds us all accountable for everything that we're culpable of, so the two are forever related, but ultimately are not the same concepts, thus in the context of describing a requirement to justify something i.e. "paying" for sins, then "accountability" is simply more appropriate.

Okay I have no problem with any term you use, just so long as I comprehend the connotation in which it is presented and also whether that presentation is formed in an objective point of view or a subjective view, so that I can respond accordingly. The semantics of the words in play are at issue.

Let us remember that we are discussing man's accountability to God, and that so as to preserve free will. You have said accountability and culpability are forever related, while I said one can be accountable and yet not culpable for certain actions. Hence there is some disconnect here. For instance you also mention that I seem to be implying "that when a person is culpable and then accountable". This is hard for me to respond to since I do not know if the word accountable is being presented from my view of the word or your view, since you equate accountable as forever related to culpability. This leaves us lost in semantics and never able to establish substance.

Let us try a different approach. You say this:"Therefore, if God intends for us to become responsible, and to rid us of sin, then the nonintervention for the choices that we make is necessary to preserve freewill".

Well said. Please note therefore that freewill and non-intervention of choices is established on the premise that God intends us to be responsible and to rid us of sin. But the connotatione of the words are dependent upon the preserving of free will.

Now let's say God does intend for us to become responsible and to rid us of sin. But, sin is founded upon a vanity that men think they are in and of themselves without any intervention upon the will able to conquer sin.

This can be approached also from this perspective: Let's say all was good the way God made it, but mankind was talked into believing something was wrong and it could be improved upon. In this vanity, they then tried to fix it and broke it. Now broken, they then in the same vanity, now think it is up to them to be responsible and fix it without even considering that it is the vanity itself working in the wills of men that is the problem.

This means the words responsible, accountable, and culpable all take on different connotations depending on the premise of God's purpose.

 

[Energy]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

Okay I have no problem with any term you use, just so long as I comprehend the connotation in which it is presented and also whether that presentation is formed in an objective point of view or a subjective view, so that I can respond accordingly. The semantics of the words in play are at issue.

Let us remember that we are discussing man's accountability to God, and that so as to preserve free will. You have said accountability and culpability are forever related, while I said one can be accountable and yet not culpable for certain actions. Hence there is some disconnect here. For instance you also mention that I seem to be implying "that when a person is culpable and then accountable". This is hard for me to respond to since I do not know if the word accountable is being presented from my view of the word or your view, since you equate accountable as forever related to culpability. This leaves us lost in semantics and never able to establish substance.

I certainly don't want us to become confused, but I disagree that it's simply a matter of semantics, because the definition of accountability doesn't change from both viewpoints. I've pointed this out when I said what the definition of accountability means in how I used it, and that it coheres with your definition of it.

Just to touch on the accountability thing, I'm assuming that you've made the distinction between it and responsibility because you felt that it was contextually incompatible with how I used it. However, by your own definition, or at least your own concept, I don't see how there is any conflict.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition for accountability is "required or expected to justify actions or decisions" or just "explicable; understandable". This coheres with your description of accountability as "simply giving an account to God why you did or didn't do this or that.".

You seem to assume that because there is disagreement on how the term can be applied, then there must be a difference in the term in question's definition, in reference to the situation in which it's applied to. However, this only suggests a difference in the application of the word, not the word itself.

The applications of the word, "accountability", in question are whether or not it's necessarily related to the concept of culpability forever. This can be clarified rather easily when we look at the concepts of the words "accountable" and "culpable", and the pretext under which they're used.

That pretext is that God will always hold us obligated to justify our sins. By both of our assumed definitions of the word "accountable", accountability fits most adequately with the context because the concept of God's actions is identical to the definition of accountability. However, the fact that we are to blame, or "culpable", for our sins doesn't necessarily affirm that the responsibility to justify the sins that we are "culpable" of.

However, as stated, God will always hold us accountable for our sins, and in order for them to be our sins, then we are to be to blame, or "culpable" for them, therefore accountability will forever be related.

Let us try a different approach. You say this:"Therefore, if God intends for us to become responsible, and to rid us of sin, then the nonintervention for the choices that we make is necessary to preserve freewill".

Well said. Please note therefore that freewill and non-intervention of choices is established on the premise that God intends us to be responsible and to rid us of sin. But the connotatione of the words are dependent upon the preserving of free will.

Now let's say God does intend for us to become responsible and to rid us of sin. But, sin is founded upon a vanity that men think they are in and of themselves without any intervention upon the will able to conquer sin.

This can be approached also from this perspective: Let's say all was good the way God made it, but mankind was talked into believing something was wrong and it could be improved upon. In this vanity, they then tried to fix it and broke it. Now broken, they then in the same vanity, now think it is up to them to be responsible and fix it without even considering that it is the vanity itself working in the wills of men that is the problem.

This means the words responsible, accountable, and culpable all take on different connotations depending on the premise of God's purpose.

This seems to be a digression. I was only making concise a point that you had previously made about certain people not being responsible for their sins, under the pretext of God only holding those who are to blame for their sins responsible to justify them, in which we both seemingly thunk.

 

[childeye]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

I certainly don't want us to become confused, but I disagree that it's simply a matter of semantics, because the definition of accountability doesn't change from both viewpoints. I've pointed this out when I said what the definition of accountability means in how I used it, and that it coheres with your definition of it.

You seem to assume that because there is disagreement on how the term can be applied, then there must be a difference in the term in question's definition, in reference to the situation in which it's applied to. However, this only suggests a difference in the application of the word, not the word itself.

The applications of the word, "accountability", in question are whether or not it's necessarily related to the concept of culpability forever. This can be clarified rather easily when we look at the concepts of the words "accountable" and "culpable", and the pretext under which they're used.

That pretext is that God will always hold us obligated to justify our sins. By both of our assumed definitions of the word accountable, accountability fits most adequately with the context because the concept of God's actions is identical to the definition of accountability. However, the fact that we are to blame, or "culpable", for our sins doesn't necessarily affirm that the responsibility to justify the sins that we are "culpable" of.

However, as stated, God will always hold us accountable for our sins, and in order for them to be our sins, then we are to be to blame, or "culpable" for them, therefore accountability will forever be related.




With the above in mind, this seems to assert the content and rationality of the context rather than the contextual grammar. I was only making concise a point that you had previously made about certain people not being responsible for their sins, under the pretext of God only holding those who are to blame for their sins responsible to justify them, in which we both seemingly thunk.

If God holds all men accountable for their sins to the effect of saying each man is to be blamed for their sin, then what does it mean when scripture says,

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin? For here the words not impute means, will not account.

 

[Energy]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

If God holds all men accountable for their sins to the effect of saying each man is to be blamed for their sin, then what does it mean when scripture says,

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin? For here the words not impute means, will not account.

I understand how the wording in the statement can confuse.

I feel that this is simply a matter of understanding what actually applies as culpability. You apparently believe, as do I believe, that if a person is not to blame for their sin, then they should not be held accountable.

All that you'd need to do then is to take it a step further to conclude that if a person is not to blame for their sin, then it's not their sin in the first place, therefore sustaining the aforementioned statement that God will hold all of us accountable for our sins.

 

[childeye]

Re: I'd first like to apologize for any messages that I didn't mean to send.

I understand how the wording in the statement can confuse.

I feel that this is simply a matter of understanding what actually applies as culpability. You apparently believe, as do I believe, that if a person is not to blame for their sin, then they should not be held accountable.

All that you'd need to do then is to take it a step further to conclude that if a person is not to blame for their sin, then it's not their sin in the first place, therefore sustaining the aforementioned statement that God will hold all of us accountable for our sins.

I think we are spinning our wheels a bit here. I do not want to get drawn out into debating the finer points of words and splitting hairs. My interest is to say that there is a vanity that plagues a man wherein the end result is alienation from God and no choice but to sin. Free will theology is a detriment to finding what it is that we should be sorry for doing.

 

[stovebolts]

Energy,

I have enjoyed reading your posts and am in align with what you are saying with one exception.

1. There's already a literal race of people who are identified, as the Kenites, to be the offspring of Cain, the implied son of the devil.

Serpent Seed doctrine is not permitted on this site. Please respect the TOS as this subject is taboo. Just thought you might want to know that moving forward.

If I could, I would like to give a quick thought on what you have written in your opening statment.

1. Evil and God are incompatible
The first is self-refuting, simply because there is no objective moral values without God, the moral law giver. Therefore, asserting that a benevolent God is incompatible with a world where evil exists presupposes that there is good in this world in which to differentiate between the said evil, or what not "ought" to be. And if there is good, then there must be some sort of moral law that distinguishes what good is. And if there's a moral law, then there must be a source for the law, which would be God.

Isaiah 45:6-7 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

We often think that Evil is something that is done but often it is be because we failed to do something else. If we contrast evil and goodness with darkness and light, we see that darkness is the absence of light. Let me explain. If you bring a light into a dark place, does the darkness overcome the light, or does the light pierce through the darkness?

Evil is much the same in that it only exists when good is absent. Let me use this verse in Leviticus as an example.

Leviticus 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Is it evil to reap the harvest from the corners of ones field? No, it is not evil. But what is evil is when we fail to do this good deed and others suffer. Suffering is analogous to darkness and goodness is analogous to light. We live in a broken world and when we fail to do good, evil is created in it's wake.

 

[reba]

Serpent Seed doctrine is not permitted on this site. Please respect the TOS as this subject is taboo. Just thought you might want to know that moving forward.

Thank you Stovebolts,

 

[childeye]

Energy,

I have enjoyed reading your posts and am in align with what you are saying with one exception.



Serpent Seed doctrine is not permitted on this site. Please respect the TOS as this subject is taboo. Just thought you might want to know that moving forward.

If I could, I would like to give a quick thought on what you have written in your opening statment.



Isaiah 45:6-7 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

We often think that Evil is something that is done but often it is be because we failed to do something else. If we contrast evil and goodness with darkness and light, we see that darkness is the absence of light. Let me explain. If you bring a light into a dark place, does the darkness overcome the light, or does the light pierce through the darkness?

Evil is much the same in that it only exists when good is absent. Let me use this verse in Leviticus as an example.

Leviticus 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Is it evil to reap the harvest from the corners of ones field? No, it is not evil. But what is evil is when we fail to do this good deed and others suffer. Suffering is analogous to darkness and goodness is analogous to light. We live in a broken world and when we fail to do good, evil is created in it's wake.

Good post Stovebolts. Now how can one Who has no Godly Love (No Light) consider the plights of the poor? Is Love the product of a free will or an Eternal Spirit able to move all things? Does God command Light to shine or do we command light to shine? Let me rephrase the same question this way, Are their sons of Light without God, Who is Light?

 

[stovebolts]

Good post Stovebolts. Now how can one Who has no Godly Love (No Light) consider the plights of the poor? Is Love the product of a free will or an Eternal Spirit? Does God command Light to shine or do we command light to shine?

Everyone is born with that Godly light... It is part of being created in God's image.

Ecclesiastes 3:11-12 He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end. I know that there is nothing better for them, than to rejoice, and to do good so long as they live.

Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 Remember also thy Creator in the days of thy youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; before the sun, and the light, and the moon, and the stars, are darkened, and the clouds return after the rain;
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

God's word shows us how to stretch and grow the light within us...

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

 

[childeye]

=StoveBolts;631334]Everyone is born with that Godly light... It is part of being created in God's image.

So you are saying there is no Light without God?

 

[farouk]

The Lord Jesus said:

'If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness' (Matthew 6.23).

 

[childeye]

The Lord Jesus said:

'If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness' (Matthew 6.23).

You speak in the same riddles as our Lord. Always have these riddles invited us to ponder the meanings of such things. Surely if one thinks they see yet they do not, it is the same as one who thinks himself wise, rather than God the source of all wisdom.

 

[stovebolts]

So you are saying there is no Light without God?

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
John 1:2-3 The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.