If God Loved everyone !

[mondar]

So, do YOU believe that I "as you would call a goat" deserve to be punished because god CHOSE me to be so? Do you believe that it is a moral and ethical thing that god will do to me. . . . because he chose that torturous Hell for me, something I had no control over?

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

 

[Morpheus]

Sorry about intruding into your conversation...

About the choosing...

There is a lot of missunderstanding about what is Hell and Heaven.

Orion, dude, you alone choses this destiny. But maybe you need to understand it more deeply.

God won't throw anyone in HEll. Why He would do this? The only problem is one. Let me show you other aspect of this....with my poor english;-).

All this world we are living in, is Word of God, the reality is created by Him, we are projection, personafication of His Image and Personality and Substanse, even in the matter, as it is said, God give his light to the good and to the evil people, to everyone.

And in the time, we are aware, our consciousness is matterialized, have body, we can feed, we can feel (love, hate, jealousy). We exist. We can transform our desires into reality. We can feel any satisfaction about this.

But if we don't want to be with God in Heaven, God won't put us there by force, He will just take back His reality from us. His sun, warmness, love, everything you need to exist. Everything your body and soul needs. And this will be hell for you. Because everything you know is part of Hi, every good and bad also, because even the bad have good purpose in GOd's plan.

You will have only your soul (which in fact is not yours), but you can't feed your soul, your senses...Because everything we have now is because of Him, and this is hell, ...this is the punishment, which you choose. Of course the problem is that you don't understand really what you choose. What feels like. To be in the nothing. Maybe that is why the demons were begging Jesus to put them into the pigs, but not into the abyss...

About God, well, he is out of the time, and He knows your choises, He knows what is going to be your destiny. That is why He can say who is the goat and the good sheep. But in this reality, now, we can change this.


I hope you understand my point. Again my english is really bad for such complex stuff.

 

[Orion]

So, do YOU believe that I "as you would call a goat" deserve to be punished because god CHOSE me to be so? Do you believe that it is a moral and ethical thing that god will do to me. . . . because he chose that torturous Hell for me, something I had no control over?

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

I don't want a bible verse. I want YOUR opinion. And savedbygrace's, too.

 

[RND]

My going to heaven and your going to hell, is not because I was better than you, or less sinful than you, but because God cose me over you for His own reason and purpose.. So that causes Gods elect to be humble before God and greatly appreciative of His Sovereign grace, realizing if it had not been so, we too would be heading for a christless eternity in hell..

You must not be chosen then because I haven't seen any humility in you whatsoever.

 

[mondar]

So, do YOU believe that I "as you would call a goat" deserve to be punished because god CHOSE me to be so? Do you believe that it is a moral and ethical thing that god will do to me. . . . because he chose that torturous Hell for me, something I had no control over?

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

I don't want a bible verse. I want YOUR opinion. And savedbygrace's, too.

Do you want the apostle Pauls opinion? Read the verse, is it not the same exact question you asked?

Nevertheless. How do you know your a goat?

 

[Orion]

If I can be blunt, I really don't care about Paul's opinion. What I am very interested in is the opinion of you [and savedbygrace] if it is ethical/moral to make "goats who are to be sent to hell to fullfill some divine will of god, and that which would be completely out of their [the goats] control". That is what I'm after. YOUR opinion. . . . . to find out if you're good with this sort of mindset.

Thank you.

As for me, . . . I'm pretty certain that I would be considered "a goat". After a childhood/young adult/adult time trying to "connect with the christian god", and coming away from it empty, . . . then doing research, finding new things about it that I hadn't considered/heard before, . . . I'm pretty certain that I'm "a goat". It isn't that I reject any god, I just don't find christianity to be something I can embrace anymore.

 

[glorydaz]

orion asked:

For the sake of argument, . . . let's say that I was bound, from the beginning, to be "a goat". What purpose does it serve to MAKE people to be punished for all eternity?

I have already answered that..for the purpose of election rom 9:

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

If you are a goat, God did it to show the difference His Sovereign choice of election of grace makes..

My going to heaven and your going to hell, is not because I was better than you, or less sinful than you, but because God cose me over you for His own reason and purpose.. So that causes Gods elect to be humble before God and greatly appreciative of His Sovereign grace, realizing if it had not been so, we too would be heading for a christless eternity in hell..

Oh my...that's a horrible thing to believe.
Let's look at Jacob and Esau, shall we?

You believe God has foreknowlege.
Guess what He saw when He looked at Esau...before Esau ever was born, God saw this...

And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.

Now tell us again that it doesn't matter who's better or less sinful.

God saw Esau's heart before Esau was ever born. He hated the evil he saw.
Deny that til the cows come home to further your doctrine, but it's wrong and so are you.

 

[mondar]

If I can be blunt, I really don't care about Paul's opinion. What I am very interested in is the opinion of you [and savedbygrace] if it is ethical/moral to make "goats who are to be sent to hell to fullfill some divine will of god, and that which would be completely out of their [the goats] control". That is what I'm after. YOUR opinion. . . . . to find out if you're good with this sort of mindset.

Thank you.

As for me, . . . I'm pretty certain that I would be considered "a goat". After a childhood/young adult/adult time trying to "connect with the christian god", and coming away from it empty, . . . then doing research, finding new things about it that I hadn't considered/heard before, . . . I'm pretty certain that I'm "a goat". It isn't that I reject any god, I just don't find christianity to be something I can embrace anymore.

OK, my opinion is that yes, the difference between God and us is for to great for us to complain about anything, in anyway, ever. However, the very idea of complaining is evidence that we do not properly understand the distance between God and ourselves. We are a simple creation, and in now way equal with the creator, the uncreated. In essence, we have no rights.

This is especially true since from Adam, we have inherited human nature that is naturally in rebellion against the creator. We devise ideas that justify our rebellion. We attack God. We wrestle with God and make him the bad guy and ourselves just and good. (Is this not what you are doing right now). This is normally based upon the concept that our rebellion is not as bad as it seems.

Orion, your a fairly sophisticated, smart person. Surely you have observed the difference between some Calvinists and our Arminian counterparts. You use the same arguments as they do. There are 2 great differences.
1---The great difference is not how we view God (as a just divine judge) but how we view man. In Arminianism man does bad things, but is not an evil creature. In Calvinism, we not only do bad things, we are bad. We are evil. In Calvinism, God would be just even if he sent all creation to hell. And God will manifest his justice nearly in that way. But he also manifests his glorious love.
2---The other difference is that God has made creation completely for his own Glory. It is for his glory to manifest his justice (by judging sinners) and by manifesting his love (in the salvation of the elect). Some Arminians might claim to believe that creation is solely to manifest the glory of God, but then will put forth the glorious free will of man. To Calvinist ears, the free will of man will always sound like a denial of the sinfulness of man. It will always sound like man sharing in Gods glory.

Well, now I am expecting a straitforward denial that God cannot be so great as to deserve all the glory. He cannot be so far above his creation as to have the right to do with it as he pleases. I admit, I think this does not make God an ogre, but it makes him the sovereign majestic glorious God that he is.

 

[Orion]

mondar, . . . though you didn't actually answer my question [Do YOU think it is ethical/moral for god to create those who he purposefully sends to hell, for his pleasure], . . . but I will address some of what you said.

1. "we have inherited human nature that is naturally in rebellion against the creator"

-> And this "inheriting of a sin nature", because of "the sin of the first man damns us all" is fundamentally immoral and unethical. Any being who holds accountable the offspring of "the fallen" [not going to get into the "tree of good and evil" problem and the "chicken and the egg paradox" with it] is absolutely UNjust.

2. " We wrestle with God and make him the bad guy and ourselves just and good. (Is this not what you are doing right now). This is normally based upon the concept that our rebellion is not as bad as it seems."

-> Compared to what is said of god in the Old Testament, I am more ethical and moral. I would never claim that I am "all good", . . . but I don't see the god portrayed in the OT as "all good" either.

3. "Calvinism, God would be just even if he sent all creation to hell." "The other difference is that God has made creation completely for his own Glory. It is for his glory to manifest his justice (by judging sinners) and by manifesting his love (in the salvation of the elect). "

-> And this is why I am more ethical and moral. I don't hold a grudge against those who sin against me. . . > I would certainly never be so petty as to require an infinite punishment for finite "crimes", and if someone chose to NOT "love me", I would wish them well as they go on their way. Being angry at people for NOT "being perfect" is a primative characteristic.

4. "Well, now I am expecting a straitforward denial that God cannot be so great as to deserve all the glory. He cannot be so far above his creation as to have the right to do with it as he pleases. I admit, I think this does not make God an ogre, but it makes him the sovereign majestic glorious God that he is."

-> And we come to the crux of the matter, . . . and is the MOST important question of this thread. WHY does god deserve to do what he pleases? Why can he summarily pass judgement AND send PRE-selected people to a torturous punishment, regardless of the fact that it is unethical do to so?

 

[savedbygrace57]

glory says:

Oh my...that's a horrible thing to believe.

Thats because you reject the True God..

 

[Orion]

Hey, savedbygrace, . . . I'm still awaiting your answer to my question, "Do YOU think it is ethical/moral for god to create those who he purposefully sends to hell, for his pleasure?" Remember that these people will have NO say in the matter, . . . . .and it [hell] is GOING TO HURT!!! . . . . . For eternity.....

 

[Veritas]

Do YOU think it is ethical/moral for god to create those who he purposefully sends to hell, for his pleasure

I know I'm interupting here, and I know this question wasn't posed to me (I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian but somewhere inbetween) but I wanted to answer it.

I would say yes to the first part:
Do YOU think it is ethical/moral for god to create those who he purposefully sends to hell,
But no if you add the second part to it:
Do YOU think it is ethical/moral for god to create those who he purposefully sends to hell, for his pleasure

Thats all. If you have questions let me know.

 

[mondar]

mondar, . . . though you didn't actually answer my question [Do YOU think it is ethical/moral for god to create those who he purposefully sends to hell, for his pleasure], . . . but I will address some of what you said.

To answer you question plainly, yes, God is ethical/moral to create those who begin in innocence, but later choose evil. Certainly God cannot create them evil, for then God is the author of evil.

God can create Adam innocent with the intent that he should fall into sin and rebellion, and still be just when he sends those who are a part of that rebellion to hell. Someone might complain that it is unrighteous for all mankind to be in Adam (federal headship). That is a meaningless complain for we all would do the same things if we were in Adam's shoes. Adam is the representative head only in that he did what we would have done had we been there.

So then, he can create Adam innocent, and know that Adam would fall, and even want Adam to fall, and still be just. God simply did not create Adam evil, and that is a major point in understanding the justice or "ethical/moral" God.

God can create Adam with the intent that he should fall, but since God created him innocent, God is not directly responsible for his fall. In other words, God did not participate in the evil of Adam.

The problem is NOT that God created Adam with the intent that Adam should fall, the problem is that God cannot manifest the glory of his lovingkindnes to the maximum greatest extent unless evil actually exists. God cannot completely manifest his the glory of his loving kindness if evil is only potential. It must be actual. Of course God must punish evil and sin.

This leads to the crosswork of Christ. God demonstrated that he can love and forgive sinners in the cross, but he also demonstrated his justice in that he must punish sin. (I want to mention that one of the great differences between the Calvinistic view of the Atonement and other views, is that many do not see the atonement as penal. I of course believe God in his justice must provide a penal atonement. See below (1) )

So then, God can create Adam innocent (neither good nor evil) knowing that he will fall into sin. God can punish him for the sin he absolutely knew he would fall into if he created Adam and God is still just, and ethical and moral.

(1) 25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;
26 for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.
---Christ is the propitiation---a propitiation is the gift that turns away wrath. Gods wrath is of course the penal part of the atonement. Notice how in verse 26, how God is just (moral/ethical) and the one who makes some just (through penal-substutitionary atonement and propitiation).
---The atonement demonstrates both. God is just, and the justifier.

 

[Orion]

So, . . . "God cannot manifest the glory of his lovingkindnes to the maximum greatest extent unless evil actually exists". . . . thus he is willing to let the majority of all human creation spend an eternity in punishment for not being able to be "perfect", all when we all inherited the "sin nature" that made it impossible for us to resist it. And you believe that this is actually ethical to create this setup JUST so he [god] can get some glory?? You do remember that Hell is full of misery and pain! . . . . . Hell didn't have to be eternal!

And to satisfy his anger towards us sinners, he sacrifices himself to satisfy a rule that he made. A rule where the "sin" of one man damns everyone else born [another unethical point], creating an "animal sacrificial system" for atonement, and THAT system ultimately being imperfect [I though anything god set up would be perfect!!], and a system that could have easily been satisfied with god coming to a place were he would just forgive.

Because of your confession that you believe this system [penalty for sin of the majority so that a SMALL reminent would praise him] is, to you, perfectly fine, . . . then I believe that you should really re-evaluate such things. The above system is not moral or ethical, and you really don't don't think so either, though you say you do. Here's why:

For example, if you had 4 kids, would you decide to love one of your kids but condemn the other three to the basement, where you would mistreat them for the rest of their life, showing them no mercy, JUST because you could, and it showed the ONE child, that you decided to love, just how much you loved him/her, . . . would you do so? Of course you wouldn't, . . .but this is pretty much what this hyper-calvanistic theology promotes.

 

[mondar]

So, . . . "God cannot manifest the glory of his lovingkindnes to the maximum greatest extent unless evil actually exists" thus he is willing to let the majority of all human creation spend an eternity in punishment for not being able to be "perfect", all when we all inherited the "sin nature" that made it impossible for us to resist it.

Misses the point.... I did mentioned that had we been in Adams shoes, we would have done the same as Adam. It is true, we cannot resist evil, but even if we had been directly created innocent, and been able to choose good, we would not have chosen good. It is true we cannot help being evil, but that is irrelevant.

And you believe that this is actually ethical to create this setup JUST so he [god] can get some glory?? You do remember that Hell is full of misery and pain! . . . . . Hell didn't have to be eternal!

Of course I believe God is just in the scenario I presented. He is just, and righteous, and good, and has manifest his lovingkindness. I am not sure why you ask this. Are we not communicating somewhere?

And to satisfy his anger towards us sinners, he sacrifices himself to satisfy a rule that he made. A rule where the "sin" of one man damns everyone else born [another unethical point],

Again, had we been there, we would have done the same, so why is it so unethical. Adam was simply a sample of a cut of the same cloth.

creating an "animal sacrificial system" for atonement, and THAT system ultimately being imperfect [I though anything god set up would be perfect!!], and a system that could have easily been satisfied with god coming to a place were he would just forgive.

The law was holy, and just, and good. It was never given for the purpose of changing mans nature and saving. So then it is not imperfect. The animal sacrificial system fulfilled its purpose perfectly. The law never made anything perfect, but it was not imperfect in itself.

Because of your confession that you believe this system [penalty for sin of the majority so that a SMALL reminent would praise him] is, to you, perfectly fine, . . . then I believe that you should really re-evaluate such things. The above system is not moral or ethical, and you really don't don't think so either, though you say you do. Here's why:

For example, if you had 4 kids, would you decide to love one of your kids but condemn the other three to the basement, where you would mistreat them for the rest of their life, showing them no mercy, JUST because you could, and it showed the ONE child, that you decided to love, just how much you loved him/her? Of course you wouldn't, . . .but this is pretty much what this hyper-calvanistic theology promotes.

Easy on the term "hypercalvanistic." I am not a hyperCalvinist. If you think I am can you substantiate the charge? Few know the difference between hyper-Calvinist and Calvinist, but it is an important difference. The term is often used as an ad-hom.

Nevertheless, your illustration totally breaks down. In your illustration the children are guilty of nothing. They are innocent. So the illustration does not apply. Let me give you my illustration.

The governor of the state has 10 murder/rapists on death row. He pardons 2. Is this governor unjust because he left the other 8 to their fate?

 

[Orion]

No, your example fails . . . because the governor never professes a deep dying love for any of those convicts. My example doesn't fail/breakdown. Regardless of what any of the kids have done, you will choose to love one of them, and hate the other three, punishing them for being born.

If you believe that this system that god setup is actually ethical, then I question your ability to reason morally. You may see this as me "bashing your integrity", but look at what you said you believe IS ethical!

Let me say that, for the record, the story of adam and eve is a fictitious story. But for argument sake, let's say it wasn't, and I was there, instead of Adam. I would have been the one without the "knowledge of good and evil". How could I have made a "choice to do evil" if I hadn't been given THAT knowledge? The whole story is nothing better than a setup. If I knew that it was wrong to "eat that fruit", then I would have already been given the knowledge of good and evil, . . . .so the tree would be redundant.

I must comment to this point you made, "and been able to choose good, we would not have chosen good. It is true we cannot help being evil, but that is irrelevant." So, as you stated, God created us to be evil, just as Adam was created to fall. It was all part of the plan. And it is of the uttmost relevance that, for how we were made, god takes that and punishes FOR it. However, he [god] doesn't have to answer for the things he did, right? Innocent babies killed in the flood or via maurading Hebrews. Their life was taken from them, . . . which would be unethical. So, . . . why is it that god can do whatever he wants?

 

[Hugo]

I'm convinced that no amount of theological gymnastics can reconcile eternal punishment with a God of love.

 

[Orion]

I agree, Hugo, . . . but the common phrase is "yes, but he's also a god of justice". However, they fail to recognize the complete LACK of a moral/ethical justice in sending people to a tortuous Hell for eternity for basically a "thought crime", or having been born into a society who never heard of God [and Romans 1:20 doesn't satisfy their lack of hearing either]. It is a slam against humanity, this idea that "no one would do good, but actually DESIRE to do evil". I don't! That's a fact. I do things that aren't all that great, but it isn't as though I strive to do them, and I'm sorry for when I do them. Yet, I would be placed in the company of the highest of reprobate even for a single benign fault, just because it isn't "perfect". Talk about holding a grudge.

 

[mondar]

No, your example fails . . . because the governor never professes a deep dying love for any of those convicts. My example doesn't fail/breakdown. Regardless of what any of the kids have done, you will choose to love one of them, and hate the other three, punishing them for being born.

If God loves all men, he does not love them equally. He might love some enough to save them, and others he loves enough to give them a little more time, but then will still judge them.

I dont love everyone the same. I love my wife and my children and would probably give my life for them. I love my friends, but would probably not go as far as I would with my family.

So then, if the governor of my illustration "never professes a deep dying love for any of the convicts" that would be true to life. Well, at least he professes a deep and dying love for at least two of them.

If you believe that this system that god setup is actually ethical, then I question your ability to reason morally. You may see this as me "bashing your integrity", but look at what you said you believe IS ethical!

Let me say that, for the record, the story of adam and eve is a fictitious story. But for argument sake, let's say it wasn't, and I was there, instead of Adam. I would have been the one without the "knowledge of good and evil". How could I have made a "choice to do evil" if I hadn't been given THAT knowledge? The whole story is nothing better than a setup. If I knew that it was wrong to "eat that fruit", then I would have already been given the knowledge of good and evil, . . . .so the tree would be redundant.

I perceive that we disagree on what good and evil actually is. You seem to think that there is a moral objective standard apart from God that God must live up to. I would say that God himself defines good and evil. Without God, there is no such thing as good and evil.

Now to the story of Adam and Eve. I think you mis read the story. Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not evil in and of itself. If Adam had passed the test, and not eaten of the fruit, then I believe God would have ordered him to eat of the tree. What made the eating of the tree evil was that God had ordered him not to eat of the tree. So in disobeying God, Adam learned the difference between good and evil, but he learned it from the perspective of evil. Had he obeyed, he would have learned it from the perspective of good. The tree itself was not a magical tree that can impart a certain knowledge. The tree was probably any ordinary tree. It was the command that made it a tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Because God is God, he can order Adam not to eat, or to eat. Adam was a mere creature and owed obedience to his creator.

***I see a huge gulf between us. It is too obvious that my theology is God centered, yours places man in the center of the universe. I see all creation as revolving around God, you see it as revolving around man. If you are an atheist, you are true to your presuppositions. If you are a theist, how can you have such a small God?

I must comment to this point you made, "and been able to choose good, we would not have chosen good. It is true we cannot help being evil, but that is irrelevant." So, as you stated, God created us to be evil, just as Adam was created to fall. It was all part of the plan. And it is of the uttmost relevance that, for how we were made, god takes that and punishes FOR it. However, he [god] doesn't have to answer for the things he did, right? Innocent babies killed in the flood or via maurading Hebrews. Their life was taken from them, . . . which would be unethical. So, . . . why is it that god can do whatever he wants?

Again, when you illustrate, you always point to sinless, innocent babies. Of course that is something I cannot agree to. Are babies under sin? If they are under death, they are under sin. Death entered into the world through sin (Romans 5). In Adam all die. If the baby that died were in Adams shoes, they would have done the same thing as Adam. The baby that dies in the flood is no more innocent then Adam, or Stalin, or Hitler. We are all guilty.

I notice in every illustration you make we have a great distance of understanding of human nature. First you mentioned the parents with 4 innocent children, now the babies in the flood. It is way to obvious that you do not believe in sin, or the evil nature of mankind.

I think the differences between us go far deeper to irreconcilable presuppositions. There are no innocent babies in the flood, no innocent children in the basement, and no innocent men in the world. We are all as guilty as Adam of rebellion before God. We all would have done the same thing as Adam. We will all be under the judgment of God and his judgment will be just. But his lovingkindness will be shown to some of us who have faith. Yet even then, it is totally by grace, for he gives faith. We are all too sinful to get it ourselves.

Will you tell me you really don't deserve that judgment? You are really not that bad? There is always someone worse. But who draws that line, you or God?

 

[mondar]

I'm convinced that no amount of theological gymnastics can reconcile eternal punishment with a God of love.

Either that, or God does not love all in the same way.