davidylan:

Unfortunately the aim of this thread is NOT to see from the other perspective. Neither you nor the other atheists here are even bothering to engage in our own explanations, merely trotting out your own preconcieved ideas.

Really? Would you say the same if a christian(say noetic or kunleOshob) open this thread? Just asking.

this is total nonsense. Did you READ (rather than simply skim the parts you wish to see) Job at all? One thing the book of Job teaches us is simple - as christians we can approach God when we do not fully understand why we go through trials. [/b]Note God did not simply come down and beat down Job for daring to complain about his situation.

Well, i did not open the thread to judge answers(which am not even qualified to, anyway) but to see other viewpoints and attempt to rationalise(almost impossible for all beliefs). The bolded part above is decent enough, dont blow a gasket on NL.

Now you say God simply told Job all about "[b]superior stuff" . . . FOUL, read it again

So english does not cause another derailing of this thread, by "superior stuff", i just meant "God telling him how powerful he was, how he created the world and other things in Job's absence. Dont know what you interpreted it as. Whatever floats your boat.

God was merely telling Job the simple truth . . . if you can trust me to create everything that you see, can you not trust me that when i put you through a trial it is to achieve a righteous purpose, to enrich you, make your faith stronger and i will never forsake you in the midst of it?

Fine! Not arguing with that. Why do you have to goof up before saying something sensible?

- An idea does not have to "sit well with you" to either make sense or be right. Its just fine that the idea makes sense to others who can see beyond their deliberate unbelief.

Are you on drugs? Of course i know. I now need permissions to express myself?

- What is the problem with Job having his 10 kids replaced? Would you rather the dead kids were brought back to life?

Job knew those other 10 kids were now in heaven (which is why we are told God replenished him 2-fold).

Yes sir! Feel good now?

Pastor AIO:

But that useful piece by dint of being so convoluted does exactly what Noetic's post above does, ie. exposes the whole notion as ludicrous nonsense.

or perhaps u did not understand the subject of discourse.

noetic16:

OF course there will be . . .but its quite different there. As we would have put off the corruptible and put on the incorruptible . . .there will be no basis for lustful desires of the flesh.

Recall the angels in Genesis who could not keep their flies zipped after peeping at some helele babes bathing in the river? Now, they won't agree with you!

ilosiwaju:

Are you on drugs? Of course i know. I now need permissions to express myself?

No where did i insinuate that, you're just confused. Read again . . .

you said - Enough story, after all the trials and tribulations God restores Job, showing him sympathy Job 42:11. The part I want my christian folks to explain to me about Job is the IMO, the fuzzy idea of replacing ten children with another ten children. Am only human, the idea does not really sit well with me. I doubt if anyone feels comfortable with it as well.

Let me explain again. You have every right to express yourself without permission as you have done with this thread and the subsequent nonsense you have posted after it.

1. You say the "part you want christian folks to explain to you" . . . hmm on what basis did you develop the right to DEMAND explanation for your own preconcieved confusions as regards the bible?

2. You say the idea of God replacing Job's 10 kids with a further 10 kids is "fuzzy" . . . on what basis is this conclusion made? Ilosiwaju's theory of what is right? Exactly to whom is that "fuzzy"?

3. The idea doesnt sit well with you? And seriously this is a reason 1bn christians the world over shld suddenly rush over to "explain" "fuzzy" math to ilosiwaju? On what basis does that not "sit well with you"? Why? Can you EXPLAIN IN DETAIL?

4. You say you "doubt if anyone feels comfortable with it as well" . . . hmmm and you base this statistic on what exactly? Your own isolated and confused feelings? Since when did you start speaking for everyone else?

See, your posts have nothing to do with a right to express yourself . . . just the right to type nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.

ilosiwaju:

Really? Would you say the same if a christian(say noetic or kunleOshob) open this thread? Just asking.

probably not, as they would have framed their questions quite differently.

ilosiwaju:

Well, i did not open the thread to judge answers(which am not even qualified to, anyway) but to see other viewpoints and attempt to rationalise(almost impossible for all beliefs). The bolded part above is decent enough, dont blow a gasket on NL.

then why was it opened? to generate illogical arguments?

ilosiwaju:

So english does not cause another derailing of this thread, by "superior stuff", i just meant "God telling him how powerful he was, how he created the world and other things in Job's absence. Dont know what you interpreted it as. Whatever floats your boat.

And i explained what that portion of you raised meant. Didnt seem you were interested in the real answer though, you just cherrypicked and ignored the explanation.

ilosiwaju:

Fine! Not arguing with that. Why do you have to goof up before saying something sensible?

because i am sick of folks who come here to "debate" the bible without first reading it.

MyJoe:

Recall the angels in Genesis who could not keep their flies zipped after peeping at some helele babes bathing in the river? Now, they won't agree with you!

The bible described their sin as "Having left their abode" . . , implying that they simply disobeyed the commandments of God by leaving their heavenly abode. It is not a sin to pro-create, though its a sin to lust and fornicate.

That said . . .I believe I have already established basis to believe that angels and heavenly beings do have free will . . , else why would the scriptures state that we shall judge the angels?

I tire for david o.

davidylan:


You say you "doubt if anyone feels comfortable with it as well" . . . hmmm and you base this statistic on what exactly? Your own isolated and confused feelings? Since when did you start speaking for everyone else?

I believe you're human, then a christian. Just for a second if you can, put the bible aside and let me ask you: Will a compensation of 10 children console you(personally) of the loss of your initial 10. If those children that died were in heaven like you put, that was a piece of info Job was not aware of at the time so i will want you to educate me more on that.

_{watch your tone, you sound like abuzola.}

ilosiwaju:

I believe you're human, then a christian. Just for a second if you can, put the bible aside

Job answers this query here - Job 11: 7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?

Corinthians puts it better - 1 Cor 1 18 For[b] the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness[/b]; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

This here is the genesis of your problem, you cant simply "put the bible aside", then attempt to use human reasoning to rationalise the bible! It makes no sense at all. God is not bound by ilosiwaju's standards of what is sensible or not.

ilosiwaju:

and let me ask you: Will a compensation of 10 children console you(personally) of the loss of your initial 10.

As a human no, but as someone living with the VERY REAL HOPE of ETERNAL LIFE in Christ Jesus then YES. But to as many as are in spiritual darkness, the answer would be a confused no.

ilosiwaju:

If those children that died were in heaven like you put, that was a piece of info Job was not aware of at the time so i will want you to educate me more on that.

and on what basis did you make this assertion? Where did Job whisper this to you?

ilosiwaju:

_{watch your tone, you sound like abuzola.}

noted.

noetic16:

The bible described their sin as "Having left their abode" . . , implying that they simply disobeyed the commandments of God by leaving their heavenly abode. It is not a sin to pro-create, though its a sin to lust and fornicate.

That said . . .I believe I have already established basis to believe that angels and heavenly beings do have free will . . , else why would the scriptures state that we shall judge the angels?

I do not understand the point made in that^^^ post. But point I was making, in response to your post, is that the Genesis account does not give us ground to be sanguine that when we assume “incorruptibility” in heaven we would be imbued with immunity which will give us relief from temptation, particularly if “temptation” stands on two legs, in the form of a well-endowed nubile female with gravity defying jugs.

but spirit beings dont engage in sex (unless they take bodily form) . . .or do they?

If u refer to our dwelling in heaven . . then there is no basis for sexual temptation, .
but if u refer to our earthly reign at Christ's millennium rule . . . , there would be females like u highlighted. . . . but God had already decreed it a peaceful and righteous reign and so shall it be.

^^^ You are confusing me. My enquiry is based on the Genesis account where angels peeped from heaven at some girls taking their baths in a swimming pool and promptly went after them. That is the basis. It means spirit beings can be tempted by well-proportioned women to the point of doing something about it.

^^^

1. It is no secret that sexual urges account for 99.9% of reincarnation

2. THE POSITIVE SOMETHINGNESS (Male/ Light) AND THE NEGATIVE NOTHINGNESS (Feminine/ Darkness) ARE THE PRIMORDIAL INFLUENCES THAT DICTATE SEXUALITY AND AS SUCH THERE IS A NOTION OF SUCH INFLUENCES IN EVERY REALM OF EXISTENCE THOUGH EXPRESSED IN DIFFERING FORMS.

3. As such it is deducible that the GOD THAT IS may be positive in form, but is an eternal protrusion of the God that IS NOT: Mother of all existence is thus the negative nothingness.

@MyJoe:

Maybe the following will explain the believers' point of view

[1] Angels lived in Heaven
[2] They sinned and were cast out onto earth.
[3] They took on bodily forms
[4] The bodies they now "owned" allowed them to be able to lust after the women

Noetic simply says -> Spirit beings which is what they were IN heaven do not have such desires. It was only when they inhabited BODIES that such became an issue. Thus, a heaven in which there will exist only "spirit" beings is not a location for conjugal relations.

Consider that these "angels" are not stated to have deloped their lust (at least for women) in heaven but rather were on the earth and saw how tantalizing and bodacious beautiful the women were

Comprehende?

^^^ Nevertheless that is a story which contains stark internal inconsistencies that must trouble the objective and rational reader.

Here Goes.

Genesis Chapter 6.

1. And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them

2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men - that they were fair, and they took them wives as they chose

Q: SONS OF GOD? ? ? DO MY EYES DECEIVE ME? WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT CHRIST'S SUPPOSED UNIQUE HYPOSTASIS? HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH THE TERM "MONOGENES"? ? ?

3. And the Lord God said: My spirit shall not always strive with man: for that he also is flesh - yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Q: Interprete what the Lord God is driving at here.

5: And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth: and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

6: And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the Earth and it grieved him at his heart.

Q: Is it really conceivable for a perfect God, an unchangeable God, to "repent" of his actions? How does this square with his supposed omniscience? That he was omniscient supposes that he knew that things would turn out as such, and knew that he would grieve, and repent of making man - and yet went ahead - and then began to repent of his actions? This is an absurdity.

This shows that the construct of God derived from the OT is incongruous.

P.S: Please I am tired of your accusations. I ask these questions in sincerity as it does not make sense to me. Please do not revert accusing me of any particular prejudices or any particular "agenda."

I hope these questions will not surface again over and over whenever your lawyerliness decides they will strengthen his case. I will endeavor to settle them though I suspect it to be a pointless exercise.

Internal inconsistence (?) 1 - The issue of sons of God.

Maybe its high-time you downloaded e-sword. The translations therein will explain the problem you have in this. E-sword describes your "sons" to include and are NOT limited to - a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

So DeepSight, considering the word also refers to foals, arrows, boughs etc, what say you of the term "foals of God" or "rebel of God" or "robber of God"? We both know the english language is one of the most limited languages - acultural, bland and lacking imagination. Thus we find that the word translated as "sons" in the phrase "sons of God" is used only in the widest sense.

On the other hand, the word "Son" as used in describing Christ from the same source translates thus - a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.

Your argument is legalistic and is similar to saying "men are animals" means "animals are men".

Capishe?

Internal inconsistence (?) 2 - The issue of not always striving with man

Your question is a rehash of many in the past and again basically requires that I again go into the issue of a bridge being required between God and mankind. Allow us both preserve respect for each other rather than waste time on this. At the time (Gen 6) written/inview, the time for the bridge/peace/reconciliation was not yet, so strife it was that continued. The expected end (which came to pass on the cross) was that peace should come again between God and man.

Internal inconsistency (?) 3 Repentance of God

The word repent is translated thus - properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

To the above, I add "to shake head at". I think you'll understand that easily because I know your thought processes make you to "wonder" at us just as we "shake head at you". A man given choices who chooses the worst possible which is readily transparent to you would likely make you wonder. Exchange "A man" with "humankind" and "you" with "God" and you'll get my point. I think the problem is something in you rues the idea that there is an Almighty seeing whatever things you think are so "funny" you've done so you'd prefer a "distracted" or more "impersonal" God. I doubt you're alone in this though and in fact make bold to claim that the day you come across any professing Christian who hasn't gone past that position, tell him this chap says he's not a true christian. Sh.it happened to us all and we were ashamed to see the man in the mirror.

One last thing - Omnisience and omnipotence are inconsistent terms which cannot be justified. An all-knowing God and all-powerful God must be so powerful that He can do anything. That would include asking a question He himself cannot answer. That kills the all-knower. The all-knower would know things then that He cannot do also killing the all-powerful. The Bible is open for anyone to see - God gives Himself rules and does not go against His own Word. Once He says something, He is bound by it. That kills your omnisience argument. BTW, where do you get such arrant rubbish as Christian belief?

I expect the ferris-wheel upstairs to be going faster than light now, spinning to bring up attempts at rebutal of the last. Slow down though and think through that last paragraph again. There's something hidden there thats easy to miss if over-speeding.

Deep Sight:

2. THE POSITIVE SOMETHINGNESS (Male/ Light) AND THE NEGATIVE NOTHINGNESS (Feminine/ Darkness) ARE THE PRIMORDIAL INFLUENCES THAT DICTATE SEXUALITY AND AS SUCH THERE IS A NOTION OF SUCH INFLUENCES IN EVERY REALM OF EXISTENCE THOUGH EXPRESSED IN DIFFERING FORMS.

I think sexuality is material. If the influences you speak of exist, I doubt there would be cross-sexuality between dimensions. That is one of the reasons I don’t believe that Genesis story actually took place at a literal time (6000 years ago) and place (Middle-East).

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

Maybe the following will explain the believers' point of view

[1] Angels lived in Heaven
[2] They sinned and were cast out onto earth.
[3] They took on bodily forms
[4] The bodies they now "owned" allowed them to be able to lust after the women

Noetic simply says -> Spirit beings which is what they were IN heaven do not have such desires. It was only when they inhabited BODIES that such became an issue. Thus, a heaven in which there will exist only "spirit" beings is not a location for conjugal relations.

Consider that these "angels" are not stated to have deloped their lust (at least for women) in heaven but rather were on the earth and saw how tantalizing and bodacious beautiful the women were

Comprehende?

I guess that’s okay for a point of view. The verse doesn’t set things out in the order you do, but since they were “sons of God” the natural assumption would be that they were angels in heaven who saw beauty from their abode (heaven) and decided to put on material bodies. But as points of view go, I get yours here.

MyJoe:

I doubt there would be cross-sexuality between dimensions.

Note very carefully the distinctions within that which is put forth.

Note most carefully that the very act of human birth is possibly a sexual act that has introduced a sentient being from another realm into this realm.

In that regard there is conceivably already a manifest link bewtween se.xuality and spirituality. I may also discuss many other very apparent links.

Viewed in this context the possibilities are staggering: there is no reason to presume self-existent and natural forces such as positivity and negativity to be restricted to any one realm: they needs must pervade all that exist given their self existent nature: and given that all that exists is necessarily intertwined i cannot see any reason to deny that such influences may operate across realms and dimensions.

This is altogether different from stating that an immaterial spirit being may copulate in the physical.

nuclearboy:

. . .though I suspect it to be a pointless exercise.

Naaaa. . .its not that bad, big bro.

Maybe its high-time you downloaded e-sword. The translations therein will explain the problem you have in this. E-sword describes your "sons" to include and are NOT limited to - a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

So DeepSight, considering the word also refers to foals, arrows, boughs etc, what say you of the term "foals of God" or "rebel of God" or "robber of God"? We both know the english language is one of the most limited languages - acultural, bland and lacking imagination. Thus we find that the word translated as "sons" in the phrase "sons of God" is used only in the widest sense.

On the other hand, the word "Son" as used in describing Christ from the same source translates thus - a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.

Your argument is legalistic and is similar to saying "men are animals" means "animals are men".

Au contraire sir, you are most definitely being legalistic: for you set to me definitions of words whereas I do no such thing here: I observe in all simplicity that certain beings were different enough from the generality of mankind to be sepcifically and separately referred to as "the sons of God" - and described in very precise terms. I contrast this with the precept of Christ as monogenes - the only begotten son of God - whereas it forcefully emerges that this could not be correct because within scripture I can show you several who were in that same very special and unique sense referred to as sons of God.

Internal inconsistence (?) 2 - The issue of not always striving with man

Your question is a rehash of many in the past and again basically requires that I again go into the issue of a bridge being required between God and mankind. Allow us both preserve respect for each other rather than waste time on this. At the time (Gen 6) written/inview, the time for the bridge/peace/reconciliation was not yet, so strife it was that continued. The expected end (which came to pass on the cross) was that peace should come again between God and man.

This is not at home with the Biblical teaching that the lamb had already been slain from the foundation of the world.

Internal inconsistency (?) 3 Repentance of God

The word repent is translated thus - properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

To the above, I add "to shake head at". I think you'll understand that easily because I know your thought processes make you to "wonder" at us just as we "shake head at you". A man given choices who chooses the worst possible which is readily transparent to you would likely make you wonder. Exchange "A man" with "humankind" and "you" with "God" and you'll get my point. I think the problem is something in you rues the idea that there is an Almighty seeing whatever things you think are so "funny" you've done so you'd prefer a "distracted" or more "impersonal" God. I doubt you're alone in this though and in fact make bold to claim that the day you come across any professing Christian who hasn't gone past that position, tell him this chap says he's not a true christian. Sh.it happened to us all and we were ashamed to see the man in the mirror.

Fair enough but still falls far short of a Deity said to be the Alpha and Omega and transcendent in eternity.

One last thing - Omnisience and omnipotence are inconsistent terms which cannot be justified. An all-knowing God and all-powerful God must be so powerful that He can do anything. That would include asking a question He himself cannot answer. That kills the all-knower. The all-knower would know things then that He cannot do also killing the all-powerful. The Bible is open for anyone to see - God gives Himself rules and does not go against His own Word. Once He says something, He is bound by it. That kills your omnisience argument. BTW, where do you get such arrant rubbish as Christian belief?

Recently you have been feeding me pleasant morsels of surprise. I am deeply delighted at the above. Reminds me of the Nuclearboy, who, when I first read a post from him, I said quietly to myself: we have been gifted with a great mind and a great soul in this poster.

I expect the ferris-wheel upstairs to be going faster than light now, spinning to bring up attempts at rebutal of the last. Slow down though and think through that last paragraph again. There's something hidden there thats easy to miss if over-speeding.

Nope. . .I am at peace with that submission of yours. It is rational, balanced and sensible. It is my perspective as well. You may however be aware that many religious theists have an absolutist view of the precepts of omniscience and omnipotence.

While I am pleased at your submission, I must note that even in the absence of such attributes, a transcendental being to whom the creation of all that exists is attributed must certainly be slightly more choate and settled than that which is presented within the OT.

^^ I think you forget there is a difference between God and our "understanding" of Him. What you're trying to do is make sense of the difference between these two positions - likely a fruitless pursuit. My personal experience is of a Creator who is so close you cannot see Him and yet so far you can feel Him. You on the other hand would have Him "removed" and impersonal.

As to legalism, would you say I was legalist if I were to say nope, all animals are not men were you to say men are animals and thus vice-versa? Which is the point - the "precise terms" come from translation rather than reality.

DeepSight, from the beginning of time, we all know you will one day die. Are you dead? Again, you would have things intepreted as it suits you and I find that disconcerting and not in tandem with the mind I am reading. I believe you understand the idea that once sin entered, the plan of atonement came into being and it was as good as settled. Compare it to Abram being told he was a father of nations. Well, wasn't He when unveiled? These are almost childish level understandings, I'm sorry to say. Anytime you pick the bible, read it as a naija man knowing words are open-ended. The Lamb was indeed slain at the beginning - intent as good as reality.

Your expectation of God is at odds with what you presume the OT describes. Your presumption is wrong as it negates God Himself giving kudos to the understanding of men. Let me give you another view - that of God Himself. Once, He described Himself to Moses. He said he was "I AM THAT I AM". Not good, vengeful, poor, terrible, kind, whatever you may like to consider Him as BUT ENCOMPASSING ALL THESE AS WELL AS ALL THINGS/DESCRIPTIONS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE EXISTENCE. Wouldn't you say that is a better description since it comes from personage Himself? Why restrict yourself to what a "flawed" man put down and which was allowed since he was writing for "flawed" men like himself?

I think its all about personality and the fact that rules have been made which give God to have "human-like" characteristics (to our thinking). Used to be confusing in the past.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Nevertheless that is a story which contains stark internal inconsistencies that must trouble the objective and rational reader.

Here Goes.

Genesis Chapter 6.

1. And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them

2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men - that they were fair, and they took them wives as they chose

Q: SONS OF GOD? ? ? DO MY EYES DECEIVE ME? WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT CHRIST'S SUPPOSED UNIQUE HYPOSTASIS? HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH THE TERM "MONOGENES"? ? ?

The term SONS of God has many biblical connotations.

1. Jesus is described as the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God. This means that He is the only God-like "creature" in existence . . .that explains the Christian ideology that Jesus is God.

2. The angels are described as sons of God. . .but in the context of MESSENGERS. They are not heirs of the kingdom, they are not begotten of God, they are created beings who serve the Father. They would be judged by the ADOPTED sons of God in due time. Angels are referred to as the sons of God in a very different context to Jesus or earthly Christians.

3. Christians are referred to as the sons of God because they have been adopted by God for believing in Jesus. They are the heirs of eternal life. They have more authority than angels, they will judge the angels and will serve as kings and priests in the kingdom of God.

I hope that clarifies ur questions on the sons of God.

3. And the Lord God said: My spirit shall not always strive with man: for that he also is flesh - yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Q: Interprete what the Lord God is driving at here.

If you consider that prior to this statement, man had lived for hundreds of years before dying. . see the case of Adam (930 years) and Methuselah (960 years)

5: And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth: and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

6: And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the Earth and it grieved him at his heart.

Q: Is it really conceivable for a perfect God, an unchangeable God, to "repent" of his actions? How does this square with his supposed omniscience? That he was omniscient supposes that he knew that things would turn out as such, and knew that he would grieve, and repent of making man - and yet went ahead - and then began to repent of his actions? This is an absurdity. This shows that the construct of God derived from the OT is incongruous.

Your Submission is very faulty.

The same free-will man abused to become evil is the same free-will that angels use with wisdom to remain in the presence of God. The scriptures clearly teach that God does not want the death of sinners but wishes that all would repent. God repented of creating man because of man's refusal to repent of his evil deeds. does this repentance erode the omniscient of God? . . , No it does not. . because God already told Adam that the day u eat if this fruit, you shall die . . . .that death (which is a separation from God) is what brought evil into the world.

and DS ran away

The only way to understand suffering in this world is to accept that there is no God as we know it. If you want to know that there is no God, you just go to any big hospital and visit the children’s ward. You will see innocent children, new-born babies who start suffering from the day they were born, and live short, miserable and painful lives!
I used to wonder whether a supposedly omniscient God was seeing all these children going all through this. Inevitably, you will conclude that: It is either this God is not omniscient (he cannot see these babies suffering) or he is not omnipotent (he can see it but he cannot do anything about it) Or, he is omnipotent, but refuses to do anything about it - which is even worse. He is even supposed to have foreseen the suffering and prevented it, either by not creating these malformed babies in the first place (since he is said to have created these babies in the first place) or healing them instantaneously. Or does he enjoy seeing babies suffer? Or he wants to be begged first? Heads or tails, this concept of God falls flat on its face when subjected to scrutiny.

In other words, there is no evidence that God exists.

Suffering is an effect of sin in the world. It may not necessarily be the sin of the sufferer. In Heaven, no more suffering. So make plans to be there, there's a lot of real suffering for hell participants.