₦airaland Forum

Wilgrea7:
I'm sorry.. but how are you not seeing that the very verse you quoted is saying the exact same thing I was trying to say. It says "You will be like God, knowing good and evil".

It is clearly defined there, that the proposed god-like qualities in that verse is not ruling over the heavens and the earth and whatnot. It's knowing good and evil.

The verse didn't say "for you will be like God, ruler of the universe".. It clearly stated the qualities of God it was referring to. None of which are a threat to sovereignty. None, nearly as serious as trying to literally overthrow God with a third of his army.

The funny part is that, even if satan had said they would be like God, in the sense of ruling the universe (which he did NOT say) it still wouldn't be a thread to God's sovereignty.

As an example, if i gave your child an apple, and told them, "if you eat the apple, you'll be big and strong like your mommy, and be able to drive anywhere you want"... would you feel threatened? Does the claim match up with reality?

There's no outcome of them eating the fruit that would have in any way, posed a threat to God's sovereignty. Nothing as close as satan literally fighting God with a third of his own army. How is this even something we're disagreeing on?



To fit what narrative? What have I said about the story that didn't happen as said in the bible?



Yes, you corrected me, and i took the correction. And I said even if it happened after, it still doesn't validate your argument, and I explained why



What ??



Not being under someone's rule, and planning to overthrow the person, are not the same thing ma'am.

I'm tired of repeating the same thing. Someone else might explain better.

And I'm also lost in your train of argument. Sorry about that.

Bye

RoyalDiadems:
What I stated are from my own personal reasoning. God never gave us His reasons for His actions. He's infinitely wise, you don't need to dabble into things you don't know.

Actually, I do, I can, and I most absolutely will. The claim of your God being infinitely wise, or infinitely good, or infinitely holy, has been used as an excuse to justify a lot of outright dumb things, that make absolutely no sense to any logical being.

Once again, I mean this with no disrespect, but you cannot continue to hide sheer incompetence (on behalf of your God), under the guise of infinite wisdom. If his actions make no sense on the grounds of the information provided, let us be honest enough to say so. But let's also be honest enough to NOT assume some sort of hidden higher purpose

Making reference to things like infinite wisdom, is the same as someone excusing horrible acts like genocide, as committed in the old testament, or by religious terrorists today, as infinite wisdom, or God's ways being above ours. It's a very dangerous game that often comes to bite you back.

I made a thread about things like this recently. Maybe it'll help you understand my point better.

https://www.nairaland.com/7304517/people-try-justify-barbaric-acts

However, the verse I quoted gives a clue. The bolded part makes us understand that God didn't want to leave the earth empty. Looking at all His activities throughout scripture, it appears He didn't want to create another set of human beings either. The reasons for that was not disclosed.

That doesn't automatically make it justifiable, or logical to let sin spread. I gave the example of a gardener. Laziness, or unwillingness to start all over again when something is wrong, is not an excuse for letting things go bad.

I gave the example of the garden. The gardener not wanting to plant new plants, is not an excuse for letting the infected flowers go and multiply all through the garden, while still claiming to hate the infection. It just makes the gardener appear lazy, or indecisive, like who can't pick a struggle.

Now, did God put Satan side by side His weak humans? No, you're completely wrong. God didn't create man weak. He gave him a lot of authority and dominion. Then, covered man with His Glory. Not only that, He paid regular visit to man on a daily basis.

And that somehow makes them stronger than the guy who revolted with a third of God's army? That aside, the ignorance of Adam and Eve, not having knowledge of good and evil, makes them way more intellectually inferior to satan.. or maybe that's just how I'm seeing it.

Also, He placed man in an enclosed garden, secluded from the open earth where Satan roamed. How Satan gained access into the garden is unknown to us.

Sounds like your God needs to upgrade his security system. He could station angels with flaming swords to keep adam and eve out, but couldn't keep a snake out?

But we know that Adam didn't fall, Eve did. Adam only joined Eve in eaten that fruit so that Eve would not be alone in her dilemma. It was out of love and concern for his wife.

The fault was largely Adam's. He should have secured his family better than he did.

Nope... the story does not imply such. I'd appreciate if we stick to the biblical narratives, rather than what we think happened between the lines.

God only told us the few things He wanted us to know. He's not accountable to man, so He can reserve the details He wishes to reserve (Deuteronomy 29:29). We as humans have imperfect knowledge, we cannot use that to judge the actions of an infinitely wise God.

I've already addressed the concept of being infinitely wise up above, so I won't dwell on it here.

Moving on, if your God wants to reserve and keep away reasonable details, and only give us the ones that make him look like he doesn't know how to handle situations properly, then he cannot blame us for doubting him.

You cannot give someone a story that makes you look "not so smart", and blame them when they see you as such.

ChocolateWine:
I'm tired of repeating the same thing. Someone else might explain better.

And I'm also lost in your train of argument. Sorry about that.

Bye

I understand your arguments completely. Perhaps you're the one who isn't considering my points.

Either ways, it was nice being able to have a discussion like this. Have a nice evening

Wilgrea7:
Happy Sunday beautiful people

So I'll get straight to the point. Sin.

It's the one thing God can't stand. The one thing that goes against his nature so much, that an iota of it warrants him to burn you for all eternity. You get the drift.

How did sin come into this world? Well, through Adam and Eve of course. They ate a fruit and it pissed the big sky daddy off.

They had corrupted his perfect design and whatnot. And what does God do?

Being an all knowing God, who is supposed to know the end from the beginning.. he knew they would sin and still made them... But let's not dwell on that.

God also knew, that the very thing he hated, which was sin, would be multiplied millions of folds if Adam and Eve bore children. So what did he do?

A. Make Eve barren so sin stops then and there
B. Allow the population of the world, and the sin he so hates, to increase literally billions of folds, so he can send himself to get shanked on a cross a couple thousand years later.

Well.. the answer is unfortunately B. The Christian God seems to have one of the worst damage control measures known to humanity.

It's the equivalent of seeing a small fire in your kitchen, having the ability to put it out right there, but sitting idly by and letting the entire house catch on fire, only to send a bucket of water when the house is about to collapse.

If God hates sin so much, why didn't he get rid of it during the time of Adam and Eve? Why let the thing you hate so much multiply exponentially.. even though you had the power to stop it??

If you had an infection, would you let it consume your entire body before treating it?

If such an action makes absolutely no sense in the real world, then why does it make sense in your religion??

If God gets rid of sin before it happens on what basis will He judge the world? An examiner must not interfere in the exam. He must not tell a candidate "hey you got number two all wrong, try this technique". He must not tell another candidate "hey you go number three right carry on". He must not stop the exam before the stipulated time and He must allow everyone the same amount of resources needed to write the exam. He must not be biased or take sides...this is the basis for the examiner to judge everyone equally using a single standard or marking scheme. So the reason God allows evil to happen is the same reason He allows good to happen so that at the end of the day every man, woman, old and young will receive their reward or punishment as their works may be.

efficiencie:
If God gets rid of sin before it happens on what basis will He judge the world? An examiner must not interfere in the exam. He must not tell a candidate "hey you got number two all wrong, try this technique". He must not tell another candidate "hey you go number three right carry on". He must not stop the exam before the stipulated time and He must allow everyone the same amount of resources needed to write the exam. He must not be biased or take sides...this is the basis for the examiner to judge everyone equally using a single standard or marking scheme. So the reason God allows evil to happen is the same reason He allows good to happen so that at the end of the day every man, woman, old and young will receive their reward or punishment as their works may be.

Very poor analogy
...but the school authorities or examiners do not hate F9s .. infact most would be glad you come back for more tuition.

But god hates sin...why allow it spread...
that's the argument of op....

Wilgrea7:
Yeah.. because being sensible involves insulting the other party in a discussion.
Move along sir

You buy data, charge your device, spend time cracking your brains for hours all just to debate religion for the fun of it no benefits!

Glory be to JEHOVAH who has empowered His worshipers with wisdom in this time of the end otherwise you fools will just come up claiming you're sensible whereas in reality you're all senseless!

Wilgrea7:
Dtruthspeaker.. it's been a while since you insulted me.. this should do it

MaxinDhouse .. feel free to jump in on this as well

elated177 .. feel free to issue your threats

All other contributions are also highly welcome

What threats? Where did I issue threats?

Broveens42:
Very poor analogy
...but the school authorities or examiners do not hate F9s .. infact most would be glad you come back for more tuition.

But god hates sin...why allow it spread...
that's the argument of op....

I was merely abstracting from reality. The question was if God hates sin so much then why does he allow it multiply and in my explanation I mentioned that GOD does not interfere in the deeds of men if he is to be a righteous judge. If a judge can control your action and determine what you do with robotic accuracy then he loses the right to judge you. It's that simple. F9 is not a palatable grade. Examiners know it and candidates in an exam know it. If after educating the students they all get F9 the lecturer of that course will be highly disappointed and the school authorities will doubt the professional capacity of the lecturer. So yes, contrary to your hypothesis, lecturers who have the best interest of the students at heart, as GOD does for all humanity, are expected to hate F9 as well. But no matter how much hatred the lecturer has for F9 he is not permitted to influence students in an exam just GOD will not influence the deeds of men.

efficiencie:
I was merely abstracting from reality. The question was if God hates sin so much then why does he allow it multiply and in my explanation I mentioned that GOD does not interfere in the deeds of men if he is to be a righteous judge. If a judge can control your action and determine what you do with robotic accuracy then he loses the right to judge you. It's that simple. F9 is not a palatable grade. Examiners know it and candidates in an exam know it. If after educating the students they all get F9 the lecturer of that course will be highly disappointed and the school authorities will doubt the professional capacity of the lecturer. So yes, contrary to your hypothesis, lecturers who have the best interest of the students at heart, as GOD does for all humanity, are expected to hate F9 as well. But no matter how much hatred the lecturer has for F9 he is not permitted to influence students in an exam just GOD will not influence the deeds of men.

Could your deity have created you with the ability not to sin?

efficiencie:
If God gets rid of sin before it happens on what basis will He judge the world? An examiner must not interfere in the exam. He must not tell a candidate "hey you got number two all wrong, try this technique". He must not tell another candidate "hey you go number three right carry on". He must not stop the exam before the stipulated time and He must allow everyone the same amount of resources needed to write the exam. He must not be biased or take sides...this is the basis for the examiner to judge everyone equally using a single standard or marking scheme. So the reason God allows evil to happen is the same reason He allows good to happen so that at the end of the day every man, woman, old and young will receive their reward or punishment as their works may be.

I applaud your analogy. However, it does not in any way relate to the situation of sin and the fall of man as seen in the bible. I'll explain.

First of all, an exam is planned. It is intended. Most, if not all Christians, agree that the fall of man was not God's intention. He created man to rule over the planet, and eating the fruit messed up that plan and brought the fall of man. So that doesn't really follow.

Again, the test analogy fails, because it doesn't take into account several things, like satan's influence, the nature of sin, and the exponential increase of the population, which also increased sin exponentially.

I'm going to be generous and try to merge your teacher exam analogy with the biblical story so you'll see my point. Let's say it is indeed a test. Adam and eve are the initial students. Sin is the wrong answer on the test. And let's say God, hates wrong answers, with passion

You claimed God does not interfere until the test is over. He lets the candidates do what they want, until it's time for grading. He also claims to love the students. Ok, Now let's begin.

Adam and eve were in the garden, and satan came to tempt them. Ignoring satan's influence for a second. The instruction was not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They are the fruit, and failed the test.

God then came down, and graded them, based on that failure, and punished them. That's an interference, and that's as far as your examination analogy can take you.

In every normal examination, when a student fails, they're given the opportunity to retake the test. Adam and eve were not given the opportunity to go back into the garden and be tempted again. They were cast out, in their sinful state, which God claimed to hate so much, and allowed to multiply.

The example is off my way more points, but these are some of the immediate ones that disqualify it as a related comparison. I've given examples of a gardener, in a garden where his first 2 plants get infected by an infection. And while claiming to hate infections, rather than eliminate the infection then and there, either treating it or starting all over, he chooses to let the infected plants multiply exponentially.

MaxInDHouse:
You buy data, charge your device, spend time cracking your brains for hours all just to debate religion for the fun of it no benefits!

Glory be to JEHOVAH who has empowered His worshipers with wisdom in this time of the end otherwise you fools will just come up claiming you're sensible whereas in reality you're all senseless!

Go back and read my thread where i explained why i debate religion and tell me where fun was part of the reason. My individual reason.

I'll be waiting

Wilgrea7:
First of all, an exam is planned. It is intended. Most, if not all Christians, agree that the fall of man was not God's intention. He created man to rule over the planet, and eating the fruit messed up that plan and brought the fall of man. So that doesn't really follow.

God being omniscient, knows all the possible timelines Adam could have lived and one of those timelines was the one wherein Adam fell in the manner he fell and lost dominion. So you are wrong here. Paul hinted at this when he referred to Jesus as being slain from the foundation of the world. It indicated that Jesus already knew what the future would be for him given the decision of Adam.

Wilgrea7:
Again, the test analogy fails, because it doesn't take into account several things, like satan's influence, the nature of sin, and the exponential increase of the population, which also increased sin exponentially.

Again, like I said to someone else, I am abstracting from reality. I obviously did not have to account for satan to answer the question. The question asked why GOD allowed sin multiply even though he hates it. You can answer the question without recourse to the origin of sin. You only need to highlight the fact that men are free-agents, whose deeds will be punished or rewarded by a just judge who will not interfere in the deeds of men. Also I need not say anything about rising population because my position holds true logically if there are 1000 people on earth or there are 10,000,000,000 people on earth.

Wilgrea7:
I'm going to be generous and try to merge your teacher exam analogy with the biblical story so you'll see my point. Let's say it is indeed a test. Adam and eve are the initial students. Sin is the wrong answer on the test. And let's say God, hates wrong answers, with passion
You claimed God does not interfere until the test is over. He lets the candidates do what they want, until it's time for grading. He also claims to love the students. Ok, Now let's begin. Adam and eve were in the garden, and satan came to tempt them. Ignoring satan's influence for a second. The instruction was not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They are the fruit, and failed the test.

satan tempting them was the exam. It didn't have to be satan. It could have been any other entity. That is why I said, bringing in satan into the argument is irrelevant to arriving a logical conclusion.

Wilgrea7:
God then came down, and graded them, based on that failure, and punished them. That's an interference, and that's as far as your examination analogy can take you.

Lol. Your analysis of the so called analogy you are explaining is funny. How is grading a test tantamount to an interference in an exam? Did you even properly understand my response and the analogy? So if a lecturer marks a script and grades it he has interfered in the exam. Lol.

Wilgrea7:
In every normal examination, when a student fails, they're given the opportunity to retake the test. Adam and eve were not given the opportunity to go back into the garden and be tempted again. They were cast out, in their sinful state, which God claimed to hate so much, and allowed to multiply.

In every "normal" examination? "Normal" examination is your construct and is not a necessarily a general phenomenon. A test is determined by the examiner. The examiner decides the rules of the test. Tests that can be retaken are a special case of tests. There could be tests that can only be taken once. It comes down to the dictates of the examiner. Your conclusion that GOD allowed sin multiply does not follow logically at all. Yes, Adam was cast out in his sinful state, yet Abel, Adam's son, who also bore the nature of sin, refused to sin but Cain decided to sin. The case of Abel and Cain provides empirical correspondence that refutes your claim that GOD allowed sin multiply. Sin multiplies because humans decide to sin. satan, like he did in the garden, offers all mankind the choice to enjoy the pleasures of sin or enjoy the pleasures of righteousness and it comes down to mankind to decide whether to sin or not.

Wilgrea7:
The example is off my way more points, but these are some of the immediate ones that disqualify it as a related comparison. I've given examples of a gardener, in a garden where his first 2 plants get infected by an infection. And while claiming to hate infections, rather than eliminate the infection then and there, either treating it or starting all over, he chooses to let the infected plants multiply exponentially.

Your argument is basically a strawman-fallacy. You incorrectly presented my argument and proceeded to refute a conclusion that does not follow from my premises.

For clarity sake I will restate my argument:

Premise 1: God created man to be free-agents.
Premise 2: Man makes decisions without the direct intervention of any entity.
Premise 3: Those decisions are either considered good or evil based on the dictates of GOD.
Premise 4: Good deeds attract rewards and evil deeds attract punishment from GOD
Conclusion: GOD hates sin yet sin abounds.

Your best shot at criticizing me is to attack the logical coherence of my argument or fault the veracity of my premises.

efficiencie:
I was merely abstracting from reality. The question was if God hates sin so much then why does he allow it multiply and in my explanation I mentioned that GOD does not interfere in the deeds of men if he is to be a righteous judge. If a judge can control your action and determine what you do with robotic accuracy then he loses the right to judge you. It's that simple. F9 is not a palatable grade. Examiners know it and candidates in an exam know it. If after educating the students they all get F9 the lecturer of that course will be highly disappointed and the school authorities will doubt the professional capacity of the lecturer. So yes, contrary to your hypothesis, lecturers who have the best interest of the students at heart, as GOD does for all humanity, are expected to hate F9 as well. But no matter how much hatred the lecturer has for F9 he is not permitted to influence students in an exam just GOD will not influence the deeds of men.

Very big fallacy
The implication of your statement is that he wants righteousness to multiply but can't influence it , just as he ALLOWS sin to multiply and can't influence it. ; That doesn't sound like a judge but a combination of 2 gods at loggerheads.



The right connotation should be:
He wants/likes righteousness to multiply and can't influence it, just as HE DOESN'T WANT/LIKE sin to multiply and can't influence it


If god hates sin, why does he ALLOW it multiply?

efficiencie:
God being omniscient, knows all the possible timelines Adam could have lived and one of those timelines was the one wherein Adam fell in the manner he fell and lost dominion. So you are wrong here. Paul hinted at this when he referred to Jesus as being slain from the foundation of the world. It indicated that Jesus already knew what the future would be for him given the decision of Adam.

Ok.. So just to be clear, we're going with a God who knew the end from the beginning. An omniscient God. Ok. Several problems right off the bat.

1) You're making reference to multiple possible timelines, and saying the one we live in, is one of the possible timelines in which man fell. This statement is not backed up by any biblical or scientific data. I don't agree with it.

2) The fact that an omniscient God would choose to create Adam, knowing quite well that it would lead to his fall, and the multiplication of sin, while also blaming adam for the offense, is one I find highly manipulative. I've given an example of this before.

if you know the computer you're about to create is going to blow up, in the future, and still go ahead to create it, you have no right to blame the computer. A God knowing the future means freewill cannot exist, meaning Adam, was always fated to fall, except God's knowledge of the future was wrong, which it cannot be.

Again, like I said to someone else, I am abstracting from reality. I obviously did not have to account for satan to answer the question. The question asked why GOD allowed sin multiply even though he hates it. You can answer the question without recourse to the origin of sin. You only need to highlight the fact that men are free-agents, whose deeds will be punished or rewarded by a just judge who will not interfere in the deeds of men. Also I need not say anything about rising population because my position holds true logically if there are 1000 people on earth or there are 10,000,000,000 people on earth.

Your claim of omniscience and freewill are not compatible. Ignoring the freewill analogy, this still does not hold up. You seem to be trying to address a different argument. God choosing to judge humans at the end of time or 2000 years ago or right now is not the point.

We know according to the Christian doctrine, he is supposed to come and judge us all. It's not about judgement. It's not about our freewill. It's about him. God, choosing to let the sin he so hates, multiply. Why wait till a thousand, a billion, 10 or even 100 billion people before you pass judgement on the sin you hate so much?

You made reference to the time period for the exam. And I showed you why it doesn't add up. Perhaps you may have missed the point. So let me explain again.

A teacher grades the exam after it has been completed is it not so? God passed judgement on adam and eve after they had clearly failed the test. We can say they were graded. And I said that's about as far as the classroom analogy goes. For all intents and purposes, the grading of an exam indicates the end of the exam.

Except you're trying to insinuate that after Adam and eve's test ended, a new one started for all of humanity, for which the time period is unknown. But that still brings me to my question. Why let the test go on so long, and let sin multiply, if you hate it so much?

Our freewill does not in any way interfere with God's ability to have passed his judgement 2 generations after adam and eve. Increasing the population only increases the sin you claim to hate. Why let the exam go on for that long, allowing more and more people to join and possibly also fail, if you hate the failure itself so much?

satan tempting them was the exam. It didn't have to be satan. It could have been any other entity. That is why I said, bringing in satan into the argument is irrelevant to arriving a logical conclusion.

I can agree with this.

Lol. Your analysis of the so called analogy you are explaining is funny. How is grading a test tantamount to an interference in an exam? Did you even properly understand my response and the analogy? So if a lecturer marks a script and grades it he has interfered in the exam. Lol.

My bad. What i was trying to refer to, was the fact that the grading of the test, shows the test is over. Since as you said, the teacher would not interfere. I was wrong for saying it was an interference. Apologies.

In every "normal" examination? "Normal" examination is your construct and is not a necessarily a general phenomenon. A test is determined by the examiner. The examiner decides the rules of the test. Tests that can be retaken are a special case of tests. There could be tests that can only be taken once. It comes down to the dictates of the examiner.

I only gave that example in response to your "examination analogy". As we know, most, if not all of our exams can be attempted multiple times. That's why I gave the example. But i get your point.

Your conclusion that GOD allowed sin multiply does not follow logically at all. Yes, Adam was cast out in his sinful state, yet Abel, Adam's son, who also bore the nature of sin, refused to sin but Cain decided to sin. The case of Abel and Cain provides empirical correspondence that refutes your claim that GOD allowed sin multiply. Sin multiplies because humans decide to sin. satan, like he did in the garden, offers all mankind the choice to enjoy the pleasures of sin or enjoy the pleasures of righteousness and it comes down to mankind to decide whether to sin or not.

I don't see how my conclusion is logically flawed. Let's use statistics. Let's say 2 out of 3 humans eventually commit sin. And the population increases from 3, to 300,000. The amount of sin has also increased, from 2 to 200,000 albeit an increase in population. Do you honestly want to tell me that a god, knowing that as the population increases, the number of sinners increases, really didn't allow the sin to increase?

Sure, the population of non-sinners might have increased, but the population of sinners increased nonetheless.

If I know that 2 out of 3 puppies will come out with a deformity, and I could stop my dog from having more puppies, being the owner of the dog, do you really want to tell me that I, who had the ability to stop the deformities didn't allow the number of deformed puppies to increase?

Please note the difference between allowing something to happen (passive, although having the ability to stop it), and making/facilitating something happen (active).

Also, you seem to be making a somewhat bold assumption. That original sin, which is the sin inherited by adam, did not exist, meaning humans have the ability to be holy simply by not disobeying God, as you said in the case of abel. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Your argument is basically a strawman-fallacy. You incorrectly presented my argument and proceeded to refute a conclusion that does not follow from my premises.

For clarity sake I will restate my argument:

Premise 1: God created man to be free-agents.
Premise 2: Man makes decisions without the direct intervention of any entity.
Premise 3: Those decisions are either considered good or evil based on the dictates of GOD.
Premise 4: Good deeds attract rewards and evil deeds attract punishment from GOD
Conclusion: GOD hates sin yet sin abounds.

Your best shot at criticizing me is to attack the logical coherence of my argument or fault the veracity of my premises.

Wilgrea7:
Ok.. So just to be clear, we're going with a God who knew the end from the beginning. An omniscient God. Ok. Several problems right off the bat.

1) You're making reference to multiple possible timelines, and saying the one we live in, is one of the possible timelines in which man fell. This statement is not backed up by any biblical or scientific data. I don't agree with it.

2) The fact that an omniscient God would choose to create Adam, knowing quite well that it would lead to his fall, and the multiplication of sin, while also blaming adam for the offense, is one I find highly manipulative. I've given an example of this before.

if you know the computer you're about to create is going to blow up, in the future, and still go ahead to create it, you have no right to blame the computer. A God knowing the future means freewill cannot exist, meaning Adam, was always fated to fall, except God's knowledge of the future was wrong, which it cannot be.



Your claim of omniscience and freewill are not compatible. Ignoring the freewill analogy, this still does not hold up. You seem to be trying to address a different argument. God choosing to judge humans at the end of time or 2000 years ago or right now is not the point.

We know according to the Christian doctrine, he is supposed to come and judge us all. It's not about judgement. It's not about our freewill. It's about him. God, choosing to let the sin he so hates, multiply. Why wait till a thousand, a billion, 10 or even 100 billion people before you pass judgement on the sin you hate so much?

You made reference to the time period for the exam. And I showed you why it doesn't add up. Perhaps you may have missed the point. So let me explain again.

A teacher grades the exam after it has been completed is it not so? God passed judgement on adam and eve after they had clearly failed the test. We can say they were graded. And I said that's about as far as the classroom analogy goes. For all intents and purposes, the grading of an exam indicates the end of the exam.

Except you're trying to insinuate that after Adam and eve's test ended, a new one started for all of humanity, for which the time period is unknown. But that still brings me to my question. Why let the test go on so long, and let sin multiply, if you hate it so much?

Our freewill does not in any way interfere with God's ability to have passed his judgement 2 generations after adam and eve. Increasing the population only increases the sin you claim to hate. Why let the exam go on for that long, allowing more and more people to join and possibly also fail, if you hate the failure itself so much?




I can agree with this.



My bad. What i was trying to refer to, was the fact that the grading of the test, shows the test is over. Since as you said, the teacher would not interfere. I was wrong for saying it was an interference. Apologies.



I only gave that example in response to your "examination analogy". As we know, most, if not all of our exams can be attempted multiple times. That's why I gave the example. But i get your point.



I don't see how my conclusion is logically flawed. Let's use statistics. Let's say 2 out of 3 humans eventually commit sin. And the population increases from 3, to 300,000. The amount of sin has also increased, from 2 to 200,000 albeit an increase in population. Do you honestly want to tell me that a god, knowing that as the population increases, the number of sinners increases, really didn't allow the sin to increase?

Sure, the population of non-sinners might have increased, but the population of sinners increased nonetheless.

If I know that 2 out of 3 puppies will come out with a deformity, and I could stop my dog from having more puppies, being the owner of the dog, do you really want to tell me that I, who had the ability to stop the deformities didn't allow the number of deformed puppies to increase?

Please note the difference between allowing something to happen (passive, although having the ability to stop it), and making/facilitating something happen (active).

Also, you seem to be making a somewhat bold assumption. That original sin, which is the sin inherited by adam, did not exist, meaning humans have the ability to be holy simply by not disobeying God, as you said in the case of abel. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Your critique lacks basis. You cannot fault the veracity of my premises within the Judeao-Christian worldview and you cannot attack the coherence of my argument. There is nothing you do against a truism despite your feeble attempts. As an atheist you can choose to critique my argument outside the judeo-Christian worldview but doing so would automatically render the question invalid...if the Judeo-Christian worldview of creation is wrong then the question about why God hates sin and yet allow it multiply would be utterly invalid. You need to assume the correctness of the Judeao-Christian worldview to agree that there is a God, He created man, He hates sin, He allowed man sin and He allowed my multiply on the face of the earth. If you make the slightest attempt to argue outside the Judeao-Christian worldview you automatically invalidate the question to start with.

ChocolateWine:
I'm tired of repeating the same thing. Someone else might explain better.
And I'm also lost in your train of argument. Sorry about that. Bye

That's the result of arguing with someone who just feel like arguing aimlessly!

And result of someone that has been indoctrinated and regurgitating what his baldheads masters told her in watchtower word for word.

efficiencie:
Your critique lacks basis. You cannot fault the veracity of my premises within the Judeao-Christian worldview and you cannot attack the coherence of my argument. There is nothing you do against a truism despite your feeble attempts. As an atheist you can choose to critique my argument outside the judeo-Christian worldview but doing so would automatically render the question invalid...if the Judeo-Christian worldview of creation is wrong then the question about why God hates sin and yet allow it multiply would be utterly invalid. You need to assume the correctness of the Judeao-Christian worldview to agree that there is a God, He created man, He hates sin, He allowed man sin and He allowed my multiply on the face of the earth. If you make the slightest attempt to argue outside the Judeao-Christian worldview you automatically invalidate the question to start with.

The judeao Christian are basically jews that are Christians,and certainly creation story that was copied into the Christian bible existed before Christianity and Judaism was created.

“ Judeo-Christian worldview” bwahahahah
Are you a jew, and performing jewish rituals if not why are you following “Judeo-Christian worldview“?

Wilgrea7:
Happy Sunday beautiful people

So I'll get straight to the point. Sin.

It's the one thing God can't stand. The one thing that goes against his nature so much, that an iota of it warrants him to burn you for all eternity. You get the drift.

How did sin come into this world? Well, through Adam and Eve of course. They ate a fruit and it pissed the big sky daddy off.

They had corrupted his perfect design and whatnot. And what does God do?

Being an all knowing God, who is supposed to know the end from the beginning.. he knew they would sin and still made them... But let's not dwell on that.

God is all knowing, yes that is why he ordained salvation for mankind even before they were made.
So the existence of sin does not stop God's purpose of creation because he has a redemption plan for it.

God also knew, that the very thing he hated, which was sin, would be multiplied millions of folds if Adam and Eve bore children. So what did he do?

A. Make Eve barren so sin stops then and there
B. Allow the population of the world, and the sin he so hates, to increase literally billions of folds, so he can send himself to get shanked on a cross a couple thousand years later.

Well.. the answer is unfortunately B. The Christian God seems to have one of the worst damage control measures known to humanity.

It's the equivalent of seeing a small fire in your kitchen, having the ability to put it out right there, but sitting idly by and letting the entire house catch on fire, only to send a bucket of water when the house is about to collapse.

If God hates sin so much, why didn't he get rid of it during the time of Adam and Eve? Why let the thing you hate so much multiply exponentially.. even though you had the power to stop it??

If you had an infection, would you let it consume your entire body before treating it?

If such an action makes absolutely no sense in the real world, then why does it make sense in your religion??

The multiplication of sin cannot stop God because he has the ultimate plan.

God would not stop Adam and Eve from procreating because he has a plan of redemption for them and their descendants.

Sin is not a problem with God because he had a perfect plan to not only destroy sin but to save his creation.

efficiencie:
Your critique lacks basis. You cannot fault the veracity of my premises within the Judeao-Christian worldview and you cannot attack the coherence of my argument. There is nothing you do against a truism despite your feeble attempts. As an atheist you can choose to critique my argument outside the judeo-Christian worldview but doing so would automatically render the question invalid...

Ah.. I see the game you're playing now.

You were the one that brought up the classroom analogy, as a possible explanation to the problems I asked... I showed you how the analogy fails to accurately represent the situation. I even went further to try to merge them, to show why even if you tried, the analogy still failed. And now all of a sudden, I'm the one not considering the Judeo-Christian worldview?

if the Judeo-Christian worldview of creation is wrong then the question about why God hates sin and yet allow it multiply would be utterly invalid. You need to assume the correctness of the Judeao-Christian worldview to agree that there is a God, He created man, He hates sin, He allowed man sin and He allowed my multiply on the face of the earth. If you make the slightest attempt to argue outside the Judeao-Christian worldview you automatically invalidate the question to start with.

Where in my replies did I imply that God did not hate sin, or that he did not allow man to populate the earth, or that he did not create man or any of those other things? My argument from the beginning has been based on the assumption that those statements were true.

Now you're just trying to shift the goalpost.

Steep:
God is all knowing, yes that is why he ordained salvation for mankind even before they were made.
So the existence of sin does not stop God's purpose of creation because he has a redemption plan for it.

The all-knowing argument shoots itself in the foot quicker than you'd expect. Especially when you try to pair it with the concept of an all-powerful and perfect God.

An all knowing God would know that the creation he is about to make would have obvious faults. Him choosing to create a faulty creation calls his all-powerfulness into question, as well as the claim of him being perfect.

That being said, my question still stands. Why would he make something he knew was going to be so flawed, while also hating said flaw, and doing nothing while the flaw increased exponentially?

The multiplication of sin cannot stop God because he has the ultimate plan.

God would not stop Adam and Eve from procreating because he has a plan of redemption for them and their descendants.

Sin is not a problem with God because he had a perfect plan to not only destroy sin but to save his creation.

This still does not answer the question. Why create a flawed product, or a product which eventually becomes flawed, and administer one of the worst damage control measures known? Why not send Jesus sooner, like immediately after Adam and eve sinned? Or a generation or 2 later?

If you had an infection, and you had the cure, would you wait till the infection consumed your entire body, or would you administer treatment immediately. Note that you find said infection utterly repulsive.

And that's not even taking the effectiveness of Christ's alleged "sacrifice" into account. According to the christian doctrine, it takes far more to be saved than just saying a simple "Jesus i accept you" prayer. Living a holy life is also supposed to be there.

Considering the state of the world today and since the beginning of civilization, you can clearly see that the redemption plan has not been effective in the slightest. That's why I gave the analogy of sending in a bucket of water when the entire house is about to collapse.

Would you also introduce a solution that only kills a small percentage of the infection, while still allowing the infection to multiply exponentially?

MaxInDHouse:
That's the result of arguing with someone who just feel like arguing aimlessly!

Tell me Maximus... What benefit did you gain from this precise comment you just posted?

Mr "I dOnT pOsT wItHoUt bEnEfIts"

Wilgrea7:
Tell me Maximus... What benefit did you gain from this precise comment you just posted?
Mr "I dOnT pOsT wItHoUt bEnEfIts"

The person i quoted got the message that it's senseless buying data, charging device, spending time and cracking brains all just to argue for no benefits!

MaxInDHouse:
The person i quoted got the message that it's senseless buying data, charging device, spending time and cracking brains all just to argue for no benefits!

I don't get your point. I've identified my own benefits.. Exchanging ideas, and helping people see debates from multiple sides.

What's paining you there?

Wilgrea7:
I don't get your point. I've identified my own benefits.. Exchanging ideas, and helping people see debates from multiple sides.
What's paining you there?

People see debates from multiple sides means each person should stick to his own ideas after the long argument, then everyone walk away with nothing thereafter.

Well my benefit is gaining someone over so that the person becomes my family by faith! Mark 10:29-30

MaxInDHouse:
People see debates from multiple sides means each person should stick to his own ideas after the long argument, then everyone walk away with nothing thereafter.

Well my benefit is gaining someone over so that the person becomes my family by faith! Mark 10:29-30

Sometimes you marvel me. How is seeing a debate from multiple sides the same as sticking to your own ideas after the long argument? Like..

Wilgrea7:
The all-knowing argument shoots itself in the foot quicker than you'd expect. Especially when you try to pair it with the concept of an all-powerful and perfect God.

No, it does not. Your question sound like why make a car when you know it could kill people?

An all knowing God would know that the creation he is about to make would have obvious faults. Him choosing to create a faulty creation calls his all-powerfulness into question, as well as the claim of him being perfect.

God didn't create a faulty creation.

That being said, my question still stands. Why would he make something he knew was going to be so flawed, while also hating said flaw, and doing nothing while the flaw increased exponentially?

Your question has being answered.
Simple, that is because the flaw could be solved.
Again you said God did nothing? God had literally planned out the solution before he started creation. Right there in the Garden of heathen God reveals his plan, he even drove them from the garden of Eden so that humanity's condition would not be permanent.

This still does not answer the question. Why create a flawed product, or a product which eventually becomes flawed, and administer one of the worst damage control measures known? Why not send Jesus sooner, like immediately after Adam and eve sinned? Or a generation or 2 later?

Again God never created a flawed product. What God created was perfect.
The ability to become flawed is part of the perfection of the creation.
Only the person who made a product can determine if it is perfect or not.
Again you or anyone else don't decide for God, Jesus came at the exact time the Father has set.

you had an infection, and you had the cure, would you wait till the infection consumed your entire body, or would you administer treatment immediately. Note that you find said infection utterly repulsive.

The person that is carrying the infection must be aware the infection before he or she can accept treatment. Sin must first of all be exposed before it can be dealt with.

And that's not even taking the effectiveness of Christ's alleged "sacrifice" into account. According to the christian doctrine, it takes far more to be saved than just saying a simple "Jesus i accept you" prayer. Living a holy life is also supposed to be there.

How will you know its effectiveness when you don't have it.
No one become save simply by saying Jesus I accept you. There must be repentance, this repentance is brought about through conviction.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Considering the state of the world today and since the beginning of civilization, you can clearly see that the redemption plan has not been effective in the slightest. That's why I gave the analogy of sending in a bucket of water when the entire house is about to collapse.

Would you also introduce a solution that only kills a small percentage of the infection, while still allowing the infection to multiply exponentially?

The redemptive plan has being effective, many people has being saved. I am example of the fruit of God's redemption.
God's solution does not kill only a percentage of sin but it removes it totally.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Wilgrea7:
Sometimes you marvel me. How is seeing a debate from multiple sides the same as sticking to your own ideas after the long argument? Like..

The highlighted is the same as saying "stick to your idea while i stick to mine" that's atheism for you.

But when talking about real benefits we agree to know the way forward! John 17:22

MaxInDHouse:
The highlighted is the same as saying "stick to your idea while i stick to mine" that's atheism for you.

But when talking about real benefits we agree to know the way forward! John 17:22

The fact that you think seeing a debate from multiple sides is somehow the same as saying "stick to you idea while i stick to mine" is somewhat troubling to me. They are polar opposites.

Seeing a debate from 2 angles helps you to look at things more open-mindedly, rather than with a myopic mindset. When you see things from multiple sides, you get to compare objectively, and possibly learn something new.

You on the other hand... you know what? ... I won't even.

Steep:
No, it does not. Your question sound like why make a car when you know it could kill people?

No.. those are not the same questions. A human making a car knows it can kill people, not that it will. Let me explain.

We humans do NOT know the future. When we make a car, we don't know what the buyers will use it for. If they'll drive drunk or anything. We hope they don't. But we don't know.

An all-knowing God, especially the one who is supposed to know the end from the beginning knows that the car WILL be bought by an alcoholic and knows that it WILL cause the death of innocent people, because said all-knowing God knows the future.

If he chooses to go ahead with creating the car, or selling it to that particular person who he KNOWS is an alcoholic that WILL kill people, then he is partially responsible for their deaths.

God didn't create a faulty creation.

God in this case, as you've said, knew the end from the beginning. He knew Adam and eve would sin, and fall from grace. He knew his creation would develop a fault along the line, and still went ahead with it.

Your question has being answered.
Simple, that is because the flaw could be solved.
Again you said God did nothing? God had literally planned out the solution before he started creation. Right there in the Garden of heathen God reveals his plan, he even drove them from the garden of Eden so that humanity's condition would not be permanent.

I'm sorry.. So humanity's condition will not be permanent how??

Also, why create something with a flaw that can be solved, rather than creating something that does not have or develop any flaws eventually. That brings his all-powerfulness into question

Again God never created a flawed product. What God created was perfect.
The ability to become flawed is part of the perfection of the creation.

How exactly? That's like building a car, and saying the car's ability to break down in the middle of the road is part of it's perfection. And that's also not taking into account the fact that God knew about the flaws.. So it's more like creating a car that WILL break down on the road, and calling it perfect.

Only the person who made a product can determine if it is perfect or not.

I disagree. Using the car analogy. If i made a car that breaks down, or leaks fluid, or rather WILL leak fluid after exactly 10 days, and I say the car is perfect, would you agree with me? If not, then perfection is not only determined by the creator.

Again you or anyone else don't decide for God, Jesus came at the exact time the Father has set.

I'm not deciding for him. I'm asking why wait so long? That's the whole point of the thread. If he had sent Jesus immediately after adam and eve sinned, the sin could have been eliminated right there and then. And that's assuming the sacrifice worked.. something I will discuss later on.

The person that is carrying the infection must be aware the infection before he or she can accept treatment. Sin must first of all be exposed before it can be dealt with.

But of course your God is all knowing. He knew when they sinned. He knew about the repulsive thing that is sin, which he hated so much. He knew about the infection. So why not treat it immediately?

How will you know its effectiveness when you don't have it.
No one become save simply by saying Jesus I accept you. There must be repentance, this repentance is brought about through conviction.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Let me give you a quick analogy. Someone you know has a disease, that makes them cough blood every 5 minutes. They take a drug that claims to heal them, but you still see them coughing blood days, weeks, or months after. Would you say because you didn't take the medicine, that you don't know if it worked?

Now, on to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. Most Christians agree that Adam and eve were in a sort of exalted state, and sinning made them fall from that state. It's referred to as the fall of man. So therefore, people who take the said treatment (A.K.A Jesus) should return to that exalted state. But I don't see it.

Let me further expatiate. Christians believe that before sin, there was no sickness, no sorrow, no hardship, etc. I won't focus on the things humans do to each other. I'll focus on the things nature does to us humans.

Sickness is a good example. If someone is truly saved, then they should return back to their adamite glory. If they don't, then what use is the remedy. If they do, then why do Christians fall sick? Why do they die of diseases just like everyone else? Why do they face hardships in life?

These things are the by-products of sin, as we know it. So accepting the cure, means you should be free from ALL of these. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Why?

The redemptive plan has being effective, many people has being saved. I am example of the fruit of God's redemption.
God's solution does not kill only a percentage of sin but it removes it totally.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

I wasn't talking about the individual. I was talking about humanity as a whole. Adam and eve were supposed to be the only 2 humans at the time. They both sinned. That means 2 people got the virus of sin.

Now, the population increased, as did the sin. If you believe in original sin, then you believe that by virtue of the fall, we're all sinners. Meaning as new humans were born, they were born in sin. Now there are about 8 billion humans, all born in sin.

You yourself said that simply saying the "Jesus I accept you" prayer doesn't cut it. There must be repentance. And anyone can look around and see, that by the christian concept, there is still A LOT of sin in the world today. So obviously, the plan for redemption, failed to achieve it's purpose.

People are still being born into that sinful nature, and people are still sinning, as a result of said nature. The majority of us still appear to be in our fallen state. That, is the definition of a failed solution.

Wilgrea7:
The fact that you think seeing a debate from multiple sides is somehow the same as saying "stick to you idea while i stick to mine" is somewhat troubling to me. They are polar opposites. Seeing a debate from 2 angles helps you to look at things more open-mindedly, rather than with a myopic mindset. When you see things from multiple sides, you get to compare objectively, and possibly learn something new.
You on the other hand... you know what? ... I won't even.

So far you enjoy the multiple side no wahala, i detests multiple sides in debates meaning you and i aren't on the same page, so dey your dey make i dey my dey!

MaxInDHouse:
So far you enjoy the multiple side no wahala, i detests multiple sides in debates meaning you and i aren't on the same page, so dey your dey make i dey my dey!

You just exposed yourself mate.

MaxInDHouse:
The highlighted is the same as saying "stick to your idea while i stick to mine" that's atheism for you.

So much for atheism huh?