A question for those angry with

Originally posted by Coletti
God's revealed knowledge to man, his verbal and plenary revelation, a.k.a. the Bible.

(Available at your local Barnes and Noble, Books-a-Million, or Super 8 Motel).

Your turn.

I guess I'm treading on your territory here, but does it say specifically that god was limited to only those two options? Or is that merely your inference? Is it not the case that you are only presented with god's final solution (the blood sacrifice) and that whatever other options he may have had at his disposal are simply not known?

If he was limited to only two options then that would seriously impinge upon his purported omnipotence. It is my contention that the concept of original sin is incompatible with a god of the three "O"s.

1. If god is omnipotent then he should have been able to come up with many other far more elegant solutions to the problem.
2. If god is omniscient then the problem should never have arisen in the first place, unless that's what god actually wanted all along.
3. If god is omnibenevolent then he would have preferred a solution that would have acheived its goal with far less suffering.

As you may have deduced by now, this whole thing is merely a variation on the argument from evil, currently being argued by Bbarr in another thread.

Originally posted by rwingett
I guess I'm treading on your territory here, but does it say specifically that god was limited to only those two options? Or is that merely your inference? Is it not the case that you are only presented with god's final solution (the blood sacrifice) and that whatever other options he may have had at his disposal are simply not known?

If he was limited ...[text shortened]... erely a variation on the argument from evil, currently being argued by Bbarr in another thread.

Excellent post! Lets see how this plays in Bbarr's thread "A General Argument from Evil." If it does not get to these questions, I'll come back to this thread. Because you are right, the theist must address these issue, there is no avoiding it. You'll hold me to it, right? 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
Excellent post! Lets see how this plays in Bbarr's thread "A General Argument from Evil." If it does not get to these questions, I'll come back to this thread. Because you are right, the theist must address these issue, there is no avoiding it. You'll hold me to it, right? 🙂

Yes, of course.

You could still answer the first part now if you want. Does it say specifically in the bible that god was constrained to the two options you put forward?

Originally posted by rwingett
I guess I'm treading on your territory here, but does it say specifically that god was limited to only those two options? Or is that merely your inference? Is it not the case that you are only presented with god's final solution (the blo ...[text shortened]... r options he may have had at his disposal are simply not known?...

In answer to the first part of your post, I would say yes it is an inference, but in the logical sense (if follows unavoidable). I can try to pull out the text (quote some scripture) if you want, I don't know the verses by heart (it's a big book!).

[P.S. I'm also going to get in trouble with my Arminian brothers, but that's going to happen in the other tread too.]

Originally posted by rwingett
No...the other option would have been to create mankind in such a fashion so that he would not require salvation in the first place. An omniscient god would have known in advance that mankind would require salvation and an omnipotent god could have created mankind in such a fashion as to never require salvation. If god is omnipotent and omniscient then mankind was meant to fail. And, in fact, the very first man did so.

Given that God created Man the way He did, I believe God had these two options.

The option you gave was also possible - but it would imply the creation of mankind without free will. For some reason, that was more important/good.

Originally posted by jimmyb270
Nonsense. If god is all powerful, he could simply have expunged all sins - no need for sacrifice whatsoever.

"All powerful" does not imply one can do that which is logically impossible (re: bbarr's thread).

Originally posted by rwingett
If god is all powerful then he would not be constrained to the two options you have limited him to. As you stated, the options are set by god, not by you. If god is indeed omnipotent then he could have come up with any number of solutions to the problem which, I'm sure, would have been far more elegant than the two you have tried to limit him to.

Once again, "all powerful" does not mean "infinite number of options".

Originally posted by rwingett
No...the other option would have been to create mankind in such a fashion so that he would not require salvation in the first place. An omniscient god would have known in advance that mankind would require salvation and an omnipotent god could have created mankind in such a fashion as to never require salvation. If god is omnipotent and omniscient then mankind was meant to fail. And, in fact, the very first man did so.

Curious, did angels also require salvation ?

pc

I wonder if anyone on this site is angry with Michael Schiavo ?

By the way, this is an ON-topic post.

Originally posted by Coletti
The options are set by God, not you little man.

The options were expunge man (as God did in the flood) or pay it by the blood of Christ. So God, to show his grace and glory, paid the price, he did expunge sin, through the sacrifice which God demands, Christ on the cross.

Since He is all powerfull, He does things as He see fit.

Hey, Im mad at you guys , so I got this plan , I'll send my Son to you so you can torture and kill him ,,then I can stop being mad at you.

Yup ,,that sounds like the act of an all powerful god.

"I find it bitterly ironic that the bulk of the money a medical-malpractice jury awarded to Terri for use in making her better instead went into Mr. Felos's pocket to make her dead."

Wesley Smith, author

The three O's are just a few characteristics of God. But the character of God is Love!

So yes, He did say something like what frogstomp suggested, but more like this:

Hey, I LOVE you guys so much! And even though you used your gift of free will to reject me and my ways, I am willing to send my beloved son to suffer the punishment you all deserve. If you then honestly recognize and admit your need for salvation (look at your heart in the mirror), and accept the offer my son will make to pay the debt you owe FOR you, then I will cleanse your heart from its self-pleasing nature and establish a new relationship with me! You will find joy and peace in Me, and we will enjoy each other's company forever!

Something like that...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Given that God created Man the way He did, I believe God had these two options.

The option you gave was also possible - but it would imply the creation of mankind without free will. For some reason, that was more important/good.

I often wonder if Jesus had to be sacrificied not because of what God wanted but because of people's limited ability tounderstand and accept love and forgiveness.

It often seems to me that when a wrong is done we human types look for a "payback". The idea of a truly abounding forgiving love is quite difficult for us. The threads in the forum about Heaven and Hell are some small proof of this to me...it seems absolutely vital to some of the posters that "sinners" be clearly identified and "punished" and separated from the "saints".

I find myself wondering what would happen if those posters got a glimpse of Heaven and all sorts of "sinners" where up there swingin' and singin' and makin' merry like Christmas (I believe that is a Maya Angelou phrase, but I could be wrong). and hell was empty save for the rebellious fallen angels b/c the seat of judgement is not a place where damnation is meted out but rather an embrace of love where healing and reconcilliation are found.

An honorable God is stuck with the conditions of the contract God initiated

No offense intended to anyone or anything, written in good will.....

Yes, God is limited by His own rules.
In the garden of Eden He said, 'If you eat from this tree you will die'.
They did, and death entered the picture. When we continue to rebel, and claim we don't need Christ's offer of salvation, then that death continues in eternity; a spiritual death, meaning a separation from God forever.

The justice that we naturally seek as humans is proper. God established that and it is built into our natures. That's why someone had to pay for our sinfullness. Thanks be to God, someone willing and qualified (Jesus Christ), came forth and did just that!

Let's say some one exercises their free will and offends me.

Should I attack that person?
No. I should forgive this person and move on.

Should I attack some one else in place of attacking the person who offended me? No. I should forgive the person who offended me and move on.

It seems to me that if an 26-year-old human being can arrive at this simple concept, then an all-wise god should get it as well.

If you don't learn to forgive when others offend you, your hatred will eventually eat you up. Maybe God held it in too long, until he exploded by intentionaly sending his son to be murdered.