If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.

When Christ removed the shackles off those he healed he set them free from their captivity TO sin, and the strength to sin no more, therefore declaring they should be perfect as the Father in Heaven IS and this is just living one's true being, that was lost of conscious awareness from Adam's fall, the beginning of sin.

But man ever IS -only- God's image and likeness, and it is just for all to have this equation of "what they have known of themselves", which has ever been of the lie and the father of the creating of such it's ignorance, erAsed and SHOWN the right way as Christ had and did, that brings man's "recalling" who the -really- are, and only ever HAVE truly been.

Jesus did this for they who had ears to hear and eyes to see (acknowledge they would benefit to such knowledge).

Heaven's Kingdom is a Heavenly Government, as even the Lord's prayer declares us to acknowledge on earth as it IS -in- Heaven (God is ALL, HE *IS* Heaven, and there are many mansions in HIM, being HE IS HIS HOUSE). Christ acknowledging that we are to SEE Heaven here right now that cometh not by observation, rather with anyone to FIND, by -seeking-.

It is discerning such an awakening.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Of course you're right, if there is a god I can't possibly understand his motives. And of course, we cannot do as god does. And, I agree, many parents discharge their responsibilities in that manner - but not the better ones, I think? I suggest you are mistaken however in your assertion that I look at these things from a child-like viewpoint. I d ...[text shortened]... mankind's worship ought to be at least as morally correct as he commands his subjects to be.

==================================
Of course you're right, if there is a god I can't possibly understand his motives.
=====================================

God's great love is surely a motive.

=====================================
And of course, we cannot do as god does.
==============================

Judging from the Bible, there are limits. But also judging from the Bible it seems absolutely the case that God wants us to do as He does.

He put the whole creation under the deputy authority of His creature Adam. Obviously, He wanted man to reign on His behalf over His creation.

That is the meaning of Him "resting" on the seventh day. It is not because of fatigue but because of arrival at some plane of satisfaction. That satisfaction of having a creature, made in His image, under whom He has placed His creation - "Let them have dominion ..."

Again, love is the motive. That man would be a deputy authority under whom God has delagated the dominion of His creation, is something of a gift of love.

===================================
I do not follow the christian faith, however I do strive to do what I perceive to be the right thing - not because I am commanded thus by god however - I do so for my own, entirely non-religious reasons. It simply seems to me that a god worthy of mankind's worship ought to be at least as morally correct as he commands his subjects to be.
=========================================

If there has been on this earth an expression of greater morality, greater ethics, and purer and higher goodness besides Jesus Christ, who would you say that person is ?

My opinion is that the highest expressed morality ever testified to in human history is that of Jesus Christ.

He says He is "the Son of God". And I cannot see Him condemning His Father as you charge. That is you claiming that the morality of God is beneath that of mankind.

Why didn't Jesus agree with you ?

Who would you count besides Jesus of Nazareth, to be more qualified to make such a judgment ?

(By the way. That is very good that you have a high ethical sense of responibility, whether commanded or not.)

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Of course you're right, if there is a god I can't possibly understand his motives. And of course, we cannot do as god does. And, I agree, many parents discharge their responsibilities in that manner - but not the better ones, I think? I suggest you are mistaken however in your assertion that I look at these things from a child-like viewpoint. I d ...[text shortened]... mankind's worship ought to be at least as morally correct as he commands his subjects to be.

If God is the father, we are all His sons (or daughters). Thus we can only look upon Him as a child looks upon his parents. The child can strive to do what is right (as he perceives it), but he can not fully understand the reasons behind the parents actions. If he's lucky, he can be made sure that his parents love him and do not wish him harm, but he knows he is not perfect and that his parents will find displeasure in his actions sometimes. The child then strives to be like his parents because he finds that this keeps their displeasure away. In this way children learn right and wrong from a very early age.

As the child, we cannot assess the morality of our parents, there is just too much to consider in making the assessment. Thus it is with God and our futile assessment of Him. It simply seems to me that a God worthy of our worship would already be morally correct (without sin) and that any discrepancy in our assessment of Him is due to our sinful nature. This is one reason why a lot of people find actual Faith so hard to come by. They cannot accept their own sinful nature.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If God is the father, we are all His sons (or daughters). Thus we can only look upon Him as a child looks upon his parents. The child can strive to do what is right (as he perceives it), but he can not fully understand the reasons behind the parents actions. If he's lucky, he can be made sure that his parents love him and do not wish him harm, but he kno ...[text shortened]... ot of people find actual Faith so hard to come by. They cannot accept their own sinful nature.

Sure, I understand the rationalisation, but the fact remains that god appears to act with a lesser morality than he requires of his subjects. Clearly, if one accepts the omnipotent nature purported to him in the bible, he could act otherwise or enable us to understand, yet he chooses neither course. This seems like an almost deliberate obfuscation to me. It reminds me of the literalist argument regarding dinosaur fossils, and not only does it not inspire me towards christianity, it actually repels me from it. And please don't misunderstand my meaning here, I'm not belittling your faith (in fact I envy you it), I'm just interested to find out how rational christians (i.e. not you taco) are able to accommodate these issues.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Sure, I understand the rationalisation, but the fact remains that god appears to act with a lesser morality than he requires of his subjects. Clearly, if one accepts the omnipotent nature purported to him in the bible, he could act otherwise or enable us to understand, yet he chooses neither course. This seems like an almost deliberat to find out how rational christians (i.e. not you taco) are able to accommodate these issues.

========================================
but the fact remains that god appears to act with a lesser morality than he requires of his subjects.
===========================================

I don't agree with this at all.

You learn a lot from being a parent. One of the things I recall happened to my two toddlers years ago after we made a visit to the medical doctor.

You see, the medical doctor took a little flat wooden popsickle looking stick. He placed the stick in my daughter's mouth and asked her to say "Ahhhh".

I thought nothing of it because physicians often do that. But sometime latter my daughter and her baby brother were playing. I caught one child putting a object into the mouth of the other. They were obviously "playing doctor."

Of course I had to sternly warn my children that they should not play by putting anything in the mouth of each other.

These seems like two standards. But it is one thing for an adult medical physician to place the stick in a child's mouth. It is a different thing for one child to do it to the other.

I have read the Bible. I admit that there are some instances where it seems man is commanded not to do something which elsewhere God Himself does. I do not quickly take these as God not living up the moral standard of His, to use your word, "subjects".

It is one thing for God to do some things. It is another matter if man takes it upon himself to do it.

Now, these so called, "subjects" are those for whom the Son of God died in total obedience to the Father, that we might be saved. So Jesus the Son of God, alone completely succeeded in being absolute for the will of God on behalf of us all.

Because one man's obedience benefits the whole human race, I have to reject the criticism that God is too harsh and unfair. Not only did one man make it. But His making it was on behalf of all the rest of us who could not.

Your ciriticism, I feel, is nullified by the righteous life and redemptive act of Jesus Christ for all sinners.

Originally posted by jaywill

[b]==================================
Of course you're right, if there is a god I can't possibly understand his motives.
=====================================

God's great love is surely a motive.

=====================================
And of course, we cannot do as god does.
==============================

Judging fr good that you have a high ethical sense of responibility, whether commanded or not.)[/b]

Nice to see you, Jaywill... back again in the fray.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Sure, I understand the rationalisation, but the fact remains that god appears to act with a lesser morality than he requires of his subjects. Clearly, if one accepts the omnipotent nature purported to him in the bible, he could act otherwise or enable us to understand, yet he chooses neither course. This seems like an almost deliberat to find out how rational christians (i.e. not you taco) are able to accommodate these issues.

Yes, God is omnipotent. And yes, man's nature is sinful. If God just spent his time all day ministering to every single person, solving their problems, man wouldn't learn anything. In fact, man would simply find a way to take advantage and ruin it for everybody. (i.e. "The Garden of Eden" ) Sin is intolerable to God, therefore he punishes it. But ("hate the sin, but love the sinner" ) he still loves man, his acme of creation. So he works to find a way for man to rise above his sinful nature. Clearly, man can understand and he knows this and is not much concerned with "enabling man to understand"; some men will understand and some won't. He gave us a light. The condemnation he sends to man is for rejecting the light in favor of darkness. Man must rise above his sinful nature if he is to live in God's presence. He has provided the way. It's now up to man to accept or to reject. What more do you want of him? (See my joke in another thread.)

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, God is omnipotent. And yes, man's nature is sinful. If God just spent his time all day ministering to every single person, solving their problems, man wouldn't learn anything. In fact, man would simply find a way to take advantage and ruin it for everybody. (i.e. "The Garden of Eden" ) Sin is intolerable to God, therefore he punishes it. But ("ha accept or to reject. What more do you want of him? (See my joke in another thread.)

Yes, God is omnipotent. And yes, man's nature is sinful. If God just spent his time all day ministering to every single person, solving their problems, man wouldn't learn anything. In fact, man would simply find a way to take advantage and ruin it for everybody. (i.e. "The Garden of Eden" ) Sin is intolerable to God, therefore he punishes it. But ("hate the sin, but love the sinner" ) he still loves man, his acme of creation. So he works to find a way for man to rise above his sinful nature. Clearly, man can understand and he knows this and is not much concerned with "enabling man to understand"; some men will understand and some won't. He gave us a light. The condemnation he sends to man is for rejecting the light in favor of darkness. Man must rise above his sinful nature if he is to live in God's presence. He has provided the way. It's now up to man to accept or to reject. What more do you want of him? (See my joke in another thread.)

With reference to the part I bolded, your god is at fault if he fails to equip some of us with eyes that are sensitive to the wavelengths of said 'light'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, God is omnipotent. And yes, man's nature is sinful. If God just spent his time all day ministering to every single person, solving their problems, man wouldn't learn anything. In fact, man would simply find a way to take advantage and ruin it for everybody. (i.e. "The Garden of Eden" ) Sin is intolerable to God, therefore he punishes it. But ("ha accept or to reject. What more do you want of him? (See my joke in another thread.)

If sin is *intolerable* to God, then He should have refrained from freely choosing to make creatures who themselves had free will, creatures who, by explicit design, might later freely end up sinning by choosing to sin. God would then only have Himself ultimately to blame for allow this *intolerable* outcome, as he could have avoided the possibility by denying creatures free will.

But perhaps God felt like atoning for his error by punishing Himself. Could this furnish an alternative account of the incarnation and crucifixion?

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
If sin is *intolerable* to God, then He should have refrained from freely choosing to make creatures who themselves had free will, creatures who, by explicit design, might later freely end up sinning by choosing to sin. God would then only have Himself ultimately to blame for allow this *intolerable* outcome, as he could have avoided the possibility by den ...[text shortened]... punishing Himself. Could this furnish an alternative account of the incarnation and crucifixion?

This was not error.

It (free will) merely suffices to "thin out the herd".

Would you want followers who follow through fear or through love?

(Yes, I'm disregarding the ones who refuse to follow at all, they don't survive the cut, either.)

Originally posted by Suzianne
This was not error.

It (free will) merely suffices to "thin out the herd".

Would you want followers who follow through fear or through love?

(Yes, I'm disregarding the ones who refuse to follow at all, they don't survive the cut, either.)

Many theists do 'follow' (or fail to ask questions) through fear. Fear of eternal torture if they turn away. It is perhaps a form of Stockholm syndrome that they then come to love this supposed entity.

Originally posted by Agerg
Many theists do 'follow' (or fail to ask question) through fear. Fear of eternal torture if they turn away. It is perhaps a form of Stockholm syndrome that they come to love this supposed entity.

Yes, I know many already follow through fear. Blame the old-time religion, with literal bible-thumpers who preach of "brimstone, hellfire and damnation" all the time.

Originally posted by Agerg
Many theists do 'follow' (or fail to ask questions) through fear. Fear of eternal torture if they turn away. It is perhaps a form of Stockholm syndrome that they then come to love this supposed entity.

=====================================
Many theists do 'follow' (or fail to ask questions) through fear. Fear of eternal torture if they turn away. It is perhaps a form of Stockholm syndrome that they then come to love this supposed entity.
===========================================

What is wrong with following God out of fear ?
What is wrong with having both love and fear concerning God ?

I am not just speaking of fear of a righteous judgment upon sins. I also speak of fear of a meaningless and empty life.

I speak not only of fear of not getting away with the secret evils one thought no one will cause you to account of, but God will. I speak also of the fear of wasting time in life. What is wrong with following Christ because of the fear that year after year is passing by and one still does not know why he is alive?

I have no shame at all in confessing that mingled with my love of Jesus there is also some amount of fear. I would be lying if I said I had no fear of God.

"The fear of the Lord is the hatred of evil" (Proverbs 8:13)

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 8:10; Psalm 111:10)

Jesus instructed His disciples to fear God. That is His disciples. That is not just the unbeliever who will be condemned. But even the disciple who is saved - he too is to fear God (Luke 12:5) .

I loved my parents. I also had a certain amount of fear of them if I misbehaved.

I loved some of my college instructors. I also had a certain amount of fear, if not for their person, for their position and legitimate authority.

Until Satan is cast into the eternal fire, I will mingle a certain amount of fear with my love for God.

As an unbeliever, you certainly should have a certain amount of fear. That is unless you are a fool. You are accumulating day after day transgressions against God. His record of them is irrefutable. His memory of them will be infallible. They need cleansing away and forgiveness. And you refuse to be forgiven. So day after day you are accumulating more and more iniquities. And you have a rendevous with an infallible Judge.

"Or do you despise the riches of His kindness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that God's kindness is leading you to repentence?

But, according to your hardness and your unrepententant heart, you are storing up for yourself wrath in teh day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to each according to his works." (Romans 2:4-6)

And you have no fear to allow Christ to redeem you from eternal judgment ?
Some people need a little fire and brimstone preaching.

And some people have no healthy fear that time is passing them by and they have not yet discovered why they exist in this universe. They are not getting any younger. What will be thier feeling in the end when all their dreams and aspirations of life crumble ?

Many just drug themselves with business to not have to think about it.

So I think it is legitimate to mingle with one's love for the Savior God a certain amount of fear of missing not only justification before Him but purpose and meaning itself.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
If sin is *intolerable* to God, then He should have refrained from freely choosing to make creatures who themselves had free will, creatures who, by explicit design, might later freely end up sinning by choosing to sin. God would then only have Himself ultimately to blame for allow this *intolerable* outcome, as he could have avoided the possibility by den ...[text shortened]... punishing Himself. Could this furnish an alternative account of the incarnation and crucifixion?

==================================
If sin is *intolerable* to God, then He should have refrained from freely choosing to make creatures who themselves had free will, creatures who, by explicit design, might later freely end up sinning by choosing to sin.
===================================

I would like to bring a few things into your consideration.

Notice that in Genesis Adam is placed before two choices, one is "the tree of life" and the other is "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

There should be no problem is seeing that the forbidden tree, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" resulted in sin and death and all manner of negative and unhappy things for man. But what would the other tree have meant ?

I would propose to you that life of the "tree of life" is God's divine and eternal life dispensed into man. And that is a life which is, as you note, a life beyond the possibility of being involved in this "intolerable" sin against God.

So I see a neutral man standing between two sources of existence, with a free will to choose one or the other. They seem mutually exclusive, judging by the details of the story.

But, what ground do I have to assert that "the tree of life" is God's own divine life ? I have plenty of ground but I will only mention one point right now. Look at First John 3:9 :

A man who CANNOT sin - "Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God.

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest."

His [God's] SEED abiding in a man is God's divine life abiding in a man. And this divine life abiding in man removes him (that is eventually at the end of the process of sanctification) from the possibility of the "intolerable".

I would like you to consider these two matters the same in the Bible.

1.) The tree of life

2.) The SEED of God.

Both are a matter of God dispensing His own divine being into man. Both involve removing man from the "intolerable".

In the first case, the NEUTRAL man, the first head of the human race, Adam, had the choice to receive the life of God into his human vessel. He failed and instead received the nature of Satan, becomming a child of the devil.

In the second case, the SEED of God which removes man from the "intolerable" is obtained through the redemption of Jesus Christ.

Now, briefly what I want to say is that the WORLD that you imagine, ie. man removed from the POSSIILITY of being involved in the "intolerable" was not only an option presented to man from the beginning. It is the inevitable final outcome in climax of all those forgiven and saved through Christ's redemption.

That world, removed from the intolerable, is definitely the climax and destination we see in Revelation 21 and 22 - the conclusion of all of God's operation in time.

The human life and human world removed from the intolerbleness of sin and sinning is the will of God. But it is approached in His way.

He must dispense His divine life into man's being to be mingled with man. This mingling looks like Jesus Christ, the Firstborn Son of God. That is the Firstborn to be followed by many brothers conformed into His image by the indwelling divine seed implanted into them through salvation.

This is a brief word on the matter of man being brought into the elimination of the intolerable. Many ask, why we were not simple created in the sinless existence.

That is a good question. But at least we can see that this sinless world was extended to man from the beginning in "the tree of life" which Adam failed to take and which he was expelled from until Christ opened the way for man to receive God as eternal life.

And we see that those participating in Christ's salvation receive the divine seed which renders man incapable from sinning. That is in its full growth, spreading, saturation, sanctification, and transformation of the saved sinner.

New Jerusalem, the destiny of the saved, is totally and eternally removed from the intolerable. She marries God and His counterpart and "wife".

===========================================
God would then only have Himself ultimately to blame for allow this *intolerable* outcome, as he could have avoided the possibility by denying creatures free will.==========================================

Perhaps, you are right. But perhaps God would rather accept the risk and have a free willed man choose and learn, in the process of being brought into that world which excludes the "intolerable".

It may be the difference between a true Wife and a Robot Wife.

================================
But perhaps God felt like atoning for his error by punishing Himself. Could this furnish an alternative account of the incarnation and crucifixion?
====================================

Forgiveness is a matter of accepting the loss incurred. It is true that in Christ's death God receives the loss incurred by man's sin against God.

Though love, is the motive for God to provide a ransomm, an atonement, I don't think it is a matter of a sentimental God blaming Himself.

I think rather it is a legal matter. We sinners had to be bought out from under the law of God to which we became captives. This was a matter not of a sentimental God blaming Himself. But this was a matter of God providing a legal payment for the purchase of property He wanted which rightefully belonged under the condemnation of His righteous law.

God did not BUY us from Satan. Satan possessed man illegally. The Bible speaks of God rescueing man with His power from Satan, a kind of kidnapper. But when it comes to His righteous law under which we were condemned for our sins, it says that He "redeemed us from the curse of the law".

That is a legal transaction to purchase that from a rightful other owner. In His death on the cross Christ redeemed the believer from "the curse of the law of God" (Gal. 3:13) .

By granting us free will He accepts the risk of our making the awful wrong choice. By Christ's redemption He furnishes a way to purchase us back from the custody of His righeous law which becomes the condemner of the intolerable.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
Many theists do 'follow' (or fail to ask questions) through fear. Fear of eternal torture if they turn away. It is perhaps a form of Stockholm syndrome that they then come to love this supposed entity.
===========================================

What is wrong with following God out of fear ?
Wh ...[text shortened]... t of fear of missing not only justification before Him but purpose and meaning itself.[/b]

I loved my parents. I also had a certain amount of fear of them if I misbehaved.

I loved some of my college instructors. I also had a certain amount of fear, if not for their person, for their position and legitimate authority.

Until Satan is cast into the eternal fire, I will mingle a certain amount of fear with my love for God.
Yeah, my bad! eternal gnashing of teeth flailing about in a sea of fire is totally equivalent to losing your pocket money or a 1 week grounding. Loving the way you compare like for like terms there Jaywill.

As an unbeliever, you certainly should have a certain amount of fear. That is unless you are a fool. You are accumulating day after day transgressions against God. His record of them is irrefutable. His memory of them will be infallible. They need cleansing away and forgiveness. And you refuse to be forgiven. So day after day you are accumulating more and more iniquities. And you have a rendevous with an infallible Judge.
Fear of what!?...what do you think is meant by the statement "I don't believe your god exists"?
Are you afraid of Voldemort?