The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Devils

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#61

I can’t say I know much about devils etc, but I tend towards the cosmic warfare view (a la Greg Boyd) that takes devils as fallen angels who have negatively influenced creation for a long, long time (I see the brutality of the natural order and evolution as pretty much lying at the feet of satan).

Where I differ from Boyd and others is that I believe that all creatures, including satan, will ultimately be reconciled.

God created the original order with the intention of having a good universe full of autonomous beings who freely chose to love him. This original creation contained an element of self-unfolding potential (non-deterministic physicality) and angels with power to influence, to a degree, the physical world - god works, as love works, by participation and empowerment of the other. Gods original plan remains his only plan, and he will succeed in this plan in the end.

But free will entails risk, and some angels rebelled. Whether they rebelled all at once or over time I do not know. The effects are clear to see. God has been working in the physical realm, again through participatory agents -angels and humans, to bring about his first plan, his kingdom.

How can god guarantee satans repentance? In the same way he guarantees all creatures will eventually choose him. At the start of creation god could have overwhelmed his beings with his presence, a full, tyrannical or coercive demonstration of his being which would have ensured obedience but removed freedom. So he withdrew and veiled himself to a degree, there was epistemical distance even between satan and god - the devil did not fully know the true nature of god or his love. But there is another way to guarantee obedience without loosing freedom - persuasion. If god could close the epistemical distance in a such a way as to provide a fully persuasive demonstration of his love he could provide a guaranteed way of having all creatures freely choosing him. The method of this epistemical collapse is the cross of Christ, it is in seeing the crucified god that a creature comprehends the truth of gods nature and turns to him. The more fully one understands the cross, the more one is turned to god. God will ensure that through the participatory action of angels and humans all remaining beings will eventually ‘see’ the beauty and truth of the cross, and repent.

This method of persuasive, not coercive, epistemical collapse was not available to god at creation for true love can only be fully revealed in sacrifice for ones enemies - a quality which could only exist in a world where free willed beings had already introduced evil and suffering. Thus by causing suffering and crucifying gods son the satan created the conditions that would eventually undo all his own evil - if they knew what they were doing they wouldn’t have crucified The Lord of glory. God works through redemption ( again, consider evolution - god turns death into a creative force that results in biological altruism, appreciation Of beauty, human reason etc) turning that which meant for evil into a means for good.

Thus god fulfills his plan - one united free universe of love - not only despite the evil of satan, but even due to it. God doesn’t will evil - free willed beings could always have chosen god from the start - but in creating evil, satan lay the foundation of his, and every other beings, eventual, guaranteed, irrevocable, freely chosen love of god through gods persuasive demonstration of goodness. God is very smart.

#62

Jesus disagrees with your religion.

Matthew 12:5 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

Your God will lose and your hope is in a losing cause. There was and is no cosmic warfare that divided the Kingdom of God and if such belief was true, then God will ultimately lose and His household will not stand.

It will take sometime for people to realize Satan’s Origin is earthly, not heavenly and fallen Angels are ‘Messengers’ not Celestial Beings who rebelled with Satan, and these messengers also had an earthly origin. Satan and his messengers ‘elevated’ themselves to Heaven in their hearts, and God cast them (back) to earth where they came from. Read the Scriptures and listen to the words of Jesus, the Son of God, not religion and those trying to come up with the answers.

#63

Obviously I disagree, AUniversalist :slight_smile:

I don’t see god vs satan as a civil war within the kingdom of god, rather I see it as two kingdoms at war. And in that war god will ultimately win.

#64

Hullo, Michael

I saw this thread a while back, but I didn’t notice it was you who had posted it. I thought it was just someone’s curiosity question and I didn’t look at it. So, I was skimming through and saw a post where you seemed to hint that perhaps you had been caring for your mom and she wandered off or something similar. I can’t read the entire thing; it’s just too long a thread. You’ve had a lot of replies! Really sparked some interest.

Anyway, first about your mom. If that’s what happened, I can totally relate to your angst. The same thing happened to me, caring for my grandfather, who suffered amnesia from a hemorrhagic stroke (or maybe several) that he suffered after a fall. I moved here to take care of him, and he just kept getting worse. He didn’t tend to wander, but one morning he was just gone. I looked for him for maybe an hour, thinking he’d just gone for a walk, then called in the troops. It was a big deal. I mean dogs, helicopters, lots of people, television news crews – the works. But after a couple of weeks it all died down and a month later a hiker stumbled across his corpse, tangled up in a line fence. It was very hard to get over that.

He was a nominal but-not-really “Christian” who just wanted to get back to my grandmother. I honestly think he wandered off intending never to return to us. My mom told me he’d always said when he was a younger man that when he got too old to take care of himself he wanted to just go off into the woods and die where he was the happiest. So I guess he did, though I’m sure he didn’t enjoy it. It was a cold night, and I hope it was quick.

My church was great. They prayed, asked God to help me, help us find him, brought food, spent time keeping me company, drove all around the countryside looking for him in case he might have gotten a ride somehow and ended up farther away, wandering. But when we were all praying together I got a picture of him in my mind sitting in a hilly meadowy country, fishing in a stream (he loved to fish). And I thought that he was gone, but it didn’t fit with my theology which said he pretty much had to be in hell. I didn’t mention it because I figured it must be just my wishful thinking. I mean, I WANTED to believe that he was okay, and in fact, I DID believe it in my heart, but intellectually I couldn’t accept that “vision” even though it comforted me.

Now the thing that finally helped me to reconcile myself to thinking of him suffering there, tangled up in that barbed wire (too horrible to contemplate), probably whimpering and calling for me to help him, though he didn’t remember me as his granddaughter, was that somehow I just didn’t believe he was suffering now. And I’ve suffered a lot of things (physically speaking) from sicknesses, etc., and once the suffering is over, I am no longer suffering. It’s gone and there’s no need to feel sorry for the suffering I may have endured in the past, because it’s gone. It just doesn’t hurt any more, and the memory doesn’t hurt either. (Mental suffering is different, of course, particularly if it involves a situation that can never be resolved, at least in this life.) But I applied this to him and realized that if he was no longer suffering (and this I knew in my heart to be true), then there was no need for me to sorrow over the suffering he must have gone through because it was certainly not bothering HIM now.

And what’s more I remembered that picture and I knew in my heart that he wasn’t suffering mentally either. It might take a while for him to be ready to complete his journey Home, but it wasn’t as if he was miserable. He seemed very much at peace when I saw him. Maybe he just needed some peaceful contemplation time; I don’t know; but I don’t think hell, or the experience of finding your way in the next life necessarily has to be hellish. God will give us and does give us what we need.

As for fallen angels or demons or whatever they are, I think Colossians 1 is pretty clear.

Aside from that, it makes absolutely no sense that the ALL should be reconciled to Him (except for the demons, etc.). That’s not all – maybe it’s most, but it categorically is not ALL.

ECT believers know this (most of them) and it’s one reason some of them give for EU being impossible – it would mean that ultimately even the devil would be redeemed, and this is inconceivable to them. It’s plainly (to me) where the logic leads us, and I always thought it sad that God’s love was said not to extend to the fallen angels or demons or whatever they are. What if they did repent? What if they suffered terribly, thinking of the horrible things they had done and regretted them most bitterly and begged for restoration and forgiveness? Would God really turn His back on His own creations? Could He, who is LOVE incarnate, do that?

As to why they continue to resist though they know it’s futile, we can only speculate. Maybe they DON’T all know. Maybe they’re deceived. Maybe they’re deceived as to what He is, and blinded by hate and don’t even care that they’ll be defeated in the end, or even that they’re already defeated. Maybe hatred has made them insane. Maybe their cure will take the longest because they did fall with full knowledge of His goodness. Like I say, that’s all speculation. Maybe you can deduce an answer from scripture, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t directly given.

That said, why would God have created them not intending to reconcile them? It would be wrong to use them to bring us to our full development and then just discard them or burn them in eternal torment. It would not be either righteous or just, and God IS just and righteous and good and merciful in all things. So even if we didn’t have that bit in Colossians (and I believe that there might be something similar in another place I’m not remembering), I think we could reasonably believe that despite what Thomas Aquinas may have thought, God is good even toward His elder creation, and has also made plans to refine and perfect and bring them to the beauty they were made for.

Love you, Bro
Cindy

#65

Then you didn’t read what I said. If it is two kingdoms, then you agree me.

If you think that Satan and his angels were once a part of God’s Kingdom, then you are a innocently deceived and inadvertantly lying to me by saying you see two kingdoms at war since that is not the case.

Choose your position with clarity. Where did Satan and his angel originate?

#66

Good point, I will try to be clear but I fear I may not be.

The angel which became satan was made by God. This angel had free will and enough creative power to choose contrary to God’s nature - this gift of freedom was given by God.

God’s kingdom is where His rule-in-power is, and that is complete only at the eschaton, where all bow the knee and death is ended - where all are restored and having been fully persuaded of God’s nature willingly follow Him always.

Before that final revelation all creatures weren’t/aren’t fully persuaded - and thus their freedom always entailed/entails the possibility of fall, a turn to non-good which the existence of good necessitates.

The angel in question exercised his God given freedom and creative power to choose non-good and thereby remove Himself from under the reign of God, the as yet not fully realised Kingdom of God, and set up his own kingdom. There is God’s kingdom, and there is another kingdom: anti-God. With freedom to choose, anti-God was always a possibility. There can only be two kingdoms, however: God and anti-God - there is no further subdivision. God will ensure that this division is healed and restored in the end - all will once again be united under God, who will at that time be ‘all in all.’

This warfare motif between God and anti-God (whether realised in satan or humans) seems, to me at least, common and prevelant in scripture. Jesus becomes our victor in the war, despoiling the enemy, overcoming the strong man, having His enemies as His footstool.

#67

Where do you get the idea he was an angel? You know that the roman myth of Lucifer was interjected into Christianity in the 2nd Century by Jerome and expounded upon by Augustine, right? Prior to this, we know that Jesus said, the devil was a liar from the beginning and lies were his native language.

Jesus at no time saw Satan as anything more than the ‘Adversary’ which was created like that from the very beginning, and men were his wicked servant (serpent’s offspring), especially the religious men of the day who spun lies in order to justify their positions of power and elevating themselves to the seat of God. These are the men who Jesus said in their heart, they want to be like God, but they never knew Him and were cast down when Jesus appeared.

Let us pretend for a moment, that Lucifer was indeed God’s trumpeter and by his freewill sinned against God, mankind needed Lucifer to be tempted to sin, who tempted Lucifer to sin?

The reality is much more simple and no need to go into myths. Satan’s origin is earth, it is not where he landed. Satan was always a liar, thief, killer, and destroyer. His name literally means adversary, and that is what he was created to be. He has tried to always make himself into an angel of light (even one that fell) but he is never been one. His kingdom has been on earth from the very beginning and his kingdom has tried to wage war with God through constant adversarial accusations against God’s creation and God intended it that way because creation was created for God’s Children for a purpose which will be revealed soon, for so is He, so are we and all things were created by Him, for Him and through Him.

#68

I’ll certainly do more research on the nature of satan, AUniversalist, you have prompted me to make sure :slight_smile:

However, I simply cannot agree with your idea that God created an evil being whose purpose was to be an enemy and to cause people to sin and suffer. This form of dualism would imply that God is not all good, that He is the originator of evil and sin, and that all suffering could be laid at His feet. That seems to go against the grain of the over-arching scriptural narrative, against the most plausible theological understanding of God’s nature, against the revelation of God in Christ, and would, I fear, render all theodices useless. In short, I would find it impossible to worship a God who directly caused and *wanted *to cause and purposed to cause all the sin and suffering of all history for an incomprehensible purpose. Such a ‘god’ would be a monster.

I don’t believe that mankind needed temptation to sin, simply free-will, an unformed character and the possibility. Likewise for satan, whatever and whoever he was.

#69

Hello Pog,

Thanks for the reply! I appreciate that you are demonstrating your points.

Judges 9:23
And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.

1 Samuel 16:14-15
But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented and troubled him. Saul’s servants said to him, Behold, an evil spirit from God torments you.

1 Samuel 19:9
Then an evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand; and David was playing [the lyre] with his hand.

1 Kings 22:23
So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets; and the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil; I am the Lord, Who does all these things.

Joshua 23:15
But just as all good things which the Lord promised you have come to you, so will the Lord carry out every evil upon you, until He has destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you.

Micah 2:3
Therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which you shall not remove your necks; neither shall you go haughtily: for this time is evil.

etc.

We can go back and review “RA” definition means evil in the absolute form we know it as and as I said humanity as free-will, mankind can still make a choice to sin, God does not cause an individual to sin, it is always a choice.

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

Not God’s enemy, our enemy.

For your reading: Fallen Angels? (My discussion on Fallen Angels)

#70

AUniversalist: I sorry, but I don’t see more than thin support for your position in those verses. Off the top of my head I would want to question your understanding of ‘spirit’ and ‘from’ and why you took the Isaiah passage to be about something more than gods use of war as judgement.

And regarding your view that the angelic fall theory derives primarily from Jerome and Augustine and has no real previous support, I find that somewhat incredible. Even a cursory glance at a few resources suggests that the historical development of Christian demonology is much more complex than that, with its roots going right back into ancient Mesopotamian mythology, OT developments of such, the many influences that mingled during the inter-testamental period, then the various ideas swimming around in first century Judaism(s) and how Jesus may or may not have used/referred/subverted/endorsed them. Not to mention the demonology of the apostolic and then post-apostolic church.

A web forum isn’t the best place to do these complex ideas justice. And I’ll admit that they are way beyond my ken. If Wright, Boyd, Pagels, Swinburne, Lewis, Guthrie and others can’t agree, what chance have I got? The best way you could help me develop my understanding in this area would be to name a few books for me to have a read of, since you can be assured that you have, if nothing else, encouraged me to study the topic more fully. :slight_smile:

These issues seem a diversion to me, though. They are peripheral to the main point of contention between us, which is simply the moral question of whether God directly creates evil beings to do certain evils He intends. Since this is blurring the line with our discussion on another thread ill leave it at that and pick up the point over there.

#71

Hi pog,

For what it’s worth, you might be interested in J. Preston Eby’s views about Satan, his origin and purpose in God’s economy. I can’t speak for AUniversalist, but I think he and Eby are in agreement, at least to some degree.

kingdombiblestudies.org/serpent/Serpent.htm

Best regards,

Andy

#72

Hi Andy,

thanks for the input. :slight_smile:

I had a quick skim over the article, but I fear his main point is somewhat lost on me as I understand Genesis in quite a different way to him. His point regarding if God foreknew the devil’s fall but still created him anyway making God responsible is also somewhat lost on me as I’m an open theist. Likewise, I take the Isa passage differently to him, as I don’t see etymological or comparative word studies as the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to seeing what ‘ra’/‘evil’ in this passage means …

But, I do like looking at alternative viewpoints - and I’m sorry to sound so dismissive. I really am interested in finding out more, and in changing my view if a strong enough argument comes my way.

Do you know of any substantial modern books that take this line?

#73

Hi pog,

Lol… I’m well familiar with the problems of skimming as I am a frequent skimmer myself! But actually, Eby’s assertion is that God created Satan exactly as he is, as our adversary/enemy. Eby rejects entirely the idea that Satan was once “good” only to later become “evil.” Further, he proposes that no child of God can grow to maturity and to the status of an overcomer without first being tested and tempted by Satan (as Job was and as Jesus was), and that this is precisely why God created him “a murder and a liar from the beginning.” For Eby, to know and to actively embrace the good requires one to also know, and subsequently reject, the evil… just as one must know darkness to appreciate the wonder that is light.

Anyway, when you have time, read the article through and you can decide for yourself. (Eby can be a bit long-winded, but he is an insightful thinker, in my view. :wink: ) If you go to the contents portion of the same website, there is a four-part section called the Two Hands of God where Eby goes into far greater detail along similar lines, not merely about the role of Satan but about how the lessons God delivers with left hand (usually unpleasant) are just as important to our development as God’s children as those given so pleasantly by His right hand. It’s more complicated than this, but for Eby, Satan is essentially a player administering from God’s left hand.

I don’t know of any books to recommend specifically about Satan or demons, but thousands of volumes have been written about the greater problem of evil, of which this subject is but a subset.

Best regards,

Andy

#74

I can see where Eby could come up with this. It makes sense in a way. Because I’ve been reading along on this and also the “evil” thread lately, I’ll venture an alternative viewpoint since I haven’t heard anyone say it. I believe I probably got this from Barth – not that Barth necessarily ever said it, but it came to me as I was reading some of the things he did say. I haven’t read much of his stuff as he’s um, a little too advance for me. If I live to be 100 and continue to work very, very hard and don’t suffer dementia, etc., I may be able to follow him . . . .

Anyway, this is my viewpoint at the present, fwiw (which is probably exactly what you’ve paid for it):

In order for God to create the universe (in physical and spiritual dimensions) He had to make a place that was “not God,” and that is what He did. He spread out a space within Himself (where else could He put anything, since He fills everything?) and in that space was, precisely, nothing. From the “nothing” He formed everything we see. Being God and capable of everything that can be done, He took the “nothing” and forced it to become “something.” IMO, the “nothing” or the “chaos” is evil. God’s good organizes the empty space He made, and weaves it into substance. It does not want to be substance, and immediately tries to decay/degenerate back into chaotic nothingness, but God patiently, tenderly, one whisp of nothingness at a time, forces order into His creation.

This makes a lot of sense to me. The closer we look at God’s creation, the more we see that He is a God of incredible, amazing, fantastic order. And the order is absolutely essential to biological life, to mineral formation . . . to everything. And the universe is always decaying, running out of energy, degenerating and dying. But God keeps sustaining, recharging, regenerating and infusing life into it. His goal? To bring it past the point of decay into a place where its equilibrium will overbalance the disequilibrium and weight it toward a sustaining, loving, life promoting system. A place and a people to display His glory (which to me, means to display who He is). And that means there have to be beings to SEE who He is, and that’s who we who are. Through no intrinsic goodness of our own, we are the witnesses of and the beneficiaries of His loving sustenance and care. All the hurt and evil and “not love” that we see is the tendency for people and things to degenerate. That is the evil that our Father, Elder Brother, and the all-wonderful Holy Spirit are constantly fighting against. As we join His team more and more fully, due to His sustaining grace, the tide begins to turn. Eventually the evil “nothing” is forced to a minority position, and eventually it is destroyed all together.

That may sound like (or even BE) fantasy, but it makes sense of the whole thing for me. It was necessary that God start with nothing in order to make beings “other” than Himself – because all the “something” there was, was Himself. And to create a separate “something,” He could only start out with “nothing.” The “nothing” is necessarily evil because it is separate from Him, and He is all that is good. The separate world eventually becomes mature enough (with His constant shepherding) to shuck off the nothing and come out of its separateness and be willingly and joyfully united with its creator. It remains a discrete (separate but not necessarily apart) entity while joining with Him completely. (Like a marriage.) This was what He wanted – I can’t think of any other way He could have done it – though I’m still quite possibly wrong! :laughing:

Anyway, my little bit of seasoning for the pot. Of course there’s a lot more to my daydreams, but for now I’ll spare you. What do you think?

#75

Hi andy, it’s not just my power of skimming that’s weak, it’s my power of expression too :slight_smile:

I kinda understood that Elby’s position was that the devil was created evil, but he comments that the fall theory doesn’t solve the problem it suppossedly solves, which is where my reference to open theism came in: “If God, all-wise and all-knowing, created a being and designed within this being the inherent ability and potential to become evil - a will capable of rebelling against Him, and if in His omniscience He knew beforehand that this creature would become evil, is God then any LESS responsible for the Devil?” Thus his argument against the fall theory doesn’t hold (for me).

The difficulty for me is that if God creates an evil being in order for that being to do evil, and that God wants that evil to exist in order for a greater good to ensue, then too many problems are created:

Firstly, it makes God evil - a being who wants evil and creates evil and makes someone else do evil is evil.

Secondly, why bother with the devil at all? I can understand that love desires the empowerment and participation of the other and wants to share goodness, but why would evil require such a thing? Why doesn’t God cut out the middle-man and just do evil Himself if evil is what is required to bring about greater good? To get an unwilling, unfree henchman to do it for you just seems to compound the ethical dilemma not recude it.

Thirdly, if the devil had *no choice *about being an instrument of evil in God’s hands then it seems very unjust of God to punish His instrument, not to mention somewhat schizoid to have God fighting an adversary He made/controls/willed.

On top of all this, whilst there are individual scriptures which might appear (or indeed even teach) that the devil was created evil by God, it seems to against the prevailing grain of the rest of scripture (at least to me).

Cindy, I cannot claim to understand Barth’s Das Nichtige whatsoever, especially as I haven’t read him :slight_smile: But coincidently I’ve recently read a Greg Boyd book where he talks about this - mostly he slates it, but then he tries to resurrect it in a very weird form in marrying the concept of eternal suffering to annhilationism - totally bonkers IMHO!!

#76

On the surface, from our perspective, it makes God evil. From the point of purpose and all creation, God is not. The only way it would make God evil is if that evil was not created but has been an inherent quality within Him, and that way Evil is permanent and not a temporary thing.

As I mentioned before, your mistake is you judge God for the evil He does and therefore you will always be wrong. God is not judged by you, or anyone else, especially while we still exist within the creation in which evil exists to even consider a judgement on God.

When you die, and your body turns to dust and your spirit returns to God who gave it and you are raised in an immortal body where evil has no reign and does not exist, you will see creation from a whole different point.

The key to understanding this point is your doctrine on salvation. If you do not believe God will save all mankind, it is understandable your view of evil cannot ever be reconciled and even though you keep denying it, the reason this is a big issue is God ends up always being the origin (but you will always have a paradox and problem since the nature of creation has God as the origin of evil at all times whether he directly created it, or created something to create it).

#77

Even by this explanation, therefore God is the cause and creator evil. He had to make a place that was ‘not God’, this was an active purposeful act which resulted in that which is ‘not God’ to form. He in sense, created ‘Nothing’ which most people say cannot be created, but we dig holes all the time and they are indeed something even if they are spaces of nothing, this ‘Nothing’ is definitely something.

#78

I’m not sure our conversation can go anywhere else, AUniversalist.

You do not deny that God wants evil, creates evil, and makes someone else do evil for Him.
You do not deny that God appears evil to humans.
You state that God does evil.
You state that God cannot be judged by anyone.
You believe that in the future I will see that God’s evil was for the best.

I think it is important that I’m really clear on exactly where you’re coming from here.

Are you saying that when I next hear of some hideous atrocity or some catastrophe that I am to accept that God willed it, wanted it, desired it, caused it; that He is good to do so, and that I should praise Him for it now as I one day will in heaven?

I’m sorry to push this, but I’m really struggling here and I don’t want to misrepresent you. Are you saying that all evil, all suffering, all pain, all misery, every murder, every rape, every act of bloodshed or abuse is part of God’s great and glorious will, but that He is not evil nor can I judge Him because these horrors are only temporary? That evil helps us see good better, that unless we had darkness we wouldn’t know what light was? That genocide and child abuse help me to appreciate that God is good, and that we’d be worse-off without these abominations?

I’m not not sure that we can ever understand each other, AUniversalist. I’m sorry. :frowning:

#79

Indeed, you are not reading and since you cannot suspend your sense of belief (or disbelief in this case), you cannot understand another person’s position until you actually accept their position.

Do you affirm God is Sovereign? Yes or No
Do you affirm God is Omnipotent (All-Powerful)? Yes or No
Do you affirm God is Omniscient (All-Knowing)? Yes or No
Do you affirm God is Omnipresent (Everywhere at all times)? Yes or No
Do you affirm God is Omnibenevolent (All Good)? Yes or No
Do you believe Evil exists? Yes or No
Do you believe all mankind is or will be saved (not just those who believe)? Yes or No

Here is my answer: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

So, when you answer these questions, we will begin to understand why you don’t understand and it most like is that one of those answers is a ‘No’ and should you say ‘Yes’ to all those questions, you cause and create yourself paradoxes and contradictions which will be obvious and addressed.

So you keep talking about the moral evils that mankind commits and blame God instead of man? Interesting philosophy you have. Regardless if God is the cause of evil, he tempts none to evil, nor is he personally committing that evil which mankind chooses to do.

So far, everyone who ‘disagrees’ with my premise has ignored the definition of evil, the Scriptures that plainly tell us God is the creator of evil. There is far more that they are ignoring too, such as this life is NOT our hope and that there is a greater and more important part of the process which we have only a glimpse of. This 100 years of human life is a twinkle in the scope of your existence and the thousands of years or billions of years of creation makes up not even an ounce of what God purposed for His Children.

So yes it is important to know where we come from. You willing?

#80

What do you mean when you say that I cannot understand your position unless I accept your position?

Are you asking me those questions? If so, then I’d probably want to arrive at a shared definition of many terms (since that could easily lead to confusion), but if I’m allowed to answer with that caveat then I too would answer yes to all of them.

Oddly, I think that it is your position that leads to contradiction rather than mine, but that may not be entirely true - no doubt someone could find the paradoxes in my theology sooner or later.

More interestingly, I’m not sure you addressed my points regarding a clarification of your position. Could you tell me plainly if what I said accurately reflects your theological understanding, because I’m still really unsure of exactly where you’re coming from (and I’m prepared to accept that that is more my fault than yours).