God isn't "All-Knowing"

[VIBE]

So it's fair to say that g-d sent the snake to tempt Eve, right?

Sent Satan, I guess you could say that. Doesn't he have to basically go to God for "permission"?

 

[soul rattler]

Sent Satan, I guess you could say that. Doesn't he have to basically go to God for "permission"?

If g-d is all knowing, then in a sense anything that happens, g-d already gave it permission to come to pass. How cruel and un-loving.

 

[VIBE]

If g-d is all knowing, then in a sense anything that happens, g-d already gave it permission to come to pass. How cruel and un-loving.

I feel the same way at times with certain stories in the bible. I don't see why he turned away people who were disabled, I don't see why many things were done the way they were. Seems more so man though than God. Because if this God is seriously all loving etc, he wouldn't have done half of the bad done by this "man god".

 

[soul rattler]

I feel the same way at times with certain stories in the bible. I don't see why he turned away people who were disabled, I don't see why many things were done the way they were. Seems more so man though than God. Because if this God is seriously all loving etc, he wouldn't have done half of the bad done by this "man god".

What's even more ridiculous is the idea that the Abrahamic religion's g-d would be capable of human emotions. It's contradictory. If people at least conceded that their g-d was void of emotion and preference, it would make some type of sense.

 

[VIBE]

What's even more ridiculous is the idea that the Abrahamic religion's g-d would be capable of human emotions. It's contradictory. If people at least conceded that their g-d was void of emotion and preference, it would make some type of sense.

Then that leaves the human connection to God without any emotion. How can anyone love something that doesn't express something? A God, a creator, the one who made us all "because he loves us". A God must have emotion to connect to a human and draw them into the "salvation" or even a "relationship in belief". If we had a God without emotion, there wouldn't be religion.

 

[kids in america_]

By using this rule, you're blurring the lines between what is and isn't g-d. Are you saying that angels are mere extentions of their creator? Cause if so, how do you explain the"Satan fiasco"?

You all do know the word “god” is just a title, right? “g-d” is merely a title, just as “President,” “King” “Queen” and “Lord” are titles. Such words do not have to do with one’s nature but there position. The whole point I'm trying to make is that the usage of the language of ‘God’ in relation to men and “angels” is common in the ‘bible’. The word "g-d" can have more than one application, and it is fallacy whenever you read the word ‘g-d’ in the “bible it speaks of the Supreme Creator. The Jewish writings say that no man can see the face of ‘g-d’ and live [Ex. 33:20], but throughout the ‘bible’ we see these “face to face” happenstances with ‘god’ and the people. So I came to the conclusion that it could not have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person but one of his agents. Lastly, I don't believe in a personal Satan.

 

[kids in america_]

This whole chapter is bullshit though. First, Sarai's dumb ass is down and out she can't get pregnant so she goes to her slave as a surrogate mother. Then Abram bangs the broad, and the slave despises Sarai (gee I wonder the fuck why) then Sarai gets mad at Abram. THEN Sarai mistreats the slave (which is a no-no in God's rules) so the slave runs away. So the angel of the LORD comes down and allows the bullshit to still take place? After adultery has taken place anyways? Supposed 'angel of the LORD' says go back and submit to the master anyways? So the angel of the LORD gives many descendants so many there's no counting them?

Well, gee, sounds like a God allowed 1. Adultery. 2. Mistreatment of the slave. 3. Allow, what in God's eyes should be an abomination, to be born. 4. Continue on the family tree as well. What the fuck is that? AND how is an ANGEL the LORD? Did God come down "in the likeliness of an angel"? Because if it's a regular angel, and it got labeled LORD, GOD then there is a problem with that in a biblical sense. Remember, there is ONLY ONE GOD! How can an angel be one as well?[

There's no problem. In biblical/ancient times, any hero, leader, or King was addressed as 'God'. In the culture the ‘bible’ was first written – it was understandable for such persons to be called ‘g-d”, “lord”, or else carry the name of their superior without being that superior in person. Clearly we are working with different meanings of the word for “god”. More than likely, you are working with an Indo-European concept of “god”.

 

[soul rattler]

Then that leaves the human connection to God without any emotion. How can anyone love something that doesn't express something? A God, a creator, the one who made us all "because he loves us". A God must have emotion to connect to a human and draw them into the "salvation" or even a "relationship in belief". If we had a God without emotion, there wouldn't be religion.

That would be great.

You all do know the word “god” is just a title, right? “g-d” is merely a title, just as “President,” “King” “Queen” and “Lord” are titles. Such words do not have to do with one’s nature but there position. The whole point I'm trying to make is that the usage of the language of ‘God’ in relation to men and “angels” is common in the ‘bible’. The word "g-d" can have more than one application, and it is fallacy whenever you read the word ‘g-d’ in the “bible it speaks of the Supreme Creator. The Jewish writings say that no man can see the face of ‘g-d’ and live [Ex. 33:20], but throughout the ‘bible’ we see these “face to face” happenstances with ‘god’ and the people. So I came to the conclusion that it could not have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person but one of his agents. Lastly, I don't believe in a personal Satan.

I'm fully aware that god is a title, and since I now know that you know that, I don't have to use 'g-d' anymore. Regardless, you're just going by semantics now. "God/the Lord/YHWH/The Big Guy upstairs" is who I was referring to in the context of a religionist. So as far as Jewish writings are concerned, to even be able to say that no man can see god's face is to presume that god has a face to see in the first place.

@the bolded, elaborate please. Are you saying you believe the Bible or just certain parts of it? Because from my perspective it's a nifty book with gems here and there but it's full on inconsistencies, fallacies, mistranslations, and contradictions.

 

[soul rattler]

By the way, "satan" is a title as well. Semantics.

 

[kids in america_]

That would be great.

I'm fully aware that god is a title, and since I now know that you know that, I don't have to use 'g-d' anymore. Regardless, you're just going by semantics now. "God/the Lord/YHWH/The Big Guy upstairs" is who I was referring to in the context of a religionist. So as far as Jewish writings are concerned, to even be able to say that no man can see god's face is to presume that god has a face to see in the first place.

@the bolded, elaborate please. Are you saying you believe the Bible or just certain parts of it? Because from my perspective it's a nifty book with gems here and there but it's full on inconsistencies, fallacies, mistranslations, and contradictions.

I believe ‘satan’ ['adversary'] is just a personification or symbolization of any opposing force, e.g. the power of sin and evil. I believe ‘satan' ’does not exist as personal being.

 

[kids in america_]

By the way, "satan" is a title as well. Semantics.

I am fully aware that the term 'satan' is a title. You really need to tell those darn Xitans!

 

[soul rattler]

Ah, I misunderstood your position in this thread. My fault.

 

[BlackxChild]

r we having arguments on something that doesn't exist

 

[kids in america_]

Bumping.....

You're still wrong VIBE!

 

[VIBE]

You're still wrong VIBE!

LOL

I'm bumping for the other dudes who haven't seen this from my other topic about God creating every THING.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

for the babes

 

[Bodhi]

In before the lock

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Oh shit you're right.

Janklow pretty please for all the awesome things on this magnificent planet and galaxies abundant, please don't make Vibe copy and paste this whole thread in a new thread.

:-bd

 

[janklow]

Janklow pretty please for all the awesome things on this magnificent planet and galaxies abundant, please don't make Vibe copy and paste this whole thread in a new thread.

i am torn because you asked nicely but clearly bumped the thread in a shameless fashion

DECISIONS, DECISIONS

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Not shameless, I'm offended you think that ) . I bumped it because it tied into the other thread, but didn't want to copy and paste it all in there, Vibe did all the work already and so made sense. Yes I added 'for the babes' because anyone who's done their biblical homework, can clearly see it's truth. Just tryin to help young guns out. Where's the shame in that?