in the case of human sacrifices, it was the idea that someone who was deserving of the fate could somehow also take your place

why did the Jewish system of sacrifice exist at all if not for showing the parallel and what does Isaiah 53 refer to if not the crucifiction

it's kind of like saying that since God made the sun give light to the world and whatever world religion has a sun god, it must be giving glory to the sun god. It's not logical or sound reasoning. Your order of events is off if you think that God isn't original creator of anything that is good or doesn't get full credit for it

so by that very nature, if substitutionary atonement is God's way of bringing salvation, then it is God's creation and no glory is deserved by any other for it

so Isa. 42:8 does nothing to argue against it

and while the death of an innocent is never good, the sacrifice of one to take the brunt of our sin and to fix it for us is great news

the emphasis is not on the death, the emphasis is on the willing taking the penalty and consequence of our sin, which happens to be death on himself

you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of substitutionary attonement

putting Jesus to death was sinful, it was a crime against an innocent man, however he also allowed it willingly to take the penalty and result of sin on himself

you focus on the death, while the death is not the key, taking the penalty and rising again after having conquered it is

death was just an unfortunately necessary step in the process

and that idea is unique to Christianity, no human sacrifice of the time was based around that reasoning of the perfect taking on the imperfect to reconcile it

since there were no other perfect individuals

@AJHenderson Did I say that Isa 53 does not refer to his crucifixion? What I said is that Isa. 53 does not reveal the actual purpose for his crucifixion and it does not. Substitutionary atonement is not God's way. If the Lord's crucifixion had perfected the concept of substitutionary atonement and all outstanding issues in regard to sin

ok, so if Isa 53 refers to the crucifiction, then how do you make "the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all" go away?

if the wages of sin is death, God put all the sins on Christ and Christ died, then the penalty is met

if you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you since scriptures clearly demonstrate this as you seem very intent to ignore

were resolved. The Lord's statement in Jn. 16:8 is the most ridiculous statement that has ever been made. Substitutionary atonement's assumption cannot have the exact issue as a remainder to be be resolved all over again that its theorem postulated sacrificing any human in your place would resolve. Since guilt relative to sin IS the remainder that is the absolute proof that the theorem would not, could not, and will not and has not resolved the issue of guilt relative to sin.

If we get a third rolling around here this will be a troll trifecta. I'm afraid that bet always looses though ...

@TheodoreA.Jones what do you mean the Lord's statement in Jn 16:8 is the most ridiculous statement that has ever been made? I don't see anything particularly ridiculous about it

@TheodoreA.Jones it isn't sacrificing a human that matters, it is someone or something that doesn't deserve the fate taking it by choice

every other human deserves it

so they can't take it by choice, they take it by deserving it

after they pay their own penalty, they have nothing left to pay with

I'm not sure what you mean by the remainder bit and saying that guilt relative to sin is the remainder

there is no sin that is unpaid, just sin that people won't let go of

the mouseover is the key bit

alternately xkcd.com/386

@TheodoreA.Jones oh wait, I see, you meant a comma, not a .

so you are saying that if Jesus' death covered all sins, then the John verse makes no sense

sorry, punctuation threw me off

let me take another look

I would say it is quite the opposite

unless all sin is paid for, then John 16:8 makes no sense

because the world's understanding of sin would still be correct

and death and sin would not be defeated and thus would not stand condemned

John 16:8 can only make sense if sin is defeated and universally accounted for

that isn't to say that people must accept that forgiveness, but the penalty is paid

or John 16:8 is rediculous

I'm amazed nobody else voted to close this. Since when is Meta a free-for-all for people to post bogus questions for their own amusement? (Or am I just getting grumpy lately?)

@AJHenderson The crucifixion of Jesus Christ most certainly did NOT cover any acts of sin committed prior to his crucifixion nor post of it. And by His own testimony prior to his crucifixion he emphatically said crucifying him wouldn't and hasn't resolved the issue of guilt relative to sin. Jn. 16:8 The theorem of substitutionary atonement has NO wiggle room. Crucifying a man in your place either resolves all issues of guilt relative to sin or it doesn't. He says

murdering him in your place only leaves the remainder of guilt relative to sin. Which is where you were at before you murdered him.

@DavidStratton Scram. You came inhere last night about this same time to interrupt the Holy Spirit's work. Scram, git!, vamous.

@TheodoreA.Jones In the 24 hours I've been watching your posts in here, you've used obscene phrases, made vague threats about people that annoy you ending up hurt, been rude, obnoxious, and argumentative. By their fruits ye shall know them, and you, my friend, do not have any ground to stand on when it comes to the Holy Spirit. By your fruits, you are either a fraud, a fool, or you're delusional. .

@waxeagle How do you know that Evan Carroll is an atheist?

You have no right nor any basis for asking me to scram. You have been given quite enough leeway. This isn't a free-for all and there are guidelines, which you flagrantly ignore. It is not I who should scram.

@DavidStratton You seem to be pretty educated. You certainly know how to make nice punctuated, grammatically correct sentences. I still can't believe you are a young earth creationist.

@Anonymous LOL

@DavidStratton Well, I think I have spotted one error: "You have no right nor any basis..." I would replace this with "You have neither the right nor the basis..."

@DavidStratton Are you sure you weren't raised Christian or even Jewish? How come you have a biblical name?

My Grandma was Catholic. I'm sure that played into it somewhat.

My family and my ancestors have never been Christian.

@DavidStratton What type of Catholic?

@DavidStratton What ever measure you use for judgement you've only judged yourself. Scram.

@Anonymous I personally don't believe you can be "raised" Christian. You can be taught from a young age, but ultimately, the parent's beliefs have no direct impact on the salvation of the child.

@TheodoreAJones I'm not seeing where you get anything about a remainder of sin

@Anonymous Roman Catholic.

John 16:8 which you referenced says nothing about a remainder

Only that the world will be proven wrong about it

And the view of the World Is that good can outweigh evil

@DavidStratton But people don't live in vacuums. They are influenced by the environment as well as genetics that shape them to whomever they become.

Now what seems to be the problem here?

@Anonymous Agreed. As I said, parents can teach the kids, but kids are free to reject or accept the teachings of the parents. I do recognize that the fact that I am surrounded by Christians was an influence on my decisions.

@Krazer I'm pretty sure my reply to @TheodoreA.Jones is the problem here. Feel free to scroll up a bit.

@Krazer Theodore A. Jones is a troublemaker. He seems to be upset about something; yet, it is unclear what he is trying to say. He keeps citing biblical verses without explaining much about how he arrives at his conclusions, only to belittle others for not arriving at the same conclusions. WTF?

As of this point I'm simply ignoring him wondering why the site mods have allowed him to continue.

@DavidStratton OK. You seem to accept the part about nature vs. nurture. Hmmm... I still can't believe you are a young earth creationist.

@TheodoreA.Jones are you displeased with in particular with something? I'll try to address anything concerns you may have.

@DavidStratton Since your Grandma was Catholic, were you baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant?

@Anonymous Yes, I was. I don't remember much about it, though. ;-)

@DavidStratton Ha! So, you are Catholic then! A nominal Catholic, but still Catholic!

@DavidStratton Were you confirmed in the Catholic Church or served as altar boy?

@AJHenderson "When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin" The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost AFTER Jesus was crucified and you are still guilty of no less than a sin after Jesus' crucifixion. Crucifying him and shedding his blood has not covered that sin.

@DavidStratton Did Grandma teach you how to pray the Rosary?

@DavidStratton Did you get the chance to pray to the saints, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary?

@Krazer Really now? First off who and what are you?

@Anonymous I suppose that's true. I did none of that. The only Church I remember attending at all as a child was a non-denominational Protestant Church.

@TheodoreA.Jones I am a moderator (all moderators have blue names) on one of the many StackExchange sites.

@DavidStratton So... why did you not decide to return to the Catholic Church - the religion of your Grandma?

@Krazer Well congrats. what is it that I might help you about/

@TheodoreA.Jones Are you displeased with something in particular?

@Anonymous Instead I'll answer why I chose the one I did end up going to... If that's O.K.

@DavidStratton OK.

@DavidStratton Why don't you identify yourself as both Roman Catholic and Fundamentalist?

By the the time I decided to start attending Church I was convinced that the Bible was God's inerrant Word... I attended several denominations...

@DavidStratton How in the world did you become convinced that the Bible was God's inerrant word? What's that supposed to mean to you?

But all of the basically said 'accept the teachings oh this Church, even if it doesn't quite line up with Scripture'

@DavidStratton How many denominations did you try? What were they?

@DavidStratton You could have just returned to the church of your Grandma. :)

Sorry about that. I hate that tablet. Anyway in the two years I was church Hopping, three Baptist pastors told me "If I ever preach anything contrary to the Bible, believe the Boble, not me. That's why I attended baptist Churches in the end.

@Krazer No i'm not displeased at all. what/who in the world gave you that idea?

@TheodoreA.Jones The multiple chat flags which I believe to have been raised by you in this room.

@Krazer Don't know anything about 'em. But when one is doing the right thing in serving Jesus Christ and he doesn't get 'em he isn't doing the right things. The way he describes it is "If the world does not hate you" you can figure you ain't one of his sheep. does his expressed opinion click with you?

@DavidStratton Believing the Boble? LOL.

@TheodoreA.Jones I am not taking sides in the matter. I am merely here for remediation.

Let us refer to Proverbs 17:14 on this matter... starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.

@DavidStratton Hmmm... I think a better recommendation is "Use reason and intuition, and trust the scholarly academic authorities."

@Anonymous I thought that once, too, but when you look st how often "science" has been wrong over the years.. Flat earth, believing the four humours were the key to health, heavy objects fall lfaster than light, etc, I have less faith in common knowledge and that the experts believe than ever before. As a matter of fact...

@DavidStratton I do not think it is ever possible to believe the Bible. There are too many interpretative traditions that go into interpreting the Bible that in order to consider them all, one would have to do some serious research.

A thought occurred to me yesterday that made me think of you. .Hang on while I type it upp..

@Krazer Ain't no neutrals in the game buddy Either you'er for Him or against Hm. I kinda figure it is the latter no matter how much thou doth protest. right?

@DavidStratton I think it is safer to believe in Prima Scriptura.

You had asked what made me change from being an atheist to a Christian, and this occurred to me. It wasn't so much that I GAINED a faith in God, but I slowly LOST faith in the idea that there was no God... When I was an atheist, I was SO SURE that there couldn't possibly be a "God" and over time, little things eroded that faith and made the idea of God seem more plausible.

From there it eventually turned into a faith in God, but it started out as a loss of faith in atheism

@TheodoreA.Jones As followers of our Lord Jesus Christ, I beg of you to get along with each other. Don't take sides. Always try to agree in what you think.

@DavidStratton To us, these "scientists" appear to be wrong. But you must keep in mind that they live in a different time, and science always builds on itself.

@DavidStratton Well, since you were baptized as Catholic Christian, I guess you could say that you were a Catholic atheist... or apostate.

@Anonymous That's my point. A hundred years from now, some of the things we take to be true will look foolish again. The wisdom of God's word - truths about what's right, just, good, pure never change.

@Anonymous LOL I just need to add a few more memberships to round out my profile.

@DavidStratton So, the thing that is attractive about God is that you believe that God does not change, and you do not want things to change. How comforting. The Big Chill always gives me the creeps, but religion always provides a nice, cushy comforting voice.

@DavidStratton So, did you baptize your children in the Catholic church as a family tradition?

@Anonymous Nope. I don't believe in infant baptism. I'm in the "Baptism-is-an-outward-sigh-of-your-conversion-but-it-doesn't-save-you" camp.

@DavidStratton I mean, even if you are not a believing Catholic, maybe you could have been a cultural Catholic - someone who identifies with the Catholic culture, celebrates Catholic holidays, and baptizes children as a family tradition.

Nah. Anyway it's time for me to scram, vamoose, git! Talk to you another time! Again, it's been nice chatting with you.

@Krazer well now what a noble suggestion. But there is a problem ya see. It is the going beyond what is written problem. "Do not go beyond what is written." 1. Cor. 4:6 These cats on here, most of 'em, have got the mistaken foolish idea the Jesus died in their place. That's going beyond what's written ya see? besides if the cats is got a beef with me then they've got one with the scriptures too. Ya see.

@TheodoreA.Jones Some valid points. Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God's word perfectly all of the time.

we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

@TheodoreA.Jones what translation are you using?

most translate that as prove them wrong abuot

*about

@Krazer Interpretation is a gift of God's Holy Spirit. can't be sold and it can't be bought. Bible schools, Bible colleges, and seminaries are in the business of try'in to sell'em. I don't make interpretational mistakes and i've never been trained in one of those things either. Selah

@Caleb - CONGRATS ON REACHING 20K!!! Not that it results in a change of privileges for a mod, but cool nonetheless!

@AJHenderson Niv primary KJV old & new.

@DavidStratton People's interpretation of religion and the Bible change constantly. How is that better than science's process of refinement?

@TheodoreA.Jones niv translates it as he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness, KJV translates it as reprove the world of sin and of righteousness and judgement, the root word of reprove is pronounced (el-eng'-kho) and is of uncertain affinity; meaning to confute, admonish, convict, convince, tell a fault, rebuke or reprove

@Anonymous Until today(or at least very recently his online presence was largely very openly atheist. He's also trolled numerous stack exchange sites for various reasons.

so the verse seems to be indicating that it will either a)inform people of their sin, or b) prove the world to be in error about their understanding of sin

@waxeagle oh, Evan Carroll. He ran for moderator on the ELU elections. that was ... amusing.

either of these meanings is consistent with generally accepted Christian theology and consistent with Jesus' death paying the penalty for all sins

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Just for some context, that post is in an ongoing discussion about how I, personally went from Atheist to Christian. You may be reading into it that I'm anti-science. I'm not, and I'm also not trying to convince anyone else to be... The context was speaking about placing my faith in human understanding as absolute truth, not a statement that science is useless.

note it doesn't say that the spirit will condemn

part of the role of the spirit is to convict people of wrong doing so that they repent

admonish and convince show the underlying meaning of where it crosses over with convict

@DavidStratton Well, I didn't read "science is useless" into it. But attributing a deficiency to "science" on the grounds of "some time ago scientists claimed X, now they claim Y instead" is flawed reasoning. That is the benefit of science: it improves with time and admits that errors have been and will be made.

just because the penalty has been paid, doesn't mean that sin is no longer sinful

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No argument there.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 yes, yes it was

@TheodoreA.Jones I believe that we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God's Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what God's word means and how to apply it. Afterall, 2 Peter 1:20, says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Just sayin'

@DavidStratton I guess I don't understand your claim that "God's Word" is unchanging. I suppose it might be, in some sense, but in practical terms it is changing because everyone's interpretations change with time. Whatever the original message might have been is probably unknowable.

@DavidStratton I'd also add that scripture is pretty clear that you can't argue, prove, convince, educate, demonstrate or otherwise will someone in to being a Christian since scripture is pretty clear that God has to initiate any conversion

so ultimately, we try to do the best we can, but how you are raised is by no means a foregone conclusion of how one turns out

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I don't buy that,but I'm also not willing to waste time debating it (again.) That debate never goes anywhere.

fair enough

battery dying, time to exit stage left.

@AJHenderson Jn. 16:8 NIV "When he comes , he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father , where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgement, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. [quote]

@TheodoreA.Jones If you can't find anyone else who believes you have a gift, it might be cause for concern though

@TheodoreA.Jones you are quoting in English, I'm quoting the critical word you reference in Latin

and most translations agree with my verbiage

you are cherry picking your translation to say the word you want instead of looking at the general meaning of the words in the context

and even if you take it as convict, that is different from condemn

it can be my conviction that you are either a false teacher or decieved

that doesn't mean I condemn you, it means my heart knows it to be true

similarly, the spirit convicts of us guilt in sin by demonstrating to our hearts that we are imperfect creatures in need of salvation

you claim that we are the ones adding to scripture, but you are the one doing so

as we've tried over and over again to show to you over the last several days, but you are unwilling to hear or consider

@AJHenderson friend Jesus put it this way "Even tho you raise the dead they will still not believe you." I have no expectation that you will believe me, But at the judgement you will wish like hell you had have.

have you raised the dead lately?

@TheodoreA.Jones the feeling is mutual, I hope for your sake that you will see that you are decieved

and convinced of your own righteousness

@TheodoreA.Jones I always laugh when someone uses a quote like that. It always equally applies to the speaker as to his or her audience.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 excellent point ser

No. And it would not make a bit of difference if I had. Even if Jesus himself would come here and perform all his miracles and then some you won't believe him either.

@TheodoreA.Jones but I would

I have absolute faith in Jesus, I've seen his work in my life and in other's in ways that I can not deny

@AJHenderson Nope. Ain't gonna happen anyway.

@TheodoreA.Jones who are you to know my soul?

I don't know if you will believe or not, I pray that you will, but it is unknowable to me if you will or not. Only God knows who he will call to himself

you can not make the claim that I would not believe if Jesus stood in front of me and said that you were correct and that I had been deceived, but as you said, that is not going to happen, though we may disagree on the reason

if you can not be swayed by the flaws pointed out in your reasoning, I would then encourage you to reflect on your own sinful nature and pray to God about it. Ultimately it is him who must convict you of sin anyway.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Careful, young man. I do not wish to see you starred so easily.

Hi semi-Icarus.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Ah, too late. The star has nailed you.

@Cerberus Hey now. No fair. plus I'm older than you.

if you are willing to do that, I tell you truthfully that I do the same

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Darn. How many years do I have to accomplish the same?

@Cerberus ironically, I stared it because you pointed it out :)

Nooo what have I done?

@Cerberus I don't know. You're SE's #1 chatter. I'm sure if you hang out here long enough you'll think of something witty to say :)

I'm trying! But it isn't working.

oh wow @Cerberus didn't realize you were so prolific :P

As I said, I'm trying!

Hey, does anyone here know of a bible verse that says something like "even Satan can quote scripture if it suits his purposes"? Or, if not a bible verse, some original source for that?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 not sure right off the top of my head...definitely not untrue though

@waxeagle But certain waters are yet too deep for my paws, like Mathematics and Christianity and a whole lot more.

(specially because he does it in the temptation of Christ)

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I know that as a saying!

I think it's an English saying.

Like "the Devil cites Scripture to please his case" or something.

Yeah I was hoping it was actually in the Bible. Because then it would be the most ironic verse to ever quote.

I don't remember the exact words.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 there's no verse that says those words, but Satan does quote Scripture in Matthew 4 and in Genesis 3.

> In Matthew 4 and in Genesis 3 you read Satan quoting scripture.

Probably where the saying comes from...

Ah, too late.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 there are cases where he actually does

oh, David beat me too it

Ah, Google tells me it's from The Merchant of Venice.

it appears to be shakespear...according to goodreads

He's the room's owner. We cannot defeat him by Scripture.

Looks like we can all Google.

yup :)

I could've sworn I'd googled this in the past and come up empty handed. Maybe I only imagined I did.

Or maybe Google didn't know the answer then, but does now.

@Cerberus there is also James 2:19 about the fact that even the demon's believe in God

which is possibly related

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Unpossible.

@AJHenderson Hmm do they? Funny, but I suppose that makes sense.

similar to how every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

yet some will still rebel

acknowledgement and acceptance of truth are unfortunately not the same thing

I don't think the Devil would deny that God exists; he would just try to convince people that he doesn't exist.

Spreading falsehood is one of hid nicest skills, no?

@Cerberus I'd challenge that the Devil's lie of choice is that God doesn't need to exist

Doesn't need to exist, or doesn't exist?

doesn't need to

ie, you are better off on your own

Why that rather than "doesn't exist"?

God can prove his existence

and it's an obvious lie

His own existence?

but the fundamental nature of human rebellion and really Satan's rebellion as well is the idea that we/he can do better than God

wait, isn't proving his existence how god makes himself disappear in a puff of logic?

I don't understand the distinction.

ie, the lie is that we don't need God because we are ok on our own

Ah OK, sure.

so basically, saying that God is irrelevant even though he exists and created us

But doesn't he also try to convince people that God does not exist?

Probably not at the same time.

hmm, not sure if that's a Satan thing or just our human conclusion when we buy that God isn't neccessary

the lie that God doesn't exist isn't very convincing without the idea that God isn't necessary first

Aren't all humanity's false beliefs induced by the Devil in some way, especially if they go against the interests of God?

@Cerberus unsure, I'd argue probably not, otherwise it would seem that Satan would bear full responsibility

it has to be part of our own corrupted nature too I think

though I'm not sure of any particular scriptures to back that up on either side, so it's more of a personal conviction

Isn't Satan also more of a metaphor for all our evil beliefs and actions?

In that both God and Satan inspire us to do things, and we choose between the two alternatives all the time?

@Cerberus personally I don't think so, I think the Bible is pretty clear that he is a fallen angel who rebelled from God, but I don't think he is responsible for as much as some give him credit for

The other way around, then: do humans possess some quantity of virtue independently of God's influence or will or whatever?

scripture seems pretty clear that left to our own devices, the damage was done in our fallen nature and that without any other outside influence, we would still be sinful

@Cerberus that's a great question, currently, the answer would be no, initially, maybe

but it isn't really clear

So all things virtuous come from God?

it would be a question of if the fall was inevitable or not

But not all things evil come from Satan?

@Cerberus wait. don't all things period come from God?

Would the Fall have come to be without Satan's seduction?

including angels, fallen or otherwise,

In the end, sure.

@Cerberus and that's the real key question

which doesn't have a solid answer

and forbidden fruits left unguarded, etc?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 But not immediately.

personally, I avoid making much in the way of commitments on any theological point that isn't specifically spelled out in scripture

@Cerberus If the ultimate cause of the creation of Satan is God, then "not immediately" is irrelevant. If Satan was NOT created by God, then, by whom?

@AJHenderson He is not going to come back here and preform miracles is what I said. That's what is not going to happen. At judgement day it is going to be his father you'll tangle with and that ain't gonna turn out to your satisfaction. And what exactly are those alleged reasoning flaws that you think I have? Spit it out.

but I tend to argue that the fall is our rebellion from God and that "evil" may simply be the lack of good

it was certainly influenced by the serpent (who I don't believe is actually even spelled out as Satan, though it does seem pretty clear)

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Sure, he was created by God, possibly to test humanity. Would a free will be at all meaningful had Satan not existed? Wouldn't we have only one thing to choose between: virtue?

and I wonder if the acceptance of salvation is simply that God will basically say, do you want to follow me or do you believe you are better off without me

and those who don't believe will walk into hell willinging

which will be hell simply because of the lack of God's presence

but that is a somewhat non-traditional viewpoint, though it is not unique to me

@AJHenderson That is an ancient and controversial position, I believe. Just sitting on a chair doing nothing is neither good nor evil, I would argue.

@Cerberus By that reasoning, God created humans free from sin, but purposefully led them astray with his "evil" agent, and then punished them for each successive generation to come.

@TheodoreA.Jones I already have, but you are unwilling to listen. I'd rather not waste my time talking in circles with you

@AJHenderson Or because a lack of divine presence is always immediately filled up by the Devil?

@Cerberus to say that ascribes far more power to the Devil than I believe he has, but it is possible

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 He did not led them astray: he tested them. And they sort of failed. We failed.

@Cerberus well, he knew they would fail.

the Devil himself only has what power God allows him to have

and I would expect that the devil's plans for a kingdom would come to no better ends than human plans to live without God

@AJHenderson Well, God has power, but something without a soul have little to no power. Satan has power. So how could something without God's presence resist Satan? Or are you suggesting Satan might not be interested to occupy the lack?

if the Devil had control of hell, it wouldn't seem like much of a defeat

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 He knew it, and yet they had to be tested.

Don't ask me why: only God knows why.

Only God can probably even understand the reason, even were he to try and explain it to us.

@Cerberus that's what I'm saying, Satan only has the power God allows him to have, he can do nothing without God allowing it

@AJHenderson Sure. But if God retracts his presence from some place, isn't that the same thing as letting the Devil in?

@AJHenderson Read everything you've posted. Only thing seen is your going beyond what is written problem. Jesus has never died in anyone's place.

@Cerberus that's why I said possibly

@Cerberus If God knows that creating Satan to "test" the humans will cause them to fail the test and lead them astray, then God is leading them astray.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 God is not leading them astray, it isn't God's choice that they go astray

God is only allowing them the choice

that's the conundrum of free will

if God wishes us to have free will, he must also allow us to reject him

@AJHenderson "allowing them the choice" but he knows they will fail the test.

that doesn't make it his responsibility

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Is the intention to murder the same as actual murder? It has to actually happen to count.

@AJHenderson yes but I'm specifically talking about the Fall in Eden. That particular test had pretty severe consequences

fore-knowledge and forced choice are not the same

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 yes it did, but without a choice, there can be no free will

so God had to allow Satan that level of power

to offer the choice

even knowing we'd choose wrongly

free will is impossible without the option to choose the wrong answer

@Cerberus If I know that I can build a robot that can go next door and kill my neighbour, and then I build that robot and it kills my neighbour, how is that different from God creating Satan and then punishing everyone when events unfolded exactly as he expected?

@TheodoreA.Jones I'm pretty sure anyone in here that has followed the dialog would agree that I've made a thorough and complete argument, if you don't want to see that, it is not my problem. It's not my job to convince you, only to give the reason for the hope I have.

my duty is fulfilled and honestly, I don't believe that further discussion will be fruitful

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Well, it was his plan to actually witness the fall. Knowing that it will happen is not the same as letting it happen. It needed to happen for some reason that is beyond our mortal comprehension.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 because a robot doesn't have free will, we do

we aren't robots

@AJHenderson In my analogy, the robot is Satan.

if you assume we don't have free will, then yes, God is responsible

@waxeagle Would TRiG be considered "openly atheist" or not?

but Satan doesn't kill us

Satan hands us a knife and suggests we use it on our wrists

so your analogy is still flawed

TRiG is raised Jehovah's Witness, so he contributes some of his Jehovah's Witness knowledge on the Stacks Exchange.

@AJHenderson No, the "murder" aspect was in response to Cerb's question about attempted murder. My point is that if I create a creature that I know will kill a person, I am guilty of murder of that person. Similarly, if God creates a Satan that he knows will lead astray the humans, shouldn't God be similarly guilty of leading them astray?

@Cerberus Probably made by an Apple fan.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Jobs ≠ God. Get over it.

@Cerberus No. But haven't you heard that in the Beginning, God created Adam and Steve? Only Steve (Jobs) was too awesome for Eden, so he was set aside until 1955.

Android is not an evil former IOS version.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 1955? Was that when the gay version was invented?

@Cerberus no, birth of Steve Jobs.

sheesh

fixed

Oh, gosh.

You...you...Nietzsche!

gesundheit.

I mean, you're suggesting God is dead if you mean Jobs created the Devil Android that stole the Apple.

@waxeagle I actually wish there are some more knowledgeable non-Christians here, besides Islam or Evan Carroll. There is TRiG; he offers constructive posts on Christianity.SE, in my opinion, but even he is raised Christian. :(

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 that's an age old argument, but I think it is a bit of a falicy since the Devil is necessary for choice since there has to be an alternative to the correct path.

it makes it a bit of a special case I think

but I can see what you are getting at

and I think the difference is that Satan isn't responsible for the harm that comes to us

we are

so God didn't create Satan knowing he would kill us, he created Satan knowing he would offer us a bad choice that we would choose

so the better question would be was God wrong to create us

@AJHenderson I can accept the general case of there needing to be choice in order for free will to make sense. But I don't see how punishing all of humanity for one mistake makes any sense. punishing individual humans for individual failings, sure.

@waxeagle I wonder if there are any non-Christians here that offer constructive answers and are not raised Christians but somewhat like Christian philosophy and absorb the teachings.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Do you punish only the soldier that shot at you? Or do you attack any arbitrary enemy soldier?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 well that's just it though, we all fail in the same way. Even if there wasn't original sin, we still sin from the earliest moments. I think it is more a component of the human condition post fall and I think any unfairness in that is really eliminated by the fact that God also provides a path to fix it

@AJHenderson Ah, an interesting point. I guess it depends on what you believe are the consequences of sin. Usually they are "Hell": eternal torture. Is Satan responsible for that? or is God?

which is really, at it's core, choosing to reverse our choice

@Anonymous I don't know: absorbing Christian teachings but not being or becoming Christian?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 my answer is that we are

I believe the our suffering in hell if we are not saved is a direct result of our own actions without God mediating

Arg, that line sucked. Back to typing school for me.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Careful. That's my domain.

@Cerberus Isn't Hades different from Hell?

@DavidStratton It is like He said isn't it? "They will treat you like they have treated me." If you are my disciple. I think all your accusations were also stated to him, weren't they? Thing is Davey boy you ain't getting treated like him and would come unglued if it happened.

I thought everyone went to Hades, and some might be punished once there, but in Hell, everyone is punished.